758. De Lege Agraria I by Cicero

758.  De Lege Agraria I by Cicero.  A Tribune by the name of Rullus put forth a bill in early 63 BC for land reform.  Cicero opposed it.  The speech was delivered in the Senate, January 1, 63 BC.  He takes the following line:

Does it make sense to hand over authority to a land commission which has designed the bill in secret?  This bill will allow public property to be auctioned by the board of ten, called the Decemvirs.  Rullus wants land to be purchased for distribution to citizens.

Rullus plans to itemize every bit of property to be put up for sale.  This was land won by the valor of our ancestors.  It is to be sold for the sake of a bribe. (That bribe is the offer of land to citizens at the expense of their freedom.)

Land in Greece, Macedonia, Africa, Asia is to be sold and land which once Mithridates possessed.  Some of this land will be the land recently acquired by Pompey.

Is any of this aimed at Pompey?  Yes.  No place has been established for the auction.  Why?  Because the Decemvirs get to decide.  This is odd when one considers that the Censors who let out state contracts for the collection of taxes, must do so in full public view.

What a burden the huge commission will be on the local population who must provide food, shelter and other needs.

The Decemvirs will deiced what is private property and what is public and will sell accordingly.  Their power will be unlimited.  It will be possible for the commission to receive money for not selling.  In other words, justice will be for sale, since they will have the power to label land as public or private.

Quo in iudicio perspici non potest utrum severitas acerbior an benignitas quaestuosior sit futura.

In this decision it is not possible to be clearly seen whether severity would be more bitter or kindness would be more profitable.

Rullus can sniff out a coin no matter how well hidden.  This law would give control of money from conquests to this commission.  This law would put in charge of the commission oversight for most of the state’s income.  Rullus and his supporters contend that anger against this law will be reduced when people see that the money will be used to purchase land.  The law is vague as to where colonies will be established.  It is possible that people beholding to Rullus, et al., will be placed in a colony in Italy.  (This , of course, could be used to influence elections.)  Thus Cicero imagines that Capua could be set in opposition to Rome.  Cicero suggests that since nothing is in place which will determine who the colonists are that perhaps criminals will be the colonists.

This law is designed to shift the base of power away from the Senate and Rome.  (For after all, it will be the commission in distant lands which will determine what is sold and what is not.)

Rullus, you and your friends, thought that the public could be hoodwinked into accepting the plan, until the details were exposed by me.  This bill has not produced comfort but fear that the powers of the commission will be used to effect something way beyond simply establishing colonies.

The Senate’s authority is at stake as a guiding force for the nation.

749. Post Reditum in Senatu by Cicero

Cicero- Capitoline Museum

749.  Post Reditum in Senatu by Cicero.  This speech was delivered by Cicero September 5, 57 BC.  The following is a paraphrase:

It requires ability beyond my powers to offer proper thanks for my return.  If we ought to hold parents, gods, the Roman people, this body most dear, what infinite thanks do I owe you for the recovery of my position?  

On the motion of Lucius Ninnius, I was recalled.  The difficulty of getting this measure through was due to a hostile tribune.  But by the energy and authority of the Senate I have been able to return.

Not laws but walls protected good citizens.  The normal function of government ceased, there was no expression of authority, no judges rendered decisions.  In the city people rushed about with torches and weapons, the houses of magistrates were attacked, temples set on fire, the fasces of a consul were smashed and a tribune was not manhandled but nearly fatally wounded.

At this some reduced their zeal for my cause.  And for the rest many of these were the kind whom terror, violence and fear and threats repelled.

Lentulus (the Consul who helped to engineer Cicero’s recall) was committed to my return from the beginning.  The law was, however, used to silence all opposition, discussion, talk, voting of any measure for my return.  But Lentulus did not consider that this was a true law.

But how did this come about?  Something happened which had never happened before- two consuls were elected who shunned anything decent connected with their office.  A meeting was held at the Circus Flaminius.  One consul, Piso, was introduced to the meeting by a tribune.  At that meeting he said that he was no pleased with what had been decided against un-condemned citizens (this was a reference to the suppression of the Catilinarian Conspiracy).

(At this point Cicero launches an attack against Piso as someone who at best carried a serious expression but what lay hidden showed no interest in anything fine and good.  His only interest lay in himself.  Cicero brings in his Epicurean views for several sections.)

Piso’s ideas  display a lack of interest in the needs of the state and any willingness to expose himself to trouble and conflict.  This explains why Piso sat about and did nothing while I was made ready for exile.  Then Piso associated in my destruction with Gabinius, the other consul, whose reputation would surely make clear what kind of man Piso is.  

To destroy me you sold consular dignity, the prestige of the Republic, the authority of the Senate, the literal and figurative property of a well deserving citizen in that alliance you made for a province.

At the Circus Flaminius you said that you were always a compassionate man and this was meant, of course, to throw a negative light on me, the Senate, and all good people who ended the threat of Catiline.  So were you compassionate toward one of your own relatives (Cicero’s was related by marriage to Piso))  whom you chose as the one in charge of the first group to cast its vote at your election to the consulship?  Whose opinion you sought in a position of honor on January 1, when you took office?  You handed me over bound and gaged to my enemies!  You rejected the pleas of my son in law, your relative, you rejected the pleas of my daughter (Cicero’s daughter was married to a relative of Piso’s), your relation by marriage!  Not one hour passed after my expulsion when you collected your pay (the Province).  Immediately my house on the Palatine was burned, its belongings carried to house near by, a house which happened to belong to a family member of yours.  My Tusculum villa’s belongings were taken to the house of the other consul.

I praise T. Annius and P. Sestius who met force with force-  this appeared to be the only choice when the guardian of the state, the Senate and the laws, were helpless.  Mention must be made of M. Cispius, C. Cestitius, T. Fadius (Quaestor when Cicero was consul), M. Curtius (Cicero was his father’s Quaestor), C. Messius who first proposed my restoration, Q. Fabricius who tried in January to get a recall but was opposed by force.  L. Caecilius as Praetor put forth a bill for my safety and prevented those who had plundered my house to have access to court, M. Calidius, Praetor designate, made clear his zeal for me, C. Septimius, Q. Valerius, P. Crassus, Sex. Quinctilius, C. Cornutius strove to help.

From day one Lentulus said and did what was necessary to protect the interests of the state.

(Cicero also praises Pompey who had thrown his support to the cause of Cicero.  But the manner of Cicero’s address seems to me to be telling Pompey something- the opposition to Cicero and the Senate was not the proper way for a citizen to act and to have anything to do with lawless activity was a mistake.)

So why did I leave?  I saw at the time that I would be forced to fight with weapons, not argument.  The Consul, Piso, announced that he would punish the Equites for the support they had given me.  Some were prosecuted, some harassed in court, others were banished.The other consul was eager to betray me to receive his payment.  There was a consular outside of the city (Caesar) who did nothing to help.  The number of enemy were too great and consequently many, faced with violence, backed off in their support for me.

Gn. Plancius deserves special thanks for it was he who protected me in Thessalonika during my exile.

(Cicero ends up making it very clear that, if anyone expected him to enter semi-retirement after his return, that person was sadly mistaken.  For virtue and good faith can never be taken away from anyone and in light of his universal recall, he was needed and wanted back in the saddle.)

744. Post Reditum ad Quirites by Cicero

744.  Post Reditum ad Quirites by Cicero.    This speech Cicero gave to the people of Rome after his return from exile.  As with so many other speeches by this man, it is easy to get caught up in the elegance and careful wording and miss where he lands his punches.

He begins:

It was better for those to aim their hatred at me than you and the Republic.  Although it would be nice to go through life without trouble, I would not otherwise be able to enjoy your kindness at my return (from exile). And in a way all those things we tend to take for granted, family, friends, festivals now mean more than these ever did.

