Academic literature on the topic 'Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Latin language'

Marcus Tullius Cicero, born 106 B.C., has always been considered the greatest and mostcompetent orator that has ever lived. Pierre Bourdieu, a modern sociologist, has developed a theory aboutthe concept of broadened linguistic competence, stressing the necessary requirements for a speaker to beconsidered competent from the scientific point of view. The present article deals with the applicability ofBourdieu’s sociological theory, entitled : The Economy of Linguistic Exchanges”, to a Latin text by Cicero,with a view to confirming the pertinence of the ancient orator’s prestige.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? (‘Just how much longer, really, Catiline, will you abuse our patience?’). The famous incipit—‘And what are you reading, Master Buddenbrook? Ah, Cicero! A difficult text, the work of a great Roman orator. Quousque tandem, Catilina. Huh-uh-hmm, yes, I've not entirely forgotten my Latin, either’— already impressed contemporaries, including some ordinarily not so readily impressed. It rings through Sallust's version of Catiline's shadowy address to his followers, when he asks regarding the injustices they suffer (Cat. 20.9): quae quousque tandem patiemini, o fortissumi uiri? (‘Just how much longer, really, will you put up with these, o bravest men?’). More playfully, and less well-known, Sallust employed the expression again in a speech by Philippus (Hist. 1.77.17 M./67 R.): uos autem, patres conscripti, quo usque cunctando rem publicam intutam patiemini et uerbis arma temptabitis? (‘But you, members of the Senate, just how much longer will you suffer our Republic to be unsafe by your hesitation and make an attempt on arms with words?’). Soon afterwards it served Cicero's son, who, as governor of Asia, put down Hybreas fils for having dared to quote from his father's work in his presence (Sen. Suas. 7.14): ‘age’, inquit [sc. Marcus Tullius], ‘non putas me didicisse patris mei: “quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra”?’ (‘“Come now”, he said, “do you think that I do not know by heart my father's ‘Just how much longer, really, Catiline, will you abuse our patience’?”’). Just about the same time, Livy recalled it in order to colour Manlius’ exhortation of his followers (6.18.5): quousque tandem ignorabitis uires uestras, quas natura ne beluas quidem ignorare uoluit? … audendum est aliquid uniuersis aut omnia singulis patienda. quousque me circumspectabitis? (‘Just how much longer, really, will you remain ignorant of your own strength, which nature has willed even brutes to know? … We must dare all together, or else, separately, suffer all. Just how much longer will you keep looking round for me?’). Thereafter Quintilian would refer to it twice, when discussing apostrophe and rhetorical questions (Inst. 4.1.68, 9.2.7), just a couple of years before Tacitus has the maladroit Q. Haterius encourage Tiberius to seize the reins—quo usque patieris, Caesar, non adesse caput rei publicae? (‘Just how much longer, Caesar, will you suffer the absence of the head of state?’, Ann. 1.13.4); a few decades later still, Apuleius puts it into the mouth of the slave who chastises his master, now in asinine form (Met. 3.27): ‘quo usque tandem’, inquit, ‘cantherium patiemur istum paulo ante cibariis iumentorum, nunc etiam simulacris deorum infestum?’ (‘“Just how much longer, really,” he said, “will we suffer this old gelding to attack the animals’ food just a little while ago and now even the gods’ statues?”’). He trusted, no doubt, that the famous question would alert his readers more than anything to the many ‘similarities between Catiline and Lucius’, in order to have them appreciate this ‘ludicrous copy of Cicero's arch-enemy’. Some time after, and in a different corner of the Empire altogether, a teacher's bronze statue would carry the inscription: VERBACICRO | NISQVOVSQ | TANDEMABVTE | RECATELINAPA | TIENTIANOS | TRA.

