630.  Pro Rege Deiotaro.  Marcus Tullius Cicero.  Loeb.  Cicero gave this speech in the presence of Caesar at Caesar's house in the year 45 BC.  King Deiotarus was on trial for plotting to kill Caesar when Caesar stayed at the king's palace. During the Civil War campaigns led Caesar to Asia Minor (Turkey) in pursuit of his opponents.  While there he stayed at the palace of King Deiotarus. The King has been accused of this crime by Castor who was grandson to the king.  This King had assisted Cicero when he was governor of Cilicia.  He had also seen to the safety of Cicero's children.

Cicero addresses Caesar:

nam dicere apud eum de facinore, contra cuius vitam consilium facinoris inesse  cum per se ipsum consideres grave est; nemo enim fere est qui sui periculi iudex non sibi se aequiorem quam reo praebeat: sed tua, C. Caesar, praestans singularisque natura hunc mihi metum minuit.

Cicero  makes the point that it is not easy to plead a case before the very man against whom the accused is said to have plotted murder.  My sentence is awkward and so is Cicero's for the same reason.  This would not be an everyday occurrence.  In all of Cicero's years before the bar, it was a first.  At the end Cicero adds that all his fears are waved due to Caesar's easy going nature.

Yes, indeed Cicero butters up the man.  Often it seems where Cicero's speeches are concerned too much focus is placed on his superlatives, compliments and back pats.  Yes, he does do these things but something else lurks in the back ground.  Why does Cicero feel the necessity to make his initial statement only to follow up with what a fine fellow Caesar is?  Was he easy going, forgiving, laid back, and congenial?  In political settings he lost his temper:  when he had Cato the Younger hauled off to jail, when he crossed the Rubicon and, if the story is true, when he entered Rome after crossing the Rubicon and was met by Marcellus at the door to the treasury to take out some money.  It seems that Cicero felt compelled to say this for good reason.  Cicero surely knew that Caesar was supremely sensitive to the opinion of others and at times did not tolerate opposition. 

Cicero appears to state modestly concerning the location of the trial:

moveor etiam loci ipsius insolentia.

Insolentia is a fascinating word and an interesting choice.  It means unusualness, novelty, want of moderation.

In fact I am moved by the novelty/lack of moderation of this place. 

Straight forward and simple with a touch of innocence.  Therein lies its punch.  One could hardly call this a trial, not a trial by definition in a free state.

Soon Cicero refers more specifically to the unusual nature of this trial.  The trial takes place before Caesar.  Caesar is judge and plaintiff.  The trial takes place in Caesar's residence. These seem to obliterate the legitimacy of the trial.  What do I mean? 

Usually when we think of Roman trials we often see them as a means of entertainment.  After all hundreds, if not thousands of people may have attended a high profile trial for a number of reasons: interest, entertainment, curiosity, support for one or other of litigants.  Sometimes overlooked is the significance of an open air trial.  Those present were able to watch the legal system in action and judge for themselves the quality of trial and whether justice was done.  No secret words or meetings.  All out in the open.  Cicero complains that such a trial as this one striped Cicero of his favorite weapon- interaction with the audience and the potential for its reaction impacting the feeling and opinion of the judges.  Cicero does more than lament the loss of his corona.    Cicero suggests that this trial lacks an essence of legality- openness.

Cicero uses another interesting word:

perturbationem

It means personal disquiet.

Cicero politely suggests that he is puzzled and ill at ease.

In chapter 8 Cicero points out the strength of the prosecution lies in knowing what pleases and displeases Caesar.  The personal nature of this trial is made very clear.  That is something which was not part of the detached nature of proceeding before the Praetor and the President of the court. 

Cicero also suggests that Caesar was bugged with the King because he supported Pompeius in the Civil War.

He has an interesting sentence about this:

neque enim ille odio tui progressus, sed errore communi lapsus est

The King, says Cicero, did not join Pompeius out of hatred of you, Caesar, but slipped on a common error.

This makes three speeches running where Cicero suggests that Caesar was ultra-sensitive to any discussion about the legality of his actions during the Civil War AND the legality of the Senate's actions against him.  These speeches are beginning to make me question just how insecure Caesar felt in his position as head of state in a legal sense.

