In a passage from the late rhetorical treatise generally known as De optimo genere oratorum, Cicero defends his past forensic competence in the face of Atticist critique by praising his Pro Milone as an example of grand style (9–10):
quod qui ita faciet, ut, si cupiat uberior esse, non possit, habeatur sane orator, sed de minoribus; magno autem oratori etiam illo modo saepe dicendum est in tali genere causarum. (10) ita fit ut Demosthenes certe possit summisse dicere, elate Lysias fortasse non possit. sed si eodem modo putant, exercitu in foro et in omnibus templis, quae circum forum sunt, conlocato, dici pro Milone decuisse, ut si de re privata ad unum iudicem diceremus, vim eloquentiae sua facultate, non rei natura metiuntur.
If anyone speaks in this manner without being able to use a fuller style if he wishes, he should be regarded as an orator, but a minor one. The great orator must often speak in that way in dealing with cases of such a kind. (10) In other words, Demosthenes could certainly speak calmly, but Lysias perhaps not with passion. But if they think that at the trial of Milo, when the army was stationed in the Forum and in all the temples round about, it was fitting to defend him in the same style that we would use in pleading a private case before a single judge, they measure the power of eloquence by their own limited ability, not by the nature of the art.Footnote 1
In consideration of the rei natura (‘nature of the art’), the good orator must both know the appropriate style for the specific occasion and also be able to change registers of style, when necessary. Unlike Lysias, who was unable to speak elate (‘with passion’) on occasion, Demosthenes regularly displayed a full range of style and tones, even adapting his voice to the quiet atmosphere of private pleadings. In emulation of his Greek model, Cicero mastered all oratorical registers, raising his stylistic level in the speech in defence of Milo and adjusting his performance to the unusual conditions of the trial, when Pompey's army encircled the Forum.
The passage raises a key question: why did Cicero depict himself as a versatile speaker by calling to mind an inglorious past and presenting as a model of grand style a speech that was universally believed to be his most significant defeat? It is widely known that Cicero's speech on behalf of Milo, charged de vi (‘with violence’) under the lex Pompeia in early April 52 bc, resulted in a miserable outcome.Footnote 2 According to the ancient evidence, unfavourable circumstances inhibited Cicero from delivering a speech that met his usual high standard.Footnote 3 Milo was convicted. Arguably, Cicero's inability to put up a good defence was a decisive – negative – factor in the jury's final verdict.
The text delivered was still extant in a short-hand version in Asconius’ and Quintilian's times.Footnote 4 Whether and at what extent it was revised and ‘rewritten’ later on, circulating in a substantially altered form, is a matter of debate. As remarked by Steel, the propagation of the first Milonian speech ‘memorialized an unsatisfactory record of Cicero's skills’.Footnote 5 It is reasonable to suppose that Cicero was compelled to promote and disseminate a new, more favourable text, passed off as the speech actually delivered in the trial,Footnote 6 by an urgent desire to supersede the pirated version,Footnote 7 without diverging too far from the line of defence adopted in the real trial.Footnote 8
The speech handed down to us commanded much admiration in antiquityFootnote 9 and continues to impress modern readers with its formal perfection.Footnote 10 Milo's famous (anecdotal) comment, preserved in Dio 40.54.3–4, on the effectiveness of the revised defence indicates that Cicero had achieved, in writing, something extraordinary.Footnote 11 Cicero himself was acutely aware of the literary and rhetorical qualities of what we might call the ‘second Pro Milone’, as demonstrated by the fact that the only other direct reference to the speech occurs at Orator 165, where the orator offers the contrast between lex non scripta (‘unwritten law’) and nata lex (‘natural law’), discussed at Mil. 10, as a brilliant example of concinnitas (‘symmetry’).Footnote 12 Cicero's high sense of satisfaction for the published oration might account for the reference to the Pro Milone as an instance of solemn style in De optimo. However, his rejection of the Atticists’ specious arguments by remembering the exceptional setting – and external conditions – of Milo's trial not only aimed to celebrate his speech as a model of magniloquent, passionate style; it also implied refreshing memory of an ignominious failure, an oratorical and political debacle, which Cicero must have had an interest to paper over. In this note, I would like to advance an explanation of this passage from De optimo by interpreting the citation of Pro Milone as Cicero's extreme attempt to recover his established oratorical reputation, severely damaged by the humiliation at Milo's trial.
