Cicero's level of success within the senate fluctuated throughout the period of his Philippic orations. These fluctuations reflect the very divisive nature of the conflict with Marcus Antonius, and the ever-changing circumstances that Cicero confronted. The orations themselves record Cicero's improvisational responses to these developments and allow us to study Cicero's range of persuasive techniques over a period of eight months, from September 44, when Cicero delivered his first Philippic, through to April 43, when he delivered his last. There has been a growing body of scholarship dealing with the Philippics, but there remains work to be done on the ad hoc nature of senatorial debate. Manuwald's recent study of praise and blame within the Philippics has provided a starting point, since she identifies strategic elements within the collection as a whole and how these elements functioned in terms of persuasion. She notes the short term use of praise and blame for the purpose of urging the senate to a particular course of action, but her avowed aims were not to isolate strategies within the speeches.Footnote ¹ And while Frisch provides full coverage of the historical context, he is less concerned with persuasive strategies within and between the speeches themselves.Footnote ² In this regard Philippics 10 and 11 provide an insight into the malleable and ad hoc nature of Roman oratory in the context of senatorial debate. We are able to follow Cicero's shifts in rhetorical strategies as he attempts to meet the exigencies of each situation. Philippics 10 and 11 have ostensibly similar rhetorical aims: to persuade the senate to appoint Marcus Brutus and Caius Cassius to powerful military commands in the eastern provinces, and yet the rhetorical strategies that Cicero employs differ in various ways. My aim is to examine what factors influenced his choice of strategy in the delivery of the two speeches.

Philippics 10 and 11 have been seen as a pair because they share comparable aims and foci, and since they form a closely tied continuity.Footnote ³ They mark a shift in emphasis away from the immediate threat of Antonius in Italy to the eastern provinces where Brutus and Cassius were in the process of securing formidable armies. Cicero's objective within each speech is to have the actions of Brutus and Cassius approved and, in turn, to have them retrospectively granted extraordinary commands. However, the method by which Cicero does so is remarkably dissimilar. Both speeches were delivered within weeks of each other and each was published soon after its delivery.Footnote ⁴ This quick publication has important implications since it suggests that the speeches had an ongoing persuasive function beyond Cicero's immediate audience, and also that the speeches underwent minimal revision before being disseminated.

It will be necessary to provide some background in order to illustrate the changed circumstances between the two speeches and to trace how these events influenced Cicero in his choice of rhetorical strategies. Events following the assassination of Caesar had unforeseen ramifications for the Liberators. It became quickly apparent that their position within the state was being marginalized in the wake of the assassination, particularly when Antonius wielded executive power by virtue of his consulship. They were, however, granted fragile concessions that allowed them to play a diminished role within the state. On June 5, Brutus and Cassius were assigned commissions to supply grain from Asia and Sicily, a commission that allowed them to leave Rome at a time when their safety could not be assured.Footnote ⁵ Only a short time later provinces were assigned to them for 43.Footnote ⁶ In August Brutus and Cassius left Italy, but they did not set out for their provinces. Brutus set out for Greece, while Cassius, it was rumoured, had set out for Syria where he had earned his military reputation in the wake of Crassus' failed Parthian campaign in 53.Footnote ⁷

In February 43 (six months after the delivery of the first Philippic), Brutus informed the senate that he had taken possession of Greece, Macedonia and Illyricum, and that he had done so in order to prevent Gaius Antonius, the brother of Marcus Antonius, from taking possession of Macedonia.Footnote ⁸ In order to allay any fears that such an action might raise, Brutus declared that he was placing himself at the disposal of the senate.Footnote ⁹ Gaius Vibius Pansa, the consul for 43, was startled to hear of Brutus' activities and immediately called for a meeting of the senate in order to discuss this new development. This session of the senate formed the occasion at which Cicero delivered Philippic 10. Cicero was delighted at Brutus' news and, after hearing of Brutus' actions, expressed a new enthusiasm in his fight against Antonius. He praised Brutus for his actions and expounded at length on the foresight and capabilities of the man. In fact, this praise of Brutus forms the backbone of Cicero's persuasive strategy as Cicero parades the qualities that made Brutus fit for command. An extended passage of praise culminates with the sententia at the end of the speech, where Cicero proposes that Brutus be granted official command of the armies within Greece, Macedonia and Illyria. On this occasion, Cicero's proposal was duly passed and Brutus was granted the proconsular command.Footnote ¹⁰

