12

Cicero and the Politics of Ambiguity:

Interpreting the Pro Marcello
John Dugan

Words that instil doubt in a listener regarding a speakers exact meaning have selfevident utility in politics.1 Ambiguous language can be a cautiously opaque
response to precarious circumstances, make adversaries uncertain about ones
intentions, hedge bets, or offer criticism of a more powerful person in the guise of
praise. Yet the interpretative difculties involved in recognizing moments of
ambiguity in political speech are daunting. How can we, and with what degree
of certainty, determine when an orator is being ambiguous? Likewise, how can we
ascertain a speakers intended meaning within these ambiguous words? Central to
these questions is the issue of reception, since recognizing and resolving ambiguity is inevitably done by an audiencedirectly at the original performance of a
speech or as a text analysed by readers. Since ambiguity is, by denition, language
open to interpretation, it is therefore realized in the process of exegesis. The act of
interpreting such ambiguous language intertwines politics and hermeneutics,
since the political signicance of such speech hinges upon interpretative choices,
and these acts of interpretation are framed by political circumstances.
The hermeneutical dimensions of reading ambiguity are, as ancient rhetorical theorists and contemporary literary critics both recognize, complex. This
essay is an attempt to explore and expose those methodological difculties by
scrutinizing the problem of ambiguity within Ciceros pro Marcello, Ciceros
impromptu speech of thanks to Caesar in response to the dictators unexpected
1
I am grateful to Catherine Steel and Henriette van der Blom for organizing the splendid
conference at which this paper was originally delivered, and for their helpful criticisms and
gracious encouragement of this project. Many conference participants and audience members
offered thoughtful responses and suggestions. For their assistance and fellowship I would
especially like to thank Andrea Balbo, Dominic Berry (for asking a question that helped
articulate my position better than I could have done on my own), Sarah Cohen, Lynn Fotheringham, Jim Heppell, Bob Morstein-Marx, Alison Rosenblitt, Amy Russell, Christopher Smith,
and Jeff Tatum.

212

John Dugan

pardon of his former enemy, the consul of 51 bc, Marcus Claudius Marcellus.
By examining this texts reception, particularly within ancient commentaries,
I hope to show that the questions we ask and the ways we answer them have, to
a degree, already been scripted within the rhetorical-hermeneutical tradition.
Our own interpretative moves are implicated within this history of textual
interpretation, however much we imagine that we occupy an autonomous
position when we unravel the meaning of the texts we study. I do not claim
to offer a solution to the problem of whether Cicero meant his pro Marcello as
sincere praise for, or as covert criticism of, Caesar.2 Rather, I argue that
wherever historical analysis involves the interpretation of literary texts, we
must take into account the processes according to which these texts are given
meaning, a hermeneutical process that started in antiquity and continues
today. My objective, therefore, is not so much historical as it is to historicize
the process of the interpretation of ambiguity in Roman oratory.
The pro Marcello presents an exceptionally rich test case for the exploration
of ambiguity in Ciceronian speech since it has a well-documented and long
history of interpretation and is the product of ambiguous political circumstances. Ciceros speech was delivered in the senate, around the middle of
September of 46 bc, after Caesar unexpectedly granted a request for clemency
made on behalf of Marcellus, Caesars long-time enemy who was then in exile.
The story of the reception of the speech begins with Ciceros own account of
the events that day in the senate, written in a letter to Marcellus former
consular colleague, Servius Sulpicius Rufus. Cicero depicts a scene in which,
after Piso, Caesars father-in-law, made mention of Marcellus, his cousin
C. Marcellus threw himself at Caesars feet, and the whole of the senate then
joined this supplication. Against expectation (praeter spem) Caesar proclaimed that he would not refuse the senates petition. There is a pronounced
theme of apologetics in Ciceros account. The main thrust of his narrative is to
explain why he felt inspired to break his resolution not to engage in public
speech in a Rome under Caesars control. The combination of Caesars
generosity and the senates debt for this favour of clemency led him to change
this plan. Cicero further explains that the choice to speak was inuenced by his
desire to avoid giving offence to Caesar, who might interpret Ciceros silence
itself as having a political meaning, that is, that Cicero did not think that this
was a constitutional government.3 Cicero claims to Rufus that this day
seemed to offer an image of a reviving republic.4 Looking to the future,
2
For a ne historical analysis of the interpretative problems of this speech, see Hall (2009b),
esp. 1037.
3
Cic. Fam. 4.4.4 (SB 203): qui (sc. Caesar) fortasse arbitraretur me hanc rem publicam non putare,
si perpetuo tacerem. See Shackleton Bailey (1977) ad loc. for the observation there seems to be a touch
of irony here, since in fact this had been what Cicero thought, as Sulpicius was well aware.
4
Fam. 4.4.3 (SB 203): ita mihi pulcher hic dies visus est, ut speciem aliquam viderer videre
quasi reviviscentis rei publicae.

