728. The Senior Statesman: Cicero by Thomas Mitchell

728.  The Senior Statesman: Cicero by Thomas Mitchell

Thomas Mitchell’s book makes the case that Cicero was a decent person with wonderful ideas who lacked the ability and tenacity to find a way to bring those ideas into play in the politics of his time.  He vacillated in his political doings at Rome but when assigned to his province he brought into play his code of very high standard. In his final struggle to save the Republic, he reluctantly chose to resist dangerous forces.  

Thomas Mitchell fails to take into account the nature of Pompey and Caesar.  Both were obsessed with their own welfare.  Both were willing to sacrifice any concept of traditional Republican code to further their own career.  Cicero enters this picture with standards of conduct which far exceeded either of his contemporaries.  

When he was consul, Cicero crushed the Catilinarian Conspiracy.  He felt that he would then be able to influence the course of events.  

But as time passed he realized that senatorial leaders possessed little tenacity. By 58 BC he was exiled for events which took place during the suppression of the conspiracy.  Cicero felt that his exile was the result of indifference of leading senators and the abandonment by Pompey and the hostility of Caesar.  

When he returned, he consistently worked to maintain a degree of independence in order to be free to address issues as he saw necessary.  He also understood that those who should have looked out for his interests and the interests of the Republic were unwilling to do so.  Some Senators wanted him to resist Caesar, yet embraced his political enemies who caused his exile.  He sought court cases which he could use to build his own power base. Consequently he felt compelled to strike an independent line.  

He maintained a line of independence as best as he could until the Conference at Luca (even then he displayed strong acts of independence).  He then realized that senseless opposition to the Triumvirs brought no benefit to the Republic.  In fact he felt that the opposition of Cato and his friends was doing damage to the system. Cicero admired Cato but saw his inflexibility as a serious hinderance to effect change for the better.  So after Luca, Cicero lent his support to the Triumvirs.  He swallowed many nasty pills but at the same time bound Pompey and Caesar closer and closer to him.  

A constant stream of people whom Cicero wanted to help and respected made their way to Caesar’s staff in Gaul.  A fair look at his efforts shows that he was doing everything he could to find ways to make Caesar a good citizen. Yet, Mitchell consistently portrays him as indecisive and wavering in his commitment, constantly in fear of his self and image.

The Civil War came and Mitchell presents Cicero as someone who could not come up with any clear plan.  

Mitchell at least could have included the possibility that Cicero was displaying sophisticated dexterity in attempting to find a way to work within the limits established by two politicians (Caesar and Pompey) in order to benefit the Republic.  His other choice was what he considered senseless opposition such as that presented by Cato the Younger.  As Cicero’s letters make clear he weighed his options in light of evidence from the past and events of his own time. Yet, this author refuses to examine Cicero’s letters and works and see the complexity of the events which confronted him.  (I suggest reading Philosophical Life in Cicero’s Letters by Sean McConnell. This work reveals the care with which Cicero conducted his actions and his willingness to take the difficult path.)

It just seems that Mitchell prefers to see Cicero as weak and without any long range plan.  I suggest balancing this assessment of Cicero with Magnus Wistrand’s Cicero Imperator.  In this book Wistrand makes a very strong case for Cicero’s ability to assemble a very complex plan and carry it out. 

Cicero stood firm in the final crisis against Antony.  Mitchell gives Cicero much credit for this.  But this is mixed with his insistence that much of what drove Cicero was his own legacy.  Mitchell’s assessment at the end criticizes Cicero for weakness, an inability to rise to his own standards and his blinding desire for praise and his vanity.  

I have always had trouble with this assessment of Cicero.  Why?  If Cicero was vain, he put his efforts and his life on the line to save his country, whereas Caesar was so vain that he destroyed his own country, caused the slaughter of his own citizens in order to protect his political position.  It was also clear in court cases conducted in Caesar’s presence, that the right of free thought was severely curtailed.  If anything was the antithesis of Cicero, it was the suppression of thought.  Cicero often repressed his own advantage for the benefit of the Republic- this is not vanity.     