Brutus' legal title, however, was open to criticism as Brutus had been acting well beyond his mandate, although unusual times called for unusual measures.Footnote ¹¹ However, Cicero knew that Pansa was in favour of supporting Brutus' actions, and so he tailors his oration accordingly. Cicero immediately begins his speech by praising Pansa for his actions and assessment of the situation.Footnote ¹² He then turns briefly to address Q. Fufius Calenus, a consular who had spoken before him in the sequence of debate, and who had proposed stripping Brutus of command.Footnote ¹³ However, this section of the oration is not strictly a refutatio, which we might expect, with Cicero responding to the series of arguments put forward by Calenus, but rather it forms an ad hominem attack against Calenus. This invective diverts attention away from the issues that Calenus likely raised, since Brutus' legal position was tenuous at best.Footnote ¹⁴ In fact, Cicero pre-empts any further legal opposition by arguing that Brutus had taken control of the Greek provinces in order to protect the res publica. This was, of course, an arbitrary viewpoint, so Cicero sets about proving Brutus' devotion and subordination of his own ambition to the good of the res publica.

Cicero does so through the use of praise, and this is drawn from familiar topoi. Praise of Brutus is achieved by presenting him as a worthy descendant of his familial line. Cicero, when referring to Brutus' ancestral connections, had ample material from which to draw. Stress upon the divina atque immortalis laus Bruti, despite the negative connotations that Caesar's assassination might conjure, was deliberate and inevitably evocative of L. Brutus and the role of the Bruti in the history of the Roman Republic.Footnote ¹⁵Philippic 10 exploits this connection by continuously linking Brutus with the formation and continuance of the free res publica. Indeed, there is no evidence that Brutus' opponents ever sought to undermine Brutus' position in the state through character assassination or through denigration of his familial line.Footnote ¹⁶ To undermine the character and pedigree of Brutus by means of invective was evidently not the most constructive approach for Brutus' political opponents. His ancestral connections were too firmly rooted in the very beginnings of the res publica, and these were connections that Brutus himself cultivated from as early as 59 when he was drawing attention to his lineage.Footnote ¹⁷ This familial point of reference is integral here as it provides a means by which Cicero could allude to Brutus' recent actions. In this regard Cicero had the difficult task of presenting Brutus' involvement in the conspiracy against Caesar in as palatable a light as possible. The deed itself is only alluded to through a praeteritio, focussing on Brutus and without mention of Caesar by name, and his participation in the conspiracy is shown as being motivated by principled adherence to the traditions of liberty.Footnote ¹⁸ Cicero was aided by the public image of Brutus who was regarded as the ideological figurehead of the conspiracy, motivated by an adherence to tradition, to whom even Antonius attributed altruism.Footnote ¹⁹ Brutus is firmly placed within the context of the history of the republic.Footnote ²⁰ Similarly, Brutus' previous involvement in the Pompeian camp is a peripheral detail, not conducive to the context, and so left out.

Yet Cicero does not linger here. The res gestae of an individual were the most obvious component of an encomium, and so Cicero builds a narrative around Brutus' recent actions in order to establish continuity with the best traditions of the res publica.Footnote ²¹ Brutus had achieved other distinctions of a much less notorious character and Cicero is quick to shift his focus to these. Cicero chooses to emphasize Brutus' civic qualities over his martial achievements and this striking feature of the encomium is designed to play down the threat posed by Brutus' occupation of the Balkan provinces and his taking control of their legions.Footnote ²² Brutus was the urban praetor by virtue of Caesar's nomination, an office to which he devoted himself assiduously. Such was his devotion to the res publica that Plutarch records Brutus presiding over the courts on the morning of Caesar's assassination.Footnote ²³ His commitment to the functioning of the state is immediately made apparent within Philippic 10. Brutus is a praestantissimus civis (Phil. 10.1), motivated by a desire for a free and functioning res publica (as opposed to being motivated by personal gain, characteristic of Antonius and his supporters) and, as such, fulfils the criteria for leading the state against its internal enemies.