Cicero and the Politics of Ambiguity

213

Cicero proposes to engage in measured political speech, striking a balance that

would satisfy Caesars wishes and his own literary pursuits.
This letter marks the beginning of the history of the interpretation of the
text of the pro Marcello, giving us a glimpse of Ciceros presentation of his state
of mind soon after he spoke in the senate. Yet this account is far from simple
reportage of the event. It is instead a complex and ambivalent document of a
highly uncertain political moment, and an account of the calculations that
Cicero made regarding his choice to break his silence, decisions made under
the pressure of Caesars unexpected change of heart. This letter does not
provide unltered access to the intentions behind those words he spoke on
that occasion, much less a skeleton key for unlocking the meaning of the text
of the pro Marcello that Cicero later composed and put into circulation. As will
be explored later in this chapter, the very notion of a stable and identifying
authorial intention that locks into place the meaning of text is an idea with
signicant hermeneutical dangers that need to be recognized and addressed.
That text has caused considerable interpretative difculties for modern
readers who have had problems imagining that the Cicero they know could
be responsible for what seems at times fawning adoration of the tyrant. As
early as 1799, the Spanish Jesuit scholar Juan Andrez was so scandalized by the
pro Marcello that he questioned its authenticity. Soon afterwards that giant of
Homeric criticism, Friedrich August Wolf, in his edition of what he terms the
allegedly Ciceronian speech, sets out to prove that the pro Marcello is a speech
devoid of content; in its words, phrases, and constructions often hardly Latin,
in the whole of its composition tasteless, foolish, laughable; nally, a speech
more worthy of the simpleton Emperor Claudius than of Cicero.5 Wolf s
condemnation of the pro Marcello on ethical and aesthetic grounds accuses it
of being literally anachronistic, that is, a forgery written during the imperial
period. Although he proposes a radical solution by denouncing the pro
Marcello as a counterfeit, he reects a more generally held sentiment that
the speech seems characteristic not of republican Roman oratory, but imperial
panegyric, such as Elizabeth Rawsons characterization of the speech as look
[ing] to us like a step on the road to the grovelling attery of imperial times.6
While todays scholarly communities reject Wolfs suspicions over the
authenticity of the pro Marcello, problems remain concerning the tone of
Ciceros words of praisewhether they are sincere praise or tinged with irony.
Robert Dyers provocative 1990 study proposed that the Cicero speech is, in
the terms of ancient rhetorical theory, gured, that is, an attack disguised as
5
Wolf (1802), p. xxxvi: orationem esse inanem rerum; verbis, formulis, constructionibus saepe
vix Latinam, in tota compositione ineptam, stultam, ridiculam; denique fatuo principe, Claudio,
quam Cicerone digniorem. On these controversies over the pro Marcellos authenticity see
Fausset (1893), 37.
6
Rawson (1983), 21819.

214

John Dugan

praise that includes perhaps even a covert call for Caesars assassination. In
response, other scholars argue for a historically grounded reading of the
speech, one that explains its obscurities through contextualization and scrutiny of Ciceros thoughts at the timein as much as they can be inferred
especially from his lettersand by explaining the extravagant praise that
Cicero heaps upon Caesar by comparison with the ancient conventions for
laudatory language.7 The seeds of the controversy lie in the ancient scholiastic
tradition in which we nd both these strands of thought represented
suspicions of a covert gured criticism vs. contextualization leading to the
naturalization of Ciceros praise. We turn now to consider this tradition and
the methods used there to resolve the ambiguities in the pro Marcello.
The epicentre of this controversy over the tone of the pro Marcello lies in the
Gronovian scholia, a commentary that survives in a tenth-century manuscript
from Lyons, but preserves readings of the pro Marcello stretching back to
antiquity. The scholiast distils the critical dilemma as follows:
plerique putant guratam esse istam orationem et sic exponunt, quasi plus vituperationis habeat quam laudis. 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.8
Most think that this speech is gured and explain it this way, as if the speech has
more blame than praise. This interpretation ts neither the times nor Caesar. For
both the time was such that it was by true praise that Caesar would be led to
clemency, and Caesar the orator is not the sort of person who can be deceived.

The scholiast anchors his argument against earlier critics who nd in the pro
Marcello gured, that is, concealed criticism on two issues: the chronological
circumstances that framed the speech and the recipient, Caesar himself. These
two factors place limitations upon what sort of rhetorical strategies were
available to Cicero, since, so the scholiast implies, Caesars rhetorical sophistication (Caesar orator) would allow him to distinguish between authentic
praise and gured criticism.9 The scholiast therefore presented the interpretative problems of the speech, not on what a typical audience member in the
senate would have heard in Ciceros words, but on what Caesar himself would
have thought. Therefore (so the scholiast implies) we must become not so
much readers of the text as readers of what Caesar would have read in the text.
The pro Marcello presents an unusual rhetorical and hermeneutical situation
within republican Roman oratory: a speech with a specic and singular
implied reader. We are not as readers allowed to conjure an ideal or
7

For studies that see irony in the Marc.: Dyer (1990); Gagliardi (1997). Ahl (1984) analyses
the use of gured language for safe political criticism during the Empire. Levene (1997),
Winterbottom (2002), and Hall (2009b) argue against a gured reading of the speech.
8
2956St.
9
In other Caesarian speeches Cicero himself presents Caesar as a fellow orator equipped to
appreciate his speeches. See pro Ligario 30 and pro Rege Deiotaro 7.

