Cicero’s maledicta: the darker side of Cicero’s arguments

Abstract

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE) is widely praised for his brilliant oratorical arguments; in fact, his performance of casuistry is regarded as a model of Roman rhetoric. The accolades that Cicero has received are well deserved but these achievements in rational argumentation do not reveal the spectrum of Cicero’s rhetoric, nor do they fully explain why his orations were so persuasively effective. Explanations of the brilliance of Cicero’s rational arguments do not normally encompass the darker side of the effectiveness Cicero’s suasory strategies. His tactics of denigrating the opposition with ethnic slurs, mockery, ridicule, sarcasm and other forms of ad hominem/ad personam attacks—what is collectively termed here as maledicta—were persuasive weapons that contributed to his success. Cicero was well aware of the persuasive power of his biting ridicule and sarcasm and even tempered its use on occasion (e.g. Pro Sulla 47). This essay examines Cicero’s use of maledicta in his legal rhetoric in order to better understand the range of his rhetorical strategies, the effectiveness of his performance, and the rationale for employing such tactics in the courts of the Roman Republic.