Once a character type has been established, Cicero turns to a narration of Brutus' recent conduct in order to illustrate his assertions (Phil. 10.7–14). This narrative plays a key role in providing evidence for anticipating Brutus' future conduct, particularly when praise of Brutus' lineal descent lacked an immediate and emotive appeal. Praise of Brutus could illustrate his proclivity to virtue, but it could not predict his future conduct with any certainty. We know that the meeting of the senate was called unexpectedly in reaction to Brutus' dispatch, which was read to the senate and which informed it of his activities. Cicero's narrative at this point may be superfluous since it merely repeats facts already known to Cicero's senatorial audience from the dispatch. It is, of course, vital for the modern reader of the written version of the speech, but not at all for Cicero's immediate audience who knew as much of these events as Cicero himself. It is certainly possible that Cicero omitted this narrative in the delivered version of the speech. However, the narrative has a thematic and evidential design and is subsequently integral to the organizational structure of the oration. Cicero's intention is to illustrate how Brutus is a benefit and safeguard for the res publica and he does so by interpreting Brutus' activities in the east, and by illustrating the benefits that Brutus provides.

Character and narrative are tightly aligned in Cicero's presentation of Brutus, since narrative forms a sequence of events that is interspersed with incidental material that supplements the unfolding storyline. Moreover, a narration of recent events allows the omission of details from Brutus' life that were likely to be less palatable to Cicero's senatorial audience. Cicero presents Brutus as ‘reacting’ to this development and in doing so describes Brutus' actions as being guided, not by legality, but by expediency. This diversionary aspect follows a precedent established in the earlier Philippic orations. In Philippic 3 Cicero recounted that, on his own initiative, Decimus Brutus had refused to submit to the authority of Antonius, and withdrew to Mutina where he prepared for a siege, while Octavian had diverted legionary support from Antonius to himself and therefore to the cause of the res publica.Footnote ²⁴ Praise from Cicero influenced the senate to pass decrees in favour of the actions of D. Brutus and Octavian. The senatorial response was in fact effusive; votes of thanks were awarded to D. Brutus and Octavian for their parts in resisting Antonius.Footnote ²⁵ Cicero is thus able to establish continuity between the actions of D. Brutus and Octavian, and those of M. Brutus in the current situation.

However, Cicero does not push this because his emphasis lies not in the continuity, but in the spontaneity with which republican commanders were rising up against the autocratic position of Antonius. Octavian's initiative in repulsing the designs of Antonius is introduced towards the end of the oration (Phil. 10.23) as an example of this spontaneity, while at the same time Octavian's introduction into the speech is used to show that the assassin of Caesar was able to cooperate with Caesar's adopted heir.Footnote ²⁶ In such a way Cicero avoids questions of political allegiance. Cicero's immediate response on each of these occasions was to illustrate the spontaneity with which various military commanders were reacting to Antonius, and to have those actions approved by the senate. These were ad hoc events to which Cicero reacts, but these are linked by a consistent rhetorical strategy in which individuals are honoured for acting in the interests of the res publica. This finds its culmination in Cicero's advocacy of Cassius (Phil. 11.28): ‘that all things which are salutary to the republic should be regarded as legitimate and just’ (ut omnia quae rei publicae salutaria essent legitima et iusta haberentur).Footnote ²⁷

In Philippic 10 Cicero proposed an extensive imperium, and one without a temporal limit, in order to cover the range of possibilities that might develop; it was restricted by a defined geographical sphere, namely Macedonia, Illyricum and Greece (Achaia).Footnote ²⁸ Whether this form of the decree had any practicable limitations is doubtful, since the senate could hardly impose its will on Brutus, who was already controlling those territories without senatorial sanction. Nevertheless, Cicero achieved a significant success since the senatus consultum provided Brutus with a legal basis on which to continue his activities.

The political situation was to become more complicated only a short time later when news reached Rome that Gaius Trebonius, one of Caesar's assassins and governor of Asia, had been murdered by Publius Cornelius Dolabella.Footnote ²⁹ The senate was collectively outraged and immediately declared Dolabella a public enemy.Footnote ³⁰ On the following day a second meeting was summoned in order to discuss the appointment of a commander against Dolabella, who was then attempting to seize control of the eastern provinces. It was at this meeting that Cicero delivered Philippic 11. In this speech Cicero proposed that Cassius take command of the armies in Syria, Asia, Pontus and Bithynia for the purpose of pursuing the renegade Dolabella, who had entered into a politically cooperative relationship with Antonius in the wake of Caesar's death. The striking contrast with Philippic 10 is that Cicero's advocacy for Cassius comes late in the speech, and only after a lengthy refutation of the proposals made before his own in the sequence of senatorial debate. Significantly, within Philippic 11 Cicero reverts to the language of invective and in doing so he shifts attention away from Cassius himself to Dolabella and Antonius; he criticizes and lambasts Dolabella, Antonius and their associates before finally urging the senate to appoint Cassius. Nor does Cicero emphasize the character of Cassius as he did for Brutus, nor Cassius' personal motivations in occupying the eastern provinces, but rather he points out the advantages to be derived from Cassius' appointment. So, despite the fundamentally similar proposals, the points of difference indicate a markedly different approach to that taken when dealing with Brutus.

