Asher Sisneros

            Catiline launched his famous conspiracy in Rome to consolidate personal power. After losing the consulship to Cicero, he assembled an army to march on the Republic’s capital. In response, Cicero gave four orations to the Senate. All of them were masterful works of rhetoric. Through speech alone, Catiline was persuaded to leave Rome. He was not threatened. Cicero didn’t use his power as consul to banish him. It was all derived from speech. The Senate arrived at various conclusions after listening to the speeches, and though Cicero never explicitly stated his prescription to stop the rebellion, the sentiment was clear, and the Senate listened. Rome executed five men, and Catiline’s army dissolved itself. One thing destroyed the entire army: Cicero’s rhetoric. There are many aspects of the speeches to dissect, but I will focus on one: Fear. Did Cicero feed off fear? Did he instigate it? What effect did it have on the Roman audience? The power of fear is the topic of this essay.

            In the first speech, Cicero’s goal was to alienate Catiline. The Senators didn’t sit around him, and none defended him during Cicero’s attack. He interpreted this as distaste and propped up Catiline as a defeated man with no allies. The tactic worked. After implying Catiline deserved the death penalty and had no allies in the Senate, he asked him to leave Rome. Catiline did. Fear motivated Catiline, but it also motivated the Senate. Cicero said the rebellion would be bloody and destroy Rome, playing into the Senate’s fears. However, the tactical use of fear was ramped up in the following speeches.

            The second speech was more powerful and addressed the Senate, not Catiline. If the first oration isolated Catiline, the second one demonized him. Throughout the speech, Cicero called his enemy a “monster” and “prodigee of wickedness.” But he also assured Rome the monster was already defeated and prostrate since he was outside the city walls with his army. He believed Catiline’s military threat was easily squashable, but the real danger was his influence on Romans. However, with him outside the walls leading an army against the city, he couldn’t persuade Romans to join his cause. The only people who joined him in the first place were morally degraded individuals—criminals, adulterers, and the dregs of society. However, the sympathizers in Rome were the real threat. The conspiracy itself was, as Dr. Gary North described, “made up of losers.” But the real threat was internal. Cicero portrayed Catiline as the incarnation of evil, and his followers were the same. The best way to stop Catiline from obtaining more support was to stop the incentive and punish Catiline’s army. The entire battle at hand was an inward battle over the hearts and minds of the people. It was, as Cicero described, a battle within over good and evil. And it was Cicero’s self-proclaimed duty to purge the evil from Rome.

            In the third oration, Cicero claimed victory since various letters were intercepted, and he found weapons in Cethegus’ house. When the Senate held a trial to hear the perpetrators speak, they confessed and ratted each other out. The entire conspiracy was undermined, and they admitted Catiline planned on burning Rome and killing her citizens. The men were convicted and put into custody. The sanctions enforced by the Senate terrified Catiline’s army. Slowly but surely, it started to dissolve. Cicero claimed entire credit for the success but didn’t want any rewards, portraying himself as a modest hero.

            By the fourth oration, Cicero called himself Rome’s savior. He said the Senate was scared Catiline might assassinate him, but he assured them that he’d gladly take the blow for the liberty of Rome. Instead, he asked them to focus on Rome’s safety, not his own. He also appealed to the Senate’s self-interests by telling them to protect their wives and children from Catiline’s threat looming outside Rome’s borders. Once again, it was an issue of fear. Finally, at the end of the speech, Cicero gave the Senate an ultimatum. They could not be merciful to Catiline and to the Republic, since mercy to Catiline was cruelty to Rome. The Senate had to make a choice: mercy to the rebels or mercy to Rome. They chose Rome.

            From his first speech to the fourth, Cicero leaned into fear constantly. Without fear, he had no argument. If the Senate didn’t believe there was a true threat, the entire speech was redundant. Cicero’s motives were to lean into the pre-existing fear, exacerbate it, and provide a solution to the fear: himself. Clearly, it worked. The speeches had beautiful rhetoric, and Cicero won the battle. Was fear a tool? Most certainly. Fear is one of the most powerful rhetorical tools, but more importantly, Cicero provided a hope to replace fear. Chaos might have stemmed from Cicero’s propagated fear, but he gave Rome a solution. He informed them of the threat and destroyed it. Fear is powerful, but it needs to be replaced with hope. Cicero did that, which made the speeches against Catiline so powerful.

            In conclusion, fear was just another tool in Cicero’s rhetoric toolkit. Accompanied with hope, Cicero capitalized on the power of fear.