¹ Throughout this paper I treat sermocinatio as the Latin equivalent of prosopopoeia, following Quintilian, who calls them both by the same name (ego iam recepto more utrumque eodem modo appellavi, Inst. 9.2.31–2; cf. Lausberg, H., Handbook of Literary Rhetoric [Amsterdam, 1997]Google Scholar, §§820–5). In the Rhetorica ad Herennium, however, sermocinatio refers only to imaginary dialogues between present people (4.55 and 4.65–6), while personification of absent people (such as Cicero does with Appius Claudius in Cael. 33–4) or of mute entities (as in Planc.) is called conformatio (4.66).

² Throughout this paper all dates are b.c.

³ Vatinius had been tribune of the plebs in 59, when Caesar was consul, and as tribune he proposed the law granting Caesar command over Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum for five years (MRR 2.190).

⁴ M. Aemilius Scaurus (RE 141) was a stepson of Sulla and related by marriage to Pompey. On Pompey's (and Caesar's) support of Scaurus in the 50s, see Klebs, RE 1.588–90 and Gruen, E.S., The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley, 1974), 148–9Google Scholar. The postulatio for Scaurus took place on July 6^th 54 (Asc. Scaur. 18.18–19.5) and the trial ended on September 2^nd (Asc. Scaur. 18.3; TLRR 143–4.295 and Marinone, N., Cronologia ciceroniana (Bologna, 2004), 132.B8Google Scholar). In a letter to Atticus (4.15.9, dating to July 54), Cicero mentioned his defence of Scaurus, ironically commenting that glorious titles for his speeches were in store (parantur orationibus indices gloriosi).

⁵ Plancius had a long-standing link with Crassus, since their fathers were both publicani and had shared interests. Moreover, Cassius Dio (39.32.2–3) states that in 55 (when Plancius stood for aedileship) Pompey and Crassus influenced the elections of the aediles. On the relation between the elder Plancius and the elder Crassus, see Taylor, L.R., ‘Magistrates of 55 in Cicero's Pro Plancio and Catullus 52’, Athenaeum 42 (1964), 12–28Google Scholar, at 22 n. 28. In September 54 Cicero wrote to his brother Quintus that he had completed his speeches for Scaurus and for Plancius (QFr. 3.1.11), but the precise date of the trials is unknown (TLRR 142–3.293 and Marinone [n. 4], 132.B9).

⁶ The divinatio for this trial was held on October 12^th 54 (TLRR 148.303). Aulus Gabinius was consul in 58 (MRR 2.193–4): Cicero had some right to hold him co-responsible for his exile, since on the same day Clodius proposed a law granting Cilicia (later exchanged for Syria) to Gabinius and a law sanctioning Cicero's exile (cf. Red. sen. 17–18; Sest. 24–5 and 44; Pis. 21). Cicero's fierce invective against Gabinius pervades his post reditum speeches (e.g. Red. sen. 10–12; Dom. 60; Sest. 18; Prov. cons. 9–12; Pis. 25); but in September 54 he wrote to his brother Quintus that ‘Pompey is urging me to reconcile with Gabinius; so far he's achieved nothing, and nothing will he achieve so long as I retain a glimmer of independence’ (Pompeius a me valde contendit de reditu in gratiam, sed adhuc nihil profecit, nec, si ullam partem libertatis tenebo, proficiet, QFr. 3.1.15).

⁷ Throughout this article I use the OCT edited by Clark (Oxford, 1960³) and provide my own translations. Like many other Ciceronian orations, Pro Plancio is dramatically in want of a new commentary: the last commentary in English is Long, G., M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes, with a Commentary by G. Long, vol. 4 (London, 1858)Google Scholar; Halm does not include Pro Plancio in his Ausgewählte Reden, so that the most recent commentary in German is still Köpke, E., Ciceros Rede für Cn. Plancius (Leipzig, 1873)Google Scholar; Grimal, P., Cicéron, Discours pour Cn. Plancius, pour M. Aemilius Scaurus (Paris, 1976)Google Scholar, has the Latin text with French translation and minimal notes, as does Bellardi, G., Le orazioni di M. Tullio Cicerone, vol. 3 (Turin, 1975)Google Scholar, for Italian.

