LOVE that we are both absolutely obsessed with murder in rome, that documentary is SUCH a fun watch! I was blown away by the way cicero's actor manages to keep you enthralled for his long ass speeches as a teenager

Same! Honestly it was a great watch. And yes Cicero's actor did an amazing job. It also really helped that the documentary was so aware of the potential stakea and the context of Sulla's dictatorship.

As far as I am concerned, let the whole time prior to when he embarked on a political career remain unchallenged... Let us pass over his squandering of his father’s money and his vile behavior as a youth.

Cicero IN VERREM 2.1.32-33 (70 BC), retrieved from Professor Kish’s powerpoint (9.28.20.pptx)

I really enjoyed learning about Cicero this week in class, especially his defense of Sextus Roscius and reading Pro Roscio Amerino, and it was easy (especially after just watching the debate) for me to make connections between Cicero’s rhetorical strategies and the rhetorical techniques (or lack thereof) of our modern politicians.

I thought reading about Cicero’s defense of Sextus Roscius was awesome, because Cicero had no experience with public cases and was the only person brave enough to stand up to Chrysogonus. I found an interesting quote from an author named Andrew Dyck from his book Cicero: Pro Sexto Roscio:

“Cicero criticizes the prosecutor, Gaius Erucius, for presenting a weak case ... In fact, Cicero himself did not have much material; the only evidence he adduces is a decree passed by the decurions of Ameria declaring that the elder Roscius was wrongly proscribed and the son should receive his property back. He hold no witnesses in prospect, merely trying to intimidate a prospective prosecution witness ... In fact, Cicero's lengthy speech in defense of his client is mostly the product of his imagination, deployed to derive maximum advantage from scanty materials.” (Dyck, Cicero: pro Sexto Roscio, p. 17)

Cicero didn't have much to work with, but he divided his defense into three parts and very effectively argued that 1)  Erucius' accusation of patricide was baseless, 2) in fact, the murder was certainly arranged by the two T. Roscii, Magnus and Capito and 3) that Chrysogonus was actually the mastermind behind the prosecution. I think he broke up his argument very well and his intelligence and skill as an orator is clear. It makes sense this case won him such great fame.

I also thought it was really interesting reading his arguments from IN VERREM (70BC). His effective use of invective topoi and the rhetorical figure occultatio especially stand out:

“I must keep close track of the time which I have been allotted for my speech to you because I intend to present every detail of this case.  However, I shall pass over the extremely indecent and scandalous “first act,” as it were, of Verres’ life.  He won’t hear from me one word about the scandals of his boyhood years, not one word about his debauched adolescent years (you remember what they were like)... Please make allowances for my sense of decency and permit me to be silent about some aspects of the lewdness of this man.” (IN VERREM 2.1.32) 

In using these rhetorical techniques, Cicero pretends not to say what he actually does say, and slanders his opponent, Verres, with ad hominem attacks that are designed to win over the audience and convince them that he is a bad person, which will make it easier for Cicero to convince the audience that his actual argument against Verres is valid.

It’s really easy to relate this to some of Trump’s rhetorical techniques. Just as Cicero speaks about Verres’ relationship with his father and how he squandered his money. In a similar move in the most recent presidential debate, Trump attacked Biden for his son’s drug addiction, trying to undermine Biden by framing him as a bad father and attacking his personal character. Trump has done this on many occasions with many political opponents, coming up with nicknames like “Sleepy Joe” and “Crooked Hillary,” attacking his opponents’ physical and moral character, rather than engaging in debate on political issues. This makes them look bad in the eyes of his supporters, and makes it easier from Trump to win support from the people who watch is slander and fall for it. According to Professor Kish in one of our powerpoint this week, “A clever orator would go to great lengths to characterize the individuals in his speeches.•In some ways it is easier to persuade an audience if the principal characters in the story are unequivocally good or unequivocally bad.” I think Trump’s debate tactics are a great example of this idea. It was really fun learning about Cicero and Ancient Roman court proceedings and oratory practices, and it was very cool to be able to apply these lessons of the ancient world to our modern one and watch them play out on our contemporary political stage, thousands of years after Cicero lived.

