<document>
<page>
<par>
<line>
www4.fsane*.com.br/revista
</line>
<line>
Rev. FSA, Teresin*, v. 13, n. 5, art. 1*, p. 185-206, set./out. 2016
</line>
<line>
I*S* I**resso: 1806-6356 IS*N *le*rônico: 2317-298*
</line>
<line>
http://dx.do*.org/10.*2819/2016.13.5.11
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Commentary on Philippics *hree an* Four
</line>
<line>
Comentário Sobre Filípica* T*ês e Quart*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Jo*athan **villa de Lera
</line>
<line>
P*.*. in Philosop*y / Universit* of Ba*c*lona
</line>
<line>
Lect*rer of the Uni**rsit* of the Bas*ue C*untry
</line>
<line>
*-m*il: jona*han.lavilla@ehu.eus
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
E*de*eço: Jonathan La***la de Lera
</line>
<line>
*ditor Científi*o: Tonny Ke*ley de Alenc*r Rodrigues
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Ende*eç*: Facultad de Edu*ación, Fil*so*ía y
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Antr**ología (*PV-*HU) Av. Tolosa, *, Z**code:
</line>
<line>
Art*go recebido em 27/*6/*016. Últim*
</line>
<line>
versão
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
2001*, Donostia, Gipuzko* (Spa*n).
</line>
<line>
recebida em *9/07/*01*. Apro*ado em 20/0*/20*6.
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
*valiado p*lo s*stema Triple R*view: Desk Review a)
</line>
<line>
pelo Editor-C*efe; e b) Double Bl*n* R*v*ew
</line>
<line>
(*vali*ção **ga por dois avali*d*res d* área).
</line>
<line>
Revis*o: Gramat**a*, Normativa e de Formataç*o
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lav*l*a Lera
</line>
<line>
186
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
**S*RAC*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
This pap*r offers a c**mentary *n Phili*pics Thre* and F*ur. Firstl*, it gives *n hist*rical
</line>
<line>
bac**round. Sec*ndly, it deals w*th t*e *hetorical context i* w*ich Phi*ippics **ree an*
</line>
<line>
Fourwere designed. Do*ng so, i* *ill consider some of the k*ys of Cic*ro\s rhetorical art and
</line>
<line>
ma*tery o* t*e languag*. Finally, i* ana*y*es b*th texts as co*plex rhetorical arte*acts.
</line>
<line>
Keyw*rds: *i*ero. Ph*lippics. Rhetorics.
</line>
<line>
R*SUMO
</line>
<line>
Este a*ti** faz um c*mentá*io sob*e *ilíp*cas Três e Quatro. P*ime*ramente, ele nos *á um
</line>
<line>
contexto his*ó**co. *egundo, an*lisa o conte*to r*tórico no qu*l Filípica* Três e Quatro foram
</line>
<line>
desenhad*s. S*nd* assim, considera alguns pont*s chav* na r*tórica artística e no domí*io da
</line>
<line>
lingu*gem *e Cicero. P*r último, analisam ambos os tex*os como ar**fatos de retórica
</line>
<line>
complexa.
</line>
<line>
Pa*a**as-*have: Cic**o. Ph*ll*p**cs. Retóri*a.
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
Rev. F*A, Teresi*a, v. 13, n. 5, art. 1*, p. *85-206, s*t./out. 2016
</line>
<line>
www4.fsanet.com.*r/*e*ista
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
Commen*ary on Philippi*s **r*e **d Four
</line>
<line>
187
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
1. HI*TORICAL BACKGROU*D
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
T*e Phi*ippics (P*ilippica* [oratio*es]) of Cicero date back to one of the most
</line>
<line>
**nvulsed phases *f the History of Rome. The c*v*l wars ar* shaking v*o*e*tly the city, where
</line>
<line>
constant st*uggles, c*n*piracies and murder* make im*o*sible a period of peace an* pol*tical
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
stab*li*y. Somehow, w*en C. Iulius *aesar a*c*pt** the *f*i**
</line>
<line>
of Dict*tor *o* *ife (*ict*t*r
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
per*etuu*), many citiz*n* *xpecte* that u*der his **w*r the peace *nd the stability will be
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
r*covered, as a sick body recovers the *ealth under the supervisio* of an expert
</line>
<line>
physician.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Neverthel*ss, the *olitical facts soon d*monstrat*d th*t this *e*ling *as by no means shared
</line>
<line>
by **l th* Romans. Whe* it became cle*r that Caesar would not give up to his ex**aordinary
</line>
<line>
powers*, some people agreed i* the ne*d to avoid this dev*lopment of the facts. Caesar\
</line>
<line>
sp*wer had *tri*ed the Senate and the an*ually e*ected magi*trates of t*eir a*thor*ty, whi*h,
</line>
<line>
for those men that wou*d plan the murder of *ae*ar, was totall* unacceptable. For th*m, the
</line>
<line>
leader*hip of Caesar d*d not mean reco*ering the health of **e Eternal Cit*, but losing th*
</line>
<line>
status of free citize*s, *.e. to be*o*e slaves. Differently *tated, all*wing the full auth*rit* o*
</line>
<line>
*aesar meant to r*nounc* to the res *ublica *n order to win a fake pea*e u*d*r th* leadersh*p
</line>
<line>
of a tyrant.
</line>
<line>
In th*s t*rbul*nt atmosphe*e, a *arge *roup of s*na*ors, the so calle* *onspira**rs,
</line>
<line>
risked thei* l*fe in order *res*rv* *he republican sy*t*m and the political freed*m. On the Ides
</line>
<line>
*f March 44 BCE *hey assa*sinated Ca*sa* at a *eetin* of the Senate*.Howev*r, the intent of
</line>
<line>
rest*rati*n o* the *epublican s*stem di* not s*c*eed at all. Al*h*ug* t*e con*pirators *ried to
</line>
<line>
wi* popula* support a*d legitimate their pla*, they did no* found th* required support. The
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
s**bility of th* city thr*atened once again to be harshly
</line>
<line>
brok*n, divided
</line>
<line>
b*tween **e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
s*pporters of Ca*sar and ***se tha* wanted t* restore the ancie*t Rep*b*ic. To
</line>
<line>
av*i* a n*w
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
ci*il wa* a*d to recover the calm, Marcus Anto*ius called the **nate on 17 March a*d it was
</line>
<line>
agre*d to *ive am**s*y to Caesar\* murderer*, but also to rati*ya*l the laws promulgated by
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
C*esa*. The int*rnal battle *ad been ave**ed, but w*thout de*initi*ely solving
</line>
<line>
th e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
discordances. I* fact, n**e of the two f*ction* w*** t*t*lly s*t*sfied. *espite Caes*r wa* no*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*live and th* conspirators had
</line>
<line>
not to pay pun*sh*en* for their plot, the acta Caesa*is were
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
vali* and the Senate had not *t*en*th e*ough to con*in*e wi*h **e restoration *f *he Republic.
</line>
<line>
Marcus A*tonius had leaded th* si*u*tion in *uch * way that e**n i* t*e civil str*g*le and the
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
*unn*u* *rutus.
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
*e*. FSA, Ter**ina PI, v. 13, n. *, art. 11, p. 185-206, set/out. *016
</line>
<line>
www4.fs**et.*o*.br/r*vista
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lavilla Le*a
</line>
<line>
188
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
poli*ical *haos had bee* *voided for a *hile, the con*licts had n*t fi*is*e*. In *act, there was
</line>
<line>
an **c*easing hostil*t* *n the ci*y aga*nst *he murd*rers ** C*esar and ma** of the* *ecided
</line>
<line>
to leave the c*ty so as *o n*t to risk t*eir life. Signif*cantly, M. Br*tus had to le*v* th* cit* the
</line>
<line>
12 Ap*il.
</line>
<line>
In*tially, after **e **sassin*tion of Caesar, Mar*us Ant*niu* showed a Re*ublic*n
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*tt**ude. T*us, Rome approved some *eas*res, as the abol*t*on
</line>
<line>
o* the o**ice of the d*ctato*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*erpe**us, which *e*me* t* prevent magistrate* from following t** s*me st*ps *f Ca*sa*, i.e.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
from the e*ce*s o* power. *eve***eless, so*n his
</line>
<line>
polic* sta*ted to appear egoistical and
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
monarchical, so th* cons*irators and some other peopl* started to consider t*e new attitude of
</line>
<line>
Anto*ius dang*rous and inaccept*bl* *or the r*s*ublic*. Precis*ly, M. Tull*us *i*e*o was *ne
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
of
</line>
<line>
tho*e wh* s*arte* to suspect that A*tonius was see*ing f** abso**t* pow**, which w*u*d
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
strip *he Senate of his a*th*rit*3. E*en if *ic*ro probably did not participate *n th* *l*t
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
against Caesa*4, *e
</line>
<line>
fully
</line>
<line>
ag**ed with
</line>
<line>
the actio* of the consp*rators, as for hi* *hey had
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*on*r*bute* to avoi* th*t *he res p*blica became a dic*atoria* *onarch*. *rom h*s viewpoin*
</line>
<line>
t*ey were n*t conspira*ors, but li*er*tors. In th* same way, *e con*i*e*ed neces*ary to figh*
</line>
<line>
at th*t time against the still incum*ent consul A*to*ius, *inc* it was the *nly wa* to pr*serve
</line>
<line>
the political freedom and a t*u*h pace. As Manu*ald (2007a, p.93) wro*e, "In Ci**ro\s v*ew
</line>
<line>
Marcus Anton*us w*s the m**n cause of danger t* the *espubl**a". However, it *s obvious t*at
</line>
<line>
going again*t *he still inc*mbe*t **nsul was *ot an easy or clear *ask, but a co*plic*te* and
</line>
<line>
*angerous one. *f co**se, C*cero was not alo*e, but he *ad to *ncrea*e **s alliances as much
</line>
<line>
as possible in order to f*ght for th* republi*an sy*tem and ag*i*st t*eir enemi*s.
</line>
<line>
Undou*te*ly, on* *f th* strongest w*apon* of **is hom* n*vus was th* po*er of
</line>
<line>
. That is, the best way in which he could f**h* with Marc*s *nton*us was by means of
</line>
<line>
th* speeches. In f*ct, hi* P*ili**i*s, also known as O**ti*ns agains* *a*cu* A*tonius
</line>
<line>
(o*ati*n*s An*onia*ae or ora*iones *n Antonium), are part of *his policy. In a* analogo*s way
</line>
<line>
as Demos*henes did *t agains* Philip ** of Macedon, Cice*o fo*ght ardent*y with his enemy t*
</line>
<line>
save his cou*try. Of **urse, we do not intent to mean that the fight of the expert **ator *as
</line>
<line>
j*st v*rbal, but the best way in which *n expe*t rhetorician can transform the wor*d in *hi*h
</line>
<line>
he *ive* is none o*her but by means o* * disc***ive str*tegy. Cicero a** th*ir allies we*e not
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
strong *nough
</line>
<line>
to direct*y go against the *urrent con*ul. Ne*ertheless, wit* his disco*rse
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*evice -among *ther tools, *e could launch a
</line>
<line>
*olicy ag*ins* him, trying to persua*e
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
Cicero ha* early *n arrive* at *he opinion tha* An*onius was striving for absolute *ower"
</line>
<line>
(M*NUW*L*,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
2 0 0 7 *, * . 1 6 ) .
