On The Meaning of Poetry for Cicero

Some pearls from an argumentatio extra causam in Pro Archia poeta

The Futility of the Trial Against Archias and Cicero’s novum genus dicendi

Causa dicta est: the case is closed. At the very outset, Cicero emphasizes the futility of the trial against the poet Archias, who had been accused not being a Roman citizen¹. The missing citizen list, which should have included Archias’ name, was lost, likely due to a major fire in the archives during the Social War. Furthermore, Archias met the three conditions of the lex Plautia: he was a citizen of Heraklea, resident in Italy, and had registered with the Praetor Q. Caecilius Metellus within the required 60 days. In this section of the speech, Cicero uses only non-artificial (πίστεις ἄτεχνοι, “unartificial proofs”) evidence. However, in the egressio, he also introduces artificial proofs (πίστεις τεχνοι, “artificial proofs”), which correspond to the novum genus dicendi, or “new kind of speaking,” that Cicero had announced in the first part. Despite his advanced age and long-standing career as an advocate at the time of this speech, Cicero seems to parallel himself and this novum genus dicendi with Socrates’ Apology, a subtle reference that his educated audience, homines humanissimi, “most cultured men,” would likely not have missed (Apol. 17-18a):

ἀτεχνῶς οὖν ξένως ἔχω τῆς ἐνθάδε λέξεως. ὥσπερ οὖν ἄν, εἰ τῷ ὄντι ξένος ἐτύγχανον ὤν, συνεγιγνώσκετε δήπου ἄν μοι εἰ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ φωνῇ τε καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ ἔλεγον ἐν οἷσπερ ἐτεθράμμην, καὶ δὴ καὶ νῦν τοῦτο ὑμῶν δέομαι δίκαιον, ὥς γέ μοι δοκῶ, τὸν μὲν τρόπον τῆς λέξεως ἐᾶν—ἴσως μὲν γὰρ χείρων, ἴσως δὲ βελτίων ἂν εἴη—αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο σκοπεῖν καὶ τούτῳ τὸν νοῦν προσέχειν, εἰ δίκαια λέγω ἢ μή: δικαστοῦ μὲν γὰρ αὕτη ἀρετή, ῥήτορος δὲ τἀληθῆ λέγειν

So, I have a foreign manner of speaking, which is alien to this place. Just as, if I were truly a foreigner, you might perhaps judge me if I spoke in that way and manner in which I was raised, so now I ask you to judge whether I am speaking rightly or not: for this is the virtue of a judge, and to speak the truth is the virtue of an orator.

Cicero is also compelled to ask the judges for leniency and grace: they should consider the entirely negative connotation of the adjective novus, such as in novārum rērum cupidus (“eager for revolutionary changes”), cīvis rērum novārum cupidus (“a citizen eager for revolutionary changes”), and Cicero’s disparaging use of νεώτεροι (“younger ones”) in his letters. In the second part of the egressio, the focus is on the dignity of the poet, which is attributed to him in part due to his divine inspiration, and the role of poetry in the state. Cicero begins this section with an appeal to the judges, whom he addresses as viri optimi (“best of men”), suggesting that even if they are not educated in poetry, they should admire such talents when they recognize them in others. He illustrates this demand with the example of the renowned actor Quintus Roscius Gallus, who had recently passed away and whose graceful bodily movements had won the admiration of said highest men. This argument can also be seen as a continuation of the pathetic argument presented at the beginning of the first part of the egressio: quaeres a nobis, Gratti, cur tanto opere hoc homine delectemur. quia suppeditat nobis, ubi et animus ex hoc forensi strepitu reficiatur et aures convicio defessae conquiescant (“Perhaps you ask us, Grattus, why we are so greatly attracted to this man. Because he offers us something by which our souls are refreshed after the clamor of the court and our ears, weary from the bickering, find rest...”) and an allusion to the Platonic doctrine of enthusiasm, to which Cicero refers in the subsequent part.