He praises the efforts of his brother.  In the past endangered citizens were supported by friends and powerful family connections and even armies, but I was supported by all of you.

It seems that Cicero is claiming that what people did at large is more impressive than what those accomplished through powerful families.

Cicero gives thanks to Lentulus Spinther, the consul who supported him during his term, Sestius who was tireless in efforts to bring Cicero back, Milo, the same and Pompey who helped get the matter through the Senate.  Cicero also singles out Lucius Gellius who may have prevented fraud at the assembly to bring back Cicero.

( Cicero knew full well that Pompey was no friend during and leading up to the exile, but for political reasons saw it better to find a way to draw Pompey closer to himself and work legitimately through the Senate.)

If anyone assumes that I have come back a broken man, that person is sadly mistaken.

(Many assumed that Cicero would go into retirement after a triumphant return from exile.)

Marius never relented, though weighed down with age, in his efforts to regain his position of importance.  He took vengeance on his enemy.  But we differ in a very important way.  He used the force of weapons, I will use my ability to speak.  

Cicero then describes the four types who tried to destroy him:

1  Those who were angry that the state was saved by my efforts.

2.  Those who pretend to be a friend but betrayed me.

3.  Those too lazy to expend the kind of energy I did.

4.  Those who sold my safety and the dignity of this state.

(These of course should have been the guardians of the state and Cicero.)

I will go after these one at a time:

By conducting business of the Republic with integrity

By putting no faith in treacherous friends

Take vengeance on the envious by serving virtue and excellence.

Avenge the traffickers of provinces by getting these called home.

It was shortly after this that Cicero attacked Piso, the Piso, who let chaos rule in Rome which led to Cicero’s exile.  Piso very likely received a plum province for his inactivity.

743. Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino by Cicero

743.  Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino by Cicero.  This speech is divided into four parts.  In the first part Cicero defends Roscius on the charge that he murdered his father.  In the second part he claims that the real murderers were two fellows from Ameria, Titus Roscius Capito and Magnus.  In the third part Cicero attacks Chrysogonus as the real power manipulating events leading to the trial, in the fourth part he lays on the judges the necessity of ending the reign of terror instituted by using the courts.

Background.  This is only a simple version, further study is required to have much better understanding.  The Social War (91-88 BC) produced severe unrest and turmoil in the Republic.  The Senate appointed Sulla to command the army against Mithridates.  This command was removed and given to Marius by an assembly of the people.  Sulla marched on Rome.  He defeated his opponents.  He had his enemies declared outlaws.  Sulla has his command reinstated and goes off to defeat Mithridates.  November 1, 82 BC, Sulla, after returning to Italy, defeats those opposed to him. The famous Lex Valeria/Lex Cornelia setting up the proscriptions brought about the deaths of thousands and the confiscation of their property.  It was murder and plunder on a large scale.  The law was set to expire June 1, 80 BC.

The point of the above is to demonstrate that society was in turmoil and the rule of law was seriously threatened.

Then in August of July of 81 BC, Sextus Roscius, father, was returning home from Rome after a party.  He is murdered.  Within hours his death was reported not to his son but to Amerinans hostile to the father.  These bring in Chrysogonus, freedman of Sulla who had control of the records.  Chrysogonus has the name of the father placed on the proscription list.  His property is confiscated and Chrysogonus bought it for the incredibly low sum of 2,000 sesterci (a few hundred dollars). When the government body of Ameria learned of this, they sent a delegation to Sulla to explain what had happened.  (It is fair to say that Sextus Roscius, the son, must have found support in the local government body.)   But Titus Roscius Capito managed to get his name on the list of delegates and sabotaged the delegation.  They never met with Sulla.  Chrysogonus, informed by Capito, convinced them that he would take care of everything.  At this point the partnership of Chrysogonus/Capito/Magnus decided that Roscius, the son, had to go.  So they brought accusation before the court to try him for the murder of his father.  

Cicero decides to take the case.  He puts his own life in danger.  Why?  Because Sulla is Dictator and Consul and it is he who instituted the Proscription and was in a very powerful position.

From this portrait of Cicero others have been identified.

The case:

Many are surprised when Cicero, instead of other leading figures, stands up to speak.  He points out that a trial of this nature indicates that there is something wrong in the republic.

tametsi non modo ignoscendi ratio, verum etiam cognoscendi consuetudo iam de civitate sublata est.

Not only the ability to pardon but also the customary right of inquiry has been removed from the state.

The property of the father, Sextus Roscius, was purchased by Lucius Cornelius Chrysogonus, a freedman of Sulla.  However, Sextus, the son, stands in the way of luxurious life style.  It is clear that Chrysogonus wants the judges to be assistants in his crime.

If you think that Chrysogonus’s request is fair that he claims the property of Sextus, the son, I have another idea- resist bold people, remove Sextus from danger, a danger which hangs over all of us.  Do not let these wicked people do to Sextus via the courts which they they have been used to doing via the sword.

(There was a huge attendance at the trial.)

If we do not get a handle on this, crimes will soon take place here in the forum in front of all of us.  

To make things clear, Cicero begins at the beginning:

Sextus Roscius, the father, stood by the nobility through the Civil War.  The Proscriptions took place.  He was pleased that the nobles had won.  He felt secure.  There were old hostilities with fellow people of Ameria:  Titus Roscius Capito and Magnus.  It may be of interest to the court later on that both men were trained by professional gladiators.  Sextus, the son, was on his farm and Magnus was in Rome when Sextus, the father, near the baths of Pallacina, was murdered.  The murder was committed in the early night.  By morning a messenger delivered the news of the death of Sextus, the father, not to the son but to Capito who was in Ameria.  This is a distance of 56 miles.  Someone clearly was in a hurry to relay the news.

Four days later this murder was reported to Chrysogonus who was with Sulla at Volaterrae.  Chrysogonus was informed of the thirteen farms owned by Sextus, the father.  All of these were ideally located along the Tiber River.  Magnus and Capito make it clear that Sextus, the son, the legal heir to the property, could be taken care of.

Although the Proscriptions were over as of June 1, 81 BC, and now it was late summer, the name of Sextus, the father, was placed on the list.  Soon three farms were turned over to Capito, the rest Magnus held as manager for Chrysogonus.

So what was Sulla doing during all of this? He was busy settling the state after the upheaval of almost a decade of war. He was putting the state on firm ground.

What Capito does not possess, the rest was disposed of somehow.  

At this point the local government of Ameria, sends a delegation to Sulla to expose what they knew of what has been going on.  But Chrysogonus is informed of the delegation.  He convinces certain nobles to meet the delegation and explain that everything will be handled and all property will be returned to the rightful owner.  

Someone may wonder how the delegation was derailed.  Capito, a member of the delegation, made sure that the plan failed.

It was at this point that the syndicate decided that Sextus, the son, had to go.  So they charged him with the crime of killing his own father.  The son, very concerned, met with his friends and they urged him to seek safety in Rome.  So he went to Caecilia, a friend of his father.

But the syndicate was not worried about this.  They could not imagine that anyone would come forward to defend the son.  Why?  Chrysogonus would make sure that no one would.  After the brutality of the Civil War who would dare stir Sulla’s anger?

They had tried to kill the son, this failed; consequently judges, they hope that you will do the job for them.

Then Cicero seems to divert but, if one thinks about it, he does not.  He recalls the lawlessness of the state at the time when Scaevola was butchered ( during the massive upheavals of the late eighties).  This Cicero deftly compares to the lawlessness which now faces the son.

So what is opposed to Sextus, the son?  The charge of murder, boldness and shear power.  The prosecution alleges that the father hated the son.  But there is a problem here.  There is no proof.  Their proof is that the father put him in charge of the farms.  Does this make any sense?