In his De Legibus Cicero defined the nature of humans- the prime characteristic was the ability to reason and Cicero reasoned that this ability to think could only be developed, if there was freedom to think.  

It also seems that Mitchell picks and chooses from Cicero’s works what will fit his view of the man.  He, Cicero, was far more complex and craftier than Mitchell makes him out to be.  He only seems willing to praise his abilities at the very end when it is just a tad too late. 

Signed, 

The Obstinate Classicist

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

725. Philosophical Life in Cicero's Letters by Sean McConnell

725.  Philosophical Life in Cicero’s Letters by Sean McConnell.  This book is well worth reading.

He enjoyed peaceful walks and quiet places. Villa San Marco

In the 2nd century Cicero’s letters were highly respected for philosophical content. His letters now are mined for other reasons:  ambiance of the period, current ideas, current events, archeology, etc.  This book is meant to reveal his rich philosophical understanding and his contribution to thought via his letters.  This book covers 63 B.C. to 45 B.C.  Throughout there is this common theme:  whether otium (theoretical reflection) is better than political activity or not.  I.e. honestum versus utile as he discusses in De Officiis.

The organization of the letters has been done by themes by ancient editors but some parts of the organization may be due to Cicero himself.  If this is so, Cicero never intended the bulk of these letters to be private in the absolute sense.  

Cicero’s letters, this book maintains, often contain reference to complex philosophical discourse which requires the reader to re-create the background for the letter at hand.

What makes a philosophical letter?  If it is directly connected to some philosophical problem.  What makes a letter philosophical?  If the letter makes allusions to philosophical problems and these impact the point of the letter.

Cicero’s dialogues discuss the place of philosophy in Roman politics.  Philosophy is not an escape but a means of participation in it.  The dialogues assume an interest in political philosophy.  The point or one of the points of this book is that Cicero in his letters shows an interest in these subjects before he wrote the dialogues.

So McConnell takes letter 20 (1.9 Frick) of 54 BC.  It is good to keep in mind that before his exile Cicero seemed to feel that philosophy was for otium and separate from politics.

This letter, letter 20, written after his return from exile, is addressed to Lentulus Spinther.  Lentulus politely questions Cicero and new apparent political alignment.  Cicero defends his recent actions in support of Pompey and Caesar.  In his argument Cicero uses arguments from Plato’s Laws, his 7th Letter, his 5th Letter.  Since the letter was meant for wide circulation it can be safely assumed that he expected his audience to be familiar with these works.  Cicero does not mention the specific works but only the author.

Cicero explains his support for Caesar in Plato’s terms.  Whereas Plato explains why he does not participate in politics, Cicero explains how his own situation requires participation but does so in terms of Plato’s thoughts.  Useless opposition brings no benefit to the Republic but he can bring benefit by applying philosophical ideas to political concerns.

In a letter of 59 BC, Cicero refers to his interest in philosophy as an intellectual pursuit.  This is in contrast to this letter where philosophy is viewed as political activity.  At this time philosophy  was an escape from public turmoil.  He used philosophy to reflect on his own predicament.

In 50 BC, Cicero told Atticus that he had two choices A) support Pompey/Republic and attack Caesar or B) foster concordia.  B) entailed a great deal of potential for criticism for cowardice and desertion of the Republican cause.  Cicero chose B.

Before going further, it seems important to point out that Sean McConnell uses the old numbering system, not Shackelton Bailley’s.  It seems he prefers this, I am guessing because the old system preserves the old thematic classification system.  

Cicero, a Roman Plato,  portrays himself in a sense as Plato does in his 7th Letter.  It seems that Cicero wrote De Re Publica and De Legibus in imitation of Plato and his  letters provide the appropriate parallel.

In letter 9.10 Cicero explains his actions in light of Pompey’s desertion of Rome and departure from Italy.  Cicero uses the image of a bird desiring to take flight.  This is a clear reference to Plato’s 7th where he expresses the desire to take flight from the clutches of Dionysius at Syracuse.

