Rhetoric and the philosophy of the exception in the Philippics and the De officiis

Abstract

This article studies the intersection between the rhetoric of the Philippics and the philosophy of De officiis in the construction of the argument by which Cicero justifies, in the winter of 44-43 BC, the use of exceptional measures against Mark Antony. Starting from an interpretative difficulty noted by commentators at De officiis 1.38 (the anomalous status of the Cimbri and the Celtiberians, clarified by Tusculan Disputations 2.65-66), the article examines a class of enemies devoid of ratio (reason) against whom all means are lawful – a category that emerges in the discussion of the bellum iustum (just war). Cicero transposes this very framework to Antony: the ontological disqualification of the adversary – reduced to the rank of a monstrum (monster) or a belua (beast) lacking fides (trust/good faith) – renders any peace conceptually impossible and transforms the conflict into a war of survival (de salute). This war is justified by necessitas (necessity) and is inseparable, in both the Philippics and De officiis, from the defense of tranquilla libertas (peaceful liberty).