Robert Harris, Imperium (Heyne-TB): S. 13 - 15

Tiro schildert auf diesen Seiten hauptsächlich den jungen Cicero und das erste Zusammentreffen beider (es handelt sich um das Jahr 79 v. Chr.): 

Tiro soll den 27-jährigen Cicero auf seine große Bildungsreise nach Griechenland und Kleinasien begleiten. Cicero wird als junger Rechtsanwalt beschrieben, der unter “nervösen Erschöpfungszuständen” und zahllosen natürlichen Gebrechen litt: Er stotterte, hatte zu viele Gedanken im Kopf (die alle gleichzeitig durch seine Kehle wollten), hielt viel zu intellektuell geprägte Reden, hatte eine schwächliche Konstitution und eine schlechte Verdauung und träumte von einer Karriere als Politiker. Um dies zu ändern, will Cicero nun eine Reise zu den intellektuellen Zentren der Griechen unternehmen, um sich philosophisch (heute würde man sagen “wissenschaftlich”) und rhetorisch trainieren zu lassen.

Harris macht sich nicht die Mühe, uns mehr über die ersten 27 Jahre von Ciceros Leben zu berichten, seine Herkunft aus der Provinzstadt Arpinum, wo Cicero 106 v. Chr. geboren wurde, seine Kindheit (die Familie zog 102 v. Chr. nach Rom), seine Ausbildung beim “grammaticus” (etwa einem Oberschullehrer) und anschließend in Rom beim “rhetor” und bei den angesehensten römischen Rechtsanwälten seiner Zeit (etwa das, was heute einer Universitätsausbildung entspricht) wird nicht erwähnt. Cicero galt schon in seinen Knabenjahren als sehr gelehriger, ehrgeiziger Schüler und sein Vater förderte ihn, wo er nur konnte. 

Ebenso wenig wird Ciceros erster großer Erfolg als Anwalt erwähnt: Er verteidigte im Jahre 81 v. Chr. einen Römer namens Sextus Roscius aus Ameria gegen einen Günstling des damaligen Alleinherrschers und Diktators Sulla namens Chrysogonos (die “Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino oratio” ist vollständig erhalten). Sulla hatte sich im Jahre 82 zum Diktator ernennen lassen, mit der Befugnis, Gesetze zu geben und den Staat, die römische Republik, neu zu ordnen: dictator legibus scribundis (Dat.finalis im attributiven Gerundivum) et rei publicae constituendae (noch ein Dat.finalis im attributiven Gerundivum). Sich gegen einen Günstling von Roms mächtigsten Mann zu stellen, der bis 79 quasi Alleinherrscher war (Sulla gab seine Kompetenzen dann wieder in die Hände von Volk und Senat und starb 78 wahrscheinlich eines natürlichen Todes), brachte Cicero selbst in Gefahr. Manche Historiker vermuten, dass die Nachrichten über seine schwächliche Konstitution nur ein “Fake” waren, um nicht Sullas Zorn auf sich zu ziehen.

Die Bildungsreise Ciceros in den Jahren 79-77 v. Chr. wird also zwei Ziele gehabt haben: Zum einen eine Perfektionierung seiner rhetorischen Fähigkeiten und seiner Allgemeinbildung (Rhetorik und Philosophie gingen für Cicero stets Hand in Hand), zum anderen ein “Wegtauchen” nach seiner erfolgreichen Verteidigungsrede, solange Sulla noch der führende Mann Roms war. Dieser zweite Aspekt kommt im Roman nicht vor. Auch nicht, dass Cicero bereits zu diesem Zeitpunkt, um 80 v. Chr., zu einem der ersten Anwälte Roms avanciert war (zumindest nach eigenem Zeugnis: Brutus 312)