Abstract
Cicero’s defence speech in support of L. Valerius Flaccus against the charges of provincial maladministration had to confront a host of highly damaging direct evidence. To prove the innocence of the defendant, Cicero devised a strategy which is made up of three lines of probabilistic argument, which are intertwined and consistently strengthen each other. The first of these arguments appeals to the pressing political situation in Rome and it recounts in flattering terms Flaccus’ military and political career to refute the charge of youthful debaucheries by the prosecutor and show that his past life, the vita ante acta, should induce the jury to view the charges with suspicion. The second main line of argument presents an extended form of the locus communis contra testes, a general attack on the trustworthiness of the witnesses based mostly on national stereotypes. The purpose of this section is to prepare and provide comprehensive support based on probability for the forthcoming refutation of the individual charges, the key challenge for Cicero. The refutation of the individual charges proceeds in line with the previous argument, constantly referring back to the general proposition that the witnesses from individual cities in Asia Minor as well as the Jews of Palestine fall under the category of worthless liars conspiring to bring down a pillar of the Roman Republic at a time of crisis.
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.
- 3.
Cf. Classen (1982, pp. 141–142).
- 4.
Although the concept is not completely explained (the text breaks off after conservandam salutem…) we can be almost sure that Cicero referred to the mounting criticism against him for putting the conspirators, Roman citizens, to death without trial. (cf. Fr. Sch. Bob. 1 Strangulatos maluit dicere) The claim about the mounting danger to him and his associates implies that Flaccus is attacked mostly because of his participation in supressing the conspiracy, which is an obvious misstatement.
- 5.
It remains to be answered in which group one would put the main prosecutor, D. Laelius. Cicero talks about him with acknowledgment (cf. 2, 18), yet accuses him of doing service with the prosecution to the enemies of the state. However, Cicero does not venture to say that Laelius has sinister political motives.
- 6.
One needs only remember the recent concept ‘the axis of evil’, which determined American foreign policy for years, to see that such distinctions offer practical, if simplistic and misleading, categorization of otherwise complex political and social issues.
- 7.
Alexander considers the proof on Flaccus’ character as the backbone of Cicero’ strategy. In many ways this is a justified view, yet it fails to consider, equally important lines of argument, especially on the Greek cities. ‘Cicero argues that even if Flaccus has committed some misdeeds as governor, it is wrong of the prosecutors to pass over the defendant’s public service to Rome before his praetorship (Flac. 6) and the probity of his private life (7). Cicero maintains that any offences Flaccus committed in the brief period when he was praetor should not outweigh his accomplishments over his entire lifetime…’ Alexander (2002, pp. 78–79).
- 8.
We translated externum and domesticam as the public-private opposition, an interpretation which is supported by the following passage, where Cicero explicitly talks about the privatarum rerum ruinae, domesticae labes et urbana infamia, whereas he laments in 6 that vox de quaestura missa nulla est. For a similar antithesis of res externae et domesticae, see Cic. Phil 2.69. Fuit enim ille vir…sicuti scitis, cum foris clarus, tum domi admirandus neque rebus externis magis laudandus quam institutis domesticis.
- 9.
This seems to be what Cicero wants to say with cum adulescentiam notaris… tum denique quid Tmolitae et Dorylenses de L. Flacco existiment audiemus. Webster accepts this interpretation (57), yet fails to consider its significance for the whole argument.
- 10.
Cf. Frag. Sch. Bob. 6–12. The testimonies of weighty personalities could impress the audience by the argumentum ex auctoritate, but may have nothing to do with the crimina Asiatica. Decent official conduct does not necessary cancel out unacceptable private behaviour. Hypocrisy was not a modern invention.
- 11.
Cicero’s description of the Greeks has been often discussed by scholars, yet its function in the probabilistic scheme of arguments is rarely mentioned. For a recent analysis see Vasaly (1993, pp. 198–205).
- 12.
The neatness can, of course, mislead the jury, if they expect not only a precise division, but a comprehensive and relevant refutation of every charge that appears in the division. The collective argumentum ad hominem (or one may call it with Aristotle an ethical argument) in 9–26 should warn the reader that factual refutation is not to be expected all through the speech.
- 13.
On the locus communis contra testes in rhetorical theory see Quint. Inst. Or. 5.7.3 Est hic com-munis locus, cum pars altera nullam firmiorem probationem esse contendit quam quae sit homi-num scientia nixa, altera ad detrahendam illis fidem omnia per quae fieri soleant falsa testimonia enumerat. In Flaccus’ case, an interrogatio testium was out of question, hence the general attack.
- 14.
The stereotypical argument rests on an idealistic view about the trustworthiness of Roman witness testimony. It presupposes that the average Roman behaves submissively before the court in order that his evidence could fit the highest standards of objectivity. This is well attested in 12 and 19.
- 15.
Partly because the prosecutor and the subscriptores were Romans and there were Jewish and Roman witnesses present, as well. In this sense, we cannot properly say that the probability offered by the locus communis contra testes is true for all the prosecution witnesses.
- 16.
