739. Paradoxa Stoicorum by Cicero

739.  Paradoxa Stoicorum by Cicero.  This has been an interesting exercise.  I found some of the essays very difficult to translate.  I think that the concise Stoic manner of speaking combined with technical terms of philosophy took some time.  Number six was the easiest to translate.  I think that this one was most similar to his other philosophical works (De Finibus, De Officiis, De Legibus) and this made it easier.  

I read these because Elizabeth Rawson in her book, Cicero, suggested that Cicero put these together to help friends who lost so much during the Civil War between Pompey and Caesar to deal with their troubles.  

Each is prefaced with a premise.

#1 Paradoxon

That the only good is what is morally good.

Money, fine houses, riches, power, I never considered these among the true goods.  Those who have these goods ( in the common sense of the term) in abundance never have enough.

These, fine house, riches etc, should never have been given the name of goods.

Do goods determine who is good?  No matter what is the common accepted means of speaking, true reason with me carries more weight than the opinion of the crowd.  This last is a famous latin sentence:

plus apud me tamen vera ratio valebit quam vulgi opinio….

Cicero goes on to say that he never considered the loss of expensive things as the loss of those concepts truly good.

There is the story of Bias whose city was sacked by the enemy.  People were fleeing the city in droves.  One person as he passed Bias warned him to get his stuff while he could- he replied that he already did for “I carry all that is mine in me.”

So if the loss of cattle and fine furniture is not the loss of goods, what is?

The only good is what is right and honorable and morally perfect.

It is irritating to discuss these calmly, says Cicero.  So he illustrates these with examples of those from the past.

Did Mucius Scaevola do what he did for gold?  Money?  Would someone rather be like Mucius or someone whose house if stuffed with gold or expensive furniture?

Some claim that riches are not that important, yet these same defend pleasure as the highest good.  To do so puts someone on the same footing as a quadruped.  

Each person who shares of the good is especially deserving of praise.  So does anything which is good makes a person better?  Yes.

Does the pursuit of pleasure make a person more praiseworthy?  Does anyone publish himself adept in obtaining pleasure?

If pleasure is not listed among the good, then to live well and happy is to live honorably and conscientiously.

#2 Paradoxon

Nothing is lacking for living well in whom there is virtue.

What is virtue?

The development and exercise of the intellect for what is good.

All are most blessed who place everything in themselves.  Can we place everything in fortune?  In that there is no certainty.  Those who place their life in material things will face problems in misery.  To these death is terrible.  Lusts and wrong doing torment day and night. 

Being a good person has its own rewards and means there is no remorse over past events because such things were never done.

#3 Paradoxon

Moral offenses are equal and right actions are equal.

Moral wrongs are equal in and of themselves.  Moral wrongs can not be measured by how things turn out.  A wrong is a wrong.

If virtue is equally virtuous, then faults are equally faulty.  There are no degrees of good or bad.  There may be degrees in circumstance but not in the act itself.  It may be worse to kill a parent than a slave but both are wrong.

#4 Paradoxon

Every fool is insane

Cicero takes an extreme case (perhaps his own).

Can someone actually be exiled?  Not really.  For a state which exiles a good citizen can not at that moment actually be a state.  But I was recalled by the true state by a true assembly, by a true Senate.  Whereas when exiled, none of these existed.

So see, those attacks, destruction of my property, the loss of property, these were not who and what I am.  What I am is in me.  It is not material, but in the very depths of what I am.

Consequently I was a citizen all of the time.  Exile is a penalty for a crime.  I committed none.  You, the fool, understood none of this.

You are the exile.

#5 Paradoxon

The wise person alone is free and every fool is a slave

People often stand in awe of a Commander.  But a commander in what sense?  Can he control his own desires?  Can he curb his lusts?  Display restraint?  As long as these are beyond his control, he is no commander and certainly not free.

Thus many philosophers have said that only the wise person is free.   What is freedom?  The power of living as one wishes.  Who lives as he desires unless he follows what is right, who rejoices in doing what is right, who does not even follow the laws because of fear or follows these and cherishes these because they are the safe thing to do, but does so because he knows that it is proper to do so.

Whoever does not conduct their life in knowledge of what is right in themselves is not free.  