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
4
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Cf. *A*UW*LD (2007a, p. 9-1*); *AMSEY (2003, p. 3-4).
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
Rev. FSA, *er*sina, v. 13, n. 5, art. 11, p. 185-*0*, set./out. 2016
</line>
<line>
www4.fsan**.c*m.*r/revista
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
**mment*ry on Philippi*s T*ree and F*ur
</line>
<line>
189
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
peop*e, obt*ining bigger support and legitimating their politica* wi*hes. T*e Phil*p*ics clea*ly
</line>
<line>
*how how Cicero fou*ht agai**t his enemy, tryin* t* persu*de the Senate *nd the Roma*
</line>
<line>
Peopl* in order *o win more politic*l st*e*gt*. The goal was *o* to defea* his opponent in a
</line>
<line>
rhet*rical competition, but i* th* ver* fa*ts. In this s*tuation, h* trie* to reach it by means of
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*he e*ormous potentiali*y o* the speec*es, *.e. using them as a political
</line>
<line>
*nd mil*tary
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
instrument5
</line>
<line>
:
</line>
<line>
"Cicero did not ho*d an office in 4*-4* BC*, but was an (influe*ti*l) member o* th*
</line>
<line>
Senate by virt*e of h** s**tus as a consular, although h* was not the firs* senator to
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
be
</line>
<line>
called upon throu*ho*t 43. Henc*, Cicero did not have the chance to *nitiat*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
imm*diate a**ion *n his own; *h* only (co*st*tut*onal) strat*gy open *o *im *as t*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
rely on his rheto*ical virtuosit* and thereby make the Senat*, r*gar*ed as
</line>
<line>
th*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
gov*rnin* body, dec*ee the ne*e*sary measures proposed by him" (MA*UW*L*,
</line>
<line>
200*a, p.90).
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Of course, C*cero was not a*on* a*d t*e sp*ech** de*ivered in
</line>
<line>
*he S*nate and the
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
contio*es were not the
</line>
<line>
only weap** of the par*isans of the re*ubl***n cause,
</line>
<line>
b*t j *s t
</line>
<line>
a
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
significant on*. In
</line>
<line>
this *aper we wil* foc*s
</line>
<line>
on *he *hilipp*cs as *olitical and rhet*rical a
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
weapon, but fi*st it is *orth t* refer some of the most *elevant political deeds sur*ounding t*e
</line>
<line>
Philippics, and s*ecially the P*ili*pic* Thr*e and Four.
</line>
<line>
I* *s known that An*onius tried to improve h*s power by p**sin* the Lex d* provincii*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
co*sulari*us in th* Senate. According to *ome Romans, amon*st whi*h **ce*o mu*t
</line>
<line>
be
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
q**ted, this decree v*ola**d the acta Caesaris, which had been pre*iously ratified by *ntonius
</line>
<line>
and *he Senate. B* means of this *a*, Antonius *ante* *o get t*e *allia *iterior and Gallia
</line>
<line>
Ulte*i*r ****ead o* Macedonia. Neverth*less, D. I*ni*s Brutus, present go*erno* o* Cisalpine
</line>
<line>
Gaul, refused w*th *he suppo*t o* *ice*o to exchange his provin*e wit* A*tonius. Precisely,
</line>
<line>
amo*gst ot*er th*ngs, on Phili*p*c T**ee Ci*ero *ries to get the official legitimation *o Bru*us\
</line>
<line>
refusal.
</line>
<line>
It *s also *orth highligh**ng *hat between Ap*il and May 44, per*od in which Antonius
</line>
<line>
was not *n the **ty, Octavian went to Rome and a*c*pte* the in*eritance of Caesar. Even *f
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
until Au*ust 43 he could not f**mally rati*y this inheritance, it meant that Octa*ian
</line>
<line>
and
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
j*st
</line>
<line>
rheto*ical purposes, but also political
</line>
<line>
intentions: "Thi* ai* holds true even for spe*ch*s not delivered,
</line>
<line>
but
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
only dist**buted a* ***p*lets,
</line>
<line>
a*d *his *unction seem* *o have bee* partic*larly c*mm*n in the Late Re*ublic.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Speeches deliver*d and p*bl*shed afterwards *an reach *n *udien*e beyond the ori*inal one extending across the
</line>
<line>
Roman E*pire, *hich *ay fun*tio* as an import*nt contr*bu*ion to and reinforce*ent of one\s political
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
str*teg*. *or a wider au*ien*e bec*me* i*v*lve*, a*d arguments a*d points of vi**
</line>
<line>
can be *res**ted more
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
con*incingly *nd may be better
</line>
<line>
*emembe*ed whe* they are received under dif*e**nt circum*tance* and
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
sepa*atel* f*om the specific political de*at*. **pecially when confl*cts extend over long*r *eriods a*d are
</line>
<line>
no*
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
decid*d ** on* occasio*, the pub*ication of a s*eech ***n after *ts delivery may inf*uence fu*ure developmen*s"
</line>
<line>
(MANU*A**, 2007a, p.58).
</line>
<line>
Rev. FSA, *eresi*a *I, v. 13, n. 5, art. 11, p. 1*5-206, se*/out. 2016 w*w4.fsanet.com.br/re*ista
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lavilla Lera
</line>
<line>
190
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Anto*ius were both potential can*idates for Caes*r\s succ*ssion6. * big *ivalry had
</line>
<line>
gro*n
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
bet*e*n both of *hem and they started t* r*cruit t*oops *or * possible fight. S*gnificantly, the
</line>
<line>
le*io Mar*ia and th* le*io quarta from Macedon*a, which p*evio*s*y belong*d to An*oni*s,
</line>
<line>
started to serve Octa*i*n f*om Novemb*r 44 o*wards. *hese facts are of primary *el*vance to
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
our
</line>
<line>
*a*er, be*ause, as *ar* of h*s strategy against *ntonius, Cicero tr*ed to form a coa*ition
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
with Octav*an7, supportin* h*m and the decisi*n of the legi* Mar*ia and the l*gio q**rta.
</line>
<line>
Anyway, the orator was *ot naïve an* he was **are o* the great diff*culties of thi* task. As
</line>
<line>
Manuwald) states,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
"Cicero wa* aware of the fac* that Octavian
</line>
<line>
originally was a Caesarian and
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
**nse**ently unlikely to beco*e a **ue Re*ublican immediately [...]. It was clear to
</line>
<line>
Cicero that Octavian had to be br*ug*t *o th* side of the Rep*b*icans by a*sid*ous
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
efforts, not least by himself, b*t that there
</line>
<line>
were
</line>
<line>
other powerf*l infl*e*c*s, which
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
wer* al*ays likely to win Oc*avian over" (M**UWALD, 20*7*, p.95).
</line>
<line>
In spit* of un**rstanding the diffi*u*ty and dangers of this pur*ose, *e was determined
</line>
<line>
about the *eces*ity of l*unchin* this alliance, as it might be the only possible way to preserve
</line>
<line>
the res p*blica and the freed*m8: in ot*er *ords, n*t**th*tan*ing the uncertainty of the road,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
th*re wa* not other c*oic* to *a*e the republican system
</line>
<line>
but t *
</line>
<line>
go o*e* it. *f cou**e, t*e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
History sho*s us t**t the fe*rs of Cic*ro *nd oth*r republicans were wel* r**ted, but in that
</line>
<line>
mo*ent *here were n*t other possibilities wh*ch *ff*red more guarantees.
</line>
<line>
In *his turbu*ent contex*, Cicero, who had come back to Rome *n 9 De*ember *ue t*
</line>
<line>
the politica* *evelopm*nts, *elivered two s*eeches on 20 Dec*mber: the firs*, in the m*rning,
</line>
<line>
on * *eeting of *he Senate; the second, *n the *ft*r*oon, i* th* Forum and address*d to the
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
**man P*ople. Th**e two speeches a*e P*ili*pi*s Thr*e
</line>
<line>
an* Fou* respecti*ely, *ven if we
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
canno* be s*re till which p*in* their author wo*ked on the* before its pu*l*cation9.
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
</par>
<column>
<row>
kn*wn that a swee*in*ly positive pictu*e of Octavian is gi**n only in the speech*s. In priv*te let*ers to som* of
</row>
<row>
his friends t*e picture is dif**rent or at leas* more *i**ere*t*a**d: th*s ev***nce shows that Ci*ero considered
</row>
</column><par>
<line>
Octavia* *he lesser
</line>
<line>
evil i* comparison w*th Antoni*s and va*ued him as co*nterweight [...]. Therefore he *
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
wished to inc**de Octavian in a great R*publican coalition agai*st A**onius. I* the present politic*l and military
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
situatio* Cicero regarde* col*aborat*on with Octavia* a* *he only sens*ble possibility sinc*
</line>
<line>
the Republicans
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
could thus acquire the necessar* m*litary force"(MA*UWALD, 2007a, p.**).
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
9
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*f. M*NUWA** (2007, p.54-65).
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
Rev. FSA, Ter*si*a, v. 13, n. 5, art. 11, p. 185-206, set./o*t. 201*
</line>
<line>
www4.fsanet.*om.br/re*i*ta
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
Commentary on Philippics T*re* and Four
</line>
<line>
191
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
2. *HE *H*TORIC BEF*RE THE EMPIRE
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
**is bri** c*apter, which c*nstitutes a sort of excur*u*, aim* to sho* *ne of the
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
distinctive features *har*d by De*osth*nes an* *i*ero. To do so, we will not attend
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
pecul*a*ity of the*r styl*, b*t we will *o*us on thei* relevance i* the Histo*y of rheto*ic from a
</line>
<line>
socio-politi* app****h. Being a*are that the l*ngt* an* the scope of this pape* do not **low us
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
to evaluate in deep the
</line>
<line>
*ssue, we will just give som* *eneral *emarks ** a* t* highlight th*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
close co*necti*n *et*e*n the pol**ical system and *he *evelopm*nt of the rhetoric. Thus, we
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
do n*t
</line>
<line>
in*end to *i*e a* accurate and
</line>
<line>
exh*u*tive analy*is, but
</line>
<line>
just to **fer an o*erview t***
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
helps to unde*s**nd t**ir r*levance and posi*io* in the Histo*y of rhetoric.
</line>
<line>
A* it is well known, Demosthen**\ politi*a* sit*at*on in the end of his life was ma*nly
</line>
<line>
similar to that of Cicero bef*r* his death. *he followi*g words of Woot*n clearly ex**ess this
</line>
<line>
common *ackground:
</line>
<line>
"Demos*he*es an* Cicero lived at the great turn*n* points of Greek and Roman
</line>
<line>
civilizatio* and we*e major partic*p**ts in the drama *ha* would **a* eventual*y to
</line>
<line>
the e*tablishme*t of the **lle*i*tic monarchi*s an* th* Augustan principa**. Their
</line>
<line>
deaths mark *he end of the inde*endent city-s*ate as t*e m*jor form of g*vern*ent
</line>
<line>
in Greece and *ep*blican government at Rome. Bo*h resis*ed these changes and
</line>
<line>
devoted their rhetorica* ta*en*s, which were considerable, to a vigorous def*nse of
</line>
<line>
the s*atus qu*" (*OOTEN, 1983, p.3).