In 9.13 Cicero quotes Plato when he discusses a request which had been made by Caesar:  “the requests of tyrants are mixed with compulsion.”  This letter must be interpreted in the context of other letters to Atticus and the 7th Letter.  In 9.6 Cicero encloses Caesar’s letter to himself.  It is full of familiarities and chumminess but also contains hints that Cicero now supports Caesar, since Cicero has not left Italy.  So there is familiarity but also a forceful tone to the letter.

The letter of Caesar was no doubt read by others.  This could imply, with a kind interpretation, that Cicero and Caesar are buddies.  So with this Cicero must deal.

So we go back to 9.10.  The beginning of the letter has elements of introduction to a philosophical treatise.  The letter is presented as a means of therapy for himself in these difficult times.  But the author suggests that the letter was meant for a wide audience.

Cicero begins to answer the charge  that he has abandoned Pompey and then begins to offer a defense.  At times Cicero felt that he had made the correct decision not to follow Pompey but now the circumstances have changed and he is full of regret.  So he presents himself as a true republican who has the republic at heart. He depicts Caesar and Pompey as Sullans.  This would appeal to a large number of people.  Cicero quotes Atticus’ previous letters 14 times.  Why?  This is another hint that this letter was meant for a wide range of readers.  The conclusion of 9.10 suggests that other people were supposed to read it.  We know for a fact that Cicero re-read Atticus’ letters to compose this letter.  We need to interpret this letter in terms of Plato’s 7th. 

Plato’s 7th justifies his willingness to apply his system for the benefit of all.  But as circumstances have changed, he desire to leave Syracuse but can not, as he is in sort of a  prison.  Plato creates pity for himself.  This image Cicero adopts for himself- for people to see him a a Roman Plato.  Cicero too wants to leave Italy but can not.  Philosophy is to no avail with a powerful figure, so Cicero wishes to pursue otium again.

Cicero the Philosophical Advisor

Analysis begins with Letter 7.11.  To review events leading up to this letter.  

1.  Cicero decides to return to Italy to pursue concordia or as victory for the good guys.

2.  Amicitia tied Cicero to both Pompey and Caesar.

3.  He found it difficult to decide which side was beneficial to the Republic.

4.  Cicero considers peace better than war.

5.  Cicero was aware of criticism of not supporting Pompey.

Thus Cicero concluded that he should take part of philosophical advisor.  This would help him avoid problems connected with 1-5.  Evidence for this role found in 7.11.  He uses the term the good, moral goodness, the shadow of goodness which conjures up Plato’s allegory of the cave.  Thus his point is that Caesar does not have a concept of the divine good, not even the imitation of it found in common life.  Socrates said that those who see only the shadow are not fit to rule.  No rational person would seek tyranny since it brings misery.  Of course, none of this reflects well on Caesar.

Clearly Cicero has been studying Plato.  This allows those reading Cicero’s letters to view him as a philosophical advisor who is expressing his thoughts, that he is thinking of the Republic.  These are qualities which Romans would admire.

In book eight of the letters, Cicero uses philosophy to evaluate who was happy and to figure out how philosophy could benefit the Republic..  

Socrates served as an example to Cicero of philosopher who stayed in Athens under the 30 Tyrants instead of leaving to practice his philosophy.  

This contrasts with how Cicero felt later in March when he wished that he were out of Italy.  But circumstances had changed.  So his inactivity before March makes sense in light of enough info to make an informed decision.

The letters of book 8 continue a display of using Plato as argument.  When Pompey flees Italy, Cicero once thought that there was a glimmer of the good in his eyes.  This is a reference to the Republic of Plato of a leader who has left the cave and seen the truth in the sun.  It also recalls the Phaedrus. Clearly such a suggestion indicates that Cicero was not very impressed with Pompey’s lack of understanding of the light of truth.

In 8.11 Cicero’s version of Plato’s advisor is combined with his own ideal statesman in De Re Publica.  Here are the similarities between the letter and Plato’s 7th:

1.  Cicero sees his theory presented in De Re Publica as capable of practical use, as the goal of the ideal statesman is the happy life of the citizen.

2.  Like Plato, Cicero worries that people will think that his time spent theorizing had nothing to do with practical application.  

3.  By desiring concordia Cicero only desires  what is good for citizens.  He is not grasping at power as Pompey and Caesar have been doing.