Cicero's advocacy for Brutus won favour within the senate, but when he delivered Philippic 11 he faced an increasingly hostile audience, anxious about the strength of what Antonius had referred to as the resurgence of the Pompeian party.Footnote ³¹ This suddenly powerful position in which the conspirators found themselves triggered anxieties within an already fractious senate which was clearly unsure about their objectives. Even Cicero, their foremost advocate at Rome, was not particularly well-informed of the assassins' activities or intentions.Footnote ³² The fact that Cassius' actions now doubled the forces of the conspirators in the east accounts for Cicero's shift in rhetorical strategy between the two orations, and goes some way in explaining the senate's subsequent appointment of the consuls to pursue war against Dolabella, albeit only after the war with Antonius was brought to a conclusion. Cicero's portrayal of a beneficent Brutus carried some weight, especially when Pansa agreed to allow a vote for the appointment of Brutus, but it was much less persuasive when it became evident that Cassius was working in coordination with Brutus and that he was doing so without senatorial knowledge. As yet there were only rumours of Cassius' actions in the east, but news would soon reach Rome confirming Cassius' military activities. Cicero seems to have anticipated Cassius' movements, or at least been privy to information that was filtering into Rome regarding Cassius' whereabouts, and he consequently used the occasion of Dolabella's condemnation to make a pre-emptive bid for support for Cassius.

In Philippic 11 Cicero returns to the sustained denigration of Antonius via a denunciation of Antonius' consular colleague Dolabella, laying special emphasis upon the latter's cruelty, his violation of fides, his banditry and anger – all qualities inimical to political stability.Footnote ³³ In relation to Dolabella, Cicero's focus is narrow but compelling. The opening of the speech concentrates immediately upon the depravity of Dolabella's actions and the torture of a patriot, C. Trebonius, the governor of Asia.Footnote ³⁴ This characterization is used to illustrate the necessity of acting without delay against Dolabella in order to prevent him from committing further atrocities. Narrative again plays a formative role in establishing the basis on which Cicero builds his argument, although within Philippic 11 the narrative revolves around the actions of Dolabella. Again, Cicero's narrative is evidentiary since he knew no more regarding Cassius' whereabouts than his senatorial audience. Antonius is implicated in the actions of Dolabella, and the narrative is structured to show that Antonius will act in the same way as Dolabella if he ever consolidates his power.Footnote ³⁵

As such, the Eleventh is not strictly an invective in Antonium since it deals with the command against Dolabella. However, Cicero depicts Antonius as the more dangerous opponent because of his greater potential for inflicting destruction, owing to his proximity to Rome, his criminally destructive traits and the type of men he has gathered around him. The contempt with which Cicero then treats Antonius' followers allows Cicero to illustrate the types of individuals who associate with Antonius and to accumulate contemptible qualities that complement the characterization of Antonius and further illustrate the dangers posed by their collective banditry.Footnote ³⁶

This denigration of Dolabella and his associates, and the way it reflects upon Antonius, provides a link with the remaining Philippic corpus, although the details contained within Philippic 11 have only a tangential relation to Antonius. To some extent, however, the recent violence of Dolabella provides a springboard for another character attack on Antonius, but this is an incidental benefit to be derived from the occasion. Having established a potent vignette of Dolabella's opportunistic and sadistic character, one evocatively brought to life in a passage characterized by its narrative immediacy, Cicero returns to Antonius himself, and some of his more well-known companions in vice, individuals familiar to the audience of the Philippics via numerous references throughout the corpus.Footnote ³⁷ The subjects of Cicero's denigration in Philippic 11 are not treated with the ridicule that is heaped upon Antonius in Philippic 2, but are presented as a more immediate and menacing threat. The mood of Philippic 11 is consequently more urgent, more pressing in its objectives because of the level of opposition that Cicero faced, and because of Cicero's decision to draw attention to the actions of Dolabella and Antonius. Consequently, there is a sustained attack on Antonius, his followers and policy. Common themes from throughout the corpus are reiterated: cruelty (Phil. 11.2; 6; 8–10); parricidium (treasonous or sacrilegious behaviour: §§1; 6); distribution of property for personal benefit (§§12; 14); rapacity (§4); banditry §§4; 14); and madness (§§2; 6). These underlying motivations are what compel Antonius and his followers to act, and so Cicero can reiterate the need for assertive and immediate resistance.