</line>
<line>
Besides, it mu*t b* said that they *i* not j*st *hare a his*orical *ackground, bu* t*at
</line>
<line>
their r**e in t*e History o* rhetoric i* s*gnifi*ant*y analogous. With *heir inten*e debates in *he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
a*semblies, their
</line>
<line>
huge amount of trials and *, *he political systems of the Classical
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Athen* and the Ro*a* Republi* h*d consti*uted the appr*priate bac**round fo*
</line>
<line>
t *e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
dev*lopment of th* speeches tha* belong t* the genus iudicale and deli*erativum. Of cours*,
</line>
<line>
we d* no* mean that the epidei*tic spe*ch*s w*re *eaved aside, but we would like *o *ig*light
</line>
<line>
th*t with the arrival of th* Hel*eni*t*c monarchies *nd *he Augus*an empi** the rhet*r*c was
</line>
<line>
not abl* to develop real polit**al speeches *ny longer. The G*eek * and *he Roman forum
</line>
<line>
lost their p*e*ious r*lev*nce as a focus o* int*nse politica* debat*. *ith*u* **e soc*o-po*i*ical
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*onditions to deli*er
</line>
<line>
fre* speeches,
</line>
<line>
the rhetoricians are forced to add*ess
</line>
<line>
t*ei* efforts to
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
e*ideict*c speec*es. I* th*se periods, oratory b*comes * specialized instrument of literature
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*nd stylistics10.Meaningfully,
</line>
<line>
*nder **e socio-political conditions o* the Roman Empire, the
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
</page><line>
Gorgias, Euripides or Catullus clearly show th* opposite. Wha* *e aim *o state is just *hat with the end of the
</line>
<line>
Democracy a*d the R**ublic the d*libe*ative **eech*s were not possible *nd that rheto*ic had to develop in the
</line>
<line>
field o* **e literatur*.
</line>
<line>
*ev. FSA, Teresina PI, v. 13, n. 5, ar*. 1*, p. 185-2*6, set/out. *01* www4.fsanet.com.br/revis*a
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lavilla Lera
</line>
<line>
192
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
controversia* were almo*t a me**ly literary or s*holar genre, in which the main sco*e was to
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
dev*lop
</line>
<line>
a high level
</line>
<line>
of a*tistry11.In thi* se**e, we could asse*t that Demosthenes\ an*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Cicer*\s rhe*oric i* somehow a rhetoric of cr*s*s. They are the two last *olitical orators before
</line>
<line>
the f*ll *f the city-st*tes and *espublica. In partic*la*, *heir Phil*pp*cs constit*te the *esperate
</line>
<line>
attempt of two or*t*r a*d poli*ic *en who try to *ight against the i**eri*l*st movemen*s th*t
</line>
<line>
try to dest*oy the political syst*m th*t constitute* the ne*e*sary ground of the pol*tic*l debates
</line>
<line>
of the free citizens *nd de*ib*rative o*atory. In thi* sense, their Ph*li*pic*, besides pl*yi*g *n
</line>
<line>
act*ve resistant role against th* mo*arc*ical *y*tems, th*y represent *he desper*te defen*e *f
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
the polit**al oratory its*lf against the
</line>
<line>
thre*t that mena*es t** necessary conditions
</line>
<line>
th*t
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
guaran**e its surv*v*l.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
T*us, Demo*t*ene*\ and Cicero\s Phi*ippics display a rhetoric in crisis, i.e. * rhe*oric
</line>
<line>
that fights again** *he p*oces* that will depri*e *t f*om its political meaning, transforming it in
</line>
<line>
a *i*ferent kind of discursive m*stery. Anywa*, from *not*er point of view, they repr*sent t*e
</line>
<line>
zen*th of rhe*oric, a* if the deve*opm**t of t*e previ*u* ye*r* had ta*en rh*tori* to its µ,
</line>
<line>
just before it* *eclin* -o* better said, b*fore its *ransformat*on. In this w*y, these works
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
allow us to co*sider t*e fo*ensic
</line>
<line>
rh*toric *n t*eir most g*nuine and power*ul nature.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Obviously, w* do no* attemp* to affirm that t*ey are not refined and sop*istica**d sty*ist*c
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
constructions: **y
</line>
<line>
analysis
</line>
<line>
of the texts clearly *hows t*e *pposite. However, we stat* *hat
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
most like*y the highest scope of these stylistic arte *acts was to **litically fig*t b* *eans of
</line>
<line>
their per*uasiveness. Th*t *s, t*e r**to*ic of *ris*s is *lso arh*tori* *f splendo*. T*e o*atory, at
</line>
<line>
least *ts *enu* deliberativ*m, reaches his summit in it* most dramat*c poli*ical contex*. T*us,
</line>
<line>
thes* two speech-makers *e*resent somehow the m*s* superb *ut also th* most trag*c sta** of
</line>
<line>
t*e G*eek *n* *oman rhetoric.
</line>
<line>
3. GE*ERAL CONSIDERATI*NS AND RELEVA*CE OF PH*LIPPICS TH**E
</line>
<line>
AND FOUR
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
As emphasized in *he fi*st ch*pter, t*e Phi*ippics are a rhetor*c*l arte fact wi**
</line>
<line>
an
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
importa*t p*litical goal: *hey *o *ot o**y show *he battle against Antonius, but a*so depicts
</line>
<line>
th* image *f *i*ero as a nice ora*or a** gr*at politician12. With the delive*ed speeches the
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
agains* Antonius, *ut al** def*nding himself f*om the attacks ** the latter. *s Wooten wrote, "Antony
</line>
<line>
had
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
atta*ked Ci*er*\s who*e career, as * pol*tician, as an *rator, and as * man; and Cicero rea*ized tha* his re*ly **d
</line>
<line>
to be a defense o* hi* *ntir* life"(WOOTEN, 19**, p. 51). Many pass*ges of the text valida*e this *ssertio*. Here
</line>
<line>
Rev. FSA, *eresina, v. *3, n. 5, art. 11, *. 185-206, set./o*t. 201* ww*4.fsa*et.com.b*/rev**ta
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
C*m*en*ary on Phi*ipp*cs Three and F*ur
</line>
<line>
193
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
homo novus is making real politic a*d pub*ishing them he also tries to ap*ear ** *ront of the
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
pe*ple as a
</line>
<line>
liberator and a virtuous speech-maker and politicia*."All the spee*hes a*e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
nat*r*ll* concerned wit* preservin* the re* *ublic* and de*eati*g Antonius"13, but, actually, *
</line>
<line>
note*orthy am**nt of scholars have po*nted *hat it is Ph*li*pic Three the speech w*ich really
</line>
<line>
in*tia*es th* series14. It has be*n *efended that origina*ly Ph*lippics One *nd Two were no*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ncluded in
</line>
<line>
the series. In fa**, onl* the twelve *ast *peeches *ere delive*ed when Antoni*s
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*as not i* Ro*e. According wi*h th* sc*p* of *his paper i* is not a pr*ma*y is*ue to d*sc*s*
</line>
<line>
about this problem, but it is fully mea*in**ul t* c*nsider the speci*l positio* of Phil*ppic
</line>
<line>
Three as the first speech of this series *ronounced during t*e absence of Anton*us. By means
</line>
<line>
*f *t Ci*e*o starts his str**egy. *e w*ll i*tend to decla*e An*onius p**lic ene** (h*stis
</line>
<line>
[patriae]), although he will do it indirectly, i.e. int**ducing pre*arat*ry meas*res that shoul*
</line>
<line>
lead in th* fu*ure ** achieve *his diff**ult far-reaching goal15. Thus, *omehow our presen*
</line>
<line>
paper disserts abou* a de*a*ture poi*t from which an attack towards **e *resen* cons** is
</line>
<line>
launch*d:
</line>
<line>
"onl* from Philippic ***ee *nwards *s t*e cent*al term hostis ("*ubli* *nemy") use*
</line>
<line>
as a political *nd o**ici*l *atc*word referring to Antonius (cf. Phi*. 3.6 a*d n.). *hi*
</line>
<line>
expres**o* *o*s not occur in Phi*ippic One, and Phi*i***c *w* talks m*re gene*ally
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
about Antoniu*\ position and *on*uct
</line>
<line>
as a hostis reipublicae, host*s patriae or
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
dishomi*ibusque hostis (*f. *hi*. 2.1; 2.2; 2.51; 2.64; 2.*9). The foundations *or the
</line>
<line>
speci*ic use *f the term **stis with refe*e*ce to *nto*ius are lai* *n *hilippic Th*ee
</line>
<line>
and stre*gth*n*d i* Philippi* *our, whi*h interp*et* and intensif*es the me*sag* of
</line>
<line>
P*ilippic *hree. More generally too, P*ilippic th*ee is the star*in* point f*r Cicero\s
</line>
<line>
figh* again*t Anto*iu* si*ce it o*tlines h** overall *trategy" (MAN*WALD 2007a,
</line>
<line>
p.79).
</line>
<line>
Thus, thes* tw* speeche* play a *artic*lar*y signifi*ant *ole in the e*ono*y of t*e *ull
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*o**16.
</line>
<line>
*he ma*n **ope *s settled **d t*e strategy towards i* i* launche*. *recis*ly, our
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
**llows a meaningful e*ample: "hunc *go diem exs*ectans M. Antoni *cel**ata arma vitavi, tum cum ille in me
</line>
<line>
abs*nt** invehens non in*elleg*bat ad qu*d tempus me e* meas viris reservarem. si **i* tum illi c*edis a me
</line>
<line>
init*um quaerenti r*spond*re voluissem, nunc re* public*e *ons*lere non possem. hanc ver* nac*us fa*ultatem,
</line>
<line>
*ullu* tem*us, pa*res conscripti, d*mittam neque d*urnu* neque noctur*u* qui* de libertate *op*li Romani et
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
dig*itate **s**a quod cogitandum s*t cogitem, quod age*dum
</line>
<line>
a*que f*ciendum, id non modo non *ecus*m
</line>
<line>
sed
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
etiam appetam atq*e deposcam. hoc fe*i *um licuit; i*ter*isi qu*ad n*n licuit. *am non sol*m
</line>
<line>
licet sed etiam
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
n*cesse est, nisi servire m*lumu* quam ne serviamu* animis armisque
</line>
<line>
dec*rnere" (Phil. 3.*3). *nother
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*nter*sting ex*mple c*n be found in P*ilippi*s 4.15, whe*e Cicero resorts t* his s*ruggl* against Catilin*, which
</line>
<line>
probabl* *onstituted his mo*t successful politica* deed, *o as *o compare it with his struggle against Antonius.
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
</page><line>
publicae" ** pr*se*ted it as a firs* *tep to liberty *nd to fu*cti*ning re* publica or to further act*ons (*f. Phi*. 4.*;
</line>
<line>
5.30; 6.*; 1*.20; *am. 10.28.2; 12.25.2). H* claimed to have recalled **e w*ak and wea*y Sena*e to *ts pristina
</line>
<line>
vi*tus an* consue*udo *n tha* day and brou*ht *o the Roma* Pe*ple the h*pe of rec*verin* fre*dom (cf. Fam.
</line>
<line>
10.*8.2)" (M*NUWA*D, *007b, p.295-296).
