Cicero's Use of Judicial Theater

Introduction

Introduction In a rhetorical treatise written toward the end of his life, Cicero reveals that on at least two occasions as an advocate he had used small children as oratorical props (Orat. 131):1 qua nos ita dolenter uti solemus, ut puerum infantem in manibus perorantes tenuerimus, ut alia in causa excitato reo nobili, sublato etiam filio parvo, plangore et lamentatione compleremus forum. [I am in the habit of deploying this [type of appeal] with such high emotion that I have held an infant in my arms during a peroration. In another case, having urged the high-ranking defendant to stand, I lifted up his small son as well, and filled the forum with wailing and lamentation.] These scenes depict a judicial world alien to most modern readers. We do not today expect to see lawyers parading around the court carrying children in their arms. The impartial administration of justice (we would like to think) has no business with this kind of manipulative showmanship. Evidently, however, Roman expectations were rather different. Orators in the forum appear to have enjoyed considerable freedom to engage in lively theatrics. It is this aspect of Cicero’s technique as an advocate that forms the subject of the following chapters. How often did he employ such stunts in the courts? What do the rhetorical handbooks have to say about their planning and execution? And what factors shaped his decision to use them in some situations but not in others? As I hope to show, a consideration of these issues will give us not only significant insights into Cicero’s skill as a practising advocate but also a deeper appre1 . Several scholars have identified the second incident with Cicero’s defense of L. Flaccus; see Sandys (1885) 133; Kroll (1913) 117–18; Webster (1931) 108; and Hubbell (1939) 402, n. C. The extant text of Pro Flacco, however, makes no explicit reference to such action. 2 Cicero’s Use of Judicial Theater ciation of the links between judicial oratory and the social and political customs of the Late Republic. The devices that he deployed during these performances often had as much to do with Roman cultural practices as with Hellenistic precepts of rhetoric. In many respects, then, this book is a study of showmanship—of the ways in which Cicero made his speeches in court lively and compelling. As my title suggests, I use the phrase “judicial theater” as a generic label for these aspects of his technique, and I include under the term all nonverbal devices employed by advocates in order to enhance the impact of their words and argument.2 This definition thus encompasses a broad range of elements, from the orator’s use of gestures, to his exploitation of costume and props. The phrase “judicial theater” also helps to stress (I hope) the close connection of these devices with live performance. Such theatrics were the stage business of the orator’s art. To be sure, they were often tightly integrated with the text of a speech; but their successful execution required a set of skills quite separate from those involved in literary composition.3 As the Romans themselves recognized, the orator needed—in part at least—to be an actor too.4 For many years, this aspect of Cicero’s pleading was largely overlooked by modern scholars. Academic interest tended to focus primarily on textual matters, such as the manuscript tradition, linguistic usage, and literary tropes. In recent decades, however, there has been growing appreciation of the more practical side of Cicero’s craft. One collection of essays, for example, has addressed the element of “spectacle” in Roman court proceedings (“lo spettacolo della giustizia”), with prof2 . Note that I use “judicial theater” as the more conceptual, generalizing term (modelled on the phrase “political theater” now in common usage). On occasion I also use the phrase “judicial theatrics” when referring to specific examples of these techniques. 3. The commentary on Pro Caelio by Austin (1933), for example, has very little to say about matters of performance and delivery. This deficiency is remedied to an extent in the second edition with the addition of some extra commentary (Austin [1952] 141–43), and in the third edition with some further notes (Austin [1960] 173–75). But even then little attempt is made to consider how the text of Pro Caelio might have been brought to life in an actual performance. This tendency still persists. Cf. Usher (2008), where the terms “performance” and “in action” refer, not...