4.  Cicero makes the point that he has an uphill battle dealing with those who have their own interest not the interests of the populace at heart. Just like Plato with Dionysius.

Cicero thus presents himself as the moderator rei publica, as he is the only one who seeks happiness for citizens.  This also makes it clear that his theorizing has very practical application.  Thus he has become a philosophical advisor.

In 8.11 Cicero asks Atticus for a copy of Demetrius of Magnesia’s On Concord.  This work was dedicated by Demetrius to Atticus.  Cicero wanted to use its ideas to launch his own peace mission.  But when the consuls left Italy, the plan was abandoned.  It is clear from 8.11 that Cicero was writing to both Caesar and Pompey in terms of the need for concord.  Why though would Cicero want On Concord when he had his own De Re Publica?  Demetrius’ work may have been written in terms of a Roman audience.

When Political Life goes Wrong

The actions of Caesar and Pompey are so repulsive that Cicero’s philosophical options have caused him to contemplate a return to otium.   In letter 9.4 Cicero present a series of questions almost too difficult to answer in terms of the present situation.  Cicero has tried to remain involved in politics using philosophy but it is now clear that like Plato’s bird he must fly away.

But Cicero still faces a response to Caesar’s letter asking for Cicero’s gratia, dignitas and consilium. 

So when Cicero examines Caesar’s letter in terms of Plato’s comment that the requests of tyrants are mixed with compulsion- the conclusion seems to be that compulsion is hidden among gentle persuasion.  An essence of liberty is the option of saying no.  Caesar presented no option.

The New Plato and the New Dionysius.

Cicero realizes that he like Plato in the grasp of Dionysius was under the thumb of Caesar for he was not free to say no.

These letters show that Cicero applied his philosophical studies to events of the day. It is as though he realized that he needed a context that was similar to his own yet different in order to help organize his own thoughts and decisions.

Here McConnell discusses the influence and use of Dicaearchus in Cicero’s letters and works.  

One view championed by Theophrastus favored the contemplative life over that of the active life.  His argument was this- the most excellent part of human is the mind.  It is the divine part of the body.  It appears that Dicaearchus may have been an opposing view within the Peripatetic group.  

Dicaearchus’ views appear in De Re Publica- namely that the application of virtuous conduct is superior to knowledge of virtue.  The part to be played by philosophy in human life with a strong practical twist may come from Dicaearchus- i.e. philosophy is the tool by which the ideas of the ideal republic can be maintained.

This chapter also shows that Cicero employs ideas not just from Aristotle and Theophrastus but also from Plato and also someone like Dicaearchus.

In chapter 4 McConnell covers Cicero’s use of Stoic ideas.  In 46 BC, letter 9.22 covers the philosophical debate between the Stoic and Peripatetics concerning the proper rolls of modesty and freedom of speech.  The Stoics believed that there is no such thing as obscene language- thus a philosopher may call something by whatever word something actually is.

Prior to the Civil War there was much more freedom of expression than after 46 BC when Caesar had defeated the Republican forces in Africa.  The author claims that Cicero uses the Peripatetic approach to present that argument of the Stoics, showing that the Peripatetics can achieve the same results without damaging social norms of behavior.

He evidently came under criticism for being alive in that Stoic ideals required death in terms of what Caesar did. But Cicero argues that this is not the only alternative.  So using Stoic argument, he asserts that his mode of life is proper. He used Plato and Socrates as historic examples of wise people who lived under tyranny and found ways to express disapproval. 

Some Stoics believed that speech and action required moderation based on circumstances. So by displaying a modicum of support for Caesar, he is able to maintain his influence and at the same time give subtle hints as to his real thoughts.  

This letter gives insight into a better understanding of Cicero’s Paradoxa Stoicorum- that Stoic ideals can be manifested in academic terms without being so harsh and direct and confrontational.