Cicero and the Politics of Ambiguity

215

ordinary reader independent of considerations of how Caesar would interpret Ciceros words.
The Gronovian scholiast offers a sustained treatment of the pro Marcello
that solidies his interpretation by grounding the speech within the circumstances of its performance. In essence, he offers an extended gloss on the
times that frame the speech by presenting the text as framed within a specic
performative context. He uses dramatization to substantiate his particular
reading of the speech. The commentary offers stage directions, and provides
dialogue for C. Marcellus and Caesar in the scene of supplication, and Caesars
reversal of his hostility to the petition on Marcellus behalf. He even goes so
far, in an extraordinary move, as to dramatize Caesars thought process in a
dialogue with an imaginary Marcellus as he explores his dilemma and his
reasons for pardoning him.10 This dramatic context frames the scholiasts
interpretation of the pro Marcello, thus nipping in the bud the texts potential
obscurities and ambiguities. There are here no unexpressed or latent meanings
since the thoughts of the participants are voiced openly in dialogue. The text of
the speech is thus made a response to specic actions and words and not a
free-standing verbal artefact.
The scholiast also seeks to control the meaning of the pro Marcello within
his comments on individual phrases. The Cicero that the scholiast presents is
one who carefully avoids any impression of a gured oration. In the face of the
scholiasts adversaries claim that Ciceros mention of these times (his temporibus) at the beginning of the speech is a veiled accusation against the
current circumstances, the scholiast offers that Ciceros qualication of that
claim with the words not with any fear (non timore aliquo) are meant to
anticipate and neutralize such suspicions. Cicero (so the scholiast argues)
recognized the possibility that this sentiment might be interpreted as a gured
language and took steps to close off such an interpretation. The scholiasts
comments impersonate Cicero, giving rst person glosses on the texts various
phrases; for example, Cicero explaining his reason for breaking his silence as
being partly from longing (partim dolore) gets a note because I was pining
after Marcellus. On Ciceros claim to be speaking what I wish and what I feel
(quae vellem quaeque sentirem) the scholiast offers the conclusion: here we
have now full-blown freedom of speech (libertas).11 That Ciceros claim to
saying exactly what was on his mind could admit any degree of irony is written
out of the scholiasts version of the text. So too, the commentary obliterates
any hint of hesitation, or of the compulsion to say something for fear that
saying nothing would lead Caesar to make inferences about his political
sentiments from silence. The introduction to pro Marcello presents a general
10
The Gronovian scholiasts introductory comments provide lost dialogue and stage directions (295St).
11
295St.

216

John Dugan

context for an irony-free speech, while its lemmatized comments segment the
text and through its glosses channel the narrative arch of the speech towards a
univocal, unambiguous meaning.12 The commentary thus offers a textual
supplement to the speech that stabilizes and naturalizes its meanings according to this readers overall view of the speech as lacking ambiguity. Yet the
sustained programme of policing the texts meaning that the scholiast felt it
necessary to employ shows how the text of the pro Marcello can resist such
efforts at containment.
Scholia document, with arresting clarity, the complex process of realizing
the meaning of texts. In his struggles to present his interpretation, the Gronovian scholiast preserves an archaeology of divergent readings of the pro
Marcello that he wishes to debunk. Scholia can thus reveal that rifts and
ssures within the reception of a text, as one interpretive community, to
borrow Stanley Fishs term, seeks to supplant another. Fishs view that such
communities share interpretive strategies not for reading but for writing texts
is particularly suited to the kind of interpretation that scholia performa
rewriting, or overwriting, of a text in line with the scholiasts interpretative
assumptions.13 These strategies leave members of different interpretative
communities with blind spots that do not allow them to see what to others,
in Fishs words, is obviously and inescapably there. Such interpretative gaps
are in play in the interpretation of an ambiguous text that is open to an
ironical reading wherein a reader labor[s] to establish the facts of the text, that
is, to establish a perspective or a way of seeing from the vantage point of which
the text would have for others the shape it had from him.14 In harmony with
his idea that interpretative communities realize meaning, Fish builds in the
notion of change in the interpretation of a text from literal to ironic and vice
versa. He concludes:
How can you know without doubt whether or not a work is ironic? My answer is
that you always know, but that what you know, because it rests on a structure of
assumptions and beliefs (which produce both literal and ironic meanings), is
subject to challenge or revision, as a result of which you will still always know,
even though what you know will be different.15

12
See Kraus (2002), 9: the give and take between the text and its commentary, and between
the commentary and its reader, is a complex manifestation of the pull of narrative desire: a
commentary becomes a kind of meta-narrative, a story told about, and around, a text, based on
the tension between the disorder created by a problematic, or multiply meaning, source text, and
the order generated by the satisfaction of the texts teasing answeredor only deferred?by the
commentators judgment.
13
See Fish (1980), esp. 1416. For an inuential study of Latin literature using reception
theory see Martindale (1993). See also now the essays contained in Martindale and Thomas
(2006).
14
Fish (1989), 187.
15
Fish (1989), 196.