Again, narrative has been integral in establishing a context into which Cicero can thrust his protagonists, although for the time being Cicero's ultimate aim of having Cassius granted imperium is veiled. Praise of Cassius does not play as integral a role as praise of Brutus did in Philippic 10. With Philippic 11 Cicero was confronting a more difficult political situation. There had been senatorial opposition to the appointment of Brutus, but this had evidently been overcome, particularly in the light of Pansa's favourable assessment. However, when news of Cassius' successes reached Rome, that opposition hardened against the increasingly powerful position of the conspirators. Cicero's focus, therefore, shifts from praising Cassius to challenging the arguments of his opponents. Cicero was not aided by Cassius' brusque personality which attracted suspicion and fear from among his contemporaries. Plutarch and Velleius Paterculus both suggest that Cassius had urged the assassination of Antonius and Lepidus in addition to Caesar, which would have detracted from the morality of the deed and the declared intention of restoring the republic.Footnote ³⁸ Our sources are fairly uniform in attributing to Cassius a quick temper and impetuous character. Cicero himself hinted at this impetuosity and described a scene wherein Cassius, incensed to hear that he had been granted a grain commission rather than a more prestigious and significant command, entered the room ‘breathing war’ (Martem spirare diceres).Footnote ³⁹ This negative view of Cassius re-emerges in the accounts of subsequent generations. For example, Cassius' temper is prominent in the suasoria of Varius Geminus who, when asking under what regime would it have been better to live, compares the violence of Cassius with the arrogance of Brutus and the foolishness of (Sex.) Pompeius.Footnote ⁴⁰ Plutarch echoes this when he writes of Cassius as a man of violent temper.Footnote ⁴¹ To present the character of Cassius in a positive light appears a difficult proposition. So, when Cicero argues for the appointment of Cassius he does so in fundamentally different ways. Cicero must first counter the options that had previously been argued before the senate by Calenus and Lucius Caesar. The fact that Cicero followed two others in the sequence of speakers, in addition to whatever Pansa might have said when introducing the debate (we know that Pansa vehemently opposed the grant of imperium to Cassius and expressed his opposition before the people: Fam. 12.7.1), and the fact that these two speakers proposed alternative measures, reveals an altered mood within the senate. Consequently, Cicero must first discredit those options, which has the consequence of reducing the focus on Cassius since a greater proportion of the speech is devoted to the refutatio (Phil. 11.15–25).

Calenus had proposed a command for the consuls against Dolabella, but only when they had brought their campaign against Antonius to a conclusion.Footnote ⁴² Cicero argued against the proposal on the ground that it allowed a potentially dangerous delay. The second, rival proposal, offered by L. Caesar, advocated the appointment of P. Servilius (cos. 48), a privatus, to undertake the commission against Dolabella. Cicero similarly opposed this by arguing that it was inappropriate to appoint a non-magistrate when the traditional structures of the res publica were entirely adequate to meet the dangers of the current situation. Additionally, Cicero argued that if the senate were to appoint a private citizen, it would introduce a dangerous precedent that would encourage individuals to lobby for appointment via popular means within the august body of the senate. Only midway through the speech, after the sequence of events in the east has been established, is Cassius introduced into the debate (at Phil. 11.26; this is more than eleven pages into a speech of seventeen and a half OCT pages). This allows Cicero to establish a context in which Cassius' appointment appears the most appropriate strategy in the current circumstances. His late introduction within the speech elicited some puzzlement from Frisch, who hesitantly suggested that Philippic 11 was perhaps the merging of two speeches which were delivered on consecutive days. He argued that ‘the speech preserved by Cicero enters into the whole of Dolabella's crime in so great detail that it must have had the effect of mere repetition if he had spoken the day before as well. The explanation may of course be that when publishing them Cicero merged the two speeches into one; for the first part does not deal with the matter under debate’.Footnote ⁴³ There is, however, no evidence that Cicero delivered two separate speeches. Frisch did concede that the political context may have determined the structure of the oration, and he was no doubt correct in this assumption. Cicero's approach was tempered by an awareness of a hostile audience, and so he formulated his proposal only after he had offered arguments against the earlier two proposals, in order to dissuade the senate from accepting either of them. Then, Cicero had to counteract the potentially alarming reality that the conspirators might have under their control some twenty-one legions in the east (although the exact numbers were as yet unknown to Cicero and his audience), and these would constitute a disproportionate power in relation both to Antonius and to the senate's own military resources. Cicero's approach to Philippic 11, therefore, was tempered by the need to downplay the threat of such a force.