Then the prosecution makes a big deal that Sextus, the son, loved farming.  Cicero shreds this by talking of the qualities of farming and that the solid hard work improves a person.  

The prosecution claimed that the father wanted to disinherit the son.  But offers no proof what so ever.

The only reason this accusation exists at all is because Chrysogonus was sure that no one would take the case.

As if often the case, Cicero realized that there was a need for relief in a trail which was so serious and dangerous.  So he presents a humorous description of the prosecutor, Erucius.  

He wandered around while speaking.  Sometimes he sat down.  One time he called a slave over.  At this point Cicero suggests that he did so to order dinner.  When he finished, he sat down and while Cicero began his defense, he smiled, talked to those with him on the bench, joked and ignored Cicero until Cicero mentioned the name, Chrysogonus.  Erucius, the prosecutor, jumped up,  Cicero said the name, Chrysogonus again and then again.  At that point messengers ran to and fro to announce to Chrysogonus that apparently there was someone with guts enough to make a real defense for Sextus, the son.

(The passage is well worth reading to get an idea of how forceful and clever Cicero could be.)

There is no evidence for parricide.  

Again Cicero excuses as too busy to know every detail of what everyone was doing.  

(But if one thinks about it, a large part of this whole speech is an attack on Sulla, indirectly, but an attack nevertheless.)

At this point Cicero accuses Capito and Magnus of committing the murder.  Magnus was at Rome when the father was murdered.  He had associates known to be involved in assassinations.  The murder was announced to Capito at Ameria by Mallius Glaucia.  Did he travel by night the long distance by chance? Yes, and in a hurry.  Was it a long journey? 56 miles.  Was there a need for numerous carriage changes? You bet.  Did he inform Capito or the son?  He informed Capito.  Clearly there was haste to inform Capito.  Weird, huh?

(It is essential to imagine that Cicero must have hired detectives to gather so much information spread out over several months and in different places.)

There were clearly high emotions before the trial.  Capito waved his intended testimony in the son’s face at the trial.  But Cicero quickly picks up on this as odd.  He holds this testimony of Capito up as evidence of the sorry state of legal inquiry.  There is a law that a person can not give testimony in a case that concerns them.  So Cicero says that it was a mistake to sit at the bench of the prosecution.  

A mere four days later the death of Sextus, the father, was announced to Chrysogonus.  Who sent the message?  Why was Chrysogonus eager to sell a person’s property whom he did not even know?  How can the triangle of Magnus/Capito/Chrysogonus be a fiction?  Clearly Capito sabotaged the delegation by working with Chrysogonus behind the scenes.  But here again Capito blundered.  He was part of a delegation to give honest report to Sulla of what had happened.  He betrayed that trust and trust is very important.  This man betrays trust and yet Sextus, the son is on trial.  Fides, trust is the bond that holds everything together.  Break that and there is only the law of the jungle.  Capito did not betray the trust of one person but nine others as the delegation consisted of ten people.  

The slaves of Sextus, the father, were present at the murder.  But these, Capito, refuses to allow to be interrogated.  This is suspicious; they surely know something.  Enough of this but there is something fishy here.

Now Cicero turns to Chrysogonus.  Cicero suggests hesitation, as the man is powerful.  He bought the properties.  By what law could the property of the father be sold?  The Proscription Law (Lex Valeria/Cornelia) states:

ut aut eorum bona veneant, qui proscripti sunt; aut eorum qui in adversariorum praesidiis occisi sunt…

that either the property of those may be sold who were proscribed; or of those who in the opposition forces were killed…

There is a big problem here.  Sextus was never proscribed.  He was on Sulla’s side.

So Chrysogonus lied, made up the story that the father was a bad citizen, that the father was killed along with those who opposed Sulla and prevented the delegation from seeing Sulla.

Remember too that the proscription edict expired June 1, 81 BC.  The murder of the father and subsequent events took place at the end of the summer.  So of course it was impossible that the name was on the list.  So Chrysogonus is playing a game, here.

Judges may wonder where Cicero is going with this, but he asks for time.

This case pertains not just to Sextus but to all of us.  Every person in this state.  Chrysogonus is the one behind all of this and Sulla is not being attacked as the prosecution would like everyone to believe.  Sulla was busy and everyone misses things.  

There is a lost section of the speech at this point.  But enough evidence survives that Cicero argued that the property was not sold but has been dispersed in such a way to conceal ownership.

Cicero proceeds to describe Chrysogonus’ belongings.  Where did he get the money for all of this?  The war has given great power to a person like Chrysogonus and at this point takes the opportunity to warn the nobles that if they should rest on their laurels (after putting the state back into their hands) they may lose what they hold so dear.  

This domination of Chrysogonus is making plans to control your loyalty, your allegiance and even court verdicts.

The following displays Cicero’s utter diamay at what has been happening:

hicne etiam sese putat aliquid posse Chrysogonus?

first word by word:  here indeed himself thinks some power possesses Chrysogonus?

The word order shows how dismayed and angry Cicero is.

 Chrysogonus thinks that Even here in this court room he possesses influence and power?

Cleary, Cicero is making the case that people had better set things right.

This passage is designed to drive a wedge between decent people and even tepidly decent people and Chrysogonus.

Then Cicero assumes the part of the son (called prosopopoeia).

You have everything I own, let me live in peace.  

This is used to show the immense power of Chrysogonus and how he has called all of the shots.  The attack on the son has no other purpose than the display of naked power.

You judges have the chance to do the right thing.  Grasp it.  If Chrysogonus is not content to be taking whatever he wants. then the last refuge for not only Sextus but the entire Republic is the mercy and integrity of the courts.

Then Cicero has an awesome metaphor:

Good generals set an ambush for those of the enemy who might escape.  This is exactly what Chrysogonus and his crew have done- they are using you, the court, to set an ambush for those who have escaped.  

How weird that this state, famous for its mercy toward the enemy, today deals with cruelty toward its own citizens.

signed,

Obstinate Classicist

741. Pro Archia by Cicero

741.  Pro Archia by Cicero.  This is a speech well worth reading.  As with any speech, one learns history and insight into Cicero’s skills.  Here he presents a partial argument for the benefits of liberal arts.

Aulus Licnius Archias was on trial for falsely laying claim to Roman citizenship.  It was in reality a political attack on Lucius Licinius Lucullus.

Cicero claims that whatever ability he has is due to Archias, a poet.  Whatever benefits his voice has had for the safety of the people he owes to Archias.

(It is very possible that Archias taught Cicero Greek and the ideas in the literature which came with it.)

It may be that someone may think that what an orator does has no common ground with poetry.  But all of the liberal arts pertain to humanity.

Teacher with students- mosaic

So Cicero asks the court’s permission to speak in a manner different from his usual habit.  He tells the jury to listen well and they will, indeed, be convinced that Archias should not be separated.   If he were not already a citizen, he should be.

Archias pursued liberal arts in Antioch.  He began to write at an early age.  His fame grew.  When he arrived in Italy he was admired, so much so that cities granted him citizenship.  He became friends with Lucullus and lived in his house.

In Rome he was admired by the Luculli, Aemilii, Cato and Crassus, etc.

By his own right and the support of Lucullus, he was enrolled at Heraclea as a citizen.

Later according to law he presented himself to the Praetor, Quintus Metellus and was enrolled as a Roman citizen.

The evidence for his citizenship is knee deep.  But the one document the prosecution demands was, as everyone knows, destroyed in the Italian War. On the documents which do survive, his name is there.  Delegations from numerous towns are in court to back up his story.

At one time there was a census (89 BC).  Although a census does not prove citizenship, his name is not there because he was away with Lucullus on official duties.

Cicero asks for departure from usual habit.

He defends liberal arts or adds to it.