Cicero and the Politics of Ambiguity

217

While we may have trouble accepting without qualication Fishs view of a

radically reader-centric view of the constitution of ironic texts, his views are
apt for charting the dynamics of the interpretation of ambiguous texts through
the history of their reception, including the pro Marcello.
The sum effect of this agonistic form of reading, where the scholiast
integrates other interpretations as foils to his own, can be to make a text
appear polyvalent. In the process of attempting to squelch an adversary the
scholiast memorializes that opponents position within his own text. The
Gronovian scholiast thus writes not only his version of the speech, but also
that of his unnamed opponents. Such are the paradoxes of textual reception
that we nd in this ancient reading practice an anticipation of (post)modern
critical practices.16
In his advocacy for his particular reading of this text, this critic engages in
the typical Roman oratorical practice of presenting a persuasive persona
designed to sway his audience to his interpretation of the text while casting
doubt upon that of his adversaries. The general rhetorical stance that the
scholiast assumes is as a reader with access to the realities of this text that his
opponents lack. The scholiast is anxious to ground his reading within the facts
of the speech acthistorical context, persuasive goal, and audience, that is,
Caesar himself. The scholiast therefore presents himself as a hard-headed
historical realist who will not allow this text to be read in ways not rmly
grounded within the realities of its performance. He also presents himself as
ghting a battle against ignorance of rhetorical theory and shoddy reasoning.
His commentary is designed to correct the errors of the multitude. His persona
is that of a heroic corrector of error, and one that is advancing a minority
opinion against opponents who outnumber him. The claim that most people
think that the speech is gured is something of a refrain within the commentary on the speech. We are told earlier that most people think that the point in
question of the speech (the Latin is status) is one of pardon, though there is no
point in question in this speech. It is instead a performance of thanks.17 The
scholiast takes pains to establish his bona des through his mastery of status
theory, that tradition within rhetorical theory that has to do with the proper
discovery of arguments (inventio). We see here evidence of how scholarly
interpretation of a text is not just that of the unmediated interaction of a
reader and text. Instead, we nd a rhetorical practice embedded within this
process of interpretation. This similarity in the Gronovian scholiast between

16
See Kraus (2002), 9 on the tension between the meaning xed by the commentators
answer and the plurality of meaning(s) opened by the new paths suggested by the very process
of answering. Fowler (1999) is an exploration of how the commentary may be (427) the form
most suited to the postmodern condition.
17
295St.

218

John Dugan

his critical approaches and rhetorical argumentation is part of a larger overlap

between textual hermeneutics and the rhetorical theory.
As Hans-Georg Gadamer has argued, the theoretical tools of the art of
interpretation (hermeneutics) have been to a large extent borrowed from rhetoric.18 Kathy Eden and Rita Copeland have elaborated upon this insight, tracing
the penetration of the techniques of rhetorical invention (that is, discovery of
appropriate rhetorical strategies for a speech) into a tradition of hermeneutics that
wends its way from the ancient scholia, to the medieval commentaries, to such
modern meditations on hermeneutics as Gadamers monumental Truth and
Method. Ancient rhetorical theories on the determination of authorial meaningvoluntasfrom textscriptumset the foundation for the hermeneutical
tradition that follows. Here Ciceros own youthful and inuential de Inventione
offers a detailed and inuential account of these hermeneutical methods used to
divine authorial intentions. By examining how Cicero himself theorizes the
process of textual hermeneutics moves beyond the familiar operation of comparing Ciceros rhetorical theory and oratorical practice. Rather, the de Inventione
provides an archaeology of our own understanding of how a text conveys sense,
and how points of uncertain signicanceambiguitycan be resolved.
Cicero breaks down the circumstances that frame a rhetorical argument
into its constituent elements: persona, res, causa, tempus, locus, modus, facultas.19 The Gronovian scholiast anchors his reading of the pro Marcello upon
two of these rubrics of rhetorical invention: persona and tempus. As Cicero
says in the Orator, a text written not much later than the pro Marcello, the
orators job is to be a manager of times and of persons.20 The scholiasts
reading practice is essentially a reverse-engineering of the composition practice, using the categories of composition as categories of interpretation.
As part of his discussion of how to analyse ambiguous texts Cicero advises that
an obscure passage can best be understood within the larger context of the
document. The authors state of mind ought to be grasped from his other
writings, actions, words, character, and life. All or most words taken on their
own, shorn of their context, have the potential to appear ambiguous.21 Cicero
therefore offers a method of interpretation that we have seen contemporary
scholars follow in resolving ambiguities in the pro Marcelloa contextual
reading that naturalizes the speech within the framework provided by his other
writings from this period.
Irony (or its absence) is more easily discovered in performance, as Quintilian
notes.22 The Gronovian scholiast takes obscurities out of the picture by restoring
18

Gadamer (1976), 234. See also Copeland (1991), 6970.