Anyone under the thumb of another is a fool.  Or who believes that the possession of fine things is the key to greatness.  Just bring back someone like Manlius Curius.  Manlius Curius Dentatus, consul 290 BC defeated  and conquered the Samnites after a war which lasted for almost 50 years.  A Samnite embassy tried to bribe him with money when they found him on his farm.  He looked at them and said that he preferred controlling those who had money instead of possessing it himself.  Would this guy be impressed with someone making pets out of expensive fish?

What could possibly be worse than being subject to the values others place on things, instead what is truly important?

#6  Paradoxon

Only the wise person is rich

That person who is content with less has more than that person who is always in need of more.  This is virtue- to know in oneself what is important based on a study of life and those who have lived it.

Besides many have no idea how much money there is in being thrifty.

Realtors often value highly estates in a prime location.  How much more must virtue be valued which can not be stolen or taken away, or lost in shipwreck or in a fire or storm or civil disturbance?

Signed,

The Obstinate Classicist

738. Cicero Politics and Persuasion in Ancient Rome by Kathryn Tempest

738.  Cicero Politics and Persuasion in Ancient Rome by Kathryn Tempest.  This book was a surprise.  In modern times it seems so often that armchair scholars approach Cicero with a strong degree of self-righteous tolerance.  But Tempest has managed to apply Cicero’s works not  selectively to make her case, but broadly examines his works to compose a fair assessment of the man.  This book is highly worth reading.

Little is known of Cicero’s childhood but she uses his comments about children and family in De Finibus to reconstruct his.  In this work Cicero mentions the importance of hearing stories moralizing stories of “good and bad behavior”.  This was a clever approach.

She suggests that Archias, a poet, whom Cicero defended in court, may have taught young Cicero to read and speak Greek.  Such observations makes comments which Cicero has of Archias take on a personal nature.

Tempest points out that Cicero may have respected Marcus Aemilius Scaurus not only for his willingness to defend the Senate’s position but also because he in a way worked his way up from the bottom.  

Tempest does not bring it up but it always seemed to me dubious that Cicero thought of changing his name, as Cicero from cicer was not impressive sounding enough. After all Scaurus means swollen foot, Lentulus bean and Catullus puppy dog.   

When Cicero learned of Tisias’ and Corax’ technique of arguing from probability, he was hooked on rhetoric- the example which Tempest uses is a small man attacking a large man- is it likely that a small man would attack a large man?

In 80 BC Cicero defended Sextus Roscius from Ameria.  Very powerful characters brought a case of parricide against Roscius.  These were friends of Sulla, Dictator.  Cicero took the case.  The prosecuting attorney on the day of the trial acted as though it was a slam dunk.  But Cicero cleverly won the case.  Tempest is impressed with his courage. 

After an education tour in the east and duties as Quaestor in Sicily, Cicero was asked to take the case against the former governor of Sicily, Gaius Verres.  There was much at stake- he was opposed by the leading orator, Hortensius, strong political allies supported Verres and Cicero hoped to win elected Aedile.  Cicero had to attack Verres but at the same time not alienate those he would need for his future office bids.  Tempest has great praise for Cicero’s handling of the case.  She points out that Hortensius had an amazing memory: he could recite back an opponent’s speech with one hearing, and he knew the law and oratory.  One would need to read the book but Cicero from the time he was asked to take the case until the moment of the trial had one road block after the next put in his way by Verres’ buddies. He won the case.

Tempest includes a quote from Cicero about Hortensius:

For twelve years after my consulship, Hortensius and I engaged in some of the greatest trials side by side.  I always regarded him as my superior and he held me as his.

This and numerous other quotes from his works could be assembled to balance the criticism that Cicero was conceited.  Just an observation.

Tempest seems to suggest that his defense of Gaius Antonius Hydrida (once his colleague in the consulship) and Publius Cornelius Sulla (nephew of the Dictator),  brought his integrity into question.  It does look as though Cicero walked a fine line which allowed some heavy criticism.

Tempest asserts that Pompey’s/Caesar’s/Crassus’ ambition combined with Cato’s obstinate behavior created the Triumvirate. This is for sure a huge part of it.