How do orators and politicians remain sharp and alert and fresh for contests?  It is done via study.  He does not mean devotion to study to the detriment of the needs of the state.  Cicero condemns those who have no clue how to apply what they learn to the general good.  Without examples he learned in his youth he would never have faced the danger he did.  

Via literature people learn about great deeds.  Cicero put these before his mind and realizes now that the stories shaped his mind with the courage needed to face difficulty.  The contemplation of great people is beneficial to all.

But someone may well ask- do all of these people mentioned have the learning mentioned by Cicero?  No.  There have been many outstanding people without learning by their own nature possessed good sense and a serious nature.  But if one examines someone with remarkable nature and add the shaping and ability to reason which learning brings- then something very unique and special results.  Besides if great people such as Cato the Elder, Scipio, Laelius derived no benefit from literature, they would hardly have spent so much time pursuing it.

But not all mental pursuit are for all time, ages and all situations.  But these studies, Cicero is discussing, sharpen youth, delight old age and are with each step of life.

Does it make sense to admire a remarkable actor such as Roscius, but neglect the swift inspiration of the mind?

Cicero loads up a raft of examples of past and present Romans whose fame has been preserved by writers.  These made their names live forever, but also reflected well on the citizens of Rome.

Cicero even tells a story about Sulla.  This is interesting because usually Sulla is not presented in a positive light.  But at a gathering of citizens, a poet handed a poorly written epigram to Sulla.  Sulla read it and made sure that the man received an award.  But then mentioned that it would be best, if he wrote no more.

Cicero’s point about the desire for leaders to be remembered in literature is this line:

trahimur omnes studio laudis et optimus quisque maxime gloria ducitur.

We are all drawn be a desire of praise and each outstanding person is especially attracted by glory and fame.

Each time I read a speech by Cicero it becomes more and more clear that his ability to come up with something different had no limits.

Signed,

obstinateclassicist

736. Pro Sestio by Marcus Tullius Cicero

736.  Pro Sestio by Cicero.  This is a fascinating speech.  Anyone interested in the period 59/58 BC to 56 BC should read this.  It is a speech Cicero gave in defense of Publius Sestius.  This guy was a strong supporter of Cicero in his Consulship and was very active in Cicero’s recall.  So, when he was brought up on charges of violence after his Tribunate of 57 BC, Cicero was more than eager to defend.  In the course of his defense, Cicero covers the history of his own exile and smartly connects his exile and the danger presented to Sestius.  But the speech contains in addition a statement about what constitutes a good citizen and what makes for a stable Republic.  Cicero was very persuasive.  Sestius was acquitted by unanimous vote.

Cicero Returns fro Exile by Franciabigio

Speech:

There are indications when it is a quote, otherwise there is a paraphrase of what Cicero said:

Surely no one is surprised even in a great state like our own how difficult it is to find brave people.  Particularly when those who damage the state go about with a smile. At one time these with smiles used hired thugs to destroy, now they employ the legal system to attack good people.

I defend Sestius out of gratitude for his help to me and the needs of the state.

Cicero then describes a man which the state would admire:  responsible, self-controlled, dutiful, loyal, self sacrificing.

Sestius was critical in helping me keep an eye on my colleague, Antonius, who never did a thing to dispel rumors of his association with Catiline.

Sestius in his capacity removed C. Mevulanus and C.Marcellus from Capua.  This city was crucial for the plans of the conspiracy.  Capua gave hearty thanks to both Sestius and me for relieving them of both.  Capua even went to the trouble of sending a decree in favor of Sestius.

After the arrest of the conspirators in Rome, when Sestius received my letter asking for assistance marched to Rome with great speed.  A Tribune, in Rome, hostile to my efforts to handle the conspiracy was blunted by Sestius.

Sestius encouraged Antonius to put his shoulder to the wheel.  But without Sestius and Petreius, Catiline may have been given more time to prepare and the loses to our army would have been much greater.

It helped that Sestius had been Antonius’ Quaestor in Macedonia. He constantly urged him to action. Throughout, Sestius displayed impressive integrity.

Hortensius has already defended Sestius but what he had to say and what I need to say are closely linked. But I do announce that I will only attack those of my enemies whom I happen to come upon in my speech.

(It is statements like this which surely must have riveted everyone’s attention.)

One person (Clodius) by transfer to the plebs, elected Tribune, set about to destroy Cicero.  But this is not the whole story, for what Clodius did was damage the state.  Pompey had extracted a promise from Clodius, upon his election to the Tribunate, that he would leave Cicero alone.  But the transfer released Clodius to attack Cicero.

Clodius found two Consuls to assist:  Gabinius and Piso.  Gabinius was debt ridden and looked forward to recuperating his financial mess.  The other, Piso, always walked about with a serious gaze, consequently many thought that I was safe.  Gabinius fooled no one.  We all expected him to be like he was.  But Piso deceived many.  I knew that he was bad news, but not that bad.

Cicero spends some time making fun of Piso’s Epicurean views.

Cicero continues:

These made a deal with Clodius to get plum provinces.  In fact the same day Clodius presented a bill for my exile, he put forth a bill to give the provinces they desired.

When my exile was becoming more and more of a reality, all Italy came to my defense.  There were delegations sent from towns all over Italy in my defense.  These the Consuls did everything they could to negate their efforts.  Senators gathered at a meeting to support me.  Piso did not even bother to come but Gabinius treated these rudely.

After my exile, L. Ninnus, Tribune, made a motion for my recall.  Many expressed concern for and interest in his motion.  Then Clodius and his thugs attack the crowd.  Soon after Gabinius held a meeting and threatened those who gathered in my support and at this meeting he banished L. Lamia who had worked to protect Cicero.  

So what does any of this have to do with the case against Sestius?  Sestius is accused not because of his own account but because he is my friend.

(The tone seems to be at this point- if you do not believe me now, you will by the end of this speech.)

The Senate voted to put on mourning in support of me.  Both Consuls ordered the Senate to cease.  Who can order the Senate to cease mourning, who can order the Senate not obey its own decrees?

At an assembly in the Flaminian Circus, the Consuls showed approval of Clodius’ actions.  At this assembly a law was passed abolishing the Lex Aelia Fufia while both Consuls looked on.  (This law made it possible for an elected official to halt a controversial proceeding.)

While these Consuls watched, thugs were organized and the Temple of Castor was turned into a fortress headquarters for their use.  In a sense these Consuls turned the state over to madmen.  The city was in the hands of armed men and terror.  

Once there was a man with courage.  Long ago a law was passed in which was the requirement for every Senator to take an oath of support.  One man refused, one: Quintus Metellus Numidicus refused to take the oath and went into exile.

Cicero laments that he thought that people would stand by him and stand by what he and the Senate voted to do with the Catilinarian conspirators.  

(The implication is clear, there are peole needed of the stamp of Metellus.)

Clodius went about telling all who would listen that what he did had the approval of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar.  So Clodius threatened Cicero with all manner of violence as though all three approved.

I, says Cicero, was not frightened by Clodius’ words but I was by the silence of those three and the fact that they did not deny what Clodius said.

Many Senators were afraid when two Praetors called for the annulment of Caesar’s acts on 59 BC.  But many Senators feared a Tribune.  By that I mean they cared more for their own skins than they did me.  

(This, of course, did not smack of the kind of statesmen Cicero had hoped that they would be.)

Clodius played on Pompey’s fear of assassination.  He claimed that Cicero was plotting it.

(This passage hardly reflects well on Pompey as a tough guy.)

Cicero:

vocem pro me ac pro re publica neminem mittere

There was no one to lift their voice on my behalf or on behalf of the Republic…

(This surely caused some to squirm in their seats.)

If I had resisted Clodius and killed him, the Consuls would have condemned me, if I had died, the Consuls who already made the Senate impotent, would have told the Tribune that he was naughty and then completed their Province deal.