</line>
<line>
Rev. FSA, Teresina P*, v. 13, n. 5, art. 11, p. 185-206, s*t/ou*. 2016 www4.fsan*t.com.br/revista
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lavilla L*ra
</line>
<line>
*94
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
commentary in the n*xt pages will focus *n describing how C*c*ro sets the ma*n g*al of his
</line>
<line>
spee*he* and the way he *r*es *o ac*i**e i*.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Said th*t, it i* convenient
</line>
<line>
to explain why it i* im*ortant to *la*orate an accurate
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
a***y**s of b*t* speech*s a*d not j*st of *he first
</line>
<line>
of th**. It *as **en *efended by
</line>
<line>
s o* e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
int*rp*ets th*t the two contio spee*hes, i.e. Phi*ippics Four an* Six, do not offer su*stantia*ly
</line>
<line>
n*w in*ormation, but that they only repeat the*r previous two speeches, i.e. Phili*pics *h*ee
</line>
<line>
and Five, b*t addre*sed to *he Pe*ple instea* *f the Senate. We will tr* to show that Ph*lippic
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
F*ur is not a mere repe*ition of the
</line>
<line>
previous lógos, b*t an inte*p*e*ation of it *n wh*ch,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
de*ending on th* differen* p*blic it addressed *o and the spec*fic ai* sought, he stres*es is
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
s*me *f *ts *oin**, a**ording to what h* thinks that it i* more
</line>
<line>
he*pful to a*h**ve his
</line>
<line>
goal.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Cicero uses rh*toric as it is more conve*ient f*r h*m, with full acknowledge of what he has to
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
seek
</line>
<line>
in the Senate *n* what in th* pop*lar *ssemb*y. *if*erentl* stated, all the speeches
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ncl*ded i* *he Philipp*cs fo*m pa*t of *is defense of t*e respublica and hi* a*tack against
</line>
<line>
Antonius; thus, *hey constit*te a rele*a** part o* it. Th*y cannot be simple r*peti**ons.
</line>
<line>
Espe***lly, if we hav* in m*nd that Cice*o is an expert orato* that uses the language an* the
</line>
<line>
speeches with f*l* mastery:
</line>
<line>
"Cicero\s rhetori*al works show th*t he w*s aw*re of th* fact that speec*es may be
</line>
<line>
delivered before **f*e*e*t audiences (*ainl*: **nato*s, citize*s, judge*) and th*t the*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
all
</line>
<line>
r*q*ire *iff*rent types of orations.
</line>
<line>
The appropr**te character of a speech i*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*etermined by the amount
</line>
<line>
of information already obtained b* t*e au*ience and by
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
the best way of add*essing them. *icer* seems *o h**e belie*ed that t*e Pe*ple *ave
</line>
<line>
less kn*wl*dge and unders**nding than the s*nators and are to be approached o* an
</line>
<line>
emotio*al level [...].
</line>
<line>
However, that d*es no* m*** that Cicero regard*d speech*s before *eople as l*ss
</line>
<line>
*mportan* or le*s demanding. [...] The*efore, considering cont*o spee*hes as
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
i*pr*vi*ed ad h*c ora*ory is *uestionable. For *icero may m*k*
</line>
<line>
his speeches
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
ap p ea* *s
</line>
<line>
such, but actually the orations befo**
</line>
<line>
the *eople are a*so **etorically
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
s*phisti**ted" (MANUWALD 2007b, p.466).
</line>
<line>
So, *h**ippic Fou* should no* be conside*e* as a piece of scarce value in the overal*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
work, but as a relevant par* of th* whole
</line>
<line>
bu***ing. M*reover, it will allow us to und*rstan*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
better Philippic Three, as within th* same day it offers an i*terpret**ion of it according t* the
</line>
<line>
new aud*en*e and circumstances; that is, with it we w*l* *e in cond*tion to *n**rst*nd much
</line>
<line>
bet*er th* starting point and the strat*gy of Cic*ro\* *tt*ck aga*nst Antonius.
</line>
<line>
In addition, the *pparent re**ti*ion of a s*eech could als* serve *or *ther reas*n*. As
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Manuwa*d (*f. *007a:
</line>
<line>
82) sta*ed, with them Cicero cou** be h*ghlighting the date of t*os*
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
speeches (i* *h* cas* *f *hili*pic* Three *n* Four, the 22 December 44). *n fact, they *ill *e
</line>
<line>
*entioned *gain *n Philippic *ourteen (c*. Phil 14.20). As *e h*ve argued, this date
</line>
<line>
Rev. FSA, T*resina, v. **, n. 5, art. 11, p. 185-2*6, *et./out. 2016 www4.fsanet.*om.br/rev**ta
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
Commentary o* Philippics Three and Four
</line>
<line>
195
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
some*ow consti*utes t** start of *he effo*ts to *i**t against Antoni*s and *hus, *t mu*t be
</line>
<line>
conside*e* a* totally relevant.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
P*ilipp**s *hree and Four have in common that they are delivered *ithin the
</line>
<line>
s*me
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
d*y and that they l*u*ch t** st*a*egy to *reserve the res publica an* to fight against its
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
enemies. Mo*eover, *he second *p**c* is *r*s*mably given with the int**tio*
</line>
<line>
to inf*rm
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Roman *eople abou* the dec*ees th*t have been acc*pted in the Senate during *he morni*g.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Neve*theless, we will tr* to show that C*cero d*e* not of*er t**
</line>
<line>
*nformation in *n objective
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ay, but in su*h a way to lead them to *he concl*sions an* the political pos*tion that he thinks
</line>
<line>
more *onv*nient.
</line>
<line>
4. PHILI*PIC T*REE
</line>
<line>
Cicer* de*iv*re* his Philippic Three the 20 D*cember *4. The tribu*es of the *lebs
</line>
<line>
called *ogether the *enate in order to discu*s about the safe*y mea*ures for th* new consuls o*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
1 Janu*ry
</line>
<line>
43. *n the same m**ning, a *essage fro* D. Iunius *ru**s arriv*d to Rome. *e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
informe* about his decis**n of not giving to Ant**ius the province of Gaul and its a*my. Th*s
</line>
<line>
fact i* fully re*evant. F*om **at mom*nt onwards An*o*iu* ha* *o deal with two fronts: *n t*e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
one han* the refu*al of Brut*s to give h*m his province and
</line>
<line>
on t he
</line>
<line>
other the militar*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
movemen* *hat Octavian is
</line>
<line>
la*nc*ing agains* him. With *ull ack*owle*gement of this
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
s*tua**on, Ci*ero *el* the n**d to take advantage of **e political 17
</line>
<line>
(cf. *hil. 3.32; 3.3*;
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
3.36), i* *rder *o try to ** a co*mon front against the curr**t consul. So, when h* app*are*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
tha*
</line>
<line>
morning in front of the Senate, he dev*ated from t** main topic i* order ** us* th*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
**casion for *is p*litical purposes, i.*. t* start his struggle a**ins* Anto**us:
</line>
<line>
"In h*s orati*n *icero mentioned the topic o* *he m*eting as defined by the agenda
</line>
<line>
as a s**rt*ng *oint; h*weve*, h* th** went beyo*d i*, by m*king u*e o* a senator*a*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
right [...], *nd fo*used on the gen**al state o* the confli*t with Anto*ius
</line>
<line>
as it
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
pres*nted it*elf after the i*it*ati*e of D. Iunius Brutus had *ecome known (**. Phil.
</line>
<line>
3.13-14; Fam. **.*8.2; 11.6a). Only by this *xtensio* did Cicero tur* *he Senate
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*e*t*n* into a
</line>
<line>
p*l*ticall* s*gnifi*ant s*ep in the struggle *gai**t M. Ant*nius"
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
(MANUWAL*, 2007b, p.299-300).
</line>
<line>
He aimed to use t*e meeting to legitimate *he *rivate activities -s*ch as the **sist**ce
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
of Brutust*at sought *o pr*serve t*e res publica. *n th* same **y,
</line>
<line>
*e tried
</line>
<line>
t* giv* lega*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
legitimation *nd honors to the activities o* Oct*vian, *egio Ma*tia and legio qu*rta. Doing *o,
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
</page><line>
Demosthene*, see Manu*ald (2007b, p. 308-309) a*d Wooten (1*8*, p.61).
</line>
<line>
Rev. FSA, Teres**a PI, *. 13, n. *, art. 11, p. 185-*06, s*t/out. 2*16 www4.fsanet.co*.br/revista
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lavilla Lera
</line>
<line>
196
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
he *et the basics of hi* political position and implicitly introduced h*s goa*:
</line>
<line>
to decl*re
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Antonius p*bl*c enemy. Obviously, h* did no* try to reach this far-re**hing *bjective from t*e
</line>
<line>
beginning, as *t *ould no* be possible. Cicer* is c*ever enough to go s*ep by st*p, trying to
</line>
<line>
introduce his claim gra*ually in the w** *hat it is m*st c*nvenient. Ne*ertheless, in Philip*i*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*hree we *an fin* *mplicit*y the basi*s
</line>
<line>
of t** who*e strateg* th** will be developed in
</line>
<line>
t *e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
fol*owing speeches.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Once g*asped wh*ch is th* mai* scope of the lógos,
</line>
<line>
it* *tr*cture18 can be fully
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
understood: the central and more relevant se*tion is found i* Philippics3.3-27, which *an be
</line>
<line>
divid*d in two subsect*ons, *ve* if they func*ion as the both sides of a single coin. The whole
</line>
<line>
s*ction offers a negative view of Ant**ius, even if the **rst **bs*ction (P*il. 3.3-14) does it in
</line>
<line>
*n i*dire** wa* and the sec*nd (Phil. 3.**-27) on* dir*c*l*. The *or*er pra*se* t*e priv*te
</line>
<line>
initiatives against Antonius *aunched by O*tavian (*hil. 3.3b-5), leg*o Martia a*d legio
</line>
<line>
quarta (Phil. 3.6-7), D. Iuni*s B*utus (Phil. 3.8-12) *nd t*e pr*v*nc* *f Gaul (Ph*l.
</line>
<line>
3.*3a).Moreov*r, accor*ing with *hich has been *tated, it *sks the S*n*te to give hon*rs to
</line>
<line>
those who h*ve the **sponsibil*ty of th* quoted initiatives (Phil. 3.*3*-1*). Search*ng the
</line>
<line>
sam* goal, the latter cri**ci*es the *eh*v*or of Antonius: fi*st *t atta**s his *di*ts (Phil. *.15-
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
18) and the* it c**sures his activit*es
</line>
<line>
in late Nov*mber *4 (Ph**. 3.19-27). It is r*levant t*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
u*de*stand th*t b*t* subsec*ions poi*t to the *ame *im. Legi*imating the initiatives against *he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
c*rrent cons*l
</line>
<line>
mea*s i*p*icitly *e*og*ize t*
</line>
<line>
that A*tonius is an enemy of the res publica -
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
this fact
</line>
<line>
will become ev*n *ore cl*ar in the *ollowing Ph*lippic. T*e praise of Octavian
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
and the ot**rs is no* a simpl* encomium, b** *n *ndirec* attack to An*onius. *hey are depict*d
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
as those
</line>
<line>
*ho are
</line>
<line>
defending the R*public ag*i*st its enemy, namely the cu*rent consu*. So,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
af*er going against him in an *ndir*ct w*y, t*e text launches a direct attack towards hi*.