But this sentence must have caused Caesar to shift in his seat:

cum audiret senatus consentientis auctoritate arma sumpta, consulibus, praetoribus, tribunis plebis, nobis imperatoribus rem publicam defendendam, datam

When King Deiotarus heard that, by the authority of a unanimous Senate, weapons were taken up, that it was decreed that the consuls, praetors, tribunes of the plebs and we Generals must defend the Republic.

Cicero is often accused of being timid.  Let's see.  He stands alone before Caesar, the Dictator, in Caesar's house.  He says that all government representatives were expected to defend the Republic against whom?  Answer:  Caesar.  Sounds gutsy to me and honest.  After this Cicero says that the Senate fled Italy.  He apparently does not count those Senators who fled to Caesar as constituting the Senate, i.e. the Senate of the Roman Republic.  All Italy scattered.  Cicero does not apologize for supporting Pompeius.  He later lists Pompeius' achievements.

One could easily wonder- did Cicero consider this war which made Caesar master a just/legal war?

After Caesar defeated Pompeius at Pharsalus, Deiotarus supported Caesar.  So the charge of a murder plot against Deiotarus refers to this time.  In reference to this Cicero says:

quod tu, nisi eum furiosissimum iudicas, suspicari profecto non potes...

Surely you can not suspect him of this, unless you consider him completely insane.

Cicero does a bang up job of making mincemeat of such an idea.  He does something very clever here.  He describes the King with the same attributes which Caesar liked to hear said of himself:

fortem, justum, severum, gravem, magnanimum, largum, beneficium, liberalem.

And Cicero adds frugalitas.  Frugalitas has the sense of restraint.  Modestia and temperantia are also mentioned.  Modestia= unassuming, temperantia= discreteness.  These, more than the first list, are discussed.  Cicero suggests that Deiotarus' qualities rest on a sense of restraint.  The choice of these is interesting.  Did Caesar display frugalitas, modestia, temperantia when he crossed the Rubicon?  In his triumphs he celebrated after the Civil War?  In the massacre at Thapsus?  True, Cicero does not bring these matters up.  Yet, he may have been able to cause Caesar to wonder whether Cicero or others saw the disconnect.  Any reading of Cicero's letters concerning politics makes it clear that fine lines and nuances of language were readily and eagerly observed by Cicero.  It is reasonable to assume that Caesar did the same.

...statua inter reges posita...

Apparently Caesar's honorary statues in the east were placed amongst those of former Kings.  Caesar may not have thought much of the remark.  However, the remark may have been met with disgust or suspicion when the speech was published and read by others.  Romans found kings grand, but attaching royal attributes to one's statue by having it consort with images of past kings may not have received the seal of approval from the Roman people.

...clementissimum in victoria ducem...

Cicero here praises Caesar for his outstanding kindness in victory.  But is this just simple praise and nothing more?  Politics in the ancient Roman Republic (as it does today) entailed careful examination of words written and spoken.  Each word and phrase is examined in order to detect any shift in position or thought.  I am reminded of the Caracalla Master who carved those stunning portraits of Caracalla in which I suggest Caracalla saw a cunning, forceful leader, a man in charge but others may have seen a man with a loose hinge.  Something to think about.  Clementissimum gives compliment attended by suspicion.  What suspicion?  That Caesar possessed the same powers as that of a king.  Long ago, Magnus Wistrand in his Cicero Imperator made a fine case for Cicero's ability to navigate and negotiate difficult political terrain over a long and torturous path.  Cicero may have counted on others to be sensitive to this remark.

As is often the case with Cicero there are different levels to his expressions.  He defends a client but at the same time offers comments about events.  More than once in his published speeches one sees complex arguments which deal with difficult questions of law and society.  He also publishes to keep claim to literary excellence.  He is a politician and sees significance in maintaining a position of importance.

The translator of the speech in the Loeb series quotes a comment Cicero made to Dolabella.  In the letter Cicero tends to brush off the importance of the speech.  Consequently the value of the speech is degraded in the eyes of the translator.  (Interesting how this has always been overlooked as evidence of modesty on Cicero's part.)  Missed is the addressee- Dolabella.  He was never Cicero's pick for his daughter's marriage and his political connections made him unreliable.  I do not think that Cicero would express the same frankness to him as he would to a Matius or an Atticus.