Cic. Inv. passim and esp. 1.38. cf. Copeland (1991), 66.
20
Cic. Orat. 123: temporum personarumque moderator.
21
Cic. Inv. 2.117. See also Eden (1997), 18.
22
Quint. Inst. 8.6.54: quae (sc. ironia) aut pronuntiatione intellegitur aut persona aut rei
natura; nam si qua earum verbis dissentit, apparet diversam esse orationi voluntatem (this
19

Cicero and the Politics of Ambiguity

219

the event of Ciceros delivery of the pro Marcello. By giving voice to Ciceros
unexpressed thoughts, he exposes Ciceros authorial intentions, and leaves the
text incapable of having a covert, gured meaning. In the de Inventione Cicero
advises orators to claim that the author, if brought back to life, would approve of
their readings of his text.23 Likewise, the scholiast, as it were, summons Cicero
from the grave to attest to the validity of the scholiasts interpretation. He
anchors the text in events and actions, and thus closes off the slipperiness of
signication that may have been present in a more formalistic reading of the text.
Ciceros dialogue the Brutus, his history of Roman oratory written in the
form of a lament on the death of eloquence in a Rome dominated by Caesar,
makes an obvious, almost inevitable companion piece to the pro Marcello.24
Each text is an attempt to come to terms with Caesars hegemony, and each
has been the object of speculation regarding its political meaning. The Brutus
has left readers puzzled about the tone of its praises for Caesars oratory, but
also about the meaning of its call upon Marcus Brutus (the dialogues eponymous dedicatee) to revive the memory of both sides of family lineage, a
remark that has been interpreted as a call to resist Caesar given Brutus
ancestors opposition to tyranny.25 Within this Platonic-style dialogue of the
Brutus Cicero exploits the ironic mode of the genre to allow himself the licence
to not make direct political remarks (the interlocutor Atticus repeatedly insists
that politics are not to be a topic of conversation) while leaving open for
interpretation what Ciceros specic meaning is.26 The Brutus is a rich meditation upon the relationship between oratory and politics, as Cicero confronts
the changed political landscape that Caesars supremacy has caused.
Within the historical narrative of Roman oratory that the Brutus presents
Cicero repeatedly confronts the relationship between the surviving texts of
speeches and their original performance, and the representational capacities of
texts to convey meaning.27 In his discussion of what oratorical performances
win an audiences approval, Cicero explores the relationship between authorial
intention and text by investigating the Causa Curiana, a court case over a
disputed will that hinged on an instance of textual ambiguity.28 Ciceros
[irony] is perceived either through delivery, the character of the speaker, or the nature of the
subject matter; for if any of these things is inconsistent with the words, it is clear that the
meaning is different from what has been said).
23
Cic. Inv. 2.139.
24
On the historical and thematic connections between these two texts see Gowing (2000), 5961.
25
Cic. Brut. 331. On Ciceros praise of Caesar as a speaker see now Kraus (2005). On the
problem of the political meaning of the Brutus see Rathofer (1986), 2432; Hall (2009b), 93100;
Lintott (2008), 3049.
26
On the problem of irony in the Brutus see Fox (2007), 177208 and cf. Dugan (2005), 204
12. For Atticus prohibition of political talk see Cic. Brut. 11, 157, 251, 266.
27
See Dugan (2005), 289303.
28
On this case see Harries (2006), 97102; Eden (1997), 1417; Zimmermann (1992), 628
32; Vaughn (1985); Tellegen (1983); and Wieacker (1967).

220

John Dugan

analysis of the Causa Curiana investigates the cardinal issues of inventiotext

(scriptum) and intention (voluntas)but within the context of the semiologically more complex political environment of Caesars Rome. The Brutus thus
updates hermeneutical problems Cicero rst addressed in his youthful de
Inventione, within a dialogue which is itself a text of uncertain, ambiguous
meaning. The Brutus presentation of the Causa Curiana can therefore be read
as a mise en abyme within the dialogue, a playing-out in miniature of the
hermeneutical puzzles in play within the text of the Brutus as a whole.29
The Causa Curiana of 94 bc involved a dispute over the interpretation of a
will that pitted the noted legal expert Quintus Mucius Scaevola against the
equally distinguished orator Lucius Licinius Crassus, Ciceros mentor. The
case boiled down to Scaevolas claim that the integrity of the literal meaning of
the will should be respected, and that we should not imagine what the authors
underlying intention was apart from the text of the will itself. As Scaevola puts
it, how lled with snares (captiosum) it is to disregard what has been written
and to search for intentions and thus distort the writings of simple folk by
means of the interpretation of the eloquent.30 While Scaevolas scrupulously
detailed legal argumentation appeared unassailable, Crassus, with a ash of
inspired imagery, swung the crowd in favour of his own interpretation of the
case. Crassus compares Scaevola to a beach-combing boy who, upon nding
an oarlock on the shore, dreams of making a boat to match. With this opening
image, Crassus begins his dismantling of Scaevolas position and wins the
audience over to his less text-bound interpretation of the will.31
The Causa Curiana is almost an allegory of contrasting reading practices:
what was thought to be an unsurpassable interpretation is undermined by
Crassus bold imaginative reading, both of the will and of the literal interpretative strategies of Scaevola.32 The anecdote thus shows how interpretative
communities can shifta brilliant hermeneutical performance can lead to the
collapse of orthodoxies. That is, Cicero presents a world in which the stability
of literal interpretation can be illusory. This anecdote shows none of the
Gronovian scholiasts faith that we can x a texts meaning through proper
contextualization. When a brilliant orator like Crassus is present, no interpretation can be considered completely xed and unassailable.33