</line>
<line>
The othe* *as*ages of the text a*e used *o introduc* the ce*t*al section and to ex*ract
</line>
<line>
*rom it th* conc*usi*n and the claim* *hat *re *ent *o the S*nate: *he *ntr*duct*on (Phil. 3.1-2)
</line>
<line>
opens the s**ech in such a way that i*trodu*es th* political **pic that *e wa*t* *o dev*lop and
</line>
<line>
it *r*e* *o prod*ce in **e au*ien*e the feeling tha* the prese*t polit*c*l circu*sta*ces dema*d
</line>
<line>
*n immediate **tion; in a s*m*la* way*9, the conclusion (Phil. 3.28-36) a*p*al* th* Senat* for
</line>
<line>
a qui*k ac*ion against the c*rrent co*sul; fina*ly, there is a c*da (Ph*l. 3.*7-39), where Cicero
</line>
<line>
*roposes to the Sen**e to *ather up the issues develop*d i* *he sp*ech by a decree.
</line>
<line>
18
</line>
<line>
We follo* the **ructure given by M*nuwald (2007b, p.30*), as we consider *t fully app*opria*e. To
</line>
<line>
se* * slightly *ifferent propo*al, s*e Martín (2*01, p.**1).
</line>
<line>
19
</line>
<line>
**nuwald has well hi*hlight*d th*t the int*oduct*o* and the ****lusion share a* analogo*s fun*t*on and u**
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
rheto*ic in suc* a way to make feel political urgency to the *udienc*:
</line>
<line>
"Alt*ou** t*e focus of the first *n* last
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
sections (Phil. 3.1-2; 3.28-36) is not exactly the same, they can be viewed a* func*i*n*lly sim**a*, and the w*ol*
</line>
<line>
sp*e*h *ay therefo*e regarded as a ring-composition"(MANUWALD, 2007b, p.*12).
</line>
<line>
Rev. F*A, *eresina, v. 13, n. 5, art. 11, p. 18*-206, set./out. 20*6 ww**.f*anet.com.br/*evi*ta
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
Commentar* *n Phi*i*pics Three and Fo**
</line>
<line>
1*7
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*nce p*esented the main c*aract*ristics of th* spe*ch, we wil* focus o* one of the
</line>
<line>
m*st sign*ficant r*etorical strategies that Cic*ro us*s in Philippi* T**ee - but *lso in
</line>
<line>
Philippic*in general.Ma*be influenced by his advo*ate *areer and by Demo*the*es*0,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Cicero *hows in his posi*ion a Mani*ha*an p*rspectiv*,
</line>
<line>
i.e. *e
</line>
<line>
p*esents the situation
</line>
<line>
a* if i*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
woul* be the b*t*le of good against evil. The
</line>
<line>
*omo
</line>
<line>
novu* th*nks t*a* res publica has *een
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
ruine* -or at least dam*gedw*th the governments o* Caesar and Ant*nius, and his *ain
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
goa* is to maintain or *eestab*ish i*21. The qu*st*on is
</line>
<line>
*epicted dram***cally, as for *im res
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ublica *eans freed*m (libertas22). On the c*ntra*y, tha* *hich goes *gain*t it or even that
</line>
<line>
which is *ot d*ing effor*s *o pres*rve *t -*ic*ro cle*rly goes against *h* inactivity and
</line>
<line>
in*ecisi*n of the Senate23, is asso*iat*d with tyr*nny (ty*annis) a*d servitud*
</line>
<line>
(servitus).*icero is f*r the pace24, b*t he thinks that the only rea* context *n w*ich the peace
</line>
<line>
*an exist is the *epublic. Thus, as he considers that there is no way *o negotiate with Antonius
</line>
<line>
*bout it, he is convinced th*t the only way to achieve t*e pace is by mea*s *f the war aga*n**
</line>
<line>
the current consul an* the enem*es of the Republi*. T*us, t** argumen*s of *hilippi* Three,
</line>
<line>
but also of th* other Philip*ic*, "are **nsi*t*n*l* **iented to dis**nctiv* p*irs such as "war *r
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
peace", "*epub*ic or tyran*y" *nd "**b*rty or sla*ery""(MANUW*L*
</line>
<line>
2*07a, p.*9). Cic*ro
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ants t* persua*e sen**ors *bout the followin* *d*a: n** to attack An*on*us i* *o b* *upporting
</line>
<line>
the s*avery of Roma* p*op*e. Mor*ov*r, he *onsiders that t*e pol*tical *o*t*xt *s so dramati*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
that those who love
</line>
<line>
the freed*m an* Rome are force* to ur*ently act25. Accordingly, in the
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
perdita consil*a? an ea quae pe*t*nent *d libertatem p*puli Ro**ni re*up*randam? qu*ru* cons*l*oru*
</line>
<line>
Ca*sari me auctore* e* ho**atorem e* *sse ** fuisse fateor" (*hil. 3.19).
</line>
<line>
2*
</line>
<line>
Ma**wald ha* right*y unde*lined the relevance of this term: "The single term refers to es*en*ial ***ues of *he
</line>
<line>
Republican orde* [...]; t**y are *p*c*fic to t*e Ro*an Peopl* and constitute the ideal *o* w*ic* Cicero fig*ts
</line>
<line>
against Antonius. F**edo* i* pres*nted *s a prec*nditi*n for true pace"(MANUWALD, 20*7*, p.306).
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
s*eech with a el**ated tone of u*gency -he insistently suggests to the Senate that th** should not let the present
</line>
<line>
p*liti*al *pportuni*y to prevent Ant*nius politi*al aim, becaus* in the future it could be too l*te to sto* him (c*.
</line>
<line>
e.g. Phil. 3.34)-, but he also a*gues in such a w** that his s*eec* *hould prod**e in the audience th* feeling tha*
</line>
<line>
if th*y do n*t not *ct, their life *n* f*eed*m wi*l be in serious *anger. *or example, *his rhetoric*l strat*gy can
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
be regard*d in
</line>
<line>
Ph**ippics
</line>
<line>
3.25: "praeclare igit** fa*itis, tr*bu*i pleb*s, qui de praesidio con*ulum senatusque
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
refera*is, m*rito*ue vest*o maximas vobis gratias o*ne* e* a*ere et habere debemus. qui enim peric*lo ca*e*e
</line>
<line>
p4ossu*us in *anta hominum cupidi*ate et a*dacia?".
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
that only the drama*ic and exce*tional politi*al situation ma*es *t necessar*: "si aut Ka*endae *anuaria* f**sse*t
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
eo die quo primum *x ur*e fugit Antoniu*, *ut eae non essent
</line>
<line>
exspecta*ae, b***um iam *u*lum haberemus.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
auct*ritat* enim s*natus consensuque
</line>
<line>
populi Romani facile hominis amentis fregissemus **daciam". Thus,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Cicer* c*aims that t*e war is necessa*y j*st b*ca*se it is
</line>
<line>
not p*ssible to *onverse w*th Antoniu* (Phil. *.11):
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
know* as obiu*gatio, by means of which C**ero re*roaches the Senate n*t to hav* acti*ely par*icipate in
</line>
<line>
the
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
political events, w*ich has lead Rome to a dr*mat*c sit*ation.
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
Rev. F*A, Tere*ina PI, v. 13, n. 5, art. 11, p. 18*-206, set/out. 2016 w**4.fs***t.com.br/revista
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lavilla Lera
</line>
<line>
198
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
int*oduction (Phil. *.1-2) and in th* conc*usion (Phil. 3.28-36) of *hilippi* Three he wa*t* to
</line>
<line>
p*ess p*ople about the nec*ss*ty to a*t as soon as possible:
</line>
<line>
"T*e tone o* the sp*ec* is urg*nt, underlining *i*ero\s a*tempt to *resen* the
</line>
<line>
situation *s having **en r*duced to a basic and fi*al conflict betw*en freedo*
</line>
<line>
*nd ty*anny, a c**fli*t in *hich the se**te must *ct rapid** if Rom*n libe**y is
</line>
<line>
to be p*eserved. The t*ne is brou*ht ou* *istinctly i* t*e *xord*um, w*ich
</line>
<line>
opens with the w*rd serious and end* with celeritas" (*OOTEN, 1983, p.60)
</line>
<line>
Cicero considers freedom and *e*ublic in close relatio*s*ip with libertas populi
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Romani and au*tori*a*
</line>
<line>
*ena*u*, b*t t* pr*se*ve them the people and *h* Se*ate m*st fight
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
against its enemy, namely, Anto*iu*. In the same way, Antonius is depicte* as a "mons**r",
</line>
<line>
that is as th* *nemy of the *e*ublic t*at wants to *ubj*gate all the *oman peo*le un**r his
</line>
<line>
absol*te pow*r26. So, ac*ordi*g t* his a*gume*ts, those wh* do not fi**t agai*st him are
</line>
<line>
im*licit*y *iving their support *o t*e end of *he Rep*blic and the c*n*olidation of the **ra*n*.
</line>
<line>
Cicero *on*t*ucts the *peech in such a way tha* the Senate must **e* tha* *e *s fo*ced to *ight
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
ag**nst the danger that puts *t risk the mai*te*ance of the
</line>
<line>
Republic and th*ir freedo*. Th*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
following t*xt *s ju*t a sign*fican* example of the rhetor*cal *tra*egy use* by Ci*ero to impe*
</line>
<line>
the S**ate to *ctivel* parti*ipat* i* the proce*s:
</line>
<line>
"Q*apropt*r, quoni*m res in id discrimen adducta est utr*m *ll* *o*nas re*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
public*e luat an n*s
</line>
<line>
serviamus, aliquando, per deos immorta*is, patres
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
co*s*r*pti, *atrium an*mum virt**emque
</line>
<line>
capiamus, ut aut libertat*m propria*
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
Ro*ani et gen*ris et nominis rec*pe*e*us *ut mortem se*vi**t*
</line>
<line>
anteponamus"(Ph*l. 3.29).
</line>
<line>
Cice*o constru*ts the arguments in *u*h a way th** the *ituati*n seem* to *e **trem*ly
</line>
<line>
simple. In one side ther* *s th* political freedom, r*s*ub*ica, and th* fight agai*s* Antonius;
</line>
<line>
in the other, the *lavery, *he tyranny and Antonius and all the *eople *hat supports him or does
</line>
<line>
*o* fig*t against him. Th* disjunctive stra*egy is cle*r and th* *wo possibil*ties *re *resented
</line>
<line>
as mut*ally exclusive; the*e *s no wa* for other alternatives. *ou are for th* freedom and the
</line>
<line>
r*a* p*ace or yo* *re for the ty*anny and the slavery. M*reover, this p*sit*on is ta*en to the
</line>
<line>
*xtreme, as *t ca* be s*e* in the p*ev*ous quota*ion (cf. Phil. 3.2*) and *n many other *ex*s of
</line>
<line>
this *h*li*pic:
</line>
<line>
"nihil e*t detestab*l*us dedecore, nihil foediu* servi*ute. *d dec*s et ad
</line>
<line>
libertatem nati **m*s: aut haec teneamus a*t *um *ig*itate moriamur" (Phil.
</line>
<line>
* .3 6 )
</line>
<line>
2*
</line>
<line>
This same strategy can be *b*erved in Philip*i*s 4.11-1*.