⁸ Plancius stood for aedileship in 55, but the elections were cancelled because of violent riots (something Cicero omits to mention); then the people voted again and elected Plancius and Plotius (Planc. 49 and 53–4), but it is not clear whether these second elections were held in 54, as suggested by Sumner, G.V., ‘The lex annalis under Caesar’, Phoenix 25 (1971), 246–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 249 n. 12, or in 55, as the majority of scholars believe. Cf. Linderski, J., ‘Three trials in 54: Sufenas, Cato, Procilius, and Cicero Ad Atticum 4.15.4’, in Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra II (Milan, 1971), 281–302Google Scholar, at 286 = Linderski, J., Roman Questions I (Stuttgart, 1995), 115–36Google Scholar, at 120; MRR 3.158; and Alexander, M., ‘Locating the trial of Plancius between rules and persuasion’, in Santalucia, B. (ed.), La repressione criminale nella Roma repubblicana fra norma e persuasione (Pavia, 2009), 339–55Google Scholar. Other contributions on Pro Plancio include: Kroll, W., ‘Ciceros Rede für Plancius’, RhM n.f. 86 (1937), 127–39Google Scholar; Olechowska, E., Pro Plancio et Pro Rabirio Postumo. La transmission des textes (Warsaw, 1984)Google Scholar; Venturini, C., ‘L'orazione pro Cn. Plancio e la lex Licinia de sodaliciis’, in Studi in onore di Cesare Sanfilippo, vol. 5 (Milan, 1984), 787–804Google Scholar; Adamietz, J., ‘Ciceros Verfahren in den Ambitus-Prozessen gegen Murena und Plancius’, Gymnasium 93 (1986), 102–17Google Scholar; May, J., Trials of Character (Chapel Hill, 1988), 116–26; C. Craig, ‘Cicero's strategy of embarrassment in the speech for Plancius’, AJPh 111 (1990), 75–81Google Scholar and Craig, C., Form as Argument in Cicero's Speeches: A Study on Dilemma (Atlanta, 1993), 123–45Google Scholar; Riggsby, A., Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome (Austin, TX, 1999), 20–49Google Scholar; Alexander, M., The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era (Ann Arbor, 2002), 128–44Google Scholar; Lomas, K., ‘A Volscian Mafia? Cicero and his Italian clients in the forensic speeches’, in Powell, J. and Paterson, J. (edd.), Cicero the Advocate (Oxford, 2004), 96–116Google Scholar; Pinkster, H., ‘Enim tamen in Cicero pro Plancio 12’, Mnemosyne 57 (2004), 359–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; L. Fascione, ‘L’ambitus e la Pro Plancio', in Santalucia (this note), 357–82; Steel, C., ‘Cicero's oratory of praise and blame’, in Smith, C. and Corvino, R. (edd.), Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric (Swansea, 2011), 42–5Google Scholar.

⁹ In 58 Plancius was proquaestor in Macedonia and welcomed Cicero, who remained with him in Thessalonica between May and November (cf. Att. 3.14.2, 3.22.4; Fam. 14.1.3; Red. sen. 35; Planc. 74, 78 and 99). Cicero also acknowledges his friendship with Plancius' father (Planc. 25, 31 and 72). As for Laterensis, Cicero declares that he was indebted to him because he had supported him and his family during the exile (Planc. 2, 5 and 73).

¹⁰ Cicero energetically rejects the accusation (in eo neque te neque quemquam diutius patiar errare, Planc. 91), but some contemporary letters demonstrate that Laterensis' charges were not unfounded: already in April 55 Cicero asked Atticus ‘what can be more shameful than the life we – and I especially – lead?’ (nam quid foedius nostra vita, praecipue mea? Att. 4.6.1); and, as seen above, in November 54, after yielding to Pompey's request to defend Gabinius, he gave way to his bitterness (QFr. 3.5.4).

¹¹ This complaint returns later in the speech: e.g. quid de me dicam, qui mihi in huius periculo reus esse videor?, 29; and respondebo ad ea quae dixisti, quae pleraque de ipso me fuerunt, 58 (cf. also 72).