The last chapter covers Cicero’s letter of advice to Caesar.  The letter does not survive but it can be reconstructed from remarks made by Cicero to Atticus.  It was modeled on a letter by Aristotle to Alexander where he advises Alexander to work toward true glory by working for the benefit of the Republic not for oneself.  This was the sticky part for Cicero because he felt that Caesar’s glory was false- in as much as it was all for himself.  Cicero also realized that after Alexander became king that he rapidly became a tyrant.  The problems presented by the letter became one increasing impossibility.  The letter was written and submitted to Caesar’s advisors- so many suggestions and concerns were expressed that Cicero abandoned any revision.  But the point is that Cicero yet again used another work to attempt to fit it into Roman acceptance.  

The main point of the book is that Cicero’s letters are not just a source of facts or entertainment or banter but a serious way to present philosophical issues in terms of active Roman politics.  It also shows that Cicero derived much good from a wide range of philosophical systems.  And that he was constantly thinking of ways it could be useful to Romans.  It also shows that familiarity with these ideas was assumed in his letters.  Cicero meant his letters to be read in conjunction with his philosophical pieces.  These philosophical references in the letters ask the reader to think in terms of the piece referenced in the letter in order to have better understanding of what is written in the letter.

Signed,

The Obstinate Classicist

I apologize for the delay in the announcement but a cold cramped my style.  January 3, 106 BC was the birthday of Marcus Tullius Cicero.  He was ( or is- well, his words DO live) a Roman philosopher, politician, poet, amateur gardener, architect, art critic, writer of letters and public speaker.  But in reading these facts alone I am not sure that it is proper for anyone to be impressed.  So I append an example:

In 51 BC Cicero was assigned to be governor of Cilicia (southeastern modern day Turkey).  The position was important as it lay on the fringe of the empire which means that security was a major concern.  He learned well in advance that the previous governor was corrupt and had abused his power and left the province in dire straights.

Letters which detail all of these events survive.  

He chose his staff with great care.  Meetings were held during which he explained that no one was to request or demand any thing from local communities that only money from the governor's allowance was to be used and used sparingly.  Abuse of power of any kind was not to be tolerated.  He kept his word.  

Cicero resisted the Sirens of Greed and Easy Profit.

Off they went. Upon arrival in Cilicia, he made sure that his rules were strictly enforced.  When his duties had been fulfilled he returned to Rome.  Any money he and the staff had not used was returned to the treasury.  There was grumbling amongst his staff that any money left over was their "profit" and should be distributed.  He refused.  I am sure that those staff members who were disgruntled had choice words of description. He did not care.

While in Cilicia, word spread very quickly that this was a man to trust.  Deputations from cities throughout the region sent delegations to complain of abuses.  As he traveled about, moving from place to place in their tents, he held court, heard their concerns and problems and solved each one.  He even convinced the tax collectors that if they should lower the taxes that the people of Cilicia would probably more readily pay their taxes, thus saving the tax collectors the difficulties that they had experienced. Taxes were lowered and indeed payment with speed.  During the hearing he learned that local officials themselves had been cheating their own citizens in these matters.  These he summoned and convinced them that they could avoid public disgrace by returning the public monies. He persisted.

Cicero as governor of Cilicia had control over Cyprus, an island at the eastern end of the Mediterranean.  A very powerful Roman wrote to Cicero that large sums of money was owed by the people of Cyprus but were nastily refusing to pay up and he wanted Cicero to send troops to enforce payment at sword point.  Cicero did some investigating and learned that this distant powerful Roman had lied about the circumstances and had actually been charging a yearly interest rate of 48 %.  Cicero refused to send troops, discovered that there were troops already there trying to wring the money out of the locals and ordered those off the island.  Serious and arrogant letters were sent to Cicero.  He did not flinch.

During these efforts he was constantly pestered with nasty letters from the previous governor, an immensely powerful figure, who complained that Cicero's manner of governing made him, the previous governor, look bad. He did not back down.   He even managed to prevent the delegations which communities had been forced to send to Rome praising this previous governor.  The letters of Cicero in return are examples of master diplomacy at work.  So skillful was he in his care to deal with the previous governor that soon after he dedicated a literary work to Cicero.

So here we have a former Consul, now governor with a chance for easy graft and certainly a great deal of legal profit.  And yet he returned home no richer than when he left.  

Any politician, present or future, would do well to follow his example.

Marcus Tullius Cicero in Capitoline Museum