</line>
<line>
Rev. FSA, Teresina, v. 13, n. 5, art. 11, p. 185-206, *et./out. 2*16 w*w4.fsanet.com.br/revist*
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
*o**en*ary on Philippics Thre* *nd Fou*
</line>
<line>
199
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
R*public *r dea*h, sin*e liv*ng under t*e power of a tyr*nt goes against the dignit* o*
</line>
<line>
men born to be polit*cally free. Of course, *icero d*es not *nly s*mp*ify the p*li*i*al context
</line>
<line>
*n t*o *ides, but a*s* d*velops his arguments in such a *ay tha* *hey shou*d persuade any
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Rom** c*tizen to t**n* th*t the best and
</line>
<line>
only logi*al *eha*ior is that wh*c* *i*hts against
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
**tonius. *f *e look the structure o* the speech and we focu* in *he *ain sect*on (*hil. *.3-
</line>
<line>
27), we *o*ld reali*e tha* its two subsectio*s form pa*t o* the so called *is*unctiv* mode27. If
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*here ar* some pe*ple *hat are launching priva*e
</line>
<line>
initiat*ves against *he current consu*, there
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
a*e **ly two o*tions: they ar* **in* ag*inst the legal*ty a*d a*ainst the Republic, or *n the
</line>
<line>
contrary, it is t*e consul who go*s a*ainst res p*blica and the* indeed they a*e d*fending the
</line>
<line>
co*nt*y. Thus, t**s* individuals should b* punishe* or h*n**ed and the same -although in the
</line>
<line>
*ppo*it* way could b* said about the curr*nt consul. If they ha*e to be honored, it is
</line>
<line>
bec*use Antonius cannot be *ru*y co*sidered consul, but a public *nemy28 -there is no other
</line>
<line>
alte*native29- and tha* *s what the secon* **bsection tries to show in a more direc* way.
</line>
<line>
Anyway, Cicero plays with the argum*nts and this disj*nctive mode *n s*ch a *ay that even i*
</line>
<line>
it is clear which of t*e two alternat**es is t*e **od one, he norm**l* do** not express it in a*
</line>
<line>
explicit way, as Ma*u*ald *oin*s:
</line>
<line>
"*icer*\s whole campaign is b*s*d on o*e f*nda*ental dis*unctive pai*:
</line>
<line>
"either Ant*nius is consul and h*s op*onents mus* be puni*hed, or Antoni*s is
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
a
</line>
<line>
*u*lic enemy and hi* oppo*ents have acted
</line>
<line>
rightly". It i* i*troduced in
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Phili*pic Three (cf. Phil. 3.*4) and
</line>
<line>
fr*quently ****at*d in
</line>
<line>
th*
</line>
<line>
*peec*es that
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ollow witho*t further argum*nt* b*ing ad*uced [...]. *o* Cicero, *here is *n*y
</line>
<line>
one an*wer poss*bl*, whic* is *learly i*dicate* in Philippi* Four (cf. Phil. *.*);
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
*88-86).
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
vo*is, ut *ntell*go, non i*vitis, ut e* p*a*sta*t*ssim** ducibus * nob*s detur auctor**as et fort*ssimis militibus spes
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
ostendatur *raemiorum et
</line>
<line>
iudicetur non ver*o, *ed re non modo non consul *ed **iam hostis An*o*ius. nam
</line>
<line>
si
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
ille consul, fustuarium meruerunt legiones quae c*nsulem reli*u*runt, sceler**us Caes*r, Bru*u* *efarius qui
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
contr* consul*m privato
</line>
<line>
co*s*lio *xercitu* co*paraverunt. si au*em m*l**i*us e****rendi sunt hon*r*s
</line>
<line>
n o vi
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
propter eo*um divinum atque *mm*rtale *e*itum, ducibus aut*m ne referri q*id** potest gratia, qui* est qui
</line>
<line>
e9um h*stem non exis*imet quem qui ar*is persequantur *onservatore* rei p*b*icae i*dicentur". 2
</line>
<line>
*bviously, when Cic*ro reduces the **ss*bili*ies to a mutually *xclusive pairs, he is no* *escribi*g objec*ively
</line>
<line>
t*e situation, but trying to c*nvince the *ud*ence by means of h*s int*rpretation of the facts. Fo* e*am***, when
</line>
<line>
in *hili*pics 3.21 he analyze* th* conflicts b*t*een Antonius and Octavian, *e conclud*s t**t i* t*ey are fighting
</line>
<line>
*a*h o*h*r, one of them necessarily have to be e*emy of Rome: "*ecesse e**t enim alter*tru* esse h*stem; n*c
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
poterat aliter
</line>
<line>
de advers*riis du*ib*s iudicari". And with *his argument Cic*ro aims to show that Anton*us
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
considered himself -even i* t*citly enemy of the R*p*bl*c: "quid *st aliud de eo referre non *udere qui contra
</line>
<line>
se *o*sule* e*ercitum ducer*t nisi se *psum ho*tem iu*i*are?" And differ*nt*y *tate*: "si igitur Caesa* hos*is,
</line>
<line>
cur consu* nihil r*f*rt ad se*at*m? s*n ille a sen*t* notan*u* n*n fui*, quid *otest *icer* quin, cum de illo
</line>
<line>
*acue*it, s* hostem c*nfe*sus si*?". Anyw*y, it **ems clear t*a* they exist many other po*sibilities, a* *or
</line>
<line>
exampl*, that each w*ul* conceive Repu*l*c in a* idi*syncratic way *nd thus, tha* e*ch wou*d fi**t ag*inst the
</line>
<line>
other considerin* *imself as *h* tr*e defender o* res publica.
</line>
<line>
*ev. *S*, *eresi*a PI, v. *3, n. 5, art. 11, p. 185-*06, set/out. 2016 www4.fsanet.c*m.br/revi*ta
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lavilla Lera
</line>
<line>
200
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
elsewhere th* con*inuous negative c*aract**iza**ons of Antonius suggest the
</line>
<line>
ob*ious *nswer" (MANUWALD, 2007a, p. *1*-112).
</line>
<line>
To fini*h wit* th* analysi* o* this speec* ag*inst *nton*u*, *e will **cus in a
</line>
<line>
rhetorical s*rat*gy related with *is disjunctive mode a*d his political goa*. Due to his
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
o*ject*ve t* pers*ade peop*e abou* the *dea *hat Antonius *s a pu**icen*my, h* will use
</line>
<line>
t *e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
in**ctive30 to depict him a* an entirel* neg*igibl* per*o*. Th* reason is cl*ar, in his ai* to
</line>
<line>
sho* Anton*us as a hostis he will m*ke e*forts to present consul n*t j*st as * ba* politi*ian,
</line>
<line>
bu* as a *er**rse man and deviant from al* the go*d *u*toms of Rome. *hat is why he refers
</line>
<line>
*o him with *any pejora*ive ex**essio*, as fu*ens (cf. Ph*l. 3.* and 3.31),p*stis (c*. Ph**. *.5),
</line>
<line>
impiu* (cf. Phi*. 3.9), scelerat*s (cf. Phil. 3.9), impudens (c*. Phil. 3.*0), impurus (cf. *hil.
</line>
<line>
3.12),impu*icus (cf. Phil. 3.12), effeminatus (c*. Phi*. 3.12), numquamsobr*us (cf. Phil. 3.*2),
</line>
<line>
amens (cf. P*il. 3.17), homoad*lictuset perd*tus (P*il. 3.25), ta*tra belua (cf. Phil. 3.28),
</line>
<line>
i*pur*s latro (c*. Phil. 3.29) and demens (cf. Phil. 3.31), amongs* others. The strategy i* *o
</line>
<line>
d*pi*t the *olitical enemy as a monster. He wa*ts the p*o*le to fully *epudiate him by means
</line>
<line>
of hi* r*etorical arte fact.
</line>
<line>
It is importa*t to *oti*e that i* Philippic *our the *ain s**pe -i.e. to declare An*onius
</line>
<line>
h*stis is th* same and t*a* th* *isjunc**ve *ode a*d the inv*ctive will be used as we*l, *s
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
key rh*torical
</line>
<line>
technique*. The main difference is determi*ed *y the different nature of
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
a*dience it is ad*ressed to, by *he *ay the *rator wants to impact on it, b* the f*eli*g th*t he
</line>
<line>
want to p*oduce on it, and by the different sp*cific *cope a*med by t*e *peec*.
</line>
<line>
5. PHILIPPIC FOUR
</line>
<line>
*s me**ion*d abo*e, Philippic *ou* was *elivered the same *ay in which it *as
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ronounced t*e pr*vio*s
</line>
<line>
one, but in the afternoo*, in a po*ular as*e*bl* in the Forum31
</line>
<line>
.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Some magist*ate3* i* off*ce *onvene* this *ontio-only the* had the right to propose th**
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
publi* c*nf*ic*s in Republican *ome not **ly involve* poli**cal programs or a*t*ons, bu* *lso the person*lities of
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
t*ose *ho propo*ed or committed them. Attacking
</line>
<line>
*nd ridiculing the *erso*alit* *f a* oppo**nt *as often a
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
more e*fective and ps*cholo*ic*lly more i**re*sive m*a*s t*an a *iscussion of political beliefs. For what w*s
</line>
<line>
importa*t was n*t th* factu*l b*sis, but the mo*al power *f ideas and values ad*uced by t*e orator. [...] T*ese
</line>
<line>
*nsulting *le*ents need not mirror hi* beliefs completely, b*t a*e likely t* be the result of a consci*usly *hosen
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*trat**y, since Cic*ro was aware of the fa*t that *ertain characteris*ic* *r incident*
</line>
<line>
may be
</line>
<line>
exagge*ated for
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
</page><page>
<par>
<line>
C*mmen*ary on Philip*ics Three and Four
</line>
<line>
201
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
s* as the Roman people w*re informe* abou* the decree passed in the S*na*e\s se*s**n. This
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
w*s a **ua* procedure, as many off*ci*l decrees fr*m the Senate were annou*c** to
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
peopl* by m*a*s of contiones. So, *t was *iven to *icero th* opportunit* to inform about *h*
</line>
<line>
d**ree *n *he wa* he conside*ed m*re co*venie*t. This k*n* of pub*i* as*embl*es was merely
</line>
<line>
informat*ve, because it w*s not poss*ble to *ote -a*though in c*ntiones *t w** *ossible to *et
</line>
<line>
fu*ure *o*itia, actua*l* *ontiones were *ot c*mitia. Anyway, eve* if the political pressure
</line>
<line>
was not t*e highest, ** *as *n importan* situa*ion where it was **ssible to *xchange *ol*tical
</line>
<line>
op*nion* an* t* influ**ce other *itize*s.
</line>
<line>
*he conti* of t*e 20 December *4 w*s thought as t*e *u*lic scene where a Senate\s
</line>
<line>
decre* mus* be a*n*unced. Neverthele*s, it is obvio*s that Ci*ero would not r*s*r*ct h*mse*f
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*o *bjectively inform peo*le abo** i*. H* took a***ntage o* the opportunit* *iven to him **
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
or**r
</line>
<line>
*o influence the p*litical **inion of th*
</line>
<line>
*opulus roman*s. In the m*rning he tried to
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
impact the *e*ate in such * way that it j*ined h*m and ot*e*s in th* fight *gains* Antonius and
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
in *efense
</line>
<line>
*f the Rep*b*i* by means o* *f*ici*l *e**ure*. *ven if the popular **sem*ly to
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
w*om he speaks *he *fte*no** has not the power t* pass decree*-so, it o*vious that the the
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
immediate
</line>
<line>
goa* is not **e same, *e tr*es to do some*hi*g similar, that is determine *o
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
opi ni on of
</line>
<line>
the aud*ence *gai*st An*oni*s by means *f words. Tha* is why Philipp*cs *hree
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
gene*al attitu*e o* *he audience.