¹² Orationes efflagitatas Pro Scauro et Pro Plancio absolvi, QFr. 3.1.11 (written in September 54). On the Pro Plancio as an apology for Cicero, see Taylor (n. 5), 26–8, while Alexander (n. 8 [2009]), 340–7 stresses the political dimension of the trial; but these two aspects are not mutually exclusive nor they are in contradiction. On Cicero's ability to blend his personal apologia with the defence of Plancius, see S. Kurczyk, Cicero und die Inszenierung der eigenen Vergangenheit: autobiographisches Schreiben in der späten Römischen Republik (Cologne, 2006), 255–62 and Kroll (n. 8), 136–7; at 137–8, Kroll also points out that a very small part of the speech (36–57) deals with the actual charge of bribery; cf. also Adamietz (n. 8), 102–3.

¹³ As recently pointed out also by Steel (n. 8), 42.

¹⁴ Taylor (n. 5), 27 n. 46 rightly notes that ‘most of the letter deals with the reasons for Cicero's compromises, referred to in Planc. 91–4’. In 54 Lentulus was proconsul in Cilicia, so that we must allot some time for the news of Cicero's defence of Vatinius to reach him and for his letter of enquiry to reach Cicero back in Rome: ‘twelve weeks may be allowed for the news to reach Cilicia and for Lentulus’ letter to reach Cicero, who did not reply at once', Shackleton Bailey on Fam. 1.9 (p. 307).

¹⁵ According to Craig (n. 8 [1990]), 75–81, Cicero magnifies his gratitude (gratia) toward his friends, casting himself as a positive model of loyalty for the jury, and thus hiding the embarrassment of being a turncoat and a ‘vassal of the triumvirs’. In fact Cicero hid behind his personal debt to Plancius, who welcomed and protected him during the first months of his exile in 58; but Plancius' closeness to the triumvirs (especially to Crassus, cf. n. 5) was no secret. Cf. also Craig (n. 8 [1993]), 123–45 and, on Cicero's portrayal of Plancius' gratitude, see Riggsby (n. 8), 45–6, who spells out the terms of the ‘economy of gratia and beneficium’, showing how Cicero strives to weave Plancius into this narrative.

¹⁶ MRR 2.175 and 3.33.

¹⁷ Cicero alludes to the withdrawal of 59: when Caesar as consul forced all the tribunes to swear that they would not veto his bills on the ager Campanus (Att. 2.18.2, June 59), Laterensis (and no one else) withdrew his candidacy. Caesar demanded support also from Cicero, who refused, believing that resistance was the most laudable course (aut fortiter resistendum est legi agrariae, in quo est quaedam dimicatio, sed plena laudis, aut …, Att. 2.3.3, January 59).

¹⁸ Litigatores idem crimen invicem intentant, Quint. Inst. 3.10.4 (cf. 3.6.75, 7.2.9 and 7.2.23); cf. Lausberg (n. 1), §§153 and 197.

¹⁹ Although Cicero dedicates only one fifth of his speech to the real charge (cf. n. 12 and Kroll [n. 8], 136–7 and Adamietz [n. 8], 102–3) and although the prosecution must call him to stick to the case (Planc. 4), he in fact accuses them of digressing (facile patior id te agere multis verbis quod ad iudicium non pertineat, 63) and wonders if he will be finally able to bring Laterensis to the actual cause, possumne … te ad causam crimenque aliquando deducere?, 17.

²⁰ For Alfius' unsuccessful attempt to become praetor in 56, see Broughton, T.R., ‘Candidates defeated in Roman elections: some ancient Roman “also-rans”’, TAPhS 81.4 (1991), 1–64Google Scholar, at 35. It is very likely that Alfius was praetor in 54, but the fact that Cicero addresses him as quaesitor (at 43; on the second and last address he simply calls him C. Flave, 104) led Mommsen, T., Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899)Google Scholar, 2.201 n. 4, to suggest that he was only quaesitor. Broughton believes that he was also praetor (MRR 2.222 and 2.227 n. 3 with references and some bibliography); cf. TLRR 142–3.293 n. 3.

