Cicero: The
fourteen orations against Marcus Antonius (Philippics)
Apart from
providing three good examples of the imperfect passive subjunctive being used
in an original context, this passage is a good example of a Ciceronian
rhetorical pattern that recurs throughout his speeches and has been employed by
politicians ever since.
An mē cēnsētis,
patrēs cōnscrīptī, quod vōs invītī secūtī estis, dēcrētūrum fuisse, (1) ut
parentālia cum supplicātiōnibus miscērentur, (2) ut inexpiābilēs
religiōnēs in rem pūblicam indūcerentur, (3) ut dēcernerentur
supplicātiōnēs mortuō? (Cicero)
The translation I
have given is as close as possible to the original:
“Do you really
suppose, Senators, that I – when you yourselves followed it unwillingly – intended
to decree that funerary rites should be mingled with public thanksgivings, that
unexpiable religious practices be introduced into the state, that thanksgivings
be decreed for a dead man?”
An mē cēnsētis… │ Do
you really think / suppose that I …
patrēs cōnscrīptī,
│ conscript fathers i.e. senators; the term of address used to members of the
Roman Senate
quod vōs invītī
secūtī estis, │ since you, unwillingly, followed (it) / went along with it
dēcrētūrum fuisse,
│ had intended to decree
(1) ut
parentālia cum supplicātiōnibus miscērentur, │ that funerary rites should
be mingled with public thanksgivings,
(2) ut
inexpiābilēs religiōnēs in rem pūblicam indūcerentur, │ that unexpiable
religious practices should be introduced into the state,
(3) ut dēcernerentur
supplicātiōnēs mortuō? │ that supplications (thanksgivings) should be
decreed for a dead man?
Style
If you are reading
the literature, it is useful to come to grips with the style of individual
authors.
[i] Cicero
vehemently and indignantly rejects the notion that he would have voted for
these decrees. By casting the passage as a rhetorical question, he
signals that no answer is required, as the audience is expected to
supply the obvious negative response.
[ii] … patrēs cōnscrīptī, - quod vōs invītī
secūtī estis –
This is a parenthetical
statement addressed directly to the senators by name. It sharpens the irony by
reminding them that they themselves accepted the measure only unwillingly,
thereby making the alleged intention attributed to Cicero appear all the more
implausible.
Compare a typical
English ‘political’ response:
Why do you think –
when you yourselves voted against it – that I would not?
[iii] A key
stylistic feature of the passage is the tricolon, a sequence of three
parallel words, phrases, or clauses with identical or near-identical structure.
https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/05/290524-level-2-side-note.html
Here, Cicero
employs three parallel ut-clauses, reinforced by the repetition of the
imperfect passive subjunctive ending:
(1) ut … miscērentur
(2) ut … indūcerentur
(3) ut dēcernerentur
More specifically,
this constitutes a tricolon crescēns (crescēns = “growing”), in
which each successive clause increases in rhetorical force and seriousness.
Furthermore, the
repetition of ut at the beginning of each clause is known as anaphora,
a common feature in poetry.
The sequence moves
from (1) the improper mixing of funerary rites with public thanksgivings, a
breach of ritual decorum, to (2) the introduction of unexpiable, that is
permanent and irreparable, religious pollution into the state, a more serious
and lasting danger, and finally to (3) the shocking climax, the decreeing of
thanksgivings for a dead man, with mortuō emphatically postponed to the
end.
The rising
intensity of the three ut-clauses reinforces Cicero’s indignation and
leads the audience step by step to the conclusion that the alleged decree is
not merely mistaken, but profoundly impious, absurd, and contrary to traditional
values and customs.
Cicero’s technique
is not antiquated but structural: the same rhetorical devices continue to be
employed by modern politicians. The passage therefore illustrates not only
Ciceronian style, but a timeless pattern of political argumentation.
A striking modern
parallel can be seen in the House of Commons, for example in the 2025 Budget
response by the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch (see linked video). Her
speech employs many of the same rhetorical techniques used by Cicero, demonstrating
how enduring and effective these devices remain.
The Nightmare
before Christmas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYD4cD3yHw
[1] parenthetical
statements
- “Today she has
announced a new tax raid of £26 billion — they’re all cheering —
household income is down.”
The parenthetical
aside contrasts the government’s self-congratulation with the alleged reality,
sharpening the sense of irony in much the same way as Cicero’s quod vōs
invītī secūtī estis.
[2] tricolons
Badenoch
repeatedly uses tricolon and tricolon crescēns. Note, in the same
way that Cicero repeats the endings of the imperfect passive subjunctive, she
too repeats noun and adjective endings to reinforce rhythm and memorability.
- “They are hiking
taxes on (1) pensioners, (2) workers, and (3) savers.”
- “(1) She blames
Brexit, (2) she blames Donald Trump — (3) she needs to blame herself.”
- “She is (1) spineless,
(2) shameless, and (3) completely aimless.”
Some sequences
extend beyond three items but still function as crescēns, with the most
ludicrous or forceful point saved for last:
“She has chosen to
put up tax after tax after tax, taxes on workers, taxes on savers, taxes on
pensioners, taxes on investors, taxes on (1) homes, (2) holidays,
(3) cars, I think even milkshakes, taxes on anyone”
- “Out of money, out
of ideas, out of her depth, and out of road.”
[3] anaphora:
the repetition of the same word at the beginning of successive phrases, here
incorporated into tricolons.
- “(1) She
blames Brexit, (2) she blames Donald Trump — (3) she needs to
blame herself.”
- “The fact is the
bad choices she is making today – (1) choices to break promises, (2) choices
to put up taxes, (3) choices to spend more of other people’s money – are
because of the bad choices she made at the last disastrous budget.”
The rapid-fire
repetition “Up! … Up! … Up!” followed by “Down! … Down! … Down!” in the next
two quotations function like anaphora, creating rhythm and emphasis,
even though the repetition does not occur at the beginning of full clauses.
- “Government spending?
Up! Welfare spending. Up! Universal credit claimants. Up! Unemployment. Up!
Debt interest. Up! Inflation. Up!”
- “And what about
the things you want to go up? What about the things you want to go up? Growth.
Down! Investment. Down! Business confidence. Down! The credibility of the
Chancellor. Down! And not just down – through the floor.”
As in Cicero, repetition
and escalation amplify indignation and invite audience participation, which
in the Commons becomes literal through collective chanting and interruption.
[4] rhetorical
questions
- “Under us we had
an energy crisis sparked by a war in Ukraine, and a global pandemic. What is
her excuse? What is her excuse?”
- “It is the worst
year for graduate recruitment on record. Are they proud of this?”
These questions,
like Cicero’s An mē cēnsētis…?, do not seek answers; they assume them
and force the audience into agreement.
Once introduced to
Cicero, it becomes clear that Badenoch is employing the same rhetorical
strategies Cicero used two thousand years ago — rhetorical questions,
parenthetical irony, tricolon crescēns, and anaphora. The laughter, outrage,
and disruption they provoke show that these techniques still work. Roman
oratory and modern parliamentary debate are separated by centuries, but not by
rhetoric.
The only
difference is that, 2000 years ago, Kemi Badenoch would not have been allowed
to speak in the Senate; I wonder if the current UK Chancellor wished that was
still the case!