I left to save you and the state.  The state was staggering without a rudder.  Some failed to defend me out of fear for themselves, some out of old hatred, some out of envy, some because I was in their way, some sought vengeance, some simply hated the Republic.

Some have told me, “You should have resisted.”  Yes, and how many good people would have been lost?  “I should have met death with a calm mind.”  Considering what I faced, it seems to me to make no sense that I did not face death every day.

I realize that I am not a member of a state full of courageous people who would meet death or even face it.

If I had been killed who would have felt inclined ever to come to the defense of the state?  I am only human but I endured the loss of my family, friends, property, etc rather than to be undermined by traitors.

See how things turned around with the election of quality people!  The Consuls of 57 BC sent notice to all nations to see to my safety.  

(This sentence is a not so veiled condemnation of of the activities of the Triumvirs.)

Deinde numquam iam, ut spero, quisquam improbus consilio et auxilio bonorum se oppugnare rem publicam dicet illis tacentibus

nec armati exercitus terrorem opponet togatis; neque erit iusta causa ad portas sedenti imperatori, quare suum terrorem falso iactari opponique patiatur.

Then never, I hope, will anyone claim that he attacks the Republic by the plan and the aid of good citizens while those are silent, and he will not impose terror of any army upon peaceful citizens; and there will be no just reason for a general sitting at the city gates, by which he may allow their terror deceitfully to be brandished and opposed.

(This is almost a prayer.  Cicero without mentioning names makes it clear that he was not impressed with Pompey or Caesar.)

The very moment I was driven out, both Piso and Gabinius received their prize provinces.  This was pay for their inactivity and opposition to my safety.  So a citizen was driven out without trial, by violence, use of rocks, steel and armed slaves, a law was made with all form abandoned.

My wife was harassed, children threatened, son in law denied to plea my case, property stolen and my house on the Palatine burned, properties at Tusculum and Formiae burnt.  While much of this transpired, the Consuls feasted.  Clubs were allowed to be formed which were the kind which permitted thugs to roam about the city at will.  Provinces were illegally changed.

Cicero succinctly lists what had been done:

all laws of religion abolished

all safeguard against dangerous acts abolished

all powers of elected officials- abolished

all laws which controlled when a bill could be proposed- abolished

proper procedures- abolished

with one bill, that of Clodius.

The disgrace even spread to foreign countries:

religious rights sold to highest bidder

exiles returned to cities such as Byzantium, although condemned

But all the while honorable citizens were driven out.  

(This refers to both Cato and Cicero.  Cato was sent to the east to annex Cyprus.)

(Cicero is often criticized for his actions or inaction.  But it seems that these fail to grasp the difficult position in which Cicero found himself- confronted by those who would stop at nothing to gain their desires, this is the reason that historical events pop up in this speech- he is trying to let people know what has been lost.)

Cicero continues covering events in the distant provinces:

King Ptolemy of Cyprus without notice was deprived of a throne, when he was at peace, and trusting in the power of the Roman people.  

In contrast we have`Antiochus the Great, though defeated in battle, lost only territory.  Tigranes supported Mithridates but was restored by Pompey to his kingdom.  These contrast with King Ptolemy of Cyprus who lost everything when he had not been hostile in the least.  How can other rulers possibly feel secure when some Tribune could with the help of thugs take it all away?

Cicero offers praise of Cato who was sent to annex Cyprus.  He was a man caught in the violence of the times.  True, says Cicero, he bowed  to the danger but if any thinks the less of him, just remember how he acted during the dangerous times of my Consulship.

Finally Pompey said that enough is enough.  He put his efforts to the benefit of the state and began to work for Cicero’s recall.

June 1, 58 BC the Senate voted to recall me from exile.  It was moved by L. Ninnus and vetoed by Ligus.  But with this the Senate seemed stirred to life.  Some of Clodius’ pals were hauled into court and condemned.  But I was so angered when the Consuls said that they were afraid of the Clodian law.

October 29, 58 BC, 8 Tribunes moved for my recall. Vetoed.  That summer Publius Lentulus Spinther was elected Consul for 57 BC.  He was eager for my recall.

After Sestius was elected Tribune in the summer of 58 BC, he went to plead my case before Caesar up in Gaul.   

Both Piso and Gabinius left before their term was up.  December 10 the new Tribunes took office were ready to support a recall.  But two were bought off to oppose: Numerius Quintius Rufus and Sextus Atilius Serranus.  Process delayed.

Lucius Cotta moved that Clodius’ laws were invalid.  Thus all that needed to be done was for the Senate to vote for a recall.  Pompey argued that it was better to use the comitia centuriata.  

January 23 Cicero’s case was brought before a meeting of the plebs.  But Quintus Fabricius took position on the Rostra before day break.  Delay again.  At this meeting, Quintus, brother of Cicero, nearly lost his life.  

Was Sestius there with this mob?  No.  That is why my brother and others were driven away.  You people who use violence charge Sestius who tried to defend his life.  Sestius told the Consul that he was watching the sky (method used to halt legislation).  For this he was beaten within and inch of his life.  But Sestius is accused of violence.

Judges, after something, like this, would you have come to the defense of the Republic?  In fact if any shred of the Republic still remained, a statue would have taken its place in the forum next to other great men, if Sestius had met his end that day in defense of the Republic.

The prosecution accuses Sestius of collecting a force to attack the Senate among others.  Did he expel men from the rostra?  Did he confiscate property?  Did he demolish buildings? 

…principem civitatis ferro obsessum teneret?

Did (Sestius) hold a leading citizen (Pompey) of the state besieged with weapons? 

Cicero thought the letter “f” and ugly sound.  Note the pause after civitatis.  Ferro would have an ugly emphatic sound.  It is always important to remember with Cicero that every sound, each word is always welded like weapons for the final stroke.

Cicero as is so often the case takes his opponent’s argument and makes it his own and then shoves it back in their face:  The prosecution alleges violence on the part of Sestius, this is interesting in light of the violence perpetrated by Clodius.

Then he turns either to the corona or the judges and says:

vos taciti maerebatis

you while silent groaned

The forum was over run by slaves, and there was silence.  Chaos ruled in the forum and you let it go, magistrates were prevented from their duty and no one resisted.

(This whole series begs the question- where are the brave?  Those who defend the state?  Those who defend the right of citizens to assemble in peace?)

Cicero presents a conundrum:  what is a person supposed to do against those who would use the law and courts to destroy the Republic?  Sestius was only doing what was last possible curse of action- to resist with force those who would destroy the state.

The prosecution evidently praises Milo and his defense of the Republic.  He protected his house and kept himself safe in the forum.  So Cicero wonders why, if Milo is held up to praise, the same can not be done for Sestius.

atque inter hanc vitam perpolitam humanitate et illam immanem nihil tam interest quam ius atque vis.

and in particular between this life highly polished with cultured refinement and between that savage life nothing makes so much of a difference as justice and brute force.

Whichever one we do not wish to use, the other must be employed.  If we wish violence to be eliminated, justice by necessity must prevail, that is a trial by jury in which all of justice is contained.  Should the jury system displease or not exist at all, brute force by necessity must rule.

Milo and Sestius were doing the same thing.  What was the source of all this lawlessness?  Gabinius and Piso.  These two wrecked havoc in so many areas, left so much unchecked and yet, Milo and Sestius are on trial.  Who should be on trial?

We are where we are, this condition we are in is because no one stands up to these thugs, until now.

All were lawless but to what purpose was Clodius?  or Milo? or Sestius?

Clodius was granted immunity from prosecution because the Consul, Praetor and Tribunes (Q. Metellus Nepos, Appius Claudius, Sextus Atilus Serranus) refused to accept the charges.  Twice Milo tried to bring him to trial.