Originally presented as the author's D. Phil thesis, Corpus Christi College Oxford, 1995-1998.
Title from e-book title screen (viewed July 27, 2006). Available through MyiLibrary. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (p. [234]-245) and index.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2000.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to explore Marcus Tullius Cicero's awareness and interpretation of contemporary political events as reflected in his private correspondence during the last years of both the Roman republic and his own life. Cicero's correspondence gives a detailed view of current political events in Rome and constitutes, with Caesar's own narrative, our major contemporary evidence for the circumstances of the civil war of 49 BC. The dissertation takes as Leitmotiv Cicero's own judgement of the state as 'sacrificial victim' to the ambitions of individual politicians, with as metaphor his examination of a 'dying' body politic in the manner of a haruspex inspecting the entrails of a sacrificial animal. It poses the question whether Cicero understood the message of political decline signalled by the 'entrails' of the 'carcass' of the res publica, and whether this ability in its turn enabled him to anticipate future political development in Rome. In what follows, the theoretical input of Cicero's predecessors, their perceptions of constitutional development, and of Roman politics in particular, as well as Cicero's own perception of their political theories will be considered in order to determine the extent of Cicero's awareness of a larger pattern of political events, and how consistent he was in his analyses of such patterns, that is, to what extent Cicero may be considered seriously as a political analyst.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die oogmerk van die verhandeling is om vas te stel of Marcus Tullius Cicero met reg daaop kan aanspraak maak dat hy eietydse politieke gebeure sinvol kon interpreteer as die manifestering van 'n nuwe politieke stroming wat die voorkoms van die toekomstige Romeinse politieke toneel sou bepaal. Cicero se waarneming en begrip van eietydse politieke gebeure in die laaste paar jaar van die Romeinse Republiek en sy eie lewe word tekenend weerspieël in sy persoonlike briefwisseling uit die tydperk 51 tot 43 v.C. As historiese dokument bied hierdie korrespondensie, as primêre bronmateriaal, naas die behoue kontemporêre beriggewing van Julius Caesar, die enigste ander kontemporêre getuienis vir die uitbreek en nadraai van die burgeroorlog van 49 v.C. Die sentrale tema van die verhandeling is Cicero se persepsie van die Romeinse staat as die 'slagoffer' van magsugtige politieke rolspelers. Cicero se rol as waarnemer en politieke analis word uitgebeeld deur die metafoor van 'n haruspex (profeet) wat die 'ingewande' van die 'karkas' van die gestorwe Romeinse Republiek ondersoek. Die kernvraag wat gestel word is, of Cicero inderdaad daartoe in staat was om die boodskap van politieke verandering raak te lees, die implikasies daarvan te begryp en daarvolgens 'n beredeneerde toekomsprojeksie van die Romeinse politieke toneel te maak. Om te bepaal of Cicero meriete verdien as 'n politieke analis, word die volgende kriteria as toetsstene gebruik: die teoretiese insette van Cicero se voorgangers en sy beheersing van sodanige politieke teoretisering, die mate waarin hy konsekwent en objektief kon oordeel, en die mate waarin hy teorie en die praktiese werklikheid van die Romeinse politieke situasie kon integreer.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2003.
Title from first page of PDF file. Document formatted into pages; contains viii, 220 p. Includes abstract and vita. Advisor: Erik T. Gunderson, Dept. of Greek and Latin. Includes bibliographical references (p. 203-220).

In a field as old as Classics, it difficult to find truly innovative approaches to literary works that have been studied for millennia, and it only becomes more difficult to find something new to explore in works as fundamental to the field as Marcus Tullius Cicero’s. However, in the burgeoning field of Digital Humanities, new avenues for textual exploration arise even among the over-picked rubble that is the Classical World. Through the use of computer software, we can search through and statistically analyze corpora of massive sizes. This project uses such techniques to perform a mesoanalysis of Cicero’s corpus. Through the use of R and Gephi, I will “read” Cicero’s works from a distance and see a much broader view of his character than I could through a traditional close reading of a few texts. This mesoanalysis includes a stylometric analysis of Cicero’s entire corpus, a sentiment analysis of his orations, and a network analysis of his letters. The sentiment analysis will explore Cicero as a literary figure. Through a hierarchical cluster analysis in R, I will assess not only how his style changes from genre to genre but within a genre (orations) as well. That analysis will close with an exploration of the lexical richness of his works, how it varies from genre to genre and over his lifetime. For the sentiment analysis, I built a lexicon based on Stoic theory, primarily as it is explained in the Tusculunae Disputationes, and Robert Kaster’s work with emotional scripts. After the lexicon was built, I applied it to Cicero’s orations in a method similar to Matthew Jockers’ syuzhet package for R, and I traced his use of sentiment across the speech. I then compared those trajectories to Latin rhetorical theory, especially the theories included in Cicero’s own treatises, in order to see if Cicero had put into effect his own advice or if he had a few techniques that he kept hidden. The mesoanalysis closes with a network analysis of the Epistulae ad Familiares. I merged Cicero’s social network with a sentiment analysis in order to assess how Cicero felt about and interacted with his peers. From this analysis, one could gather an idea of Cicero as a person. At the end of the mesoanalysis, we can attain a much broader sense of Cicero’s character. This project also has a second aim, and that is to explain how these techniques could be applied to other literary corpora, outside of Cicero’s and Latin. I have carefully detailed my process and provide more instruction in my appendices so that readers could attempt these analyses and be successful in them.