Next, Cicero praises the outstanding rhetorical abilities of Archias in rather passionate tones. His talent for composing extemporaneously, Cicero claims, corresponds to the rhetorical ideal of Isocrates and later Quintilian. As Cicero states: quotiens ego hunc Archiam vidi, cum litteram scripsisset nullam, magnum numerum optimorum versuum de eis ipsis rebus, quae tum agerentur, dicere ex tempore, quotiens revocatum eandem rem dicere commutatis verbis atque sententiis! (“How many times have I seen this Archias, without having written a single letter, recite a large number of excellent verses on the very matters at hand, doing so extemporaneously; how many times, when called upon to repeat himself, he would restate the same subject, but with different words and ideas!”). The verses that Archias composed on the spot were evidently highly valued by Cicero and other educated men, but his poems written accurate cogitateque (“with careful thought and consideration”) are, in a bold comparison, equated with those of the veterum scriptorum (“the classics”). By veterum scriptorum, Cicero means, from a Roman perspective, Ennius—whom Cicero cites in the next phase of his argument regarding the sanctity of the poet (although he later expresses a critical view of Ennius’ style and originality in his theoretical works, especially in Brutus: nec vero tibi aliter videri debet, qui a Naevio vel sumpsisti multa, si fateris, vel, si negas, surripuisti (“And you cannot view this matter differently: you either took much from Naevius—if you admit it—or, if you deny it, you stole it”)—and from a Greek perspective, Homer. This raises the question of whether Cicero’s judgment of Archias’ written works as “classical” should be understood purely on a literary-critical level, entirely extra causam, which would correspond well to his novum genus dicendi, or whether there is an underlying motivation relevant to the trial: in other words, whether Cicero truly believes his own judgment or if he is rather attempting, as a “statesman without insight, vision, and intent [and] a shortsighted egotist,” to flatter his former mentor and teacher in the hope of enhancing his own fame. Cicero hoped, in return for his defense of Archias, to receive a laudatory poem on his political achievements, as he mentioned to Atticus about a year after this speech². Although not a single work by Archias has survived, such statements allow us to reasonably conclude that Cicero’s evaluation of his works contains a considerable amount of exaggeration.

In the first part of the egressio, Cicero describes how, for a politically active person, the liberal arts are the best means of attaining the highest intellectual fulfillment (quas ego mihi...excellentium conformabam, i.e. “which I cultivated...of the excellent ones”); for a private individual, however, they provide the best “mental relaxation” (quare quis tandem...recolenda sumpsero?, i.e. “so why would anyone...take up again?”). Archias, although an exemplar of rhetorical skill, can only to a limited extent be regarded as a model of Cicero’s educational ideal—the philosopher-trained orator—as Archias evidently lacks a broad philosophical education (which Cicero, for example, was able to acquire during his stay in Greece after the trial against Roscius Amerinus). Instead, Archias is a poet, not an orator, and in Cicero’s understanding, also sacred: one must recall the old adage: orator fit, poeta nascitur (“an orator is made, a poet is born”).

Greek Things for a Greek Man: Enthusiasm and Homer

πάντες γὰρ οἵ τε τῶν ἐπῶν ποιηταὶ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ οὐκ ἐκ τέχνης ἀλλ ̓ ἔνθεοι ὄντες καὶ κατεχόμενοι πάντα ταῦτα τὰ καλὰ λέγουσι ποιήματα, καὶ οἱ μελοποιοὶ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ ὡσαύτως, ὥσπερ οἱ κορυβαντιῶντες.

Plato, Ion (533e)

For all the good poets of epic poetry, they speak all these beautiful things not from skill but being inspired and possessed, and the good composers of music likewise, just like those who perform the Corybantic dance.

Tota mihi quamvis adeo Germania carcer,/ Deterius quoque carcere corpus: libera mens tamen est, ubi vult habitatque volatque [...] In terris non tardat obex, transcendit et Alpes/ Nubiferas ac sidera pulsat. Accedit Phoebi donum, divina poesis...

Melancholia 11-17, Jakob Balde

Although all of Germany is like a prison to me,/ Even worse than a prison is the body: yet the free mind is where it wants to be and flies where it wishes [...] On earth, the barrier does not delay, it crosses the Alps/ Cloud-bringing and strikes the stars. Added to this is the gift of Phoebus, divine poetry...

Das poetische Talent ist dem Bauer so gut gegeben wie dem Ritter; es kommt nur darauf an, daß jeder seinen Zustand ergreife und ihn nach Würden behandle.

Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre, Goethe

Poetic talent is given to the peasant as well as to the knight; it only depends on each person seizing their condition and treating it according to its worth.

Cicero subsequently draws upon the doctrine of enthusiasm, which is originally Greek but was first extensively described by Plato. This doctrine posits that a poet’s talent is attributed not only to rhetorical and philological education but also to divine influence. Cicero invokes the opinion of highly educated men: sic a summis hominibus eruditissimisque accepimus... (“thus we have received from the highest and most learned men...”). According to this doctrine, the poet is “effective” solely due to his “inherent gift (natura ipsa valere)”, stimulated by the power of his mind, and “inspired by a certain divine spirit (mentis viribus...spiritu inflari)”. A similar view seems to have been held by the poet Ennius: Quare suo iure noster ille Ennius ‘sanctos’ appellat poetas, quod quasi deorum aliquo dono atque munere commendati nobis esse videantur (“Therefore, by his own right, our Ennius calls poets ‘sacred,’ as they seem to be recommended to us as if by some gift and favor of the gods”)³. However, Cicero overlooks the numerous contradictions in Plato’s attitude toward poets and the resulting conclusions of his doctrine of enthusiasm. After all, Cicero does not wish to expel poets from the (ideal) state, and Archias knows very well what he is composing and what effect he aims to achieve with his audience.

Enthusiasm and Cicero’s Implicit Criticism of the Neoterics

The Alexandrians and Catullus’ inner circle are conspicuous by their absence, although they were already considered exemplary literary figures by many at that time. Cicero, on the other hand, despises the apolitical nature of the Neoterics and thinks little of the new stylistic concept underlying their poetry. For Cicero, a good poet is not an apolitical poeta doctus, a scribbler confined “in the cage of the Muses,” as the Egyptian poet Timon of Phlius describes the followers of the Alexandrian school, but rather a venerable vates (“seer” or “prophet”). This recourse to the concept of vates, insofar as it contradicts the then-popular concept of the poeta doctus, and insofar as all the vatic poets mentioned by Cicero had composed encomia on the deeds of military commanders (and thus had also benefited the state), serves the purpose of ensuring the political utility of poetry and thus of Archias himself. At the end of this section, Cicero demands that Archias’ name “be sacred to the judges (sit [...] sanctum apud vos)”, contrasts “the shaking of inanimate and animate nature by the song of [...] Orpheus [...] with the stubbornness of the best men”, repeats his earlier pathetic appeal in different words: nos instituti rebus optimis non poetarum moveamur? (“shall we, who have been instructed in the best things, not be moved by poets?”), draws an now explicit comparison between Homer and Archias, briefly describing the contest for Homer’s birthplace, i.e. Homerum Colophonii civem esse dicunt suum, Chii suum vindicant, Salaminii repetunt, Smyrnaei vero suum esse confirmant itaque etiam delubrum eius in oppido dedicaverunt; permulti alii praeterea pugnant inter se atque contendunt (“The Colophonians say that Homer is their citizen, the Chians claim him as their own, the Salaminians demand him back, but the Smyrnaeans affirm that he is theirs and have even dedicated a shrine to him in their town; moreover, many others fight and contend among themselves”), and finally poses a highly pathetic rhetorical question to the judges: ergo illi alienum, quia poeta fuit, post mortem etiam expetunt; nos hunc vivum, qui et voluntate et legibus noster est, repudiabimus, praesertim cum omne olim studium atque omne ingenium contulerit Archias ad populi Romani gloriam laudemque celebrandam? (“Therefore, do they seek him, a foreigner, even after death, because he was a poet; shall we reject this man, living, who is ours both by choice and by law, especially since Archias has long devoted all his zeal and all his talent to celebrating the glory and praise of the Roman people?”)

