552. Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic. 1994. Thomas Wiedemann- Summary

552.  Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic.  1994. Thomas Wiedemann.  This is a short book by an author I admire.  His first sentence states that the values of the Roman Republic into which Cicero was born were both militaristic and competitive.  There does not seem to be room here for any moral stand.  His view of Cicero and other political leaders of this period is gritty.  They all - almost all - died violent deaths.  They were constantly in competition for supremacy.  This battle for supremacy extended even to literary products.  Wiedemann states several times that Cicero wrote and published what he wrote to promote his political presence, to trump the skills of others and to maintain his preeminence in the area. 

The author asserts that the hostility between Cicero and Marcus Antonius (Marc Antony) began when Cicero in 63 BC had Lentulus Sura executed for involvement in the Catilinarian conspiracy.  His wife was Julia. She had three sons by a previous marriage.  One of her sons was Marcus Antonius.  The deep seated hatred began here.  The basis of the hatred does not seem to lie with different views of the purpose of government or morality but with what seems to me a rather thin connection. 

Yet, I can not help but wonder if part of his problem in understanding the Roman Republic is the fact that he comes from the European continent.  I admit that it is a tricky business, loaded with problems, to use philosophy such as Cicero’s devotion to certain aspects of Stoic philosophy which allowed for the destruction of a tyrant.  I do not intend to sound flippant here.  Murder is against the law; it is illegal. However it was also illegal for the fledgling United States to defy law and religion and sever ties forcefully with England.  We defied the divine right of kings to rule and we based it on a higher law- pretty much the same reasoning which Cicero used to defy those whom he believed were hostile to the Republic.  I fully admit that these are difficult problems and I am inclined to think that the direction thought takes rests upon the philosophical system one selects to begin the argument.  I do not know the answer.  But I do think that there must be something greater than a law backed by the sword.