Consequently, the focus on Cassius himself is reduced. Cicero deals with the proposal for Cassius through a two-part confirmatio, yet neither part focusses primarily on the moral character of Cassius. Cicero first establishes an argument that emphasizes the benefits to be derived from Cassius' appointment. Cicero employs an argument of advantage by illustrating the means by which the res publica can preserve its safety and liberty.Footnote ⁴⁴ Cassius is presented as the most capable commander available to pursue this end: he was in the region and had forces at his immediate disposal, and he was renowned as a general by virtue of his role in leading the withdrawal from Carrhae after Crassus' failed Parthian campaign.Footnote ⁴⁵ Not only does Cassius provide security for the res publica but, as a peripheral benefit, he provides security for Rome's allies in Greece and Macedonia, although this is an addendum to Cicero's primary focus. When Cicero finally comes to suggest the option of Cassius he does not use the same language of praise as he had used of Brutus. Where the language of praise and morality is evoked, Cicero does so by linking Cassius with his primary moral exemplum, Brutus. Just as Antonius and Dolabella are paired in infamy in the opening passages of Philippic 11, so later are Brutus and Cassius paired in virtue: ‘these are great men, men of such ability, prestige and birth’ (essent tali virtute, auctoritate, nobilitate summi viri).Footnote ⁴⁶ Cassius was closely identified with Brutus, as both the instigator and co-leader of the conspiracy against Caesar, and this was an identification that Cicero could not avoid. Consequently, Cicero draws upon this association between the two leading conspirators throughout the speech. Cicero was much closer to Brutus than to Cassius, and ‘perhaps partly as a result he almost always joins the two men in the order “Brutus and Cassius”, which practically all modern writers echo’.Footnote ⁴⁷ Their connection was well known and Cicero plays upon that connection in his advocacy of a command for Cassius.Footnote ⁴⁸ Having established Brutus as a fair representative of republican principle, Cicero continues to link Cassius with his acknowledged moral compatriot.Footnote ⁴⁹ Cassius, in Cicero's advocacy, does not stand alone.

These constitutionally awkward (to say the least) activities of Brutus and Cassius are buried within an argument about what Cicero believed was in the best interests of the res publica. Cicero sought to empower Brutus to defend the res publica without recourse to legal precedent; but, as in the Pro lege Manilia, he had argued that new legal precedents could be set to meet the needs of changing circumstances.Footnote ⁵⁰ The argument, that those who were acting in the best interests of the republic (as judged by Cicero) should be given unlimited powers and the right to act independently of constitutional support, would provide a model that would be exploited by Augustus in order to justify his own unconstitutional actions.Footnote ⁵¹

Praise functions by providing character evidence for the probity of Brutus' conduct, and it anticipates Brutus' leadership as being consistent with traditional and conservative governance. Epideictic elements are therefore placed with an emphatic purpose: they are incorporated to convey Brutus' willingness to subordinate himself to the res publica and its institutions. Cicero uses the laudation of Brutus to divert attention away from the legal aspect of the debate to a moral one. The climax, building to Cicero's proposal within Philippic 11, emphasizes the moral pre-eminence of Brutus and, in turn, Cassius. In this way, Philippic 11 leans upon Philippic 10, building on the moral emphasis that Cicero had established in Philippic 10. Philippic 11 therefore assumes knowledge of Philippic 10 and shows that the published speeches are a textual continuity, and not just records of spoken performances, isolated from each other. We can look further back in the Philippic collection to find Cicero developing his justification for opposition to Antonius along similar lines. In Philippic 3 Cicero justified the actions of D. Brutus and Octavian by claiming that both had used their forces to prevent Antonius from marching on Rome and carrying out a massacre. Cicero advocated granting Octavian imperium in order to defend the res publica, since Octavian had, in effect, already begun the task. Cicero would subsequently praise Octavian for assuring the salvation of the res publica.Footnote ⁵² Cicero's justification of Cassius in the Eleventh echoes the language used of Octavian and D. Brutus in the Third in that pre-emptive action was necessary to prevent Antonius from his achieving his fatal ambitions. Octavian's actions were a model of vigour in contrast to a reticent and inactive senate and he was rewarded for doing so through Cicero's agency. Cicero celebrated the successes of D. Brutus and Octavian and marked the occasion as the point at which he laid down the foundations for peace.Footnote ⁵³Philippics 10 and 11 are extensions of this strategy, of retrospective endorsement of independent actions, and both are presented as a continuation of this policy.