From this, it becomes clear that for Cicero, Archias is a poet in the old sense of the word, a vates, and indeed one whose written works are so delightful and (politically) useful that they belong among the classics. However, as mentioned above, Archias lacks philosophical training: Cicero therefore feels compelled to invoke the ancient Greek doctrine of enthusiasm to secure Archias’ poetic dignity and, in passing, to polemicize against Neoteric poetry and the concept of the poeta doctus (already hinted at by the conspicuous omission of the Alexandrians and their followers), which he otherwise only mocks in his letters. The decisive argument for the trial, however, stands between the lines; namely, that to deny citizenship to such a great poet, who is still alive and active, i.e. ergo illi alienum [Homer], quia poeta fuit, post mortem etiam expetunt: nos hunc vivum [...] repudiamus...? (“Therefore, do they seek him, a foreigner [Homer], because he was a poet, even after death: shall we reject this man, living [...]?”), would be extremely foolish, indeed sacrilegious.

Poetry as Politics: Examples from Roman History

In contrast to his first argument, which is characterized by high pathos in terms of style and content, Cicero now seeks to appeal to the ethos of the viri optimi, preparing them for his next argument. He depicts exemplary Roman generals and their poets, including Scipio Africanus and Ennius, Decimus Brutus and Fulvius Nobilior, and finally L. Lucullus and Archias. Cicero first addresses the judges with the following words: Neque enim quisquam est tam aversus a Musis, qui non mandari versibus aeternum suorum laborum facile praeconium patiatur (“For there is no one so averse to the Muses that he would not easily tolerate the eternal praise of his own achievements being enshrined in verse”)⁴. Even people whose “raw” nature (ἄγριος, durus) obstructs their path to rhetorical or philosophical education are not so opposed to the Muses that they would reject the laudatory words of a poet. The highest men, apart from their φύσεις, their respective natural qualities, are educated in these arts and should therefore appreciate the achievements of such poets and claim them for their own fame and its perpetuation. To illustrate this argument, Cicero provides two examples: first, the uneducated Marius (durior ad haec studia, i.e. “more unrefined for these studies”), who stood in opposition to the optimates and was also considered a scorner of Greek education, valued the poet Lucius Plotius and later Archias, insofar as they glorified his deeds. Similarly, Themistocles, like Marius, a naturally gifted politician but not particularly well-educated, responded to the question of whose “voice” (quod acroama) he preferred to hear: eius, a quo sua virtus optime praedicaretur (“the one who best praised his virtue”)⁵.

The Poetic and Political Achievements of Archias

Following this example from recent Roman history and a brief presentation of a parallel figure from Greek history, Cicero turns to the achievements of Archias himself. Cicero claims that Archias celebrated the end of the Third Mithridatic War against the King of Pontus (which was fought by Lucullus until 66 B.C., and then by Pompey) in his poetry (Mithridaticum vero bellum ... ab hoc totum expressum est, i.e. “the Mithridatic War was entirely expressed by him”). However, this claim is historically absurd, as it is impossible for Archias to have celebrated the deeds of Pompey, who was known to be a staunch opponent of Lucullus. Moreover, Cicero had explicitly supported Lucullus’ imperium in the popular assembly about three years earlier. Thus, Vretska notes: “Therefore, [because of this political tension] Cicero will be inaccurate; however, this facilitates presenting the epic as a song of the gloria populi Romani.” Archias’ epic is not merely a praise of Lucullus, but of the entire Roman people: qui libri non modo L. Lucullum, fortissimum et clarissimum virum, verum etiam populi Romani nomen inlustrant (“which books not only honor L. Lucullus, the most valiant and illustrious man, but also illuminate the name of the Roman people”), and later it is “celebrated by the fame of the Roman people” (populi Romani fama celebratur). This becomes particularly clear through a four-part pericope: nostra sunt tropea ... fama celebratur (“our trophies ... fame is celebrated”).

Cicero further equates Archias with Ennius: carus fuit Africano superiorem noster Ennius, itaque etiam in sepulcro Scipionum putatur is esse constitutus ex marmore (“our Ennius was dear to the elder Africanus, and therefore he is also thought to have been represented in marble in the Scipios' tomb”). In his Annales, Cato Censorius and famous generals are praised, and (Cicero repeats it for the fourth and final time) this increases the honor of the entire Roman people: magnus honos populi Romani rebus adiungitur (“great honor is added to the affairs of the Roman people”).

