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