The prosecution argues that the case revolves around who are good citizens.  Cicero was pleased that this was brought up.

There are, he says, two kinds of those active in the state:

populares who seek to please the multitude

optimates who seek to please the best citizens

Who are the best citizens?

All are optimates who have committed no crime, are not at heart merciless, or lacking in self-discipline or hindered by an immoral home life.  What is the standard for all of these optimates?

That standard is cum dignitate otium= freedom from civil discord with self-respect.

(This passage is very much worth reading as a foundation for anyone seeking to understand what a citizen has a right to expect from elected leaders.)

These are the foundations of cum dignitate otium which leaders should defend with their lives:

religious observance, that is a conscientiousness and scrupulousness in execution of duties, the powers of an elected official, the authority and reputation of the Senate, hallowed traditions, courts, interpretation of the laws, credit, provinces, allies, military, the treasury.

All these must be guarded with one’s life.  In a state our size, we must be constantly vigilant because there are those who would destroy it.  Good people are sometimes slow to respond to a crisis because they hold peace (otium) so dear.  

There are those who possessed remarkable courage for their country to their own cost:  Quintus Catullus, Marcus Aemilius Scaurus and Quintus Metellus Numidicus.  Scaurus opposed any measure no matter how popular, threats never blunted his efforts.  Metellus without hesitation took on a dangerous Tribune.  Catullus never wavered and spoke his mind.  My point is that dignity (dignitas), praise, glory do not come without sacrifice.

Great leaders oppose the desires of people.  They resist.  They were respected.  But now what is there to agitate for?  What the populace wants is peace (otium).  These dangerous assemblies we see now are crowded with hired thugs who are paid to do the bidding of dangerous people.

If we should remove these thugs, the will of the people is as clear as it was when Lentulus proposed my recall at a meeting (contio).  His meeting was attended by respectable people but the meeting of Clodius in the Campus Martius was met with disapproval.  The meeting of Lentulus was a real meeting.

Clodius says that he passed a law about me.  Who are these people?  Are there any here today?  Lentulus passed a law about me.  Who were those who made up the assembly?  Honest people of all ages, all ranks, from all over Italy.  Which assembly was a popular assembly?

Cicero then uses L. Gellius Poplicola as an example of those who followed Clodius.  He hates Cicero because Gellius squandered what he had and thus it right to take what Cicero has because he, Gellius, has nothing.

When the real Roman people assemble, says Cicero, their votes are given to those who are moderate and support tradition.  They reject so called popular candidates.

Cicero seems to indicate that there are two Roman assemblies in a way- the one which Clodius hires and the real ones visible in the theater and elsewhere.

When Clodius, Cicero says, enters the theater, he is poorly received and often the lines of plays are directed at him.

What Cicero has been saying, in a way he has been saying to the young in order to give an example to the young on what it means to be a friend of the people.  In the matter of Cicero’s recall, there are numerous demonstrations of what Cicero means:  responses at games, plays, public gatherings were clearly in favor of Cicero.

The Senate instructed the Provinces and all officials to protect Cicero.

When Cicero returned, towns from all over Italy sent delegations to greet him as he traveled from Brundisium to Rome. When he reached Rome, there were people all along the road leading into Rome, on temple steps and roof tops cheering.  These are the true optimates.  These were not hired.

Cicero lays out the essence of the Republic:  the Senate was meant to be the guarding force in the Republic.  It is the responsibility of those who become part of it to understand how it works.  Magistrates are for one year only.  This puts the Senate in the key position.  It is the guardian, defender, pilot of the state.  Magistrates are supposed to serve the interests of the Senate.

(Now it makes sense why Cicero did not join the Triumvirate.)

All, says Cicero, who defend the above are optimates.  The real leaders are those who are willing to endure much toil for the benefit of others.  These are the ones remembered.  Those who cater to the people, who use bribes are not.  True leaders are those who resist the audacious.  So why endure pain or exile?  Because fame is won by doing the right thing.  These are the ones remembered, not those who damage the good.  

Cicero turns again to Sestius.  Sestius is a champion of the authority of the Senate and advocate of the people.

Cicero ends joining the danger to Sestius with the threats presented to Lentulus and the dangers Cicero himself endured and the intimidation and physical abuse his own family endured.  And yet all these served the interests of the state and not their own.

727. De Provinciis Consularibus and some letters by Marcus Tullius Cicero

Plato in Capitoline Museum- his example looms in the background of this summary

727.  De Provinciis Consularibus by Marcus Tullius Cicero.  

Some letters relating to this speech:

Ad Quintum ii. 1.  Before Dec 15, 57 BC.  It is a report on a Senate meeting.  There was a large attendance- some 200.  A Tribune, Lycus, brought up the issue of the Campanian Land Law which had been passed by Caesar during his consulship of 59 BC.  Remarks were made against Caesar, Gellius and there were complaints against Pompey who was not there.  The Senate sat silently.  Marcellinus observed that they felt that Pompey should be present for any discussion on this issue.  Then the Tribune Racilius brought up coming trials.  Marcellinus  was asked to open the debate.  Clodius’ activities were sharply condemned and a jury selection was proposed for dealing with his activities.  Several members moved against Clodius including Racilius, Lentulus, Philippus, Vetus Antistius.  The meeting was dismissed when Clodius and his pals caused a ruckus.  

Ad Quintum ii. 5.  end of March 56 BC.  Lentulus is praised as an excellent Consul.  He has been finding ways to block dangerous bills.  Cicero has been busy in court.

Ad Quintum ii. 6  April 9, 56 BC.  Cicero visited Pompey and had a very cordial meeting.  There did not appear to be anything amiss.  Pompey was on his way to Sardinia.  (On the way he met Caesar at Luca where it was decided that Cicero had to be silenced.  This was done through a message with Quintus.)

Ad Atticum  iv.5.  After June 20, 56 BC.  Atticus questions why Cicero gave copy of his speech (this speech, probably- De Provinciis Consularibus) to Pompey and not him first for advice.  Well, replied Cicero, it was Pompey who requested it.  Cicero told Atticus that he was not proud of it but he did what must be done.  Atticus wondered why Cicero not only supported the Triumvirate but also published a speech announcing it, so to speak.  Cicero replied:

1. I must have  political protection from my enemies.

2. Cicero claims that he has been moderate in his change of sides.

3. If this speech is well received by Caesar, he is sure that it will allow him (Cicero) room to maintain independence.

4. Some took delight when he opposed the Triumvirs but abandoned him when he needed them in a crisis.

Ad Atticum, iv.6.  April 19, 55 BC.  Cicero points out his difficult political position:

1.  Labeled as insane if he says what he should about the Republic.

2.  He looks like a slave, if he just chimes in with the Triumvirs

3.  He is treated like a captive, if silent.

4.  He can not retire, it is his code to enter the contest.

Ad Familiares 1.7 to Lentulus Spinther, June/July 56 BC.  Lentulus wants to know how people feel toward him (Lentulus).  Cicero- not easy to figure.  Those Lentulus has offended while pursuing public interests are openly against.  Those Lentulus has helped are less supportive now that they have what they wanted.  Former Consuls are not in support.  Pompey, after Lentulus wrote a letter is in good spirits toward Lentulus.

Lentulus hoped to restore Ptolemy to his throne in Egypt.  Cicero recommends that he arrange his affairs in such a way that Ptolemy be restored.  If successful, there will be praise, if not, jeers.  Lentulus must be the judge of what to do.  

Then to add more understanding, Cicero tells Lentulus that the manner in which he (Cicero) has been treated by those who should have found ways to bind him to common cause have been jealous and have alienated him (Cicero).  Cicero has determined that it is not his birth which they resent but distinctions which they resist.  Thus Lentulus’ problem and Cicero’s problem have this common ground.  Cicero writes:  Do not let the injustice of someone deter you from the excellence you have proposed for your life.  But keep in mind your future in politics in Rome.  Select with care those you can trust and those you should keep an eye on.