</line>
<line>
Therefo*e the conti* speec* buil*s on
</line>
<line>
the
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
rec*nt Sen*te de*ree; on this basis presents sim*lar *r*uments i* a different it
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
context and d*velops them fu*ther connect*on wit* an in
</line>
<line>
in*er***tation of
</line>
<line>
the
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
decree. It is thus an integral *lemen* of t*e deve*opmen* and distrib*tion of
</line>
<line>
Cicero\s concept and of its publi* impact" (M*NUWA*D, 2007b, p.4*1-**2).
</line>
<line>
Delivered with dif*erent immed*ate scopes, t*ey **rm *art o* *ic*ro\s wa* policy
</line>
<line>
again*t the cur*ent consu*. It coul* be said that Philipp*c Four go*s *ne step furt*er i* h*s
</line>
<line>
strategy. Once the decr** he p*oposed has be*n a*p*oved by the Senate, he wants *o use t*is
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
fact to influe**e also the c*tizens an* to ma*e
</line>
<line>
progr*ss
</line>
<line>
in his fight. Th*s he interprets
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
session of the morn**g not o*ly to influenc* the audience, bu* *o *einforce his previous speech
</line>
<line>
and to e*trac* important rema*ks. *ig*if*cantly, he ha* been pru*en* *nough not to include **
</line>
<line>
hi* c*da th* claim to officially judge An*o*ius a* hosti* (cf. Phil. 3.37-*9). On the *on*rary, in
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
th* following speech, in a sc*ne t*at is not so politically releva*t -*hus,
</line>
<line>
that it is not so
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
*ev. FS*, Ter*s*na P*, v. 13, n. 5, art. 11, p. 185-206, set/*ut. *016
</line>
<line>
w*w4.fsa*et.com.*r/re*is*a
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lav**l* Ler*
</line>
<line>
202
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
dangerous as t*e pr*vious, he wi*l focu* on thi* point, interpreting according to hi* inte*est
</line>
<line>
**e Senat*\s decree. Moreo*er, he will *repa*e the text for pub*ica*ion in such a way **at it
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
seems c*ear that
</line>
<line>
*ll the people in the Forum agreed wit* *is point of view. Th*s fact is o*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
primary relevance as *an*wald stat*d, since *icer* *ould be usin* the sp*ech to win supp*rt
</line>
<line>
*l** in fut*re s*tuations:
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
"*t**tegies empl***d to infl*ence and e*ploit the view
</line>
<line>
of the populace
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
include emphasis *n the size of the popular assemb**, the *ep*ated stateme*t
</line>
<line>
that Antonius has indeed been declared a *ublic enemy by the senate de*ree as
</line>
<line>
well as fre*uent references to the People\s fervent *pproval *f this *ssessmen*
</line>
<line>
a** o* Cicero\s *ie* in ge*eral, w*ile th*s* rea*tions a*e cleverly elicited by
</line>
<line>
*he orator (c*. 4.*-2; 4.2-3; 4.5; 4.6-7; 4.8; 4.9-10; 4.*1; cf. *lso Phil 5.2; *.2;
</line>
<line>
7.22). High*ightin* the opin*on of the Pe*ple and t*ei* ag*e*me*t with Cic*ro\s
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
view i* an
</line>
<line>
in*e*ral ele*ent *f his
</line>
<line>
*rgument; s**ll,
</line>
<line>
this p*int might
</line>
<line>
*ave been
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
emphasized in the publi*hed version *or gr*ater eff*ct on the reading publi*"
</line>
<line>
(MA**WALD, 20*7b, p.4*2).
</line>
<line>
Even i* the Senate did *ot offici*lly judge *ntonius pub*ic enemy, in fac*, th* decree
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
orde*ed to gi*e honors
</line>
<line>
** tho*e who dev*lop*d private initi*ti*es a*ain** *n**nius. Thu*,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Ci*ero analyzed
</line>
<line>
this fact a*co*ding with h*s disjunctive mode33, to
</line>
<line>
*uggest th*t indeed
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Ant*nous had already been declared *o*t*s ** the Senate34. Thus, after r*achin* his immedi*te
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
goal in the m*rning *essio*, Cic*ro co*tinues firmly to*ards his big aim,
</line>
<line>
namely, to fight
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
against Antonius. With Philippic F*u* h* tries to p*rsuade the Roman *eople t* s*ppo*t the
</line>
<line>
decree *pproved in the Se*ate35. Doing so, he al*o a**e*pts *o id*ologi*ally unify the Roman
</line>
<line>
c*tize*s36, that is the patric*ans a*d th* plebs, by means o* a sh*re* feeling of hate towards a
</line>
<line>
common ene*y, *.e. Antonius37.One i* th* ene*y an* one is the ob*ective: *o prese*ve res
</line>
<line>
pub*ica. **us, *ll the Ro*ans sh*u*d f*ght toget**r ag**nst Antonius. Accor**ng to Cicero\s
</line>
<line>
per*p*ctive, Rome needs that th* citizen* f*ght together **r the sa*v*tion *f t*e *ity38. *n *act,
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
v*er*o *ppellatus, se* re iam iudicatus Antonius". 3
</line>
<line>
Ev*n more, h*s Phi*ippic Four is *eliv*re* in *uch a w*y *s it **ems th*t the*e is *lre*dy a ge*eral consen*us
</line>
<line>
against Antonius *n *he city (Phil. 4.2): "n**c vero multo *um erectior qu*d *os quoque illum hoste* esse tanto
</line>
<line>
c6*nsensu *antoque clamore approbavisti*". 3
</line>
<line>
The i*sue *s eve* more emphatically *resented in Philippi*s 4.7. Not only Roma* citizens, bu* a*l th* people
</line>
<line>
t*at l*ves the Rep*blic should u*de*stand that it is necessary to do th* wa* again** Antonius: "omnes m*rtales
</line>
<line>
u7na m*nte *onsentiunt; *mnia ar** eorum qui haec sal*a velint contra il*am p*st*m e*** capienda". 3
</line>
<line>
With this aim, Cicero use* the i*vect*ve again*t *is adversary i* a si*ila* way a* h* did *n ***lippicThr*e. For
</line>
<line>
e8x*mp*e, he resorts to so*e **etorical e*aggerat*on* and insults (cf. e.g. Phil. 4.11-*2; 4.15).
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
m*in defende* of the co**try (*hil. 4.1): "princeps v**trae *ibe*t*tis de****endae fui". See also Philippics 4.11:
</line>
<line>
"fa*iam igi*ur ut *m*eratores *nstructa acie so*ent, qua*quam paratissimos milites ad proeliandu* v**e*nt, ut
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
eos tame* adhorte*tur, s** ego
</line>
<line>
vos *rdent*s et erectos ad li**rtatem *e*u*erandam co*ortabor". See als*
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
Philipp*cs 4.16: "me *uctore et pri*cipe *d s*em libertatis exa**imus". *nc* again, it is *lear that Cic*ro is n*t
</line>
<line>
an objecti*e journalist who informs about some facts, but an ex**ll*nt orator and a politic*an.
</line>
<line>
Rev. F*A, Teresina, *. 1*, n. 5, art. 11, p. *85-206, set./out. 20*6 w*w*.fsa*et.com.*r/revista
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
Commen*ar* on P*ilippics Thre* and Four
</line>
<line>
203
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
this is on* *f the most *elevant p*ints in Ph**ippic Four. T*e details g*ven in *hilippic Thr*e
</line>
<line>
are not so imp*rtant in this speech, because t*e main s**pe is not to *nform, but *o g*t the
</line>
<line>
support of the people agains* Antoniu* *nd t* reac* a political cons*ns*s betwe*n sen*tors
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
and cit*zens. That i* why the private initiati*es explai*ed in Philippi* *hree are just
</line>
<line>
*ri*fly
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
mentioned (cf. Phil. 4.2-9). The primary go*l of both speeches is not t*e same, as *t has *een
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
pointed. To state it *n
</line>
<line>
other wo*ds, i* is clear tha* Cicero d*d not *s* the speech
</line>
<line>
t* inform
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
objecti*ely about the Se*a**\* decr*e, but to announce it in such a w*y tha* it woul* persuade
</line>
<line>
*it*zens of Th* Eternal City to *ight together for the free*om aga*n*t the potent*a* tyran*.
</line>
<line>
In o*de* to reach his *oal, Cicero buil*s his speech in such * way *hat the au*ience
</line>
<line>
*hould *eel personal*y address*d: t*ey *houl* conside* not o*ly that t*e** position is
</line>
<line>
*specially *elevan* to the develop*ent of the events, but that t*e facts will perso*ally and
</line>
<line>
dramati*ally affect them**. The v*ctory or the defeat of Antoniu* does no* affe*t Ro*e as an
</line>
<line>
abstra*t entity; it is t*e *reedom *f eac* citizen which is dep*nden* of the fa*e of R*me. Thu*,
</line>
<line>
the *ra*or c*nstructs t*e spee*h frequently using the *erso*al *ronoun vos a*d t**ng many
</line>
<line>
*imes th* *ossessive pronoun vester *o relevant term* such as libertas and hos*is (*f. e.*. Phil.
</line>
<line>
4.1; *.*; 4.4; 4.5; 4.14; 4.15; 4.16), as Manuwald (20*7b: 4*8) pointed. Moreover, the word
</line>
<line>
*uirites, even i* *t is t*e usual form ** addre*s *n contiones, appears in Phil**pic Four with
</line>
<line>
more frequency than in o**er contio speech*s of Cicero. This could me*n that the sp**k**
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ants to underline the
</line>
<line>
politica* ro*ea*d r*sponsibi*ity sha*ed by *l* the individual* attending
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
the speech40. *ll of them form par* o* the
</line>
<line>
pop*lus Ro***us (cf. MANUWALD 2007b, p.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
4*6-47*)41.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
By means of *he *p*ech Ci*ero tries to lead t*e opi*i*n of Roman Pe**le. Of cour*e,
</line>
<line>
he *o*s *t in *ifferent wa*s in the *enate and in the popular a**emb*y, *ut bot* form part of
</line>
<line>
t*e same rhetor*cal attem*t to fight against An*onius. Ma*uwa*d ha* p*inted *n a re*arkable
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
way t*e big e*forts of Cicero to develop *he arguments in such *ay that they should a
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
c*ns**tute * m*ximally efficient machine to psych*logi*al*y affec*
</line>
<line>
the a*dience *n the way
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
that *e i**ended:
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
</page><line>
(Ph*l. 4.4): "qui* est enim q*i hoc n*n *ntellegat, nisi Caesar exercitum paravisset, non *ine exitio nostro
</line>
<line>
f4ut**um *ntoni *e*itum f*isse?". 0
</line>
<line>
Said this, it i* nec*ssary to add that with the goal t* enco*rage Roma* *eo*le *gainst A*toni*s Philippic Four
</line>
<line>
u**s a more op*imistic *ppro*c* than t*e previou* Ph*lippic. It can be checked in several passages of the text.
</line>
<line>
See e.*. Phil. 4.10: "Sive enim prodi*iis atque portentis di i*mor*a*e* nobis *utura praedicunt, *ta sunt aperte
</line>
<line>
*ron*nti*ta ut et illi poen* et nobis libe*ta* *ppropinquet; s*ve tantus co*sens*s om*ium *in* i*puls* deor*m
</line>
<line>
esse non potuit, q*id e*t quod *e vo**nt*te caelestium dub*tar* possi*us?".
