Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This Master Thesis has carried out an identity analysis of two of the last speeches of Cicero, a Roman orator from the first century BC. These speeches, viz. Philippics I and III, were delivered before the senate and directed against Mark Antony, who had become a leading figure in the Roman Republic after Caesar’s murder. At first, Antony seemed to honor the morals and values of the Republic, but he changed his course on 1 June and behaved like a tyrant in the months following this day. This paper has taken a social constructionist approach to identity, which says that individuals construct identities through linguistic devices. The identity construction of Cicero, the senators, and Mark Antony has been analyzed along three dimensions: 1) sameness/difference, 2) diachronic identity navigation, and 3) agency. 1) is concerned with synchronic variety between social groups. It is a concept from social psychology that people are members of different groups based on, amongst others, shared characteristics. Groups define themselves mostly by their differences with other groups. Thus this paper has looked at the linguistic devices that Cicero uses to create a group consisting of himself and his audience (the ingroup) and a group consisting of enemies (the outgroup). The analysis has shown that Cicero draws on common ground, uses activities that are specific for his ingroup, and uses ingroup reference devices to construct his ingroup and to create unity within it. Moreover, it has shown that he uses negative evaluatives, negative actions, dissociating demonstratives etc. to dissociate his ingroup from Mark Antony. 2) is concerned with diachronic change in identity construction. The diachronic identity navigation of Mark Antony’s identity was analyzed along two parameters. Firstly, Mark Antony’s change of identity of 1 June was sudden, as opposed to gradual. More importantly, the second parameter had a different value in Philippics I and in Philippic III: whereas Mark Antony’s real (good) identity was corrupted by bad advisors in Philippic I, it was uncovered in Philippic III. These different values are an indication of changes in Cicero’s approach to Mark Antony. 3) is concerned with the representation of an individual’s agency. High-agency marking devices present a person as an active hero who is in control. Low-agency marking devices present a person as a passive undergoer, who is not accountable for his actions. This analysis has shown that Cicero avoids expressing agency when his ingroup engages in negative activities and when Mark Antony harms the Republic in Philippic I. On the other hand, he uses high-agency marking devices when Mark Antony harms the Republic in Philippic III. Moreover, Cicero uses agency in the construction of a ‘super-agent’ role for Mark Antony and a victim role for himself and his ingroup in Philippic III. In short, this analysis has shown that the representation of the ingroup does not change between Philippic I and III. More importantly, it has shown that the representation of Mark Antony changes from an unaccountable man led astray by his bad advisors in Philippic I, to a fully responsible, dangerous enemy to the Republic in Philippic III. Thereby it has shed new light on an ongoing debate about the starting date of the conflict of Mark Antony and Cicero, so that it may be argued that the conflict, in terms of enmity and active outgroup construction, started with the Third Philippic.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Dutch literature