Cicero: The fourteen orations against Marcus Antonius (Philippics)
Apart from providing three good examples of the imperfect passive subjunctive being used in an original context, this passage is a good example of a Ciceronian rhetorical pattern that recurs throughout his speeches and has been employed by politicians ever since.
An mē cēnsētis, patrēs cōnscrīptī, quod vōs invītī secūtī estis, dēcrētūrum fuisse, (1) ut parentālia cum supplicātiōnibus miscērentur, (2) ut inexpiābilēs religiōnēs in rem pūblicam indūcerentur, (3) ut dēcernerentur supplicātiōnēs mortuō? (Cicero)
The translation I have given is as close as possible to the original:
“Do you really suppose, Senators, that I – when you yourselves followed it unwillingly – intended to decree that funerary rites should be mingled with public thanksgivings, that unexpiable religious practices be introduced into the state, that thanksgivings be decreed for a dead man?”
An mē cēnsētis… │ Do you really think / suppose that I …
patrēs cōnscrīptī, │ conscript fathers i.e. senators; the term of address used to members of the Roman Senate
quod vōs invītī secūtī estis, │ since you, unwillingly, followed (it) / went along with it
dēcrētūrum fuisse, │ had intended to decree
(1) ut parentālia cum supplicātiōnibus miscērentur, │ that funerary rites should be mingled with public thanksgivings,
(2) ut inexpiābilēs religiōnēs in rem pūblicam indūcerentur, │ that unexpiable religious practices should be introduced into the state,
(3) ut dēcernerentur supplicātiōnēs mortuō? │ that supplications (thanksgivings) should be decreed for a dead man?
Style
If you are reading the literature, it is useful to come to grips with the style of individual authors.
[i] Cicero vehemently and indignantly rejects the notion that he would have voted for these decrees. By casting the passage as a rhetorical question, he signals that no answer is required, as the audience is expected to supply the obvious negative response.
[ii] … patrēs cōnscrīptī, - quod vōs invītī secūtī estis –
This is a parenthetical statement addressed directly to the senators by name. It sharpens the irony by reminding them that they themselves accepted the measure only unwillingly, thereby making the alleged intention attributed to Cicero appear all the more implausible.
Compare a typical English ‘political’ response:
Why do you think – when you yourselves voted against it – that I would not?
[iii] A key stylistic feature of the passage is the tricolon, a sequence of three parallel words, phrases, or clauses with identical or near-identical structure.
https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/05/290524-level-2-side-note.html
Here, Cicero employs three parallel ut-clauses, reinforced by the repetition of the imperfect passive subjunctive ending:
(1) ut … miscērentur
(2) ut … indūcerentur
(3) ut dēcernerentur
More specifically, this constitutes a tricolon crescēns (crescēns = “growing”), in which each successive clause increases in rhetorical force and seriousness.
Furthermore, the repetition of ut at the beginning of each clause is known as anaphora, a common feature in poetry.
The sequence moves from (1) the improper mixing of funerary rites with public thanksgivings, a breach of ritual decorum, to (2) the introduction of unexpiable, that is permanent and irreparable, religious pollution into the state, a more serious and lasting danger, and finally to (3) the shocking climax, the decreeing of thanksgivings for a dead man, with mortuō emphatically postponed to the end.
The rising intensity of the three ut-clauses reinforces Cicero’s indignation and leads the audience step by step to the conclusion that the alleged decree is not merely mistaken, but profoundly impious, absurd, and contrary to traditional values and customs.
Cicero’s technique is not antiquated but structural: the same rhetorical devices continue to be employed by modern politicians. The passage therefore illustrates not only Ciceronian style, but a timeless pattern of political argumentation.
A striking modern parallel can be seen in the House of Commons, for example in the 2025 Budget response by the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch (see linked video). Her speech employs many of the same rhetorical techniques used by Cicero, demonstrating how enduring and effective these devices remain.
The Nightmare before Christmas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYD4cD3yHw
[1] parenthetical statements
- “Today she has announced a new tax raid of £26 billion — they’re all cheering — household income is down.”
The parenthetical aside contrasts the government’s self-congratulation with the alleged reality, sharpening the sense of irony in much the same way as Cicero’s quod vōs invītī secūtī estis.
[2] tricolons
Badenoch repeatedly uses tricolon and tricolon crescēns. Note, in the same way that Cicero repeats the endings of the imperfect passive subjunctive, she too repeats noun and adjective endings to reinforce rhythm and memorability.
- “They are hiking taxes on (1) pensioners, (2) workers, and (3) savers.”
- “(1) She blames Brexit, (2) she blames Donald Trump — (3) she needs to blame herself.”
- “She is (1) spineless, (2) shameless, and (3) completely aimless.”
Some sequences extend beyond three items but still function as crescēns, with the most ludicrous or forceful point saved for last:
“She has chosen to put up tax after tax after tax, taxes on workers, taxes on savers, taxes on pensioners, taxes on investors, taxes on (1) homes, (2) holidays, (3) cars, I think even milkshakes, taxes on anyone”
- “Out of money, out of ideas, out of her depth, and out of road.”
[3] anaphora: the repetition of the same word at the beginning of successive phrases, here incorporated into tricolons.
- “(1) She blames Brexit, (2) she blames Donald Trump — (3) she needs to blame herself.”
- “The fact is the bad choices she is making today – (1) choices to break promises, (2) choices to put up taxes, (3) choices to spend more of other people’s money – are because of the bad choices she made at the last disastrous budget.”
The rapid-fire repetition “Up! … Up! … Up!” followed by “Down! … Down! … Down!” in the next two quotations function like anaphora, creating rhythm and emphasis, even though the repetition does not occur at the beginning of full clauses.
- “Government spending? Up! Welfare spending. Up! Universal credit claimants. Up! Unemployment. Up! Debt interest. Up! Inflation. Up!”
- “And what about the things you want to go up? What about the things you want to go up? Growth. Down! Investment. Down! Business confidence. Down! The credibility of the Chancellor. Down! And not just down – through the floor.”
As in Cicero, repetition and escalation amplify indignation and invite audience participation, which in the Commons becomes literal through collective chanting and interruption.
[4] rhetorical questions
- “Under us we had an energy crisis sparked by a war in Ukraine, and a global pandemic. What is her excuse? What is her excuse?”
- “It is the worst year for graduate recruitment on record. Are they proud of this?”
These questions, like Cicero’s An mē cēnsētis…?, do not seek answers; they assume them and force the audience into agreement.
Once introduced to Cicero, it becomes clear that Badenoch is employing the same rhetorical strategies Cicero used two thousand years ago — rhetorical questions, parenthetical irony, tricolon crescēns, and anaphora. The laughter, outrage, and disruption they provoke show that these techniques still work. Roman oratory and modern parliamentary debate are separated by centuries, but not by rhetoric.
The only difference is that, 2000 years ago, Kemi Badenoch would not have been allowed to speak in the Senate; I wonder if the current UK Chancellor wished that was still the case!
