626. August 30, 2009. Pro Ligario by Marcus Tullius Cicero. Loeb Edition.
The trial took place in the forum before Caesar in 45 B.C. Quintus Tubero prosecuted Quintus Ligarius for bearing arms against Caesar (during the Civil War) while siding with the enemy (enemy here would be Juba, a foreign king who supported Pompeius). Ligarius had indeed done just that- support Pompeius. However, so had the prosecuting attorney. I am not sure but more was going on here than the surface reveals.
Background: Caesar crosses the Rubicon and the Civil war is on. Lucius Considius, after his term as governor of Africa expired, put Ligarius in charge. Soon Attius Varus arrives and assumes command on behalf of Pompeius. Ligarius is put in charge of defending the coast. Lucius Aelius Tubero and son (prosecutor of our Ligarius) arrive. Tubero had been appointed by the Senate. But who was in charge? (I wonder if this was not the legal conundrum at issue here, i.e. who was the legal representative? but I do not know. Caesar appears to have been very sensitive about this issue.) Ligarius refused to allow Tubero to land. At the time the son, Quintus, was ill. Tuberos, both, joined Pompeius in Greece. After Pharsalia, they petitioned Caesar and were allowed to return to Italy. Ligarius stayed in Africa; fought Caesar at Thapsus. After Caesar won the battle of Thapsus, Caesar would not allow Ligarius to return to Italy. At the time of the trial, Ligarius was still in Africa.
Cicero's Argument.
Cicero says to Quintus Tubero, the prosecutor:
itaque prius de vestra delicta confiteamini necesse est quam Ligarii ullam culpam reprehendatis.
Consequently by necessity you must confess your own crime before heaping any blame upon Ligarius.
Remember that Tubero also had fought against Caesar.
Cicero says to Caesar:
profectio certe animum tuum non debet offendere.
Ligarius' departure certainly should not have offended you.
This certainly makes clear the personal setting and personal nature of the trial itself. Caesar arrogated the trial to himself concerning a matter relating to himself, and was the only judge. There does not seem to be any indication that advisors or legal scholars were nearby Caesar. This is something Romans would have found at best improper. He was judge and jury. It was also said, before the trial, that he, Caesar, knew that Ligarius was guilty but he reportedly said why not take this opportunity to hear Cicero speak.
Cicero by design and to a degree by necessity inserted his own situation into the trial. He too served in the forces opposed to Caesar. Perhaps this is another reason for the trial- Cicero defends and his opponent uses it to put Cicero in a difficult position. Cicero was even Imperator (general). A position which Caesar very clearly accepted and recognized. Yet, this would have caused political problems for Caesar. Two imperators- which of the two was legal? Problems either way.
esse me alterum passus est
He allowed me to be a 2nd imperator.
Looking at Cicero's choice of words, it appears that Caesar viewed himself as the only legal one. If Magnus Wistrand is correct in his Cicero Imperator, this may have served to remind Caesar of Cicero's fierce independence. For Wistrand contends that Cicero (as a legal imperator) was offered the right to celebrate a triumph by Caesar. At that point Cicero refused and set down his powers as Imperator. A pretty gutsy thing to do. Why? Cicero declared his own independence and at the same time cast negative light on Caesar's legality. It is a complicated issue. I highly recommend reading Magnus Wistrand.
Cicero again reminds Caesar that Tubero, the prosecutor, was the same one who attempted to enter Africa and fought against Caesar at Pharsalia.
Determining who has the legal edge in a Civil War is difficult.
quam multi enim essent de victoribus qui te crudelem esse vellent, cum etiam de victis reperiantur.
How many victors would there be who would want you to be cruel, when they even are found among the defeated.
You is Caesar. This makes clear that Caesar's actions unleashed nasty opportunities.
Cicero goes on to a rapid painting of Pharsalia. Cicero's language has the rapidity of battle, swift and deadly confusion and emotions. What did you want? What did you long for? Whose side did the sword seek?
cuius latus ille mucro petebat? Quid cupiebas? Quid optabas?
I know that Cicero was speaking to Tubero. But into whose head was he trying to get? Not Tubero's. But Caesar's. Perhaps Cicero caused Caesar to reflect more upon the war than the exhilaration and heat of battle. The intent of battle? The lives it cost? The intensity of feelings which are not so easily laid aside? Cicero seems determined to enlighten Caesar on the disaster of the civil war he caused.
There is so much in here. What Caesar unleashed was the employment of vendetta in order to promote one's own career. Politics combined with chaos of civil war. I may be drawing too much from this, but I do not think so. Cicero was capable of farsighted observation and possessed great insight into the working of the Roman political system. Cicero understood that what Caesar did threatened the political culture of the Roman Republic.
Tubero was prosecuting the crime (scelus) of Ligarius. Cicero takes umbrage with this. It is also interesting that Cicero says this sentence as a means to sway Caesar:
quando hoc quisquam ex te, Caesar, audivit, aut tua quid aliud arma voluerunt nisi a te contumeliam propulsare?
When has anyone heard this from you, Caesar, or what else did those weapons of yours want, except to repel an insult from you?
As in the Pro Marcello, this statement is so direct and revealing. Cicero appeals to Caesar's well known clemency. But Cicero also makes it clear that Caesar fought a war to defend himself. This sentence again reveals the utter helplessness of the Senate when faced with the violence of Civil War:
vos tunc paruistis, cum paruit nemo, qui noluit.
You obeyed at that time (the Senate) when no one did, who did not want to.
I suggest that this makes clear the chaos of civil war; the lack of innocence on so many parts. It also juxtaposes beside that idea that Caesar sits alone in judgement.
Another interesting sentence;
vide quid licentiae, Caesar, nobis tuo liberalitas det vel potius audiciae
look at what unrestrained liberty, Caesar, your generosity gives to us or rather perhaps audacity.
Cicero butters up Caesar here but at the same time reveals the overwhelming potency of Caesar's position. To what degree was Tubero using Caesar immense power to get at a political opponent?
Cicero seems appropriately sarcastic here toward Tubero:
quamquam, ut nunc se res habet, non dubito quin hanc salutem anteponas illi victoriae
Although as matters now stand, I do not doubt but that you prefer the safety of the present to victory of your cause.
The cause that lost, the one which Cicero supported, may have proven to be more dangerous than the one which did win. What a conundrum! This is not hyperbole on Cicero's part. His letters reflect the same feelings.
Cicero made his point with Caesar. Ligarius was allowed to return. But what else was done here? Besides a vigorous defense of Ligarius, Cicero issues another subtle warning by highlighting Caesar's arrogation of powers, the unusual personal nature of the trial and setting, jumbling of legalities unleashed by the civil war, etc. There is much more in this speech than the mere words suggest.
Cicero it seems places before Caesar the contradiction Caesar's own position presents Caesar himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment