The problem of Cicero's Pro Marcello

In September 46 bc, Cicero delivered a speech in the Senate, praising the dictator Caesar for the clemency and wisdom he had shown in pardoning M. Marcellus. The forgiveness of a man who had been, in Caesar's own words, characterized by particular acerbitas seemed all the more magnanimous, and Cicero recalls the occasion in a letter sent to his friend, S. Sulpicius Rufus. He was so overwhelmed by Caesar's generosity, he adds, that he broke a period of self-imposed silence and spoke at length when he was asked to give his opinion.Footnote ¹ The words he delivered apparently extempore were later written down and published, probably quite soon after the event of their delivery.Footnote ² It has come down to us as the Pro Marcello,Footnote ³ and in this speech Cicero does not just praise the dictator but also attempts to influence Caesar, and steer him towards a more republican attitude.Footnote ⁴

But, as with any speech delivered before an autocratic ruler, large questions arise when we consider the question of the speaker's motives and his sincerity, for the lavish compliments paid to Caesar, especially in the first third of the oration (Marcell. 4–12), evoke different and often completely opposing interpretations from modern readers.Footnote ⁵ Elizabeth Rawson states that, however grandiloquent his speech, Cicero is ‘entirely sincere’ in the Pro Marcello. Footnote ⁶ Yet others find it difficult to reconcile the praise of the dictator Caesar with Cicero's known feelings towards tyrants and tyranny; R. G. M Nisbet is perhaps representative of a generation of critics in claiming that ‘The flattery of the Pro Marcello leaves a nasty taste in the mouth’.Footnote ⁷ R. R. Dyer has gone so far as to argue that Cicero cannot possibly be sincere and that the speech is heavily figured; according to this view, whatever the context and purpose of the delivered speech, the published speech incites its readers towards tyrranicide.Footnote ⁸ Leaving aside unhelpful speculations about the relationship between the delivered and the published versions, however, this extreme explanation should be treated with some caution. As Michael Winterbottom has convincingly demonstrated, Cicero's sentiments in the Pro Marcello are generally consistent with those expressed in his private letters at the time.Footnote ⁹ This should not be taken to imply that Cicero is as sincere in the Pro Marcello as Rawson believes (Winterbottom is clear on this point); but it does offer suggestive proof that he was being neither hypocritical nor deceitful.Footnote ¹⁰

Indeed, for those wanting to defend Cicero against the charge of dissimulation, signs of his sincerity may be found in a comment in the letter he sent to S. Sulpicius Rufus describing the event:

From this we may infer that Cicero's hopes for the res publica were fuelled by a vision of its revival. Even allowing for a certain amount of self-justification in the letter, it is possible that Cicero saw the opportunity to regain some form of political influence. For this was not the first time that he had expressed his belief that the constitution could be restored; in a letter to Varro in April the same year (46 bc), Cicero had even suggested his readiness, if called upon, to join in the work of rebuilding it.Footnote ¹¹ Those who read the speech from this perspective hence skip over the problem of Cicero's sincerity, and attach most importance to the political agenda that he sets forth in the latter part of the oration.Footnote ¹²

But this cannot be the end of the story. By the fourth century ad there was already a train of thought that questioned the sincerity of Cicero's fulsome praise and believed instead that there was an underlying current of criticism. According to a frequently cited comment by the Gronovian scholiast, ‘Many think that this speech is heavily figured, and they explain it as if it contains more blame than praise’ (plerique putant figuratam esse istam orationem, et sic exponuit quasi plus vituperationis habeat quam laudis; Stangl 295–6). However, the scholiast dismisses this interpretation: ‘This suits neither the times nor Caesar. For the time is such that Caesar may be encouraged towards clemency by sincere praise, and Caesar is not the sort of orator who can be deceived’ (hoc nec temporibus convenit nec Caesari. nam et tempus tale est ut vera laude Caesar inducatur ad clementiam et Caesar orator est qui non possit falli; ibid.). What this means, according to the scholiast, is that the speech would have failed had Caesar realized he was being criticized; hence Cicero's praise must have been sincere praise (laus vera).

However, in focusing on the problem of Cicero's actual sincerity, a fundamental part of Cicero's rhetorical challenge in the Pro Marcello has been overlooked: that is, the challenge facing Cicero as he delivered his first speech since the civil war and his very public praise to a man whom he had opposed in that war, and whose autocratic power he doubtless still viewed with some misgiving.Footnote ¹³ Important steps in this direction have been made in recent scholarship as studies have begun to focus more on Cicero's persona, agenda, and persuasive strategies in the speech.Footnote ¹⁴ Indeed, a consensus appears to have been emerging over the past few decades that the speech is a political suasoria:Footnote ¹⁵ praise is thus combined with protreptic,Footnote ¹⁶ and even admonition.Footnote ¹⁷ Cicero is therefore deferent towards Caesar (‘if I may speak by your leave’, pace dicam tua; Marcell. 4), yet he simultaneously insists that his ability to speak frankly has been renewed (‘this day marks the beginning of my former custom of expressing my hopes and opinions’, hodiernus dies attulit…initium quae vellem quaeque sentirem meo pristino more dicendi; Marcell. 1).

The affectation of parrhesia in these lines is an essential part of Cicero's self-presentation. As Harold C. Gotoff has convincingly shown, Cicero assumes the persona of a political advisor throughout the Pro Marcello, and he uses this feature of the speech to explain how Cicero could combine his praise with arguments that may otherwise have seemed ‘unwelcome’, such as the praise of Marcellus, his defence of the Pompeians in general, or the pressing urgency with which he exhorts Caesar to restore the republic.Footnote ¹⁸ And yet, if we accept that textual analyses will reveal at best how Cicero wanted his audience to perceive him, it should be clear that there is still work to be done on understanding precisely how Cicero could project this persona in a manner that was both persuasive and credible: that is to say, how he could create an ethos of sincerity.Footnote ¹⁹

When we review the evidence of the Grovonian scholiast and Cicero's letter to S. Sulpicius Rufus, we can see that both sources appear to point towards this very dilemma. To begin with, the scholiast himself dismisses the suggestion that the speech is ‘figured’, on the grounds that ‘it suits neither the times nor Caesar’ (nec temporibus convenit nec Caesari, cited above). In order to succeed in winning Caesar's pardon for more of his Republican comrades, as he later went on to do, Cicero needed to convince Caesar that his support was sincerely offered. Secondly, in the same letter in which Cicero expresses his vision of the republic's revival, he admits that he had also spoken to avoid the dictator's displeasure, ‘who might be led to think that I do not consider the current constitution a res publica, if I were to maintain my silence forever’ (qui fortasse arbitraretur me hanc rem publicam non putare si perpetuo tacerem; Fam. 4.4.4). In other words, Cicero also needed to assure Caesar that he did not perceive the current regime as unconstitutional and to speak in a manner that maintained that impression.

In short, the problem of the Pro Marcello is this: Cicero needed to present a credible persona as he publicly voiced his commitment to Caesar for the first time. Furthermore, he also needed to urge Caesar to restore constitutional freedom without openly branding the dictator's present behaviour ‘un-republican’. Hence, I suggest, the question should not be whether Cicero was, in fact, sincere. Rather, we should ask: how did Cicero persuade Caesar that he was sincere, and how did he employ ethos to that effect?

These are the questions that I seek to address in this article, for, although the important role of ethical arguments in Cicero's speeches has been well documented by James M. May, he neglects to discuss the Pro Marcello at all. A justification for this omission may be found in his conclusion that Cicero's own personality had to ‘move into the background’ in his later speeches, and that it operated under the shadows of mightier men.Footnote ²⁰ But if this statement is partially true of the first half of the Pro Marcello,Footnote ²¹ in which Cicero first expresses his elaborate praise of Caesar (Marcell. 4–12) and then offers a defence against his and his comrades' actions in supporting Pompey (Marcell. 13–20), it does not explain the confidence with which Cicero presents himself in the latter half of the oration (Marcell. 21–34). For it is here in particular that he assumes the persona of a reliable political advisor to the dictator; and he must rely on ethos to persuade Caesar to this end.

The argument presented here is that Cicero utilized allusions to his own De republica to project his persona convincingly, and that in so doing he managed both to preserve his self-image as the Republican spokesman par excellence, and to reconcile it with his position in Caesar's autocracy. In the next section, I shall therefore provide the background for understanding the central tenets of the De republica before analysing, in the final section, how echoes of this treatise are embedded within the argumentation of the Pro Marcello.

The philosophical background: Cicero's De republica Footnote ²²

Five years before the Pro Marcello was delivered, in 51 bc, Cicero had published his De republica, and there is evidence to suggest that it received immediate acclaim. To judge from the letter of Caelius, sent to Cicero later the same year, it was being read widely by men of all political inclinations (Fam. 8.1.4). And while the De republica does not purport to be a political manifesto, as reflected by the choice of a dialogue form, nevertheless certain points are made with a sufficient level of conviction that it is possible to build a largely coherent picture of Cicero's political philosophy. Even in its fragmentary state, then, a number of key notions arise.Footnote ²³

The first of these is that the res publica should be immortal: it was never dead but could be revived. Much of Book 1 of the De republica is devoted to a discussion on the best form of state (Rep. 1.38–71), concluding ultimately that the mixed constitution is the superior (Rep. 1.69). Scipio's speech, which dominates the debate, consequently bears a striking resemblance to that of the Greek historian Polybius (Polyb. 6.3–18), as well as to ideas of the mixed constitution going back to Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and others. However, there is a significant difference: unlike Polybius' version of the mixed constitution, whose cycle through the simple constitutions is fixed and inflexible, Cicero's version, put into the mouth of Scipio, makes it abundantly clear that there is no set order of change:

As we shall see more clearly below, it is the task of the wise statesman to protect the constitution from suffering these changes, and indeed Scipio is made to suggest that ‘such changes will not easily take place in the best type of state’ (etsi minime facile eas in ea re publica futuras; Rep. 1.65). In fact, later in the dialogue, Cicero even makes Laelius state that the res publica is immortal: ‘Death is not natural for the state, as it is for a human being’ (nullus interitus est rei publicae naturalis, ut hominis; Rep. 3.33 OCT = 3.34 Z).Footnote ²⁵

The second notion is that in times of emergency the ‘ideal’ statesman should steer the res publica through its perils. What protects the constitution from the changes outlined in De republica 1.65–8 is the wisdom to foresee and prevent them; this calls for a great and almost divine man (Rep. 1.45). This is the first appearance in the text of Cicero's rector rei publicae, a topic to which much scholarly attention has been dedicated, but which, it has been argued, equates simply with our notion of a ‘professional statesman’.Footnote ²⁶ Thus it is not a political office, nor is the rector a dictator or other autocratic ruler; rather he is the ideal statesman who, by his wisdom (sapientia or prudentia), serves somehow to preserve the mixed constitution. This topic was clearly subjected to a much fuller level of analysis in Book 6 of the De republica, for the fragments that survive up to the beginning of the somnium Scipionis (Rep. 6.13–33 OCT = 6.9–29 Z) consider the duties, virtues, and role of the statesman in a crisis.

The third key notion is that morality is integral to the revival of the res publica; it falls on the rector to ensure that the state is well ordered. In a fragment of the De republica, quoted by Cicero in a letter to Atticus, Cicero refers to his belief that the aim of the ideal statesman should be directed at the greatest good:

Thus it is the statesman's duty to guard the citizens' beata vita, and this can be achieved ‘partly by inherited customs and partly by laws’ (partim institutis, alia legibus; Rep. 4.3).Footnote ²⁷ Marriage, legitimate children, and religious practices are all essential in a well-ordered state (Rep. 3.3 OCT = 5.6–7 Z), which in turn guarantees the citizens' wellbeing (Rep. 4.3).Footnote ²⁸

Finally, Cicero puts forward the idea that the best citizen owes a duty towards the country above all other duties, and that the rewards are significant, both in this life and in the life to come. Since the task of the ideal statesman is to protect the welfare of the state's citizens, and because their happiness can only be guaranteed within a good state, it follows that the ideal statesman cannot retire from public life. In fact, much of what survives of the preface to Book 1 is a polemic against philosophic, and particularly Epicurean, recommendations against public life (Rep. 1.4–11). Rather, Cicero argues, men owe a duty to their country (Rep. 1.8), and good statesmen are offered rewards that are more lasting than statues and triumphs (Rep 6.12 OCT = 6.8 Z): ‘for all those who have either saved, helped, or enhanced their country, a special place has been set aside in heaven, where they may enjoy a life of eternal blessedness’ (omnibus qui patriam conservaverint adiuverint auxerint, certum esse in caelo definitum locum, ubi beati aevo sempiterno fruantur; Rep. 6.13).

Creating an ethos of sincerity in the Pro Marcello

Cicero often used the precepts of the De republica as a standard by which he could evaluate both his own political performance and that of his contemporaries.Footnote ²⁹ It was, after all, as he described it in a letter to his brother Quintus, a treatise ‘on the best condition of the state and the best citizen’ (de optimo statu ciuitatis et de optimo ciue; Cic. Q. Fr. 3.5.1). Hence it is highly likely that he had this text in mind as he was forced to consider afresh the nature of the res publica under Caesar's dictatorship, as well as its possible revival thereafter.Footnote ³⁰ Once one starts to look for echoes of the De republica in the Pro Marcello, however, they begin to stand out with a level of prominence that requires some explanation. In fact, I would suggest that they expose a desire on Cicero's part to display an ethos possessed of enough experience to advise Caesar on matters of state, and enough sincerity to be a trustworthy advisor. Cicero's political treatise thus acts as an intertext for the speech, with the result that ‘Cicero’ in the Pro Marcello is made to speak like ‘Cicero’, the author of the De republica.

The allusions are most strongly evident in the second half of the Pro Marcello, in which Cicero turns his attention to the future; for it is here that he urges Caesar to restore the res publica and to take thought both for his duty and for lasting glory. This section starts as Cicero dramatically turns to refute Caesar's fears over rumours of an alleged conspiracy against his life (Marcell. 21–3).Footnote ³¹ To begin with, he attempts to allay Caesar's concern with the rather specious argument that he has no opponents left to fear(!), before comforting him with the thought that all men now realize that their own survival is dependent on his:

Cicero openly admits, therefore, that he has feelings of fear (extimesco) and grief (doleo) at the current state of affairs. When this passage is read against the contents of the De republica, however, these statements appear to be genuine reflections on the ideal permanence of the constitution, combined with the tacit admission that there are pitfalls in retaining its stability. But now the reflective comment of the De republica (‘death is not natural for the state, as it is for a human being’, nullus interitus est rei publicae ut hominis) has been replaced by the more regretful expression doleoque, cum res publica immortalis esse debeat, eam in unius mortalis anima consistere.

Critics of the speech are doubtless right to detect a ‘sting’ in this last sentence: paranomasia (immortalis/mortalis), oxymoron (res publica/unus), and the use of the verb debeo all serve to emphasize the gap between the ideal and reality.Footnote ³² But the parenthetical remark, cum res publica immortalis esse debeat, also conveys a tone of resignation, a resignation which seems natural in the context of the De republica, where, as we have seen, the ideal statesman should steer the res publica through its perils in a crisis. It is clear that Cicero's head was full of the romantic notion of a powerful saviour upon whom the safety of the state depended; at times he may have seen himself in that role,Footnote ³³ or at the least as the saviour's advisor, ‘playing Laelius Sapiens to a modern Scipio Africanus’, as Gotoff puts it.Footnote ³⁴ But the important point to note is that, in the famous scene of Scipio's dream, Cicero had already made the phantom of the elder Africanus use precisely this same paradox to encourage Scipio Aemilianus to restore the res publica: ‘you [Scipio] will be the one upon whom the safety of the state rests, and in brief, it will fall on you as dictator to restore the res publica’ (tu eris unusin quo nitatur civitatis salus, ac ne multa dictator rem publicamconstituas oportet; Rep. 6.12). Hence, we need not presume that Caesar would have felt the ‘sting’ too sharply. Rather, by adapting his philosophical reflections on the state of the res publica to the oratorical situation, Cicero reminds Caesar of his credibility and experience as an advisor. This tactic enables him to introduce his urgent advice to Caesar and thus, picking up from the lead of res publica/unus, he continues: ‘It is for you alone, Gaius Caesar, to reanimate all that you see shattered and laid low, as was inevitable, by the shock of the war itself’ (omnia sunt excitanda tibi, C. Caesar, uni, quae iacere sentis belli ipsius impetu, quod necesse fuit, perculsa atque prostrata; Marcell. 23).

The liveliness of the metaphor excitanda is significant because it evokes an image of Caesar shaking the dying res publica back to life. Such an association between Caesar and the res publica can be seen on coinage pertaining to the period 49–44 bc,Footnote ³⁵ and it may also reflect images of Roma kneeling at Caesar's feet.Footnote ³⁶ Thus Cicero phrases his appeal to Caesar in terms that carry Caesar's own ‘propagandistic’ message.Footnote ³⁷ In so doing he manages to align his personal desire for the restoration of the res publica with Caesar's own agenda, to show that they are striving towards the same goal, and even to bind him to it. This strategy of persuasion is further continued as Cicero offers his explicit advice on how to restore order within the community: ‘law courts must be established, credit restored, licentiousness must be checked, and the birth rate increased; all that has become disintegrated and dissipated must be knit together by stringent legislation’ (constituenda iudicia, revocanda fides, comprimendae libidines, propaganda suboles, omnia, quae dilapsa iam diffluxerunt, severis legibus vincienda sunt; Marcell. 23).

It is important to note here that Cicero's recommendations refer to reforms that were already being implemented by Caesar, which means that Cicero is not setting forth his own political programme here, as some have thought.Footnote ³⁸ As Suetonius explicitly states, such policies had been in place since 49 bc,Footnote ³⁹ and so praise derives from the fact that progress has already been made. But the systematic approach proposed by Cicero and his call for stringent legislation corresponds neatly to the emphasis placed on morality in the De republica, and in particular to Cicero's proviso there that it must be upheld ‘partim institutis, alia legibus’ (‘partly by inherited customs and partly by laws’).Footnote ⁴⁰

Indeed, the provisions identified by Cicero in the De republica, as in the Pro Marcello, constitute a ‘system’ within which marriages, legitimate children, and religious practices all occupy a central place: ‘A system has been provided for the purposes of life and its practical conduct, namely, legal marriages, legitimate children, and sacred shrines belonging to the household gods and the family Lares’ (ad vitam autem usumque vivendi ea descripta ratio est iustis nuptiis, legitimis liberis, sanctis Penatium deorum Larumque familiarium sedibus; Rep. 3.3 OCT = 5.6–7 Z).Footnote ⁴¹ Although there are no verbal allusions to confirm the relationship between the two texts in this instance, even so it seems highly likely that Cicero, reflecting on how the res publica might best be revived, would call the central tenets of his De republica to mind. As a result, his advice in the Pro Marcello is neither new nor surprising; rather he commends Caesar for attempting to implement policies of which he approves, and he urges him to see them through to completion.

Like a doctor, then, Caesar must heal the wounds of war (tibi nunc omnia belli volnera sananda sunt, quibus praeter te mederi nemo potest; Marcell. 24). The analogy is suggestive of the comparison that Cicero had already drawn in the De republica: namely, that if the doctor's aim is to heal, so the ideal statesman's duty is to preserve the state.Footnote ⁴² And again we see that, in such instances, the importance of a single expert is championed, for ‘it is better to entrust a ship to one helmsman and a sick man to one doctor’ (unigubernatori, unimedico…rectius esse alteri navem commitere, aegrum alteri; Rep. 1.62). Likewise, it is the idea of a wounded res publica, which Caesar alone can heal (quibus praeter te mederi nemo potest), that brings Cicero to confront rumours that Caesar is resigned to death:

The sarcasm with which Cicero treats Caesar's alleged resolve hardly needs stressing: the superlatives praeclarissimus and sapientissimus alone indicate that he is speaking with tongue in cheek here.Footnote ⁴³ But it is the combination of these superlatives that is important to note, for Cicero's words strikingly recall those used in the preface to Book 1 of the De republica, as well as the whole spirit of his polemic against the philosophic devaluation of civic responsibility. There, we may recall, Cicero had attacked those who advise against political life and he offered, by way of counter-argument and correction, the ‘discussion of the most famous and the wisest men in our state of another generation’ (unius aetatis clarissimorumac sapientissimorumnostrae civitatis virorum disputatio; Rep. 1.13). In the Pro Marcello, Cicero cuts short the lengthy refutation of the philosophers' arguments that we find in the De republica, but his self-presentation as an authority on civic responsibility in the treatise serves well to remind us of the stance he may have been seeking to adopt in front of Caesar, too:

Far from approving of Caesar's ‘wisdom’, then, Cicero corrects his philosophical tendencies and attempts to steer him towards a reconsideration of what it really means to be a clarus and sapiens statesman. His refutation continues through sections 25–7, and it is here, I believe, that the echoes of the De republica are at their most striking:

To begin with, we may note that the underlying argument of De republica 1.4–11 – that a man's duty is to his country – is echoed in Cicero's insistence that Caesar does not live for himself alone. Shortly afterwards, Cicero even expands this idea to argue that Caesar can only claim to have discharged his obligations when he has restored the res publica: ‘Then and only then, if you wish, when you have paid your debt to your country, and when you have satisfied nature herself with the fullness of your life, can you say you have lived long enough’ (tum te, si voles, cum et patriae quod debessolveris, et naturam ipsam expleveris satietate vivendi, satis diu vixisse dicito; Marcell. 27). Not only is Cicero recalling the notion that the res publica can be revived, but the image of a ‘debt’ harks back to the opening premise of the De republica: ‘Since our country provides more benefits, and is an older parent than those who gave birth to us, a greater debt is owed to it than to our parents’ (sic quoniam plura beneficia continent patria, et est antiquior parens quam is qui creavit, maior ei profecto quam parenti debeturgratia; Rep. [fragmenta prooemii], 1).Footnote ⁴⁴

This expectation receives further attention in the somnium Scipionis, where Scipio Africanus the elder tells Scipio Aemilianus of his duty to save the res publica (rem publicam constituas oportet; Rep. 6.16 OCT = 6.12 Z), having first encouraged him towards such action with the promise of eternal rewards:

In the Pro Marcello, too, Cicero attributes the quality of divina virtus to Caesar, and he uses it to encourage the dictator to redefine his narrow view of gloria: ‘please see to it that your godlike virtue does not accrue more admiration than actual glory’ (vide, quaeso, ne tua divina virtusadmirationis plus sit habitura quam gloria; Marcell. 26). True glory, he explains, does not lie in defeated opponents (Marcell. 26). Instead, just as Scipio Africanus had urged Scipio Aemilianus in the De republica, Cicero gives Caesar the simple and direct message that he must save the res publica (ut rem publicam constituas; Marcell. 27; cf. Rep. 6.16 OCT = 6.12 Z). Cicero's message to Caesar thus looks very much like a paraphrase of the words he had made Scipio Africanus deliver to Scipio Aemilianus. That this suggestion may be correct can be corroborated by another passage in the Pro Marcello, in which he also borrows the idea that political virtues bring more lasting rewards than military triumphs. For in commending Caesar's decision to pardon Marcellus, he states that: ‘while the passage of time will bring an end to your trophies and monuments…your justice and moderation will flourish daily ever more (ut tropaeis et monumentis tuis adlatura finem sit aetas…at haec tua iustitia et lenitas florescet cotidie magis; Marcell. 11).

Indeed, if we look again at the first half of the Pro Marcello in the light of the evidence presented so far, we see that echoes of the De republica are already contributing to the larger picture that Cicero builds up throughout the speech. For the mention of Caesar's iustitia and lenitas in the quotation above is part of a wider strategy in the speech to connect Caesar with the ideology of an ‘ideal ruler’ and encourage him to fill his potential. In two passages in particular Cicero characterizes Caesar's lenience towards Marcellus as ‘an act of mercy, mildness, justice, moderation, and wisdom’ (aliquid clementer, mansuete, iuste, moderate, sapienter factum; Marcell. 9). These virtues belong to a tradition going back to Plato's identification of four virtues (Resp. 4.427e10–11): phronēsis (wisdom), andreia (courage), sōphrosunē (self-control), and dikaiosunē (justice), which may themselves have provided the structural principle for Cicero's discussion of the rector rei publicae in the De republica.Footnote ⁴⁵ But the climatic position given to sapientia anticipates the theme of the second half of the speech, Caesar's sapientia. Footnote ⁴⁶ This is not the sapientia of a philosopher but of a statesman, and, in this connection, we may recall that in the De republica the best citizen must use this virtue to protect the res publica from the cycles of political change:

