Asher Sisneros

Cicero was the most renowned orator in Rome. When Catiline launched a conspiracy to overthrow the Roman government, Cicero attacked him vehemently. His first speech against Catiline was before the Roman Senate in the Temple of Jupiter. It became one of his most famous orations, forcing Catiline to flee Rome. Dr. Gary North asked the question: “Put in Catiline’s shoes, how would you defend yourself and undermine Cicero’s accusations?” That is the topic of this essay.

Cicero spent his entire speech defaming Catiline as a person instead of the movement he represented. Ideas should have been free to reign without restriction since meritocracy ensured a bad idea could be exposed for what it was. But it was unjust to defame the man instead of the movement. Cicero committed uncalled-for slander to attack the character of his opponent but avoided being specific. By insinuating Catiline’s character was polluted, without explaining how Catiline could not defend himself or revoke the accusations.

Throughout the entire speech, Cicero didn’t provide any evidence to back up his claims. He stirred up the emotions of the Senate but disregarded all logic and reasoning. In one instance, Cicero said Catiline attempted to murder him. Where was the evidence? There was none. Attempted homicide is a massive accusation, but without evidence, it falls flat.

Finally, we must address the elephant in the room. One of Cicero’s most powerful moments in the speech was when he blamed Catiline for all the unlawfulness in Rome. That was beyond absurd. One man could not possibly be blamed for all the petty theft in the grocery store, the pickpocketing at concerts, the homicides in bad neighborhoods, corporate fraud, or the drug overdoses plaguing children. Cicero’s accusation was uncalled for and purely for rhetoric. What’s pitiable is the thought that anyone might believe it. His entire ploy to defame Catiline was laughable. One man could not be blamed for the sins of an entire nation, particularly, when Cicero was the most powerful and influential man in the nation at the time. To accuse Catiline of being responsible for the faults of Cicero’s administration was ludicrous. Catiline’s ostracism would not have stopped all crime, and rhetoric could not cover the scabs of a failed administration. The truth always triumphs.

In conclusion, Cicero was a man of rhetoric but not reason. He aroused emotions without evidence or logic, but in Rome, apparently, that was good enough since people don’t think logically, they think emotionally.

---

Important note: Catiline was guilty, and the accusations were accurate. This essay was an assignment for our literature class’ section about rhetoric. While I admire and side with Cicero, the assignment was to try and defend Catiline. This essay was my attempt at lawyering for Catiline.