Effusive and earnest gratitude was a trait Cicero identified as foundational in his character, particularly when playing the role of a friend. He expressed this particularly through enthusiastic and even hyperbolic praise of his friends, especially after his return from exile. When he applied this treatment to Pompey in Pro Balbo and to Caesar in De Provinciis Consularibus and Pro Marcello, the result was extravagant panegyric. He frames his praise of Pompey and Caesar as a show of gratitude in return for their support and friendship, an act of reciprocity rather than sycophancy. The persona of friend is also used to justify his surrendering of previously held positions in favor of compromise and reconciliation. He also sought to exert pressure through “friendly” advice combined with praise, to Caesar in Pro Rabirio Postumo and Pro Marcello, and to Dolabella and other young men in his letters and the First Philippic.

Pompey and Caesar often found young, ambitious politicians, especially tribunes, looking to boost their own careers by riding a dynast’s coattails, and the dynasts themselves were happy for the legislative and rhetorical support of their juniors. Cicero tried to find a middle ground between full-throated opposition to the dynasts and a role as their spokesman, as can be seen particularly in De Domo Sua, Pro Caelio, Pro Balbo, and later in Pro Marcello. Clodius sometimes portrayed himself as a spokesman or agent for the “first triumvirate,” although he also sometimes distanced himself from them or attacked Pompey in particular, as we see in De Domo Sua and De Haruspicum Responsis. Asconius’ commentary on Pro Milone and letters from Cicero and Caelius show that Curio and Antony gained prominence as Caesar’s spokesmen in the lead-up to the civil war in 50–49 BCE.

While auctoritas may seem to be a crucial prerequisite for the Roman orator, Cicero sometimes took on a nonauthoritative persona, especially in periods of domination by Pompey and Caesar: he made a show of fear, self-effacing humor, or stubborn silence. He performs fear especially in the introductions of Pro Milone and Pro Deiotaro in order to play down his own power to threaten Pompey and Caesar, and perhaps to provoke resentment of their power to threaten him. In Pro Milone and Pro Ligario, he makes a potentially comical statement that he will shout to be heard, acting foolishly to break political tension. In his letters and in the Brutusunder Caesar’s dictatorship, he proclaims his refusal to speak in public in order to show resistance to the new regime, using silence as an act of protest. I read this as rhetoric of withdrawal or disengagement rather than a transparent reflection of reality.

Cicero’s orations show versatility in adapting to new situations and contexts during the latter half of his career, particularly in his reshaping of these paradigmatic roles as a political orator. Studying these roles allows us to appreciate the complexity and flexibility of his self-fashioning over time, independently of chronological phases. He chooses his personae to suit the circumstances of each case and selects from a range of possibilities in confronting those circumstances, calculating for maximum advantage. Each persona requires balance and care to avoid extremes. Caesar, Pompey, Clodius, and Antony presented obstacles to politics as usual – or, at least, to norms for political processes as traditionally conceived – which could not be ignored, and which had to be negotiated carefully and creatively. Cicero was successful in doing so, up to a point.