But much of the blame it seems to me must be placed on those who so valued their own personal interests so much that the state was turned over to thugs.  Their actions were a moral breech of constitutional behavior because with these guys debate and discussion were not curtailed but eliminated.  This was something Cicero could not stomach.

After Cicero’s consulship his problems increased week by week.  Tempest puts his loss of Pompey’s support upon Cicero’s conceit.  Then, too, when Cicero rejected Caesar’s offers which would have given Cicero protection against Clodius, Cicero refused.  Caesar does not seem to be one that liked being told no.

When Cicero’s exile became more and more possible, Pompey was removed from the picture when Vettius told the story that there was a plot against Pompey’s life.  Pompey shut himself up in his house.  There was also the suggestion that Cicero was behind it.  For sure something was going on.  But I have never understood why Pompey is not censored for his cowardice.  Here was a guy who saw battle, could be brutal.  Yet, there is announcement of conspiracy to plot his murder and he disappears.

Tempest impressively discusses Cicero’s exile in terms of his own letters which reveal a man in self pity and distress but also in terms of the unusual violence and brutality of Clodius and his followers.

August 4, 57 BC an assembly votes for the recall of Cicero.  August 5, he sets sail from Dyrrachium, Greece and lands that day at Brundisium.  

I never wondered until this time.  But there must have been a network of messengers or something to convey the news so fast.

Tempest pojnts out that Cicero probably took politics too personally.  Interesting point.

Upon his return from exile, Cicero strove to make a place for himself in the political make-up.  He always wanted to be somewhat independent in order to give himself room to move and shift according to the political climate.  He came darn close to finding a way to put a wedge between Caesar and Pompey.  But the Conference at Luca put an end to that.  At this point Cicero felt that he had no choice but support the big three.  For this he has come under much criticism and in some ways deservedly so.  But Tempest very wisely makes the case that Cicero knew in how much danger his family was. When exiled, his wife was manhandled, his family forced into hiding, furniture looted from his houses, books carted away, properties burnt, columns removed.  She is not excusing the guy but at least makes a long overdue assessment that more was at stake than his own reputation and standing. This was a very interesting section of the book.

Cicero became governor of Cilicia.  Declared Imperator.  This entitled him to a triumph.  She suggests that he kept these during the discussions just before the civil war so that he could maintain a position of impartiality to negotiate a peace treaty between Caesar and Pompey.

For anyone interested in this, I highly recommend reading Magnus Wistrand’s Cicero Imperator.  

Tempest sees the Pro Marcello as an example of the first speech in Latin in praise of a sole ruler.  The very theme of the speech places Caesar in a most unconstitutional position it seems to me.  It can just as easily be considered a speech with a warning.

Cicero wrote to a friend about the need to get together and perhaps be architects or workmen for the republic.   Tempests suggest that this presents the possibility that Cicero felt that Caesar might be interested in restoring the Republic.  Cicero’s hopes were dashed but this is a fascinating idea.

So it makes sense as Tempest says that Cicero was working so hard to get Caesar to allow the return of those exiled.  Cicero knew that there was a need for experienced Senators in the Senate, if the Republic was ever to have any hope of restoration. 

The death of Tullia- this exposed to Cicero what damage had been done to the Republic.  With her gone, there was no one to comfort him in the loss of the Republic.

She gives the common reasons for Caesar’s murder but adds that Caesar put a gilded statue of Cleopatra in the Temple of Venus.  To say the least this was very un-republican. He also paraded Cleopatra about in the city and her son by him, too.  This, of course, while his wife looked on. 

She tackles the problem of Cicero, a man of law and peace, willing to kill a tyrant.   “Tyrannicide was self-defense against a man killing the country.”

This book is full of fine ideas and interesting observations.  

Tempest makes the point that here can be no one conclusion of Cicero.  

Perhaps this is good.  For if discussion ends, debate is over and learning ceases.  Cicero would have hated that.

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.

735 and 737. Life of Cicero vol 1 by Forsyth

735 and 737.  Life of Cicero, vol 1 and vol 2 by Forsyth. This was written in 1863.  It is dedicated to a British Lord.  So it is interesting to read it in terms of comments relating to British government and the United States and in terms of the period in which it was written.  It covers the life of Cicero using heavily Cicero’s letters and speeches.  This of course makes sense but he weaves what Cicero says into the biography in such a way that it is difficult to know when it is Cicero talking or it is Forsyth.  This is both a criticism and a compliment.  It is a criticism because it often does not allow an analysis by Forsyth of Cicero.  But it is pleasing to read because it unfolds in a way as a novel.