It should be noted that Cicero was speaking during the second actio of the trial, which meant that he not only answers the charges (11, 34, 39, 43) but prepares for a second hearing of witnesses (51 qui quoniam testimonium <nondum> dixit, quidnam sit dicturus exspecto.), as well. cf. Webster (1931, pp. 109–110). It is difficult to say whether Laelius had kept back any witness testimonies to the end, which would have given a fundamental turn in the trial. Perhaps, he concentrated the heaviest evidence to the end of the first actio, hoping to get the same result that Cicero reached in the Verres trial.
- 17.
The very brief rejection of the charge in 33 is a sign of real difficulty. Cicero presupposes that justifying the need for the fleet would in turn clear the defendant in the matter of how he handled the money entrusted to him. But the main repetundae charge could not have possibly been based on a complaint of excessive and unnecessary taxation without any proof of corruption.
- 18.
It is this that Cicero most probably referred to in 23. However, we cannot decide from this whether the incomplete evidence was due to haste or because the proof was missing.
- 19.
The remark in 40 (tantum dicit: ‘dedi’) suggests that even the witnesses were unable to say much about the circumstances. The word ‘I gave him’ must refer to a similar loan as in the case of Asclepiades.
- 20.
Cicero attacks mob mentality in a similar way in 19 Mementote igitur, cum audietis psephismata, non audire vos testimonia, audire temeritatem volgi, audire vocem levissimi cuiusque, audire strepitum imperitorum, audire contionem concitatam levissimae nationis. Laelius takes advantage of the poor Asian witnesses, and yet Cicero blames the Asiatics for their venality.
- 21.
59 neque tam fuerunt impudentes ut id quod Laelius dixit dicere auderent, hanc ab se pecuniam abstulisse Mithridatem. That could have been the main reason why the Trallians protested against Flaccus’ act. Cicero denied this vehemently and accused the Trallians of complicity with Mithridates during his conquest of Western Anatolia in 88, which could raise prejudices against them unfairly and suggest that the claim of the city was justified.
- 22.
52 Trallianos Maeandrio causam publicam commisisse, homini egenti, sordido, sine honore, sine existumatione, sine censu? The sentence shows that it was not possible in every case to refer back to 9–26. The case thus reveals the weakness of the general proposition and the strategy based upon it, but also how Cicero avoids such obstacles as a trustworthy witness.
- 23.
Which is, of, course, a false dilemma. It may well be that Maeandrius had the most accurate knowledge on how the money was handled for many years after the elder Flaccus’ governorship in 95–90, whereas the aristocratic families, having other interests, did not want to be involved in the matter. We learn later (54) that Maeandrius was the person who pressed for sending a deputy.
- 24.
For a historical study of the passage, see Marshall (1975, pp. 139–154). Cicero’s remarks on the Jews of his time have been variously interpreted, yet one only has to see that the orator is arguing for his client and applies a similar pattern for discrediting the Jewish witnesses, as he did in the case of the Asians. Therefore, we can hardly talk about anti-semitism in the case of Pro Flacco any more than anti-asianism.
- 25.
We can attribute a meaning to the word similar to how it is used in Clu. 1., so ‘the argument on the Jewish gold, intended to raise ill-feelings and prejudices.’ The ‘invidia’ is basically what Cicero did with the Asian witnesses.
- 26.
67 Quis est, iudices, qui hoc non vere laudare possit? Exportari aurum non oportere cum saepe antea senatus tum me consule gravissime iudicavit. Cicero talks about an unambiguous case, yet is not clear, whether the Jews got exemption from this decree or kept sending the money despite the prohibition. For different opinions see Alexander (2002, p. 285, n. 81).
References
Alexander, M.C. The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era. Ann Arbor, 2002.
Classen, C.J. ‘Ciceros Kunst der Überredung.’ In Éloquence et rhétorique chez Cicéron, edited by B. Grange and O. Reverdin, 149–192. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique, Bd. 28. Vandoeuvres-Genève, 1982.
Classen, C.J. Recht-Rhetorik-Politik, Untersuchungen zu Ciceros rhetorischer Strategie. Darmstadt, 1985.
Lintott, A.W. 1981. The leges de repetundis and associate measures under the republic. ZRG 98: 162–212.
Marshall, A.J. 1975. Flaccus and the Jews of Asia (Cicero Pro Flacco 28.67–69). Phoenix 29: 139–154.
Riggsby, A.M. Crime and Community in Ancient Rome. Austin, 1999.
Robinson, O.F. The Criminal Law of Ancient Rome. Baltimore, 2001.
Steel, C.E.W. Cicero, Rhetoric and Empire. Oxford, 2001.
Vasaly, A. Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory. Berkeley, 1993.
Venturini, C. Studi sul ‘crimen repetundarum’ nell’ età repubblicana. Milano, 1979.
Webster, T.B.L. M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro L. Flacco Oratio. Oxford, 1931.
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 Flacco. In: Heuristic Strategies in the Speeches of Cicero. Argumentation Library, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01799-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01799-0_5
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)