Abstract
The speech in support of L. Licinius Murena was delivered under similar circumstances to the previous one and thus its argument in many respects displays the same strategic features. The theme is electoral bribery, obtaining votes illegally for the consular elections in the comitia centuriata. Cicero’s aim was to focus as little as possible on the evidence which proved that Murena defeated his greatest rival Servius Sulpicius, the legal scholar, through electoral malpractice. Cicero’s argument applies two distinct heuristic strategies to persuade the jury about the innocence of his client. In the first strategy he presents an elaborate comparison of the two main candidates, Murena and Sulpicius, which is based on weighing the relative likelihood of winning the election. The second strategy is formally an ad hominem argument attacking the Stoic views of M. Porcius Cato, the most influential member of the prosecution team. The argument on the rigidity of Cato’s views appears wholly irrelevant today, yet it serves the important purpose of weakening the credibility of the prosecution, which could prevail through Cato’s moral superiority.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The paragraph poses numerous questions with respect to the charge of ambitus and the strategy of the prosecution. One would like to know, first of all, why Cicero did not here mention Ser. Sulpicius, the major prosecutor, in his answer to the accusatores. Should we suppose that he did not speak about the charges personally at all? Also, it is not clear whether Cicero mentions (retractare) all the charges that were advanced against Murena, or selects only those that he himself judged crucial for the final decision. One would be keen to know the distribution of the refutation among the defence counsel, so that we could see the extent to which the actual charges have been refuted. Such information could clarify several points of Cicero’s argument, especially the high proportion of extra causam material. Cf. Adamietz (1989, pp. 28–30).
- 3.
This kind of ‘dilatation’ is a common tactic in Cicero, who is likely to have learnt it from Demosthenes, for example from his Embassy-speech.
- 4.
For a detailed assessment of the charges and the prosecution team see Alexander (2002, pp. 121–127).
- 5.
Atque harum trium partium prima illa quae gravissima debebat esse ita fuit infirma et levis ut illos lex magis quaedam accusatoria quam vera male dicendi facultas de vita L. Murenae dicere aliquid coegerit. Cf. Adamietz (1989, p. 104). The fundamental question about this remark should be the same as before. We do not want to know whether Cicero answers the vita ante acta as prescribed (if there exists any such prescription, a lex quaedam accusatoria), but what sort of evidence he considers it. Moreover, the narrow range of topics from the vita ante acta would make us question whether we should talk about a proper probabile e vita argument.
- 6.
One only has to consult the Verrines to see how the proof of luxuriousness could support a charge of extortion, embezzlement and abuse of power.
- 7.
Referring to Planc. 7–30 and 58–67, Adamietz (1989, pp. 110–111) says that the comparison of the candidates’ distinctions was a standard element of the ambitus-speeches. It nevertheless doubtful statistically to say, based just on these two speeches, that ‘dieser kritische Vergleich der Würdigkeit sc. für das Amt war… ein fester Bestandteil des Plädoyers’.
- 8.
The number of references (cf. 15, 18, 19, 21) suggests that Sulpicius mostly talked about the suitability of the candidates and the election, whereas he left the detailed ambitus charges to his younger subscriptores.
- 9.
‘Apud exercitum mihi fueris’ inquit (sc. Sulpicius); ‘tot annos forum non attigeris; afueris tam diu et, cum longo intervallo veneris, cum his qui in foro habitarint de dignitate contendas?’..
- 10.
Provided that Cicero quotes his opponent faithfully, which is almost never the case. One may also start wondering whether the two claims of contempsisti… and extulisti… refer to one and the same place in Sulpicius’ argument. I would be inclined to say no, but that is just sceptical intuition. The two remarks might have simply been made on two passing and marginal occasions, something like Mur. 17, which probably very few jurors would have counted as an argument to weigh in their decision.
- 11.
For Sergestus, the friend of Aeneas and ancestor of the gens Sergia see Verg. Aen. 6.288.
- 12.