29

For an attempt to analyse the Causa Curiana in this way see Dugan (2012).
Cic. Brut. 1947.
31
Note that this reading of whole for part reverses the ancient hermeneutical practice of
privileging the whole over the part. See Cic. Inv. 2.117 and Eden (1997), 18.
32
Cic. Brut. 197: quis esset in populo, qui aut exspectaret aut eri posse quicquam melius
putaret? (who was there in the crowd who would have expected or supposed that anything could
be better?).
33
On Ciceros academic scepticism and his practice of leaving the meaning his philosophical
dialogues open-ended, see Fox (2007), esp. 2254.
30

Cicero and the Politics of Ambiguity

221

Like the Brutus, the pro Marcello is an experimental work nding its way
within a radically changed political world.34 In the pro Marcellos exordium,
Cicero calls attention to the fact that the speech breaks a long-held silence, and
is the rst time his oratorical voice has been heard since Caesars victory.
Caesars supremacy, of course, marked a sea change in Rome that shifted the
traditional structures of political ideology. The familiar terms of political
discourse were destabilized. Caesar himself noted this semantic breakdown
when he quipped that the Republic was only a name without a body or
form.35 As such, improvisational skills were called for in negotiating this
new reality, a reality whose contours were, at the time Cicero delivered the
pro Marcello, still taking shape. Ciceros celebration of Crassus improvisational genius in the Brutus suits an author nding his bearing in this changed
political landscape.
Ciceros correspondence from this period give a window into the hermeneutical complexity of this period, with letters revealing Ciceros own uncertainty regarding Caesars intentions as well as that of his correspondents. As
Peter Whites work has shown, Caesar appears to have adopted a programme
of strategic ambiguity to obscure his intentions. Whites study of Caesars
correspondence with Cicero elucidates how Caesar purposely kept Cicero off
balance with discordant messages about his situation. At other junctions, too,
he used surrogates to ensure that Cicero would receive messages that misled or
disconcerted or stymied him.36 White shows a Cicero perplexed over the
meaning of Caesars letters, soliciting hermeneutical assistance from friends,
and even Caesar himself, to unravel his meaning.37 Ciceros relationship with
Caesar was one in which ambiguities were constantly being negotiated.
Within this environment of hermeneutical uncertainty we nd Cicero and
his correspondent collaborating on the interpretative problems of divining
Caesars intentions crafting their words with an eye to how Caesar might
interpret them. Aulus Caecina, like Marcellus an exiled adversary of Caesar,
34

See Krostenko (2005).

See Morgan (1997). cf. White (2003), 85: The man who once opined that the Republic was
just a word without a body or form (Suet. Jul. 77.1) liked words whose meaning was exible. For
other examples illustrating the new oratorical situation under Caesars dictatorship, see Balbo
and Mahy in this volume.
36
White (2003), 80.
37
White (2003) calls attention to Ciceros difculties when attempting to divine Caesars
meaning in his letters, working through the meaning of an epistle (Att. 9.6.6) (SB 172) in
correspondence with Atticus (9.9.3) (SB 176) and later in conversation with Matius (Att.
9.11.2) (SB 178); then Cicero nally went to Caesar himself, parsing the various phrases and
offering Caesar his own reading of Caesars words (Att. 9.11A) (SB 178A). White (2003), 83
concludes: This repeated scrutiny of Caesars letter is the most vivid performance of hermeneutical anxiety in the published correspondence. Whites emphasis on the textual status of Ciceros
and Caesars interactions suits men who wrote not just letters but treatises in response to each
other: Ciceros de Oratore inspired Caesars de Analogia, which in turn inspired parts of the
Brutus; Ciceros Cato led to Caesars Anti-Cato. See Dugan (2005), 17789.
35