Finally, Cicero poses a rhetorical question with an enthymematic character (with clear reference to the battle over Homer in §19): whether it is just that Ennius, from the small Apulian town of Rudinae, who was favored by noble Romans, was granted Roman citizenship, while Archias, from Heraclea (a far more prominent city than Rudinum), who is also favored by noble Romans, should be excluded from citizenship rights due to his supposedly lacking citizenship.

Imperium sine fine: Archias and the Imperialistic Ethos

After this attempt to appeal to the ethos, or, if one is cynically inclined, merely to the vanity of the optimi viri through numerous examples of famous generals and their patrons, Cicero turns his attention to the political utility of Archias’ poems. He no longer does this from the perspective of an individual seeking to gain fame through a poet’s praise, but as a statesman concerned with maintaining and expanding the empire: Nam si quis minorem gloriae fructum putat ex Graecis versibus percipi quam ex Latinis, vehementer errat, propterea quod Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus exiguis sane continentur (“For if anyone thinks that less glory is derived from Greek verses than from Latin, he is greatly mistaken, because Greek is read in almost all nations, while Latin is confined to its own rather narrow boundaries.”) In this regard, the following linguistic-historical digression, in which Cicero describes the wider distribution of the Greek language, is essentially aimed at addressing an imperialistic ethos. The poems of Archias derive their particular value not because the Greek language or literature is inherently better or more beautiful than Latin (cf. Cicero’s famous remark in the Tusculanae: hoc mihi Latinis litteris illustrandum [...] accepta ab illis [i.e. ab Graecis] fecisse meliora), but because it is more widespread than Latin and can therefore reach a larger audience.

Next, another example from Hellenistic history is presented, which connects to the earlier exempla: according to tradition, Alexander the Great was said to have kept many poets and historians in his retinue to immortalize his deeds, and even as a general, he recognized the value of Homer’s poetry: atque is tamen, cum in Sigeo ad Achillis tumulum astitisset: 'o fortunate,' inquit, 'adulescens, qui tuae virtutis Homerum praeconem inveneris!' et vere nam, nisi Ilias illa exstitisset, idem tumulus, qui corpus eius contexerat, nomen etiam obruisset (“And yet he, when he stood at Achilles' tomb in Sigeum, said: 'O fortunate youth, who found Homer as the herald of your valor!' And truly, for if that Iliad had not existed, the same tomb that covered his body would have also buried his name.”) This example is constructed parallel to the first part of Cicero’s scheme for this speech, in which literature is presented on a more philosophical level as a means of immortalizing virtuous men: sed pleni omnes sunt libri, plenae sapientium voces, plena exemplorum vetustas; quae iacerent in tenebris omnia, nisi litterarum lumen accederet. quam multas nobis imagines non solum ad intuendum verum etiam ad imitandum fortissimorum virorum expressas scriptores et Graeci et Latini reliquerunt! (“But all books are full, full of the voices of the wise, full of examples from antiquity; and all would lie in darkness if the light of literature did not illuminate them. How many portrayals of the bravest men have Greek and Latin writers left us, not only to contemplate but also to emulate!”)

Finally, Cicero mentions another example from Roman history, namely how Pompey granted Roman citizenship to the poet Theophanes of Mytilene, and how even rustici ac milites (“farmers and uneducated people”) were pleased with this reward, “moved by a certain allure of glory (dulcedine quadam gloriae commoti)”. In the last part, Cicero returns to the argument that, in a way, underlies the entire egressio, namely that Archias deserved Roman citizenship through his own merits: itaque, credo, si civis Romanus Archias legibus non esset, ut ab aliquo imperatore civitate donaretur, perficere non potuit (“Therefore, I believe, if Archias were not a Roman citizen by law, he could not have managed to be granted citizenship by some commander.”) Sulla, for example, who is said to have once rewarded a talentless “poetaster” (malus poeta) with a sum of money on the condition that he never write poetry again, could have recognized Archias’ talent and granted him citizenship⁶. Moreover, his close friend Metellus Pius was so eager for the glorification of his deeds that he lent his ear to poets from Corduba and their strange-sounding language.