One can also add that not only could Murena’s political and administrative experience be doubted, but even his military accomplishments were questionable, as Cato’s attacks on him in 31 prove. It is noteworthy that Cicero dispenses with Cato’s objection in the same argument, the proof of the military’s overall superiority.
- 13.
If Sulpicius used his argument to evaluate the initial probabilities of the consular election, then he was obviously wrong, as Cicero could point out in 35–6.
- 14.
Expressed eloquently in 22 omnes urbanae res, omnia haec nostra praeclara studia et haec forensis laus et industria latet in tutela ac praesidio bellicae virtutis.
- 15.
The attack is of course not simply absurd but completely unjust, as well, and even contradicts what Cicero thought of the utility of legal studies. Cf. De Or. 1.18 Neque legum ac iuris civilis scientia neglegenda est; Part. Or. 100 Cuius (sc. iuris civilis) scientia neglecta ab oratoribus plerisque nobis ad dicendum necessaria videtur. But one must see that he talks in a persuasive discourse about the relative utility of the legal science in the consular candidature. He nowhere says that iuris scientia as such would be in general useless. On the relationship between Cicero and legal science: Gasguy (1887), Tomulescu (1968), Hamza (1983, pp. 59–70). Cf. Cic. Top. 51.
- 16.
Cicero’s claim about Sulpicius’ mistaken campaign seems to stand in contradiction with that of Plut. Cat. Min. 21.3, where it is Cato who promises to prosecute those whom he thought to have won their seats by bribery. (Plutarch takes bribery for granted.) The defence nevertheless leaves it unclear whether Sulpicius wanted to take revenge or attempted to win the consular seat by getting Murena sentenced. The argumentum e silentio suggests that the prosecution did not necessarily want to see Sulpicius in the consular seat.
- 17.
Cf. 59 Nolo accusator in iudicium potentiam adferat, non vim maiorem aliquam, non auctoritatem excellentem, non nimiam gratiam. That statement sounds all the more absurd, as Cicero allows himself to deploy the full force of his consular authority. Cato could have argued for Cicero’s inconsistency in this respect, as well.
- 18.
Cf. Plut. Cat. min. 19.4-5.
- 19.
Cf. 63 Non accusares nullis adductus inimicitiis….
- 20.
Despite his claim in 61 audacius paulo de studiis humanitatis quae et mihi et vobis nota et iucunda sunt disputabo, Cicero presents a rather vulgar summary of Stoic ethical principles, which deliberately sound harsh and paradoxical. The orator must have known well that these maxims were professed mostly by philosophers of the early Stoa, and were not completely shared by such contemporary thinkers, such as Panaitios or Poseidonios. Moreover, Cicero himself shared a number of Stoic beliefs.
- 21.
74 At enim agit mecum austere et stoice Cato, negat verum esse adlici benivolentiam cibo, negat iudicium hominum in magistratibus mandandis corrumpi voluptatibus oportere; 78. At enim te ad accusandum res publica adduxit.
- 22.
The argument in 78–85 does not presuppose that there is another opportunity of supplying the missing consul unless the jury acquits Murena.
References
Adamietz, J. M. T. Cicero: Pro Murena. Darmstadt, 1989.
Alexander, M.C. The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era. Ann Arbor, 2002.
Ayers, D. M. The Speeches of Cicero’s Opponents. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton, 1950.
Gasguy, A. Cicéron jurisconsulte. Paris, 1887.
Hamza, G. 1983. Cicero és a jogtudomány kapcsolatának kérdései. Jogtörténeti Tanulmányok 5: 59–70.
Riggsby, A.M. Crime and Community in Ancient Rome. Austin, 1999.
Tomulescu, C. S., ‘Der juristische Wert des Werkes Ciceros’, in: Gesellschaft und Recht im griechisch-römischen Altertum (Berlin, 1968).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tahin, G. (2014). Pro Murena. In: Heuristic Strategies in the Speeches of Cicero. Argumentation Library, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01799-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01799-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01798-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01799-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)