222

John Dugan

seeks out Ciceros advice on how to avoid giving offence to Caesar in a treatise
he is writing. Caecina frames the problem with a nearly Stanley-Fishian
enunciation of the primacy of reception with the interpretation of texts: the
mental state with which a text is received is more important than that in which
it is written.38 This insight, that decoding by the reader is more important
than the encoding of the author, frames Caecinas presentation of his anxious
self-scrutiny in the process of composing his work. He describes his fear as not
for what penalty Caesar might exact, but for his critical judgement (iudicium).
Caecina dramatizes his thoughts, imagining Caesar approving of one word,
but nding another open to a suspicious interpretation (suspiciosum). Then he
worries that changing that word will make things worse. Caesars probing eye
is foremost in Caecinas thoughts as he sets words on the page, playing our
various interpretative twists that Caesars thoughts might take in response to
potentially ambiguous expressions.39 Caecina appeals to Cicero in his capacity
as expert hermeneut of Caesar, complimenting Cicero on his cunning dealing
with the potentially dangerous text he wrote in praise of Cato.40 Caecinas
anxiety derives from his inability to control the way his texts meaning will be
realized in its reception by Caesar. Caecinas letter offers a model for textual
hermeneutics, one fashioned within the real life of Roman politics, that has
little faith that text can be an accurate representation of intention given that
meaning is realized at the point of reception: Caesar himself.
To yet another apprehensive exile, Quintus Ligarius, Cicero offers a reading
of Caesars reception of a speech he delivered on Ligarius behalf during a
morning visit at Caesars house. In the absence of a clear indication from
Caesars words, Cicero was forced to interpret non-verbal signs for meaning.
He encourages Ligarius to be hopeful about his case for clemency, suggesting
that not only Caesars words but his facial expressions, tone of voice, and
other signs that Cicero nds it hard to describe left him convinced that Caesar
was favourably disposed to Ligarius case.41 Cicero was aware that Caesars
obscurities served his interests; he wrote to Ligarius (in an earlier letter) that
Caesar liked to keep in suspense people who had irritated him.42 Such is the

38

Cic. Fam. 6.7.1 (SB 237): non tam interest, quo animo scribatur, quam quo accipiatur.
Cic. Fam. 6.7.4 (SB 237): hoc probabit: hoc verbum suspiciosum est. quid, si hoc muto? at
vereor, ne peius sit. (This he will approve: this word is suspect. What if I change it? I worry in
case it be worse). See Hall (2009b), esp. 902.
40
Cic. Fam. 6.7.4 (SB 237).
41
Fam. 6.14.2 (SB 228). This off-the-cuff speech Cicero delivered in Caesars house should
not be confused with the deprecatio he later delivered in the senate on Ligarius behalf (the
surviving pro Ligario). Plutarch gives a snapshot of the theatrics of Caesars response to the pro
Ligario, showing by his facial expression that he was moved by Ciceros words and even, at the
mention of Pharsalus, dropping some documents in his hands (Plu. Cic. 39.6). If credible, this
story shows how Caesar could use non-verbal responses to Ciceros oratory.
42
Cic. Fam. 6.13.3 (SB 227).
39

Cicero and the Politics of Ambiguity

223

insight gained by a person like Cicero, whom Caesar left cooling his heels for
ten months in Brundisium waiting for a clear indication of Caesars pardon.43
The negotiation of ambiguities, and their artful deployment, was characteristic of the political speech of the time. The hermeneutical decisions involved
in interpreting both texts and their reception by audiences were conducted on
an exceedingly ne scale, right down to the interpretation of facial expressions
that thwart Ciceros power to put them in words. This is a reminder that
Roman political oratory was not only the domain of the mass communication
of the contio conducted before throngs of listeners. This more intimate form of
political communication has subtleties and nuances that are difcult to capture, and therefore invites us to use similarly ne-grained readings of the
speeches produced in this political context.44
Regardless of the Gronovian scholiasts claims that Ciceros words reected
libertas, there was no authentic freedom of speech under Caesars domination
of Rome.45 The lack of such libertas inevitably raises suspicions that political
speech cannot be taken as reecting a speakers intentions, whether these
doubts are founded or not. The process of interpreting a speakers intentions
is unavoidably complicated, and not a simple matter of divining his voluntas
from a text. We become suspicious readers dealing with ambiguities that exist
on two registers: the intentions behind a particular orators words, and how
the enigmatic Caesar might have interpreted those words.46
In our own interpretations of a text of ambiguous meaning, like that of the
pro Marcello, we follow methods of analysis with roots deep within the
rhetorical tradition. The methods we employplacement within its historical
context, reading an ambiguous passage within the context of the work as a
whole, or in comparison with other of his writingsappear natural and
appropriate strategies for resolving ambiguities. Nevertheless, these approaches are based upon assumptions about the stability of authorial intention
that may not be applicable to texts written when authors could not express
their ideas candidly and without fear of negative consequences should a
powerful person take offence. Moreover, scrutiny of this rhetorical-hermeneutical tradition shows that even there, such as in the case of the Causa Curiana,
we nd suspicions of authorial univocality. Even in the case of an unironized

43

On this period in Ciceros life see Mitchell (1991), 2636.