²¹ A point rightly made by Kroll (n. 8), 135–6.

²² Cicero ironically uses a hymnic form also in the sermocinatio of Cat. 1.18 (cf. Dyck ad loc. [pp. 99–100]), as noted by Ratkowitsch, C., ‘Ein “Hymnus” in Ciceros erster Catilinaria’, WS 15 (1981), 157–67Google Scholar: at 165 Ratkowitsch rightly notes that through ironic inversions in the First Catilinarian ‘a hymn of praise is transformed into a curse’; the same may be applied to the hymn/sermocinatio of Planc., even if this does not figure among the many parallels Ratkowitsch draws. On Cicero's use of hymnic forms, see especially La Bua, G., ‘Elementi innici nelle orazioni ciceroniane’, RPL 21 (1998), 134–54Google Scholar, at 144–5, who shows that Cicero often employs specific devices typical of hymns but rarely employs the hymnic form.

²³ As May (n. 8), 126 points out: ‘Laterensis’ insistence on contentio dignitatis allows Cicero to turn back upon the prosecutor several of his own points … Laterensis' nobilitas … is craftily converted by Cicero into a cause for his defeat.'

²⁴ Köpke (n. 7), ad loc. has a reference to Cat. 1.27, among others; Bellardi (n. 7), ad loc. has a reference to Cat. 1.25 [sic!] and to Cael. 33; Long (n. 7), ad loc. has a vague reference to Cicero's use of oratorical tricks: ‘sometimes he makes the state speak’. The role played by sermocinatio for the rhetoric of the First Catilinarian has been elucidated by Batstone, W., ‘Cicero's construction of consular ethos in the First Catilinarian’, TAPhA 124 (1994), 211–66Google Scholar, at 248–50 and 254–6.

²⁵ On the use of oratio obliqua in sermocinatio, see Quint. Inst. 9.2.37. In the First Catilinarian, however, the state addresses Cicero in oratio recta (Cat. 1.27–9).

²⁶ Nam quod te esse in re publica liberum es gloriatus, id ego et fateor et laetor et tibi etiam in hoc gratulor; quod me autem negasti, in eo neque te neque quemquam diutius patiar errare, Planc. 91.

²⁷ On Cicero's self-characterization as ‘the wise politician and the true patriot’, see May (n. 8), 123–4.

²⁸ Cf. also Planc. 59. On the panel of judges for the trial of Plancius, see Alexander (n. 8 [2009]), 347–55. Cicero transforms Laterensis' noble birth into a disadvantage, sed vide ne haec ipsa quae despicis huic suffragata sunt, Planc. 18 (cf. also 30, 60 and 67, and n. 23 above).

²⁹ On Cicero's portrayal of people from Arpinum and especially from Atina (Plancius' home town) and on his deployment of his Italian connections in forensic speeches, see Lomas (n. 8), 102–4 and 112–16. Other statements help Cicero to secure the good will of the equites who were part of the jury: see especially 32–3. Cicero also appeals to the senators by reminding them that he belongs to that order, called noster ordo at 45.

³⁰ On Cicero's strategy in admitting that he overestimated the impact of his own quaestorship, see Kurczyk (n. 12), 258, who rightly calls attention to Cicero's studied pose of self-deprecation: ‘die selbskritische Distanzierung von dem früheren Ich dient der Argumentation für Plancius und ist letzlich nicht mehr und nicht weniger als eine bewußt und zielgerichtet eingenommene Pose’.