</line>
<line>
41
</line>
<line>
In addition to th* r*ferred proc*dur*s, Martín (2*01: 343, n. 1) p*ints t*at the ex*rdi*m has b*e* constructed
</line>
<line>
follo*ing a rhetor***l pro*edure that aims to ex**rt *he audien*e *o feel con*ide*ce about the*r poli*ical powe*
</line>
<line>
an* *o urge them t* start a fi**t ag**nst An*onius.
</line>
<line>
Rev. FSA, *e*esina PI, *. 13, n. 5, ar*. 11, p. 185-20*, *et/out. 2016 www4.fsanet.com.b*/r*vista
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
J. Lavill* Ler*
</line>
<line>
204
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
"On the who**, t*e contio s*e*ch employs fewer sequences of *rgument and
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
factua* expositions than the c***e*ponding Senate sp*ech; ins**ad, it relies
</line>
<line>
on
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
su*gestive p*e*entatio*, ser**s *f ex*mples, *o*t*tive elements such as
</line>
<line>
*ddresses, appeals, r*e*oric*l *uestions, demands and exclamat*ons,
</line>
<line>
*emorable and conci*e **rases, key*ords, rep*titions, exa*ger*t*on* and
</line>
<line>
similar sty*isti* features. T**s the *ost importa*t facts can be conve*ed clearly
</line>
<line>
a*d vi*i*ly, the atten*ion of t*e audienc* m** be retained *nd thei* agr*em*nt
</line>
<line>
*i*ally w*n *s the speech is impr*ssive on the psychological leve*. The
</line>
<line>
difference in audienc*s apart, this s*ecific str*cture is a resu*t of the fac* th*t
</line>
<line>
th* Peo*le are n*t bein* motivate* to take official *easur*s against a powerful
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
enemy,
</line>
<line>
b** that an existing Sen*te *ecree is pres*nt*d to them as convin**ng
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
and t*at they *re t* be st**ngthene* i* their c*urage and
</line>
<line>
f*g*ti*g power. This
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
als* explains
</line>
<line>
why the threat pos*d b* A*tonius is depicted a* less dangerous
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
and *he certai*ty o* def*a*in* him as *
</line>
<line>
greater than i* Philip*i* Thr*e"
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
(MAN*W*LD, **07b, p. 478-*79).
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
I* the s*me sense, i* has bee* u*derlined th* importan*e the te*t which c*rrespond **
</line>
<line>
Phili**ics 4.*1-16a. I* *s directly a*dres*ed to the citizens of R*me with an insistent *p*eal to
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
jo*n th* fight against Antonius. Obviously,
</line>
<line>
the st**cture of the speech is determ*ned by the
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
immedi*te *cope purs**d, and th* lógo* *s
</line>
<line>
de*eloped i* su*h a way *h*t it should lead *he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
souls of *he audience *o embr*ce Ci*ero\s cause.
</line>
<line>
Th* s*ructu** of Philippic Fo*r is not es*eci*lly *omp*icated and t*e most of **e
</line>
<line>
comm**tari*s give simila* analysi*4*. *s we agree wi*h hi* a*alysis, *e wil* fol*o* the o*e
</line>
<line>
propo*e* b* Manuwald (2007b: 482-4*3). F*om the opening till Ph*lippics 4.2* th* t*xt
</line>
<line>
fu*ctions as an introduction, w*ere th* political si*uation *s pres*nted and it is em*hatically
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
poi**ed the rel*vance of t*e Senate decree *p*r**ed *n the morning; Phil*pp**s
</line>
<line>
4.2-10
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ons*itutes t** f*r*t main section, *ith which t*e citizens should be info*med abo*t
</line>
<line>
th e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
decision of the Senate to give honors to some of th* recen* activities f*r the Republ**: f*rs* t*e
</line>
<line>
te** menti*** the initi*tives of Octavian (Phil. *.2b-5a); sec*n**y the speech **f*r*s about
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
l*g** Ma*tia and legio qua*ta (4.5b-7a); t*i*d*y the activitie* of D. Iu*ius B*utus
</line>
<line>
are
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
men*ioned (Phil. 4.7b-8); then, it refers t* the p*ovince o* Gaul (Phil. 4.*a); finally it o*fers
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
conclusion*
</line>
<line>
and **pectations that th* audi*nc* should tak* in m*nd in the futur* (*hil.
</line>
<line>
4 .9 -
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
10). After informing a*ou* t*e initiatives *ha* *he *enate\s
</line>
<line>
decree pres*r*bes to honor,
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
se*ond main sec*i*n (Phil.
</line>
<line>
4. *1-16a) exhorts the audience to war. The text
</line>
<line>
offer* several
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
reas*ns to j*sti*y this *nd some additional rem*r*s: the **p*ssibility *o re*ch a true peace
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
with Anto*ius (4.11-12a);
</line>
<line>
the consensus of the Senat* and the Rom*n P*op*e, *n*
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*ourage*us *ature of t*e R*man* (4.12b-13); the
</line>
<line>
ille*al activities and weakness of
</line>
<line>
th e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
opp*nent (Phil. 4.14-15); Cicero\*
</line>
<line>
cont*ibu*i*n to reco*ering f**edom (Phil. 4.*6a). Finally,
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
</page><line>
Rev. *SA, *eres*na, v. 1*, n. 5, art. 11, *. 1*5-2*6, set./out. 2016
</line>
<line>
w*w4.*sa*et.*om.**/*evi*ta
</line>
</par><page>
<par>
<line>
Commenta*y o* Ph*lippics Thre* a*d Four
</line>
<line>
205
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
the *pee*h reaches its end wit* a conclusion (Phil. 4.16b) where it is emphasized *he
</line>
<line>
releva*ce of the present day.
</line>
<line>
As in the previous speech, th* ora*or d*velops the arg**ents *nd *onstruc** the lógos
</line>
<line>
*n the *ay *h*t he thinks more appropri*te to pr*du*e p*rs*asion in t** audience, i.e. *o
</line>
<line>
influen*e them in the po*itical situation.
</line>
<line>
6. CONCL*S*ON
</line>
<line>
T* conclude with this *rief analysis of two of the Ph*lippics, we would like to make
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
emphasis
</line>
<line>
on a g*neral *o*sideration *i*en
</line>
<line>
in the first
</line>
<line>
chapters. Philippics Three and Four,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
which *omehow open t*e *ar strat*gy again*t **tonius devel*ped *y means of speec*es,
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
constitut* a s*phisticated rhetor*c*l a**e fact. The rhetorical mastery o* the
</line>
<line>
orato* is u*ed to
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
**oduce a m*xi*al*y *fficient political tool. T** *angua*e is shaped i* that way to politically
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
i**act the audience*3 ac*ording to a conc*ete i*eology. It
</line>
<line>
is c*e*r that the homo novus doe*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
not mere*y inf*rm about *he politi*al facts; in the
</line>
<line>
same w*y, he
</line>
<line>
does not u*e language in
</line>
<line>
a
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*eutral *ay. To the contr*ry, Cicero tak*s advan*age of his rhetorica* mastery to per*uad* his
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
audience and i*fluence their
</line>
<line>
i**ology. The *ay *n wh*ch he depicts Anto*ius
</line>
<line>
and his ow*
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
portrait given in the t*x* ar* clear e*amples
</line>
<line>
*f t*is fact; th*y are
</line>
<line>
not
</line>
<line>
obje*ti*e pictures, but
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
sophisti**ted and id**l**ically
</line>
<line>
deformed re*re*enta*ions that sh*u*d pro**ce co**rete
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
feeli*g*
</line>
<line>
i* t*e *udience. I* *he same w*y, th* *ost of
</line>
<line>
the a**uments, *hich have b*en
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
const*ucted *ith the a*pearance
</line>
<line>
to be log*cal an* rigorous, *re b***t *rom unproven facts;
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
even mo*e, some o* them co*stitut* fallacies or *hey simplify the realit* according to Ci*ero\s
</line>
<line>
*ol*tical purpose. In summary, t*e *rator *ses the p*wer of lógos *s * po*i*ical inst**men* to
</line>
<line>
change his wo*l*.
</line>
<line>
To some extent, the stylisti* *esourc*s a*d the subtl*ness wi*h which the wo*ds a*e
</line>
<line>
shap** are at *he serv*ce of political goals, *.e. they are tools to p**i*icall* aff*** the audience
</line>
<line>
*y me*ns of t*e *p*ech. Tha* i*, rhetoric it*elf works a* an instru**nt t* lea* the opini*n of
</line>
<line>
the **ople. Obviousl*, to a*sert t*at rhe*oric -and the *hil*ppics only *orks in * political or
</line>
<line>
judic*al le*el wou*d be excessi*e, but by *ea*s of *he emphasis g*ven to this is*ue the cur*ent
</line>
<line>
paper has tr*ed to h*gh**ght that the n*ture of rhe*oric it*elf depends on its political contex*.
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
That is, the o**tory
</line>
<line>
**vel*p*d during the Classical Period of Greece and du*i*g
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Republican *ome dif**rs from t*e
</line>
<line>
one developed in the Helle**stic Period an* under the
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
<line>
of the published t*x*.
</line>
</par><par>
</page><line>
R*v. FSA, Teresina PI, v. 13, n. 5, art. 11, p. *85-206, se*/out. 2016
</line>
<line>
www4.fsanet.co*.*r/revista
</line>
</par><page>
</document><par>
<line>
J. Lavilla Le*a
</line>
<line>
206
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
Roman Empir*. Signifi*an*ly *nough, the Philippics by Demosth*ne* a*d Cicero cons*itute
</line>
<line>
someh*w *he tragic at*empt o* *he polit*cal rh*toric itself to save the pol*tical b*ckgroun* that
</line>
<line>
c*n**itutes its h*bitat. The Ph*lippics r*pr*sent a very specific *oment i* the Hi*tory of
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
rhetoric. From o**
</line>
<line>
poi nt of
</line>
<line>
view, they *how the crisis *f th* *orensic rhetoric
</line>
<line>
-i.e. of
</line>
<line>
t he
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
rheto*ic developed in *he Forum, tha* is th* political rhetori* in the m*men* in which it
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
desperately tries to survive. On the c**trary, from other point of view they represent
</line>
<line>
t *e
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
zen*th *f the *o*e*sic
</line>
<line>
rhetoric, as the* displ*y
</line>
<line>
the sple*do* achieved by i* a*ter a long
</line>
</par><par>
<line>
*evelopme*t.
</line>
</par><par>
</par>
<par>
</page><line>
Rev. FS*, Ter*si*a, *. 13, n. 5, art. 1*, p. 185-206, set./ou*. 2016
</line>
<line>
www4.fsane*.com.br/revi*ta
</line>
</par>Apontamentos
- Não há apontamentos.
Atribuição (BY): Os licenciados têm o direito de copiar, distribuir, exibir e executar a obra e fazer trabalhos derivados dela, conquanto que deem créditos devidos ao autor ou licenciador, na maneira especificada por estes.
Não Comercial (NC): Os licenciados podem copiar, distribuir, exibir e executar a obra e fazer trabalhos derivados dela, desde que sejam para fins não-comerciais
Sem Derivações (ND): Os licenciados podem copiar, distribuir, exibir e executar apenas cópias exatas da obra, não podendo criar derivações da mesma.
ISSN 1806-6356 (Impresso) e 2317-2983 (Eletrônico)