These two orations outline the changing situation in the east, and trace the emergence of Brutus and Cassius from a period of self-imposed exile to a position in which they were now potent obstacles to Antonius with what would amount to a combined force of twenty-one legions.Footnote ⁵⁴ Irrespective of senatorial instruction, Brutus and Cassius colluded in securing the eastern provinces. To what degree their actions were preconceived is not clear, but what is clear is that when the conspirators acted they did so with ambitious purpose, quickly securing sizeable military forces which they would continue to supplement right up to the time of the battles at Philippi in 42.

Praise and invective are among the principal modes of deliberative and forensic oratory, and both are key features of Philippics 10 and 11. The use of invective, particularly, features broadly within the Philippic corpus because it helps shape an extra-legal response by excluding Antonius from a free and functioning res publica.Footnote ⁵⁵ The use of praise is less pervasive and perhaps less applicable within the vigour of senatorial debate for the period of the Philippics, but it is by no means absent.Footnote ⁵⁶Philippic 10 fits rhetorically and strategically within the sequence of orations. Brutus intervened in the province of Macedonia in order to deprive C. Antonius of his Macedonian command. His actions elicited due praise from Cicero, who delivered a panegyric before the senate in Philippic 10. Cicero approved of Brutus' intervention because it deprived the Antonians of a foothold in the Balkans, and secured for the senatorial government a stronghold for further activities.Footnote ⁵⁷ When Cicero delivered Philippic 11 he altered his arguments and rhetorical strategies despite the similarity of the proposals. This was done because the situation had changed and Cicero now needed to placate the senate regarding the Liberators' intentions. Cicero advocates a command for Cassius through the agency of Philippic 11 and in the wake of Philippic 10, on which it relies, but it stands as an independent reaction to events. The Eleventh describes a development in the situation and so fits within a chronological sequence. Together the two orations are used to reveal the spontaneity of resistance to Antonius' ambitions, a theme which Cicero uses to portray consensus across the empire. The more Cicero could emphasize unanimity, the more he could convey a sense of unity to those beyond the immediate political scene, whether or not that unanimity was as real as Cicero presented it. This could only be achieved by aligning Caesar's murderers, whom Antonius called the ‘Pompeian party’, with Caesar's son and other ex-Caesarians or neutrals within the senate. Philippics 10 and 11 present one side of the debate, but a side Cicero wished to disseminate by forwarding copies of the orations to Brutus and Cassius. It is not surprising that Philippic 11 was unsuccessful. Cicero's proposal was a controversial one and had to compete against at least two other proposals that were put forward on that day.

A comparison of the two speeches shows similar proposals, but the structure of each speech is determined by adjustments made by Cicero in response to an altered senatorial context. Cicero's rhetorical strategies in his senatorial oratory had to be responsive to the ever-changing political circumstances of the moment. Philippics 10 and 11 taken as a pair allow us to appreciate some of these subtleties. A structured speech can belie what were moments of opportunism within the senate, moments at which Cicero could most effectively promote his position and those of his friends. The density of the narrative within each speech is uneven and there is much variation given to the importance of certain acts. Cicero focusses his attention on the moral rectitude of Brutus, and the narrative is crafted to place emphasis on elements where evidence of this rectitude is most discernible. A similar practice is used in Philippic 11, but the narrative tends to focus instead on the many negative aspects of Dolabella's conduct. The context produces a more restrained tone within Philippic 10 and this displays little of the strident denigration of Antonius' cause that characterizes much of the Philippic corpus. Denigration of Antonius re-emerges in the Eleventh Philippic since Cicero is compelled to pursue a more vigorous and overtly persuasive denunciation of Dolabella and, in turn, Antonius. It is the similarity of the concluding proposals that tends to mask the markedly dissimilar approaches in Cicero's persuasive strategy in the two speeches.