A few words are in order on Cicero's treatise and its subject. Written as the preface to the translation of Aeschines’ In Ctesiphontem and Demosthenes’ De corona (both lost), the short piece ‘on the best kind of orators’ belongs to the last phase of Cicero's literary activity, composed in the same years as Brutus and Orator.Footnote 13 Doubts about the authenticity of the treatise have proved to be unsubstantiated.Footnote 14 It is quite possible that the work was left by Cicero in a rough state, abandoned for a more challenging project (the composition of Orator), and published after his death.Footnote 15 Despite its brevity (only twenty-three paragraphs) and undistinguished style, its meditation on – and search for – the greatest orators clarifies Cicero's position on the Atticist/Asianist controversy.Footnote 16
Resuming many arguments about Atticism advanced in more polished writings,Footnote 17 Cicero takes a stance on the debate by privileging Demosthenes’ virtuosity over the simplicity and purism of Lysias and Hyperides. Most notably, through the translation of Demosthenes’ De corona, a collection of figures of thought widely employed in the composition of his last speeches, in particular the Second Philippic,Footnote 18 Cicero offers a practical demonstration of how the best Latin oratory – that is, his own new ‘Demosthenic’ oratory – might emulate the best Attic oratory.Footnote 19
Let me turn to section 10 of De optimo. The passage belongs to a larger context, beginning in section 8 and extending into section 13, devoted to the dispute over the best Attic orators. Emulation of Lysias’ simplicity is recommended in private cases, where a grand level of style is not a desideratum. But when oratorical situations call for a different stylistic level from that appropriate to a case presented before a single arbiter, orators are required to display grandiorem et pleniorem vocem (‘a louder and fuller voice’),Footnote 20 emulating Demosthenes, the master of all kinds of style. This was precisely the case in Milo's trial, which, in the light of its exceptional circumstances, demanded a higher level of style and a passionate delivery. In response to those qui aut Attici numerantur aut dicunt Attice (‘who are either considered Attic orators or speak in the Attic manner’; 8), who criticized his performance on the grounds that he should have adopted an unemotional fact-based style such as one would use in a private case, Cicero draws attention to the strangeness of the trial, which called for a distinctive style. A restatement of Cicero's uncommon facility at manipulating and varying style in view of natura rei, the passage of De optimo consecrates its author as a talented advocate and makes Pro Milone a perfect exemplar of grand oratory.Footnote 21
But the reference to Pro Milone has more to do with Cicero's reputation as orator than the debate over Atticism. We have seen that Cicero, embarrassed by the inglorious defeat suffered in the trial of Milo, attempted to restore his former fame by producing a new, polished piece of rhetoric. Contrary to the orator's expectations, any effort at cancelling the memory of past failure was in vain, as both versions of the speech still circulated in the first century ce. Conceivably, Cicero's feeble performance at Milo's trial kept attracting malignant criticism from his adversaries. The passage of De optimo discussed here might be proof that the so-called Atticists censured Cicero's style by exploiting his memorable ‘fiasco’. In such a context, his choice of Pro Milone as an example of grand style would not be casual. By reminding his censors of the singular circumstances of the trial, Cicero turned the negative aura surrounding the first, failed speech into a celebration of his multifaceted, ‘Demosthenic’ style, focusing on his impressive capacity for mastering different registers on different occasions.
In the explanation that associates Pro Milone's style with the presence of Pompey's armed troops around the Forum we may also see Cicero's indirect, implicit claim of innocence in the unfavourable outcome of the trial. By pointing up the exceptional setting, he lays the blame for Milo's conviction on external factors, discharging himself of any responsibility and justifying his (unproductive) stylistic choices with reference to the unsustainable pressure from the outside. It is not easy to determine whether Cicero's allusion to Pompey's extraordinary measure has political significance. He evokes the event on two further occasions, in both cases in complimentary terms. In a letter sent to Appius Claudius Pulcher in April 50 bc (Fam. 3.10.10 = 73 SB), Cicero thanks Pompey for protecting him at the time of Milo's proceedings. The tone of the letter, a flattering eulogy of Pompey's virtues, is highly congratulatory. Pompey, who has bestowed the highest honours on the orator, is said to have asserted his authority by giving a special guard to Cicero to meet the hostility of an angered, ignorant mob. The second allusion occurs in a letter of early March 49 bc (Att. 9.7B = 174B SB). There Balbus recommends that Cicero imperator (‘commander’) request a bodyguard from Caesar, just as he asked Pompey to provide him with a praesidium (‘bodyguard’) at Milo's trial.