Cicero and Human Nature

As a concluding argument, Cicero refrains from further examples from Greek and Roman history and returns to the style and content of the first part of the egressio, which is characterized by its philosophical nature. Cicero asserts that all humans are driven by the desire for fame, and the more virtuous a person is, the more they are guided by glory: Neque enim est hoc dissimulandum, quod obscurari non potest, sed prae nobis ferendum: trahimur omnes studio laudis, et optimus quisque maxime gloria ducitur. [...] Ipsi illi philosophi etiam iis libellis, quos de contemnenda gloria scribunt, nomen suum inscribunt (“For this cannot be concealed, which cannot be obscured, but must be openly acknowledged: we are all drawn by the desire for praise, and the best among us are led most by glory. [...] Even those philosophers themselves inscribe their names on the very books they write about despising glory.”)

Cicero is far removed from the pessimism of Thucydides — see the Athenians’ response from the Melian Dialogue: ἡγούμεθα γὰρ τό τε θεῖον δόξῃ τὸ ἀνθρώπειόν τε σαφῶς διὰ παντὸς ὑπὸ φύσεως ἀναγκαίας, οὗ ἂν κρατῇ, ἄρχειν (“For we believe that the divine, and we know for certain that the human, always rule wherever they are stronger by a natural necessity.”) — because for Cicero, the desire for fame, which manifests itself κατὰ φύσιν (“according to nature”), much like Thucydides’ all-encompassing lust for power and possession, is an impulse that captivates every person, whether knight or peasant, and is indeed worthy of respect and fulfillment.

Similar thoughts can be found in the works of his contemporary and occasional opponent Sallust: quo mihi rectius videtur ingeni quam virium opibus gloriam quaerere et, quoniam vita ipsa, qua fruimur, brevis est, memoriam nostri quam maxume longam efficere. (“Therefore, it seems more correct to me to seek glory through the resources of the intellect rather than those of physical strength, and, since the very life we enjoy is short, to make our memory as long-lasting as possible.”)

With this concise observation about human nature, Cicero returns to his starting point and thus concludes the egressio.

The Role of Poetry According to Cicero: Poetry as a Means of Glorifying Outstanding Men; as a Political Matter; as Fulfillment of the Natural Desire for Fame

In the confirmatio, Cicero declares the case of Archias already settled: this allows him, in the course of the speech, to employ a novum genus dicendi and address topics - such as intellectual education and poetry - which, although dear to Cicero, should properly remain outside the courtroom. From the egressio, this rather short section of an equally brief defense speech, it becomes clear what roles Cicero ascribes to poetry: Cicero understands poetry primarily as a means of glorifying outstanding men, which these men may enjoy due to their increased fame (whether they are intellectually educated or appreciate poetry in itself is secondary, as evident from the Themistocles-Marius example), while the “common man” (vir rusticus) is drawn to it merely because of his instinctive attraction to praise and fame. According to Cicero, the immortalization of exemplary men through poetry not only serves their own hunger for fame but also benefits the community, as these poetic portrayals provide eternally beautiful and valid examples of ethical conduct. Thus, Cicero assigns poetry a political function: poets may praise the deeds of individual men, but their actual aim is the glorification and enhancement of fame for the entire community. Finally, Cicero moves away from considering poetry from the perspective of practical life and turns to human nature. The first two functions serve the last: namely, the natural desire of all humans for fame. Through poetry, poets, their viri laudandi, and the glory of the community are immortalized, thereby satisfying the inextinguishable drive for fame in an “ethically justifiable manner” (consensus bonorum omnium).

Although the egressio is primarily focused on depicting Cicero’s conception of studia humanitatis (12-16) and poetry (17-26), he never loses sight of the question relevant to the case. By presenting Archias as the ideal poet, as a guarantor of the gloria populi Romani, the question of revoking his Roman citizenship resolves itself, for if the judges were to strip Archias of his citizenship, they would be acting against the common good and sinning against the glory of the Roman people.

This argumentation seems to have been convincing — especially since Archias retained his Roman citizenship.