Then Cicero follows the above with the observation that the stupidity and lack of coherent plan (inconstantia) of Cato and friends has been out maneuvered by money, violence and shear force by appearing to possess greater legitimate authority.

The Triumvirate (Cicero , of course does not call it this- this is a modern term) has gained more than they expected as a result.  Caesar has gained 10 Legates he requested and pay for his troops and a successor has been blocked.  None of this is to my liking but it seems that neither calculation of our welfare must be considered by us without a sense of our moral goodness, nor must a calculation of our moral goodness be considered without a thought for our welfare.

Ad Familiares 1.9 to Lentulus Spinther, Rome, December, 54 BC.

Lentulus (presently governor in Cilicia) wrote to Cicero expressing surprise at his association with Caesar and Appius.  Lentulus has no problem with that but does ask for an explanation of the defense Cicero has made for Vatinius whom Cicero previously had slashed to pieces in court.

Cicero feels that he must go back in time.

1. Because of Lentulus, Cicero realizes that he has been recalled from exile.  For this Cicero owes Lentulus so much.

2.  Cicero felt he owed his country to remain involved, since it had helped Lentulus restore Cicero.  These sentiments, Cicero points out to Lentulus, were themes in Cicero’s speeches before the Senate.

3.  Cicero notices that Lentulus did not have an easy path in the complete restoration of Cicero- there was ill will and meager support from those who should have been more vigorous.

4.  The memorials in honor of the suppression of Catiline- those who should have helped did not and there was violence done to Cicero’s house and Quintus’.

5.  Cicero had no easy time getting compensation for the destruction of his property. But owed the Senate a great deal for what they had done.

6.  But Cicero had owed Pompey,too, for what he had done in the matter of his return but Cicero kept his political independence.

7.  Pompey made a special trip to Rome to stand witness for Sestius whom Cicero was defending.

8.  Vatinius said that Cicero was supportive of Caesar because Caesar was successful. (So this was a call for Cicero to display independence.)

9.  So at the trial of Sestius Cicero said that while Pompey was present that Bibulus’ difficulties were better than a triumph.  Cicero also said that the same people who kept Bibulus in his house, threw Cicero out of his.  Cicero thoroughly attacked Vatinus, his career and Tribunate.

Cicero, later in the Senate meeting, concerning the Campanian Land Issue, was so forceful that April 5th both Consuls, Marcelinus and Philippus put Cicero’s proposal to the vote and it passed that the land issue should be discussed May 15.

By doing so Cicero showed

a. He was willing to strike at the heart of the Triumvirate

b. He was independent

10.  Cicero’s speech affected Caesar and Pompey as he expected but others he did not anticipate.

11.  Pompey gave no hint of displeasure.  He left for Sardinia and Africa but met Caesar at Luca.

12. Cicero learned that Caesar AND Pompey were upset and Cicero claims that these were stirred up by Crassus.

13.  But Cicero’s principal informant was Quintus to whom Pompey gave an ultimatum.  Cicero was told not to discuss the land issue.

So at this point Cicero had a conversation with himself : 

Should he not honor his brother’s pledge?  But the real kicker was this- he learned that those things he had said which irritated Pompey, although in line with key Optimates (Senatorial leaders), pleased these that Pompey was annoyed and that Caesar would hate Cicero.  Plus these hugged and chummed with Clodius.

Cicero continues- Pompey is a primary figure.  Pompey and Cicero worked together in the past and Pompey helped to restore Cicero.  So support of Pompey was not inconsistent on Cicero’s part.  Caesar is close to Pompey.  Thus Cicero supports Caesar.

But as Plato said the kind of leaders determine the character of citizens.  Example- when the Senate voted to condemn Catiline, the power and authority of the Senate was evident.  The same was true down to the Consulship of Bibulus and Caesar.  But with Piso and Gabinius of 58 BC, Cicero was thrown under the bus, even though all of Italy come to Cicero’s defense.  Cicero had an army but no generals.  There were people ready to support but no one to lead.

Then Lentulus turned things around when he provided the leadership people needed to recall Cicero.  Thus these who showed weak inclination to prevent his exile possessed courage for Cicero’s recall. Even Caesar and Pompey were inclined to support the Senate.  

But Clodius was allowed to escape punishment and those who aided my restoration allowed Clodius to accommodate the memorial for ending the Catilinarian Conspiracy to his own purposes.  

These hostile and jealous expected Cicero to return fro exile humbled and was expected to retire from politics.  But these failed to see that Cicero was recalled with a universal cry.  Cicero thus felt an obligation to participate.

Despite the irritation expressed by the jealous and hostile, Cicero only worked to help friends and the Republic.  

Now Cicero sees it as hypocritical for those to criticize his support of Caesar, as they feel that I have abandoned my former ways.  But the problem is- where are the good men?

So Cicero has been forced to reconsider.  Plato comes to mind again- he said- push your country as far as you can but never use force.  Plato did not see his people agreeable to persuasion and force was improper.  But Cicero felt that he did not live in a country in a state of decline and as he was actively involved in politics, he hardly had the means to bail out.  But he, as opposed to Plato, has a cause to pursue which is the unity of two men for the benefit of the Republic.

So Cicero supports Vatinius in part because he supports Caesar.  Cicero reminds Lentulus that he has done the same kind of thing in the difficult world of politics.

Those who hug Clodius forced me to associate with Caesar and Pompey as a counter to their actions.

Now Cicero explains his connection with Crassus.  Cicero and Crassus had a set to in a Senate meeting.  Many said that they were glad that Cicero had come back to his old ways but then Cicero also heard that these were glad that Crassus would now be Cicero’s enemy.  So when Pompey and Caesar asked Cicero to make up with Crassus, he did.

Cicero’s aim has not changed: to serve the Republic.  But circumstances have caused him to alter the way he does things.

Cicero then cites Lentulus’ restraint and moderation as an example of the qualities Cicero admires: give and take, willingness to see and understand differences, willingness to see that there are many roads to do what is right, etc.

Cicero mentions a return to the Muses but in terms of publications in terms of ideas suitable to participate in politics.

Cicero gives frank advice concerning Appius and Lentulus’ dispute with him over a successor to his province and Cicero suggests that it is not worth it to oppose Appius but also says that he, Cicero, will support whatever decision he makes.  (This is another example of the kind of give and take Cicero misses in others.)

Summary of the letters

The letters to Quintus make it clear that Cicero strove for a position which allowed him an independent voice.  The letters to Atticus indicate that he felt that lack of support drove him into alliance with Caesar and a desire to find a way to benefit the state.  In the first letter to Spinther Cicero makes the point that it is getting difficult to judge those who offer solid support and those who drift with the wind.  He also points out that stupidity of the opposition (perhaps Cato and buddies) has severely blunted the their own efforts.  Clearly in this first letter Cicero expresses the difficult task of adhering to one’s principles and yet being effective in politics for the benefit of the state. In the second letter to Spinther, Cicero makes the case that if he desires to bring benefit to the state he must in the present climate change tactics and allies.  He is not happy about it but believes that Plato is right in that one should not do violence to one's country.  Cicero also implies the importance of people like themselves to remain involved because they possess that happy balance of give and take and a willingness to work with others.

The Speech

No one should be surprised at the line that I take concerning what is to be done about governors for the four provinces of Syria (Gabinius), Macedonia (Piso), Transalpine Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul (Caesar)  My resentment fits with the needs of the Republic concerning the assignment of Syria and Macedonia.  Publius Servilius’ lead I follow whose motion makes clear that both should be disgraced.  What else can I feel about those who exchanged my safety for their own benefit (both apparently made a deal wit Clodius to get plum provinces, if they let him do his will against Cicero).

