Citizen or not? Cicero Creative Project

I wanted to share with you all a creative speech and rhetorical analysis that I wrote on behalf of the prosecution of Pro Archia, the case on which Cicero defends his client's access to Roman citizenship. Here, I focus on Cicero's manipulation of language, switching between "Aulus Licinius" and "Archias," respectively the Greek and Roman names of his client, when it is convenient to him for the sake of argument. I enjoyed this exercise as it helped me envision the environment of a Roman court system!

Exordium:

Esteemed members of the jury, I address you as a prosecutor of Archias (42, 64), whom Cicero also calls Aulus Licinius (6, 38, 119). Allow me to begin my analysis of Cicero’s speech with these names themselves. A name is an identifier that points to a specific person. Our Roman naming convention, with praenomen, nomen, and cognonmen, seamlessly differentiates people from the same families. If Cicero wants Archias to be a Roman citizen, why does he hold on to the name “Archias?” To answer my own question, Cicero does so underhandedly for the sake of argument, disrespecting the tradition of Roman nomenclature. Let me explain: in a given context, two names cannot refer to the same person. The name “Archias” holds little value in our legal system, but that is Cicero’s client’s birth-given name, so “Aulus Licinius” is merely a placeholder for someone masquerading as a Roman citizen. when Cicero switches between these names, there is an inherent inconsistency within his larger case: he tries to make two opposed statements true at the same time. 

Cicero offers so many different arguments that some of them start to negate each other, losing their value and importance. For example, “Archias” represents his client’s Greek side while “Aulus Licinius” alleges his client’s “Romanness.” Specifically on the Greek side, Cicero is also inconsistent with his glorification of the Greeks. He cannot simultaneously assert both that the Greeks are exemplary and that they are inferior to the Romans. If he stuck to one narrative of the Greeks, whether glorious or not, the name that he selects for his client could be more powerful and reflective of the kind of person Archias or Aulus Licinius is. Because of the inconsistencies in naming, you all, as Cicero’s audience, are forced to question which one of the names is his client’s “alter ego,” in that one of the names “must” be less desirable than the other. By attempting to rename his client, Cicero attempts to redefine the facts of the case. Selectively choosing Archias over Aulus Licinius in the “contexts” that he believes suits one over the other, Cicero demonstrates that he is a master-manipulator of language. Judges, do not let Cicero’s oration sway you from the truth. 

Refutatio:

Cicero argues that his client is a citizen on the basis of his persona (moral rectitude) and his relationship to the artes liberales (literature). Because Cicero has Archias to thank for his knowledge of poetry, he is indebted to advocate for Archias’ citizenship. This is a conflict of interest. I acknowledge that there is no past precedent of ruling that certain lawyers are unfit to serve a client, but I personally believe that Cicero is too close to this case. Regardless of whether or not you agree with me, please listen to my rebuttal of the defense’s arguments: 

In his discussion of Archias’ birthplace, Cicero states that primum Antiochiae–nam ibi natus est loco nobili (44-45). Antioch is clearly a Greek city. Cicero’s praise of Antioch conforms to the narrative that the Romans took inspiration from the Greeks. It comes as no surprise that Cicero cherry-picked his client’s Greek name, “Archias,” in line 42 to set up his glorification of the Greeks. Even if we believe Cicero when he says that Antioch was a well-known and praise-worthy city, that “fact” has no bearing on the characteristics of his client, just because he was born there. I’m sure you all will agree with me that, while we all view Rome as the greatest city known to man, there have been more than a few Romans who have not lived up to our empire’s nobility. Simply using the name “Archias” and praising the Greeks works against Cicero, because it shows that he cannot find a better argument than correlation. 

After speaking about Archias’ birthplace, Cicero switches to the name “Aulus Licinius” when talking about the time that his client has spent in Rome. Cicero refers to his client’s home in Rome as a domicilium (107) rather than a domus to stress that this residence is permanent. Because it is a very precise noun, the word domicilium boasts a much more formal connotation than the phrase nam ibi natus est (44), which are the words Cicero uses when connecting Archias to Antioch. Because Cicero demonstrates time and time again the power of language, I view his tonal shift here as a turning point in how he views the Greeks in relation to the Romans. Now, because his client’s domicilium is permanent, Cicero breaks Aulus Licinius’ tie to Greece. Cicero begins to place Rome above Greece in doing so; making Antioch seem like a place of Cicero’s youth, and if I may go this far, immaturity. Knowing that Cicero strives to be precise with every syllable that he speaks, I can tell that he is making a value judgment in the comparison between Antioch, where Archias grew up in the toga praetexta, and Rome, where the Luculli family allowed Aulus Licinius to step into the toga virilis. Cicero’s confusing nomenclature clouds the case that he tries to make, taking him in directions so different that they invalidate each other. 

Allow me to quote the words of Cicero’s defense one final time: civitatem in Graecia homines impertiebant (123-124). Cicero states here that the Greeks gave citizenship to even the mediocribus (122). He casts doubt on their legal system by saying that Greece hands out citizenship to whomever will take it, which certainly does not reflect well on Archias, who indisputably holds Greek citizenship and identity. This statement is actively offensive to the Greeks; saying that they are not selective in their citizenship requirements makes them seem like they are slacking. If Cicero cannot make a choice between viewing the Greeks as exemplary or inferior, how is it fair for him to expect us to make that same choice when evaluating his case? 

To conclude, let me say that switching between the two names “Archias” and “Aulus Licinius” demonstrates that Cicero’s client continues to benefit from both his Greek and Roman status. How can he be a loyal Roman citizen if he, and his lawyer Cicero, use the Greek name “Archias” to further their own interests?