I will consider this title with respect specifically to Cicero’s published form of the oration, Pro Milone. The case for defence has two main arguments. Firstly Milo’s culpability should be absolved on the grounds that his actions were carried out in self-defence; after all it is only natural to “drive away every violence from the body” (Chapter 31). Secondly Cicero argues, by several means, in order to show that Clodius’ death was in fact of benefit to the republic.
There are three central objectives in Pro Milone which if achieved would appear to ensure the success of the case. The first is an emotional appeal to pathos which is gradually established in the characterization of the two figures; one is continually maligned and ridiculed, as I shall discuss, whilst the other is portrayed as a heroic martyr. There is also a strong appeal to the jurors of the court towards their sense of righteousness and civic duty. Cicero often poses rhetorical questions, more powerful than dogmatic statements, which aim to force the audience to come to a conclusion he intended all along. For example, he asks in Chapter 35, “for what reason would Milo have hated Clodius… except for this patriotic hatred by which we hate all dishonest men?” The appeals to emotion and righteousness are subject to an overarching objective, which is to deliver the oration as an exercise of logic and rhetoric.
Cicero’s use of language appeals to human weakness at times, evoking emotions of sympathy or outrage. For instance, ‘dilacerandum’, referring to Clodius’ intentions is made more starkly offensive as it is directly contrasted to Lucius Paulus, a man “singulari virtute”. Contrasting imagery is rife; later on Milo and Clodius are juxtaposed with superlative chiasmatic descriptions as “omne facinus paratissimus fortissimum virum”, and at another time a powerful triadic list is established – “vexatorem furoris, domitorem armorum suorum, accusatorem suum”, and Clodius is in a bizarre twist named the ‘defendant’, or ‘reus’, as well as a tyrant. Other contrasts are formed in various clauses such as correlatives, e.g. the balance of “non solum, sed etiam,” or “quanto plura, tanto magis”. These vivid distinctions are continually made in a parallel structure and seem to condemn Clodius even as if his guilt was obvious for all to see.
The inflammatory language appeals also to the jurors directly, as in Chapter 26 with reference to Clodius’ foreign and boorish slaves (the antonyms of the jurors’ perceived sense of Roman class and culture), “quos videbatis.” At other times Cicero calls upon witnesses such as M. Cato and M. Favonius, “whom a certain divine luck has provided me.” The casual comment raises our esteem of Cicero’s professionalism and lends an air of credence to his speech. Again, Cicero questions the jurors, “potestis dubitare quid fecerit?” – rhetorically demanding a negative responsive. This I think is much more effective at persuading the judges to come to his conclusion, as psychologically they might feel as if they had established Clodius’ guilt even by themselves. Other asides include, “videte quid vobis largiar,” (emphasising how sure Cicero is in the strength of his argument) and “sit ita factum,” (displaying clearly his seemingly logical train of thought and earning high regard). In this way, Cicero’s rhetoric is very effective. The anecdotal personalisation of the oration – ‘ut fit’, and ‘ut dictitabat’ – generally also is a subtle attempt to recruit support, with occasional formalities – ‘o iudices’ – that underline his appearance of subservience to authority and justice.
Repetition and hyperbole occurs frequently, serving to shock the audience; for instance, Cicero uses hendiadys in “annum integrum… plenum annum atque integrum” strongly highlighting his (and the anticipated judges’) moral outrage. In another example, Clodius is made out to seek his own ends “omni scelere”. Many other rhetorical effects are employed to underline the defendant’s apparent innocence, such as the comical imagery of Milo’s entourage of slave girls and boys (although Asconius notes in his commentary on the Pro Milone that additionally there were two gladiators who “had quite a reputation”). Cicero makes full use, almost sarcastically in Chapter 54, showing how Milo was least prepared for any violence “paenula inretitus, raeda impeditus, uxore paene constrictus esset”. This sort of level of detail is missing in great chunks of the speech which reveal great weaknesses, particularly relating to Clodius’ motives. Asconius paints a different picture of the truth, stating that Clodius was in fact returning from Aricia where he “had given a speech to the officials there”, and although Milo did have a larger contingent than Clodius along the journey on the Appian way, it was them who “started needling” Clodius, and provoked the attack. Cicero also twists the fact of the senate-house being burned down, which as asserted by Asconius, caused greater “unpopularity than the killing of Clodius”.
In answering the question of Cicero’s mastery of rhetorical technique, it is apparent that he not only shows off a variety of methods and skills but is able to combine splendour and grandeur in his language with informal, personalised affectations of moral sincerity and emotional consideration. His structure is mostly chronological and easy to follow, tending to focus on certain details before attempting to justify them, and then returning to the bigger picture. The flaws of his argument are perhaps to be expected given the nature of the case, but as a piece of oration it feels intuitively right and we are drawn into his colourful, if not entirely authentic, portrayal of events.
References
“Pro Milone”, Cicero