I pass by the fact that they achieved their goal by condemning this Order, destroyed your prestige, deserted public oath, sacrificed the safety of the Roman people and harassed me and my family.

I will not mention the wrongs here in Rome.  But let’s turn to the provinces.

Macedonia was fortified at one time by success of governors.  It is now in chaos.  The army is lost.  Piso’s crimes have been paid by the destruction of our army.  Once a small force brought security, now an army can not contain the chaos.  Allies in the area are being bled dry.  The manner in which he administers justice has made us hated.  But for an honest legate, Byzantium would not have a single statue.  You purchased the province by overturning the Republic.  

His appearance belies his  depraved nature.  

What about Syria?  Chaos and mayhem rules here.  The Province has been run as a profitable business by Gabinius.  He has made the work of tax collecting impossible.  Gabinius has done nothing but find ways to destroy the tax gathers at the moment that our treasury is so low.  Do not be fooled by Piso’s serious brow- for he has deprived Gabinius of the title of worst.

Both of these must not be recalled but dragged here.  

There is a fascinating sentence:

Quo tempore si liberum vestrum iudicium fuisset nec totiens dilata res nec ad extremum e manibus erepta, restituissetis, id quod cupiebatis, vestrum auctoritatem iis, per quos erat emissa, revocatis et iis ipsis praemiis extortis quae erant pro scelere atque eversione patriae consecuti.

“At that time (during Clodius’ madness) if you had been free to make decisions and if so often the matter had not been put off and if the issue had not finally been snatched from your hands, you would have reclaimed, what you desired again and again, your moral authority when those have been recalled through whom your moral authority had been lost in the first place and when those prizes have been twisted out of the hands, prizes, which they had obtained through wickedness and subversion of the Republic.”

(This speech was referred to by Cicero as his palinode, a peace offering to Caesar and company.  And in ways it is just that but sentences like this also indicate that he intends to keep whatever measure of independence he can.  After all Piso was Caesar’s father in law and Gabinius was a close associate of Pompey.  Admittedly Cicero, as his letters indicate was forced to take a different direction, if he wished to benefit the Republic.  But the letters and this speech indicate that he not only bristled under the Triumvirs but struck out where and when he could.)

Gabinius has been refused a supplicate.  How embarrassing.  Piso sends no reports at all.  But Gabinius can take comfort in that one other time a supplication was refused.

Assigning Syria and Macedonia to the Consuls of 55 BC I approve.  But these will not govern until 54 BC.  So I move that Praetors be assigned to these for 55 BC.  

Even if these consuls were excellent, I will not recommend that Caesar be replaced.  

(Apparently at this point the Consul Lucius Marcius Philippus interrupted Cicero and said that Caesar was the cause of Cicero’s exile.  So why take this line?

Cicero responds:  I am thinking of the needs of the state.  Cicero then backs this up with examples from the past where people patched up differences for the sake of the state.  E.G. Gracchus alone of the Tribunes of the time defended Lucius Scipio even though he was bitterly opposed to Lucius and Africanus.  In public assembly he said that they had not suddenly become friends but that ill treatment of Lucius Scipio was not acceptable considering his services to the state.  He cites the example of Marius who was given an extraordinary command in an unusual situation.

So Caesar’s work is not yet done.  In spite of his success, much remains to be done.  He must bring it to a conclusion.  Though I am an enemy of Caesar I am a friend of the state.  

(These examples testify to Cicero’s definition of a true statesman found in his De Re Publica.)

The interest of the state must trump personal feelings.  My love of country brings me into a friendship with Caesar.  

(Then Cicero uses current examples of odd couples in politics.  These reveal a desire for give and take in terms of the state.)

Cicero states in full terms his reasons for opposing Clodius, even to his own peril.  He did this while some looked to their own interests, while defending Cicero. They played it safe by catering to both sides.

I have disagreed with Caesar in the past as you have.  Now I am in agreement with you as you have granted more supplications to Caesar than any general in history.  You have changed your mind.  I voted days of supplication for Pompey.  Pompey supports those for Caesar even though they surpass his own.

We have granted ten legates to Caesar and pay for his troops.  Now a cry is raised concerning my views in the assigning of these provinces.

It is not the charm of the province which holds Caesar there but a desire to complete the task.  Disliking Caesar is no reason to recall him from his province.  What Pompey did for other parts of the empire, let Caesar do in Gaul.

In the past we protected Italy and drove out the Gauls.  Now Caesar realizes that security can only come when the whole is conquered.

One proposal assigns Syria and Transalpine Gaul to the next consuls.  This validates the Lex Vatinia in that it leaves it in place in that Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum were assigned to Caesar in 59 BC.  Another proposal assigns Cisalpine Gaul and Syria to the next consuls.  But this would violate the Lex Vatinia because the consul would enter the province before Caesar’s term ended March 1, as the consul would enter the Province January 1.

Another proposal takes the war in Gaul into consideration even though that Senator disapproves of the Lex Vatinia.  His proposal fixes a day for the successor at March 1.  But this means that the Consul would have no province from January 1 through end of February.

All these proposals leave Piso in Macedonia.

These extraordinary honors voted to Caesar either were done because he deserves it or to bind him to this Senate.  If someone starts a career a darling of the people, this does not mean that when they have rendered good service that a place should not be found for them in this most august body.

(Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus may be been the one to propose that an opportunity to make Cisalpine Gaul a consular province should not be missed in that a popular law, Lex Vatinia, passed under dubious or even illegal circumstance removed it from the prevue of the Senate.  But Cicero politely suggests that it is unwise to miss an opportunity to bring Caesar into the fold.  Cicero possessed immense respect for Marcellinus)

Cicero reminds the Senators:  I was asked by Caesar to be a member of Board of Five (for his Land Law).  Caesar asked me to be part of his political alliance (Triumvirate) and Caesar offered me a position as Legate.  I refused all three.  I went my own independent way, for I would not abandon my principles for safety.

Caesar transferred Clodius to the plebs which allowed him to run for Tribune.  Either he did so because he was angry with me for the rejections or because he failed to win me over.  But then he offered me a position on his staff.  I declined.  And I had no idea the danger which would come to the state and me with the next consuls.

Caesar has repeatedly displayed good will toward me.

If I did not want leading Senators to share in my difficulties (exile?) they should not want me to be a companion in their hostility toward Caesar.  I can defend the acts of Caesar when in the past I did not attack or defend his policies when he was Consul.

By the advice of leading Senators I saved the state, by the advice of these same I did not join up with Caesar because they denied the legitimacy of those laws passed during Caesar’s tenure.  YET they decried my exile but said that it was passed legally.  

A leading Senator (Bibulus?) said that my exile was a disaster to the state but that it was done properly.

I have no ill will about what was said but I am going to use it to support my argument.  For the laws of Caesar are declared invalid by many of these but conveniently ignore the same set of circumstances concerning my exile.

If Clodius’ laws are valid, even when circumstances declared his adoption illegal (to become a pleb), these people can not willy nilly choose to examine these laws with a fine tooth comb but give others just a quick look see, when both were carried under the same questionable circumstances.  If I do have disagreements with Caesar, I must first look to the needs of the state and pick my fight with him some other time.

Levissime feram, si forte aut iis minus probaro, qui meum inimicum repugnante vestra auctoritate texerunt, aut iis, si qui meum cum inimico suo reditum in gratiam vituperabunt, cum ipsi et cum meo et cum suo inimico in gratiam non dubitarint redire.

But very lightly I will endure, if by chance either less to these I find approval, who concealed my enemy (Clodius) while your authority resisted, or to those if any will attack my reconciliation with their enemy (Caesar), when they themselves both with my and their own enemy (Clodius) do not hesitate to make reconciliation.

Signed,

The Obstinate Classicist