1. It should be noted that this rhetorical tactic itself is not new for Cicero. In his defense speech Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino, he highlights the absence of an actus reus right at the beginning, that he may be at leisure to more liberally showcase his brilliant Asianic style: cf. Si nihil aliud nisi de civitate ac lege dicimus, nihil dico amplius; causa dicta est (“If we are speaking of nothing other than citizenship and the law, I say no more; the case has been stated”) (Pro Arch. 8, 1); cf. quod adhuc vos ignorare non mirum est, propterea quod consulto ab accusatoribus eius rei, quae conflavit hoc iudicium, mentio facta non est (“that it is not surprising that you are still unaware, because the accusers deliberately made no mention of that matter, which has caused this trial”) (Pro Rosc. 5, 19-21).

2. Cic. Att. 1.16.15: epigrammatis tuis quae in Amaltheo posuisti contenti erimus, praesertim cum et Thyillus nos reliquerit et Archias nihil de me scripserit. ac vereor ne, Lucullis quoniam Graecum poema condidit, nunc ad Caecilianam fabulam spectet (“We shall be satisfied with your epigrams which you placed in the Amaltheo, especially since both Thyillus has left us and Archias has written nothing about me. And I fear that, since Lucullus has composed a Greek poem, it might now be directed towards a play by Caecilius”).

3. Pro. Arch. 18,5; this idea was later adopted by Horace: “Horace calls the poet sacer [...] a priest of the Muses” (Vretska: Die römische Dichtung von Horaz bis Juvenal, p. 143), although not without a touch of disdain for Greek levitas (Ars Poetica 323-324): Graecis ingenium, Graecis dedit ore rotundo/ Musa loqui, praeter laudem nullius avaris (“The Muse gave the Greeks a talent, gave the Greeks the ability to speak with a chiseled mouth, greedy for nothing except praise”).

4. Otto Schönberger astutely commented on the meter of this sentence: praeconium patiatur: the otherwise usually avoided heroic clausula! and further asks, “Why here?”. Cicero seems to use this remark about the shared, deeply ingrained desire for glory, which he takes up explicitly from §26, as a bridge between the pathetically climactic part of the preceding speech (§18-19) and the comparatively factual examples in §20, which are meant to illustrate this remark.” For the use of the heroic clausula in Cicero and Quintilian, see Shipley, F.W.: The Heroic Clausula in Cicero and Quintilian.

5. On the characterization of Themistocles’ personality: (Thuc.1,138) οἰκείᾳ γὰρ ξυνέσει καὶ οὔτε προμαθὼν ἐς αὐτὴν οὐδὲν οὔτ ̓ ἐπιμαθών, τῶν τε παραχρῆμα δι ̓ ἐλαχίστης βουλῆς κράτιστος γνώμων καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τοῦ γενησομένου ἄριστος εἰκαστής... (“For by his own understanding and neither having been taught it in advance nor having learned it afterward, he was most capable in immediate decisions and the best at anticipating future events.”); (Plut. Them. 2.4) μᾶλλον οὖν ἄν τις προσέχοι τοῖς Μνησιφίλου τὸν Θεμιστοκλέα τοῦ Φρεαρρίου ζηλωτὴν γενέσθαι λέγουσιν, οὔτε ῥήτορος ὄντος οὔτε τῶν φυσικῶν κληθέντων φιλοσόφων, ἀλλὰ τὴν τότε καλουμένην σοφίαν, οὖσαν δὲ δεινότητα πολιτικὴν καὶ δραστήριον σύνεσιν, ἐπιτήδευμα πεποιημένου καὶ διασώζοντος ὥσπερ αἵρεσιν ἐκ διαδοχῆς ἀπὸ Σόλωνος (“Therefore, one might more reasonably consider those who call Themistocles of the Phrearrii a zealot, not as a rhetor or one of the so-called natural philosophers, but rather as possessing the wisdom of that time, which was in fact a political skill and active understanding, a pursuit developed and preserved almost like a sect from the succession of Solon”).

6. The historicity of this anecdote is, of course, irrelevant. To make his argument more entertaining, Cicero employs a topos that would leave its legacy in later literatures: the elevated man insults a lowly one who is himself unable to speak in a beautiful, elevated manner. This is a kind of liberating comedy towards the end of his argumentation, comparable to: 1. The Thersites Episode in the Iliad, 2. Juvenal 1, 1-6; 3, 6-9, 3. Vera Historia 2,20. In modern literature: 1. Mathurin Régnier: Sur un mauvais poète, 2. Faust: The masquerade scene with Thersites.