Politics and prejudice, rather than reasoned argument, are the dominant forces in the Pro Milone.’ To what extent do you agree with this judgement?

n.b Whilst this answer addresses Cicero’s ‘Pro Milone’, the approach demonstrated here may be successfully applied to any text, verse or prose, that might be set for the 20 mark ‘essay question’ of the Latin literature papers.Start by drawing up a rough plan. This should, ideally, involve a discussion of all of the elements mentioned in the question (‘politics, prejudice and reasoned argument’), with a separate paragraph on each, within the context of an overall argument about which element(s) is most effectively utilised by Cicero throughout the speech. This will involve identifying aspects of Cicero’s arguments that are dominated either by politics and prejudice or reasoned argument, and in giving specific examples to illustrate this. Thus, with regards to ‘prejudice’, emphasis might be drawn to the ‘ad hominem’ attacks against Clodius, particularly those in Cicero’s argument that Clodius’ death was beneficial to the state (‘cui bono’?); here, Cicero argues that Clodius was not only seeking the praetorship in an unscrupulous manner, but even desired the destruction of state, and he finds numerous opportunities to draw attention to Clodius’ sexual immorality and rapacious pursuit of others’ property. Cicero draws deliberate and stark comparisons with Milo, who is portrayed as a great benefactor to the state, whilst Clodius is practically dehumanised as a hostis externus.There must be an attempt throughout to evaluate the relative importance of all of these factors, and in particular to form a counter-argument to the statement in the question (which you can then accept or challenge). This all ought to culminate in a conclusion in which you demonstrate why a certain factor is (or isn’t) the most significant in the speech, sine qua it is not possible to meet the criteria for AO3 (Assessment Objective 3).Thus, you might analyse the importance of the ‘self-defence’ argument and its merits (your counter to the statement in the question); Cicero effectively compares the motives of the two men and demonstrates via precedent that murder can be justified in cases of self-defence (and is therefore not contra rem publicam). This might then be allowed by an examination of the deficiencies of this aspect of his case; the inconsistencies in his description of Milo’s retinue, his vagueness in describing the time of the alleged assault, his difficulty in explaining why Milo freed his slaves after the incident.Whilst it is not essential to include quotes from the text in Latin, it is important to utilise the entire speech to illustrate your points, rather than just the parts read in Latin as part of the specification. Relevant use of material from the speech is necessary to meet AO2, which constitutes half of the marks in this particular question. Thus, when discussing the significance of Cicero’s reasoned arguments, not only ought the narratio section (part of the prescription) to be mentioned, but also his invocation of Rome’s laws (the 12 tables) and precedent (the case of Marius’ soldier, exempla from Greek mythology) from sections 8-9 of the speech.Finally, in addition to relevant use of material from the speech, AO2’s criteria may only be met by demonstrating the significance of the ‘social, political and cultural’ context’ of the speech to your argument. Thus, a knowledge of the political turmoil that surrounded the trial (gang warfare between Milo and Clodius, the delay in elections, Pompey’s appointment as sole consul, the ‘de vi’ laws) as well as the realities of the matter under discussion in the case (there was a chance meeting, not an ambush, and Milo had probably ordered the death of Clodius - this according to Asconius commentary) might help to explain the hopelessness of Cicero’s position, and therefore the reasons that he resorted to invective rather than reasoned argument. Furthermore, the longstanding animosity between Cicero and Clodius (originating in the bona dea scandal and manifest in Cicero’s Pro Caelio amongst other speeches) and theories regarding the publication history of the speech (a complex and controversial theory that Cicero, after losing the case, added the secondary argument - that Clodius’ death was beneficial to the state - and his more overt attacks on Pompey, which is based on Milo’s jovial letter to Cicero after his exile comparing the speech delivered at trial to the published speech and Asconius’ insistence that Cicero only made the self-defence argument in the trial itself) might explain the shift to attacking both Clodius and Pompey.