The eulogistic mode of the letter to Appius Claudius – a declaration of allegiance to Pompey, ‘the first of all men in his esteem’Footnote 22 – restates Cicero's feelings expressed in the opening lines of the published version of the speech on behalf of Milo (Mil. 1). There Pompey's praesidium is seen as a beneficium (‘favour’) for which Cicero shows immense gratitude. By focusing on the unfavourable environment, an apparent obstacle to the speaker's inspiration, Cicero praises Pompey's consilium (‘resolution’) as the only relief from fear for him in his discomfort about the novelty of the trial.Footnote 23 However, Cicero's gratitude for Pompey's precautionary deployment of armed forces around the Forum, as expressed in the introductory section of Pro Milone and the letters cited above, does not seem to harmonize with our evidence for the different strategy adopted by the orator and the statesman in handling Milo's case.Footnote 24 It is widely known that Pompey tried to discredit Clodius’ murderer.Footnote 25 Cicero's unhappiness with Pompey's efforts at getting rid of Milo may be adumbrated in the extra causam (‘digression’) section and the conclusio (‘conclusion’) of the published speech (Mil. 72–105). In contrast to the initial praise of Pompey, which shows ‘the stance taken by Cicero at Milo's actual trial’,Footnote 26 the final third of the extant Pro Milone, presumably a later addition to the delivered speech, contains ironic remarks on Pompey's hypocrisy, a consequence of Cicero's changed sentiments towards Pompey in the time after Milo's condemnation.Footnote 27
It is hard to establish the different levels of sincerity in the treatment of Pompey in the speech.Footnote 28 Multiple readings of the text are possible, given Cicero's combination of multiple rhetorical strategies in managing pro-Milo arguments.Footnote 29 Similarly, we can only speculate on subsequent, anti-Ciceronian readings of the exordium (‘preface’).Footnote 30 What seems certain is that in the first sentences of the speech Cicero manipulated the fear-theme, connected to the presence of Pompey's soldiers in the Forum, in order to reassure the intimidated jury and to divert attention from the hostile circumstances of the trial.
The post-eventum revision of Pro Milone shows Cicero's ambiguous behaviour towards Pompey.Footnote 31 Conversely, the situation had radically changed by 46 bc, the time of the composition of De optimo. The armed support from Pompey, a motif of gratitude in the exordium of the published speech and in the correspondence preceding the outbreak of the civil conflict, might well be exploited as an apologetic instrument in the different political conditions after Pompey's death. Did Cicero regard tacitly blaming Pompey for creating the forbidding environment of Milo's trial as a convenient expedient to crush his critics? It is impossible to answer with any degree of certainty. Perhaps in imputing his failure to Caesar's former enemy, Cicero saw a fundamental step towards a complete – social and political – rehabilitation before the new dictator after the civil war. If that was the case, doubtless Caesar would have been gratified to see Pompey, his former political opponent, accused of reducing to silence one of his most influential supporters and clients.
A ‘political’ reading of the mention of Pro Milone in De optimo remains a fascinating option, though it is not supported by further evidence. It seems safe, therefore, to interpret Cicero's praise of his speech on behalf of Milo as a significant moment in his strategy of self-aggrandizement in the last years of his life. Pompey's death and Caesar's dictatorship annihilated Cicero's ambitions, forcing him to play a secondary role in Roman politics. The state of involuntary otium and idleness compelled the orator to act on behalf of the res publica by constructing his oratorical self and providing his cultivated readers with a programme of civic instructions, based on the symbiosis of eloquentia (‘eloquence’) and prudentia (‘wisdom’). As persuasively demonstrated by recent studies, Cicero devoted himself to reassessing his role of magister of the next generation of Roman politicians and orators by establishing his persona of ideal orator and Latin philosopher.Footnote 32 Evidently, his oratorical reputation was still suffering from the setback in Milo's case more than half a decade after the trial. Any stigma of oratorical incompetence had to be removed by the orator struggling to style himself as the ‘Latin Demosthenes’. Thus, Cicero's choice of Pro Milone as an exemplar of the grand style seems an attempt to cancel the memory of a feeble performance. It also functions as a self-fashioning instrument, suiting the orator's goal of consecrating himself as a model of perfection in speaking and writing.
As in Brutus and De oratore, a meditation upon ‘the creation of a self, specifically, the fashioning of the ideal orator’,Footnote 33 Cicero aimed in De optimo to sketch out a model of the truly eloquent speaker – in ‘Demosthenic’ forms – able to manage all the different types of style. Conscious of the canonicity that his speeches had achieved, he could not let stand the stigma conferred by his inability to deliver a good oration in hostile circumstances.