³¹ Cicero asks Laterensis if he believes that we should expect to find some balance, wisdom and sensibility in the unpredictable decisions of popular assemblies: Sin hoc persaepe accidit ut et factos aliquos et non factos esse miremur, si campus atque illae undae comitiorum, ut mare profundum et immensum, sic effervescunt quodam quasi aestu ut ad alios accedant, ab aliis autem recedant, tamen nos <in> impetu studiorum et motu temeritatis modum aliquem et consilium et rationem requiremus? (Planc. 15). This metaphor comparing a popular assembly to the waves of an unsteady sea is taken from Demosthenes: ὡς ὁ μὲν δῆμός ἐστιν ἀσταθμητότατον πρᾶγμα τῶν πάντων καὶ ἀσυνθετώτατον, ὥσπερ ἐν θαλάττῃ κῦμ' ἀκατάστατον, ὡς ἂν τύχῃ κινούμενον. ὁ μὲν ἦλθεν, ὁ δ' ἀπῆλθεν· μέλει δ' οὐδενὶ τῶν κοινῶν, οὐδὲ μέμνηται (‘that the assembly is the most unstable and faithless thing of all; it's like an unsteady wave at sea, it moves however it chances to; one man comes, another departs, and no one cares for the public interest or keeps it in mind’, Dem. 19.136, trans. adapted from D.M. MacDowell, On the False Embassy (Oration 19) [Oxford, 2000]). This metaphor also recalls the sermocinatio, where the people wonder if Laterensis can steer the ship of state in a tempest: tanta in tempestate te gubernare non posse, 13.

³² As noted by Köpke (n. 7), ad loc., who points out that in De or. 2.86 Cicero opposes orator and clamator (cf. Or. 182). Cf. TLL 3.1249.43 (Hoppe).

³³ The Vaccaei were a tribe of Hispania Terraconensis, who consistently opposed Roman conquest.

³⁴ Later another slandering remark targets Laterensis' eloquence, when Cicero responds to his prosecution and begs the judges ‘not to put innocent people at risk on the basis of invented rumours and of an unfocussed and scattered speech’ (illud unum vos magnopere oro atque obsecro, iudices … ne fictis auditionibus, ne disseminato dispersoque sermoni fortunas innocentium subiciendas putetis, 56); on Cicero's criticism of Laterensis' prosecution strategy, see Planc. 84 with Fascione (n. 8), 381–2.

³⁵ On Cicero emphasizing his support for the best citizens and for the state, see Kurczyk (n. 12), 259.

³⁶ One may notice other parallels between Planc. and Crito, as both Cicero and Plato develop their argument by attributing the same objective and unchangeable force to the laws. For instance, the laws ask Socrates: ἢ δοκεῖ σοι οἷόν τε ἔτι ἐκείνην τὴν πόλιν εἶναι καὶ μὴ ἀνατετράφθαι, ἐν ᾗ ἂν αἱ γενόμεναι δίκαι μηδὲν ἰσχύωσιν ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ ἰδιωτῶν ἄκυροί τε γίγνωνται καὶ διαφθείρωνται; (‘or do you think that the state can exist and not be overturned, if its judgments have no force but are annulled and destroyed by private citizens?’, Crit. 50b). Cicero similarly argues against what he has termed Laterensis' refusal to accept the decision of the assembly: ‘Non fero’. At multi clarissimi et sapientissimi cives tulerunt. Est enim haec condicio liberorum populorum praecipueque huius principis populi et omnium gentium domini atque victoris, posse suffragiis vel dare vel detrahere quod velit cuique; nostrum est autem, nostrum qui in hac tempestate populi iactemur et fluctibus ferre modice populi voluntates, adlicere alienas, retinere partas, placare turbatas, Planc. 11. Noticeably, in hac tempestate populi iactemur et fluctibus picks up ἀνατετράφθαι and the metaphor of the ship of state, and later Cicero asks Laterensis ‘why do you pretend that what is not decided in the assembly is decided in the court? (cur tu id in iudicio ut fiat exprimis quod non fit in campo?, 16).

³⁷ See n. 31.

³⁸ For a comparison between Planc. and Fam. 1.9, see Bernard, J.-E., ‘Du discours à l'épistolaire: les échos du Pro Plancio dans la lettre de Cicéron à Lentulus Spinther (Fam. I, 9),’ Rhetorica 25.3 (2007), 223–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bernard identifies some intertextual links but does not dwell on the sermocinationes.

³⁹ See Lausberg (n. 1), §§810 and 820.

⁴⁰ Shorter and preliminary versions of this paper were given at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen and at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. I thank these audiences for their feedback, the editor and the referee for CQ, and especially Katerina Tsolakidou for help.