Original research article
Palamedes

Dancing, Declamation, and Deipnosophistry in the 'Deiotariana'

2017/2018, TOM 12

Brian A. Krostenko

University of Notre Dame, Faculty of Classical Philology, Department of Classical Philology

Publication date

19.09.2026

Publishing model

open access

License type

CC BY 4.0 Int.

Field

Humanities

Discipline

history

Language of publication

English

Downloads

PDF 497 KB

Article

Number of views:4

Number of downloads:2

Crossref citations:0

Altmetric score:0

Abstract

This article argues that some formal features of Cicero’s speech pro rege Deiotaro reflect Cicero’s understanding of the ideological strains of those days. Some of the charges brought against Deiotarus seem likely to be true. Cicero’s rebuttals of those charges seem weak by the normal conventions of courtroom argument. But the rebuttals draw on modes of speech appropriate for sophisticated dinner parties—literary criticism, poetry, and moral philosophy. The arguments are not necessarily more successful for that, but they do make an ideological point: if political decisions now depend on one man, that brings political decisions very close to questions of taste and sensibility, which in their turn become a valuable and even necessary source of arguments. This aspect of Cicero’s rhetorical approach in the speech exploits the setting, Caesar’s house: Cicero speaks as if he were in a place where, not forensic convention, but intellectual intimacy was the chief value. But Cicero’s artful voice also lapses into patent sophism, making pointedly clever and painfully false argument. That, too, makes an ideological point: if the monarch must depend on intellectual intimates, he is also susceptible to flattery.

Keywords:

stylistics,dancing,Cicero,Deiotarus

Bibliography

Bringmann, K. 1986: ‘Der Diktator Caesar als Richter? Zu Ciceros Reden ‘Pro Ligario’ und ‘Pro Rege Deiotaro’,’ Hermes 114: 72–88.

Coşkun, A. 2005: ‘Amicitiae und politische ambitionen im Kontext der causa Deiotariana’, in A. Coşkun (ed.), Roms auswärtige Freunde in der späten Republik und im frühen Prinzipat, Göttingen 2005: 127–154.

Craig, C. 1993: ‘Form as Argument in Cicero’s Speeches: A Study of Dilemma’, Atlanta.

Durand, R. 1903: ‘La date du « de divinatione »’, in Mélanges Boissier: recueil de mémoires concernant la littérature et les antiquités romaines dédié à Gaston Boissier, Paris: 173–183.

Gagliardi, P. 1997: Il dissenso e l’ironia: per una rilettura delle orazioni ‘cesariane’ di Cicerone, Napoli.

Gotoff, H.C. 1993: Cicero’s Caesarian Ortions: A Stylistic Commentary, Chapel Hill.

Gotoff, H.C. 2002: ‘Cicero’s Caesarian Speeches’, in J. May (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Cicero, Leiden: 219–271.

Hanchey, D. 2015: ‘Perturbatio, frugalitas, and bene beateque uiuendum: Ciceronian Philosophy as Ciceronian Defense in Pro Rege Deiotaro’, Illinois Classical Studies 40.1: 63–83.

Krostenko, B. 2001: Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance, Chicago.

Krostenko, B. 2013: ‘Etymologizing the Convivium: Varro’s nescis quid vesper serus vehat’, Palamedes 8: 113–139.

Lebreton, J. 1901: Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Cicéron, Paris.

Mitchell, S. 1993: Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. 1, Oxford.

Rademaker, A. 2005: Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint, Leiden.

Saddington, D. B. 1993: ‘Preparing to Become Roman: the ‘Romanization’ of Deiotarus’, in U. Vogel-Weidemann (ed.), Charistion C.P.T. Naudé, Pretoria 87–97.

Soubiran, J. 1984: ‘Le sénaire tragique de Cicéron’, Ciceroniana 5: 69–80.

Similar publications