Hence it cannot be an accident that Cicero uses this exact formula to praise Caesar's wisdom as ‘almost divine’ in the very first line of the Pro Marcello, when he claims that ‘such great humanity, such unusual and unheard of clemency, such incredible and almost divine wisdom in one who holds the greatest power over all things, I am scarcely able to pass over in silence’ (tantam enim mansuetudinem, tam inusitatam inauditamque clementiam, tantum in summa potestate rerum omnium modum, tam denique incredibilem sapientiam ac paene divinam, tacitus praeterire nullo modo possum; Marcell. 1).

That Cicero opens the speech with a conceited reference to his return to politics has long been noticed.Footnote ⁴⁷ In the same way, he ends the oration with a focus on himself: ‘There is no need for everyone to stand up and speak, but they all at least want a speech from me’ (sed quia non est omnibus stantibus necesse dicere, a me certe dici volunt; Marcell. 33–4). As I hope to have shown, however, Cicero's self-presentation is a matter of concern throughout the speech, even though he is less explicit in revealing his personality. Rather, I have suggested, Cicero expends much time and effort to create a persona that appears to be aware and cautious of the dangers that threaten the res publica, yet who trusts in Caesar's ability to meet the challenge; that is, to display an ethos possessed of enough experience, reliability, and authority to advise the dictator while simultaneously retaining the stance of an independent spokesman. Thus he lets the authorial persona of the De republica serve as the proof of Ciceronian ‘sincerity’ in the Pro Marcello, with the result that the advice offered in each work derives from the same ideological principles. If we were to strip the advice of the Pro Marcello down to its barest outlines, the argument, after having established that there is no assassination attempt against Caesar, would run something like this:

In short, read from this perspective, the argument of the Pro Marcello echoes the central tenets of Cicero's treatise De republica.

None of this should be taken to suggest that Cicero is sincere, or that he viewed Caesar as the kind of enlightened statesman he had recommended as his ideal in the De republica. But it does, I think, explain how he could appear to be sincere, and how he could exhort Caesar to restore the res publica in words that the dictator would understand to be truly Ciceronian. And thus, to return to the dilemma cited by the Gronovian scholiast, it was by these means that the Pro Marcello – with its appeal to the best man to preserve the best constitution – enabled Cicero to make his reconciliation by speaking in a way that suited both the times and Caesar.

Taking this argument further, we must remember that there is, of course, a darker message to the De republica than my summary has so far suggested, for the survival or destruction of the res publica depends on its leaders (Rep. 5.1–2), and the tyrant who threatens the eternity of the state must be deposed (Rep. 1.65). This task, too, falls upon the wise statesman. Lucius Brutus had set the example during the tyranny of Tarquinius Superbus (Rep. 2.46), and P. Scipio Nasica had followed his lead in freeing Rome of Tiberius Gracchus (Rep. 6.12 OCT = 6.8 Z). Commenting on the introductory dialogue of the somnium Scipionis, Macrobius even tells us that ‘Laelius complained that no statues of Nasica had been erected in public to commemorate his assassination of the tyrant’ (Laelius quereretur, nullas Nasicae statuas in public in interfecti tyranni remunerationem locates; Macr. In Somn. 1.4.2–3), and that it was this remark that prompted Scipio's response that ‘there are longer-lasting and fresher rewards, which he had seen with his own eyes, preserved for good statesmen’ (illa esse stabiliora et viridiora praemiorum genera, quae ipse vidisset in caelo, bonis rerum publicarum servata rectoribus; ibid.). This point should not be passed over without comment, for, if the echoes of the De republica were indeed as explicit to Cicero's contemporary audience as I have suggested, then its forceful caveat – that tyrants will be assassinated – would not have been lost on Caesar.