Note that Cicero (like the Gronovian Scholiast) is using dramatization of the speech to
interpret the effect of his speech.
45
See Hall (2009b), 902.
46
The puzzles regarding Caesars intentions extended to suspicions that he was involved in
Marcellus murder as he was preparing to depart Athens for Rome. Cicero remarks (Att. 13.10.3)
(SB 318) that Caesar was rumoured responsible, though he nds this theory unbelievable. Cic.
Fam. 4.12 (SB 253) is Servius Sulpicius Rufus account of the murder, at the hands of one Magius
Cilo. cf. Cic. Att. 13.22 (SB 329); Liv. Per. 115; V. Max. 9.11.14.
44

224

John Dugan

text like a will, meanings can shift with the construction of one interpretative
community and the collapse of another.
Within the reception of the pro Marcello both camps share a faith in the
stability and knowability of Ciceros voluntasone community of readers
positing gured criticism, the other authentic praise. Each of these groups of
interpreters assumes an author in control of his medium and directing his
words towards an identiable objective. Yet, as arrestingly documented in
Caecinas letter where he voices his anxieties over his lack of control of his text,
writers could have only qualied faith that their words could do what they
hope: Caesars reception of their texts eclipses their authorial intentions.
Within such an environment a speakers intentions are, to a degree, beside
the point.
While ironist and anti-ironist interpreters of pro Marcello may share too
robust a faith in the formative inuence of Ciceros authorial intentions, the
phenomenon of the reception of this text according to such divergent reading
itself has an interpretative value. Without necessarily endorsing the conclusions that each group draws, the fact that the text as such allows them to
construct their interpretations may tell us something about the kind of text the
pro Marcello is. We may take into account the reception of the speech, if not
necessarily the conclusions that any particular interpretative community has
drawn. That is, those who interpreted the speech as covert criticism may have
seen gured language in moments of real ambivalence of intention, friction
points, as it were, where Ciceros oration was adjusting to a new political
reality.47 As Brian Krostenko writes in his rich exploration of the relationship
between the style and ideology of the speech, the distortive weight of Caesar . . . leaves distinctive marks on the very forms of expression in Pro
Marcello.48
Likewise, we may gain insights from the Gronovian scholiasts claim that
Caesars oratorical sophistication restrained the subversive meanings that Cicero
could have injected into the speech. Yet, instead of imagining that Caesars
presence limits the speech, we may hypothesize that his own well-documented
manipulation of ambiguity opens further possibilities for Ciceros own use of
ambiguous language. Here we see the limitations of the testamentary model of
textual meaning that we have inherited from the rhetorical-hermeneutical tradition. Cicero is not an author seeking to make manifest his voluntas in pro
Marcello, but an orator entering into an elaborate game between persons
whose intentions are obscure and unfolding within ambiguous times. As

47

For a reading of the speech along these lines see Krostenko (2005), esp. 299.
Krostenko (2005), 299. See also 302 n. 12 where he notes a kind of duality in the speech: a
surface rhythm that seems to praise or to describe but on closer examination reveals conceptual
novelties or ideological conundrums.
48

Cicero and the Politics of Ambiguity

225

Caecinas letter illustrates, the critical acumen of Caesar can multiply the potential meanings of texts, and not limit them.
The study of the hermeneutical tools by which we as scholars of Roman
oratory attempt to resolve instances of ambiguity in the texts we study can
bring certain uncomfortable insights about the larger disciplinary forces that
shape our interpretative habits. Historians and literary critics are drawn in
different directions. Literary scholars are rewarded from the expansion of a
texts meaning, and a work that is revealed to have an ironic subtext becomes
more valuable from the expansion of its meaning.49 Historians instead benet
from pinning down meaning within texts by establishing a satisfactory historical account of these texts and their contexts. The analysis of the pro Marcello
is therefore a distinctly interested process, one with implications for the
prestige of the scholars involved and for the image of Cicero that their readings fashion.50 This drama continues to unfold, but was rst staged in the
Gronovian scholia.51
49

See Fish (1989), 189 on how an ironical interpretation can increase a texts value in the eyes
of critics. cf. Eden (1987), 603 on Isocrates Panathenaicus, a speech that includes an account of
the orations interpretation by a student exegete who nds a covert meaning hidden within its
ambiguous expression. This cunning interpretation earns the audiences praise, and shows how a
cagey interpretation can earn a critic social prestige. See also Eden (1987), 81 on Quintilians
account of the pleasure that unravelling such ambiguity gives the listener (Inst. 9.2.78).
50
See e.g. Hall (2009b), 104 on how seeing the pro Marcello as gured criticism absolve[s]
Cicero from charges of fawning hypocrisy and presents him as a cleverly subversive orator.
Here Cicero is in the dock, and scholars are serving as defence lawyers.
51
Note how Winterbottom (2002), 38, at the conclusion of his brilliant article attacking the
view of the pro Marcello as gured, lumps contemporary critics who see the speech as ironical
with the plerique found in the scholia, and subject to inuences no less scholastic. Winterbottom uses this intellectual genealogy to suggest that it is not only mistaken to see irony here, but
indecorous to do so.