My contention in this thesis is that gender identity in Ciceronian oratorical performance is a rhetorical tool that has two aspects: first, it enables Cicero as an orator to gain access to forensic space, and second, it facilitates the persuasion of his audience. The aim of this work is to discuss the concept of oratorical hegemony within a Ciceronian context; it is based on the idea that rhetoric functions in a political space essentially as a tool for governance regardless of the ideological leaning of the speaker or of the political or social body that he represents. The position taken in this thesis is that the rhetoric of a political orator such as Cicero is connected with a range of other factors that empower and lend versatility to his rhetorical position. Invariably, an orator such as Cicero has to manoeuvre within a wider context than what any particular speech situation might suggest on the surface. As a basis for examination, I have developed three models to create an appropriate framework for the discussions on oratorical hegemony. The first model, which I have termed the Anatomy of a Speech, shows only the stages of preparation and of the delivery of a speech. The second model, the Ciceronian Improvisatory Model, depicts the development of Cicero in his speeches during different periods of his public career. The third model, which I call the Phallic Model of Hegemonic Masculinity, is a sociological model constructed to accommodate the different structures of Roman Society. My deconstruction of the different sectors of the model form the core chapters in this thesis. Although this model has been informed by the close reading of social history that features in most discourses on gender, my discussion of the model implicitly challenges the view that women were universally and equally oppressed across races and cultures. My more important argument is that gender identity becomes not only a rhetorical tool in the hands of the orator but also a manipulative 'sign' within a social discourse. Although basic class and gender distinctions may be implicit in the orator's delivery. what matters more is his ability to deploy strategically the rhetorical means at his disposal. Issues relating to power, nationalism and the representation of men, women and slaves are discussed in connection with the orator's performance strategies in a political context. Because the Roman public forum is associated with competition and the young Roman male aspired to high honours and political attainments (laus et gloria) , power becomes a major issue in my discussion. The orator's quest for political and rhetorical glory entails challenging the best orators in the state and questioning the rationale behind the tendencies of some government administrators to abuse the rights of other members of civil society who are not as highly placed as they are in government. The orator progressively wields power through his performance of rhetoric, although when he is in the process of gaining national recognition for excellent speaking, he is apt to argue that his paramount concern is what is best for the state. Hard work in the oratorical arena often resulted in a high political profile for the orator, which occasionally led to the attainment of a powerful political position such as a consulship, a position achieved by Gieero himself in 63 BC. Cieero's ability to represent himself, contemporary events and his subjects imaginatively while delivering his speeches enabled him to persuade his audience on many occasions. Cicero's alternation between the spaces of senate and general assembly as consul and the kind of discourses that he develops in each space are important subjects of discussion in this thesis. Furthermore, Cicero's private persona is considered by examining his fears and anxieties to establish how much distance there is between his public self and private self. Within a cluster of personae, the stress to which Cicero is subjected opens him up to express in the oratorical arena certain fears that normally are meant for the private space in a Roman context. To complete my deconstruction of the Phallic Model of Hegemonic Masculinity, I have chosen to discuss Cicero's representation of slaves as a social manifestation of the bottom rung of the Roman world. Because discussions of oratorical hegemony in the Roman republic not only undertake to consider how it is used as a tool for governance but also its effect upon slaves, who represent the lowest stratum of the social order, this thesis examines Cicero's representation of the role, function and employment of slaves in respect to the power relations that existed between the dominant group and that particular subordinated group. In the final analysis, oratorical hegemony is not a paradigm for a specific orator. Oratorical hegemony functions among a group of orators who have gained political ascendancy through their performance of rhetoric. Cicero is not just a historical figure but he also represents a concept or form of oratorical hegemony. This thesis ultimately explains how Cicero selVes as a model for the exercise of this kind of oratorical practice.
Thesis (Ph.D.)-University of Natal, Durban, 2001.

This chapter focuses on those eighteenth-century students of ancient history and literature who were mainly interested in Latin and Greek writings as moral edification. Recent decades have witnessed a growing awareness of the role played by models drawn from classical antiquity in the advancement of the concept of politeness in the eighteenth century. Much less attention has been paid to the connection between the popularizing works on antiquity that were read by the social and intellectual elites to form a conception of these classical models and contemporary scholarly debates. In order to tackle this question, I will discuss two eighteenth-century bestsellers. The first of these was the History of the Life of Marcus Tullius Cicero by Conyers Middleton (1683–1750) and the second was the Histoire Romaine (1738–48) by the Jansenist Charles Rollin (1661–1741). Although these men had vastly different religious outlooks—Middleton was a deist and Rollin a Jansenist—they each made an important contribution to the popularization of classical culture in the eighteenth century. It will be demonstrated that the life and work of both men was deeply influenced by the moralizing and popularizing approach to classical texts (philosophia), and that they created a conception of antiquity that found its way into the works of some of the foremost philosophes of the eighteenth century, such as Voltaire and Montesquieu.