There are interesting tidbits about the location of Cicero’s houses and who ended up owning one of Cicero’s houses upon his death.  Although one must be careful because the location of his houses is doubtful.  But it is interesting to know by references made that Forsyth visited many places where Cicero lived.

He can not help to but to tout Christian values over those of pagan.  A grave sin in modern times, but no worse than prejudice I see in modern authors in other areas.

He does dwell far too much on corruption in the late Republic.  Modern scholarship has thrown interesting light on the subject.  And he does go too far, so far that one wonders how any decent person was ever elected.  Even he has trouble with the box he made for himself.

His analysis of speeches is kind of weak.  this makes sense when one realizes that he simply can not understand Roman politics except in light of the British system.  This adversely effects his ability to critique a situation.

Aside from this, it is worth while.  He sincerely wants to cover Cicero the man and the politician and in the process records a great deal of information.

Thoughts after reading vol 2.

There are times when the references to the superiority of Christianity over paganism becomes a little too much.  It sometimes seems to border on a willingness blindness to a full appreciation for what Cicero had to offer.

But the last chapter where he discusses the views of different scholars, such as Mommsen, Drumann and Middleton is very interesting.  I only wish he had written the rest of the book with as much keen observation.  His main point with critics is that thy failed to look at the whole person.  Instead these selected from Cicero what was suitable to their views.  This in my view is nothing new, it is still a common technique used today.  With Middleton it is different as he had nothing but praise for Cicero.  But it is interesting that Middleton evidently sought to hold up Cicero as an example to Christianity that someone besides a Christian could display high standards of morality.

signed,

The Obstinate Classicist

734. Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic by W. K. Lacey

734.  Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic by W. K. Lacey.  This book is an ideal introduction to the life of Cicero.  This is not meant to minimize its value as a quality biography.  Lacey has incorporated difficult material covering a wide range of Cicero’s interests and activities without bogging one down in details that tend sometimes to obscure the objective.

Cicero’s qualities are evident when he was Quaestor in Lilybaeum, Sicily.  His activities there indicate a man who is conscientious, just and approachable.  He was a humane person.  When back in Rome after his Quaestorship in Lilybaeum, Cicero continued to build up support by kind acts, court cases and a clear willingness to work very hard.

Delacroix- Cicero attacking Verres

Lacey relates a neat story Cicero told about himself upon returning from Sicily.  Cicero expected that his fine work there would be the talk of Rome but when he arrived at a town loaded with vacationers from Rome, he quickly learned that no one had any idea where he had been or what he had done.  The story presents a nice contrast to those assertions that he was vain and self-centered.  Also while in Sicily, he took the time to find the tomb of Archimedes.  Sicilians had no idea where it was.  One story lets us know that he could laugh at himself, the other that he had a wide range of interests.

When he became Consul in 63 B.C., Tribune Rullus proposed a land bill which would set up a powerful commission to administer the law, it would also interfere with Pompey’s settlements he had arranged in the east when commander there.  This plan was hatched by what Cicero referred to as the pauci.  That is a secret group who met in private to work out a deal to avoid debate in a Senate meeting and face the inevitable thrust and parry.  Cicero disliked any move which avoided the use of debate to settle an issue.

Once during his Consulship, Roscius Otho, then a Praetor, was booed as he entered the theater to watch a performance.  The reason for this was that as Tribune he carried a measure which gave special seats to the Equites.  Cicero who was there called the audience to the temple of Bellona nearby, gave a speech, after which, the audience returned and greeted Roscius with applause.

Later there was the trial of Rabirius.  Rabirius was accused of killing the Tribune Saturninus in 100 B.C.  So in 63 B.C. Labienus, perhaps at the urging of Caesar, brought Rabirius to trial for treason.  The trial was not brought to completion.  So what was the point?  After all the murder took place nearly forty years previous.  It seems that the trial was meant to bring the right of the Senate to pass Senatus Consultum Ultimum (Senate’s Last Decree) into question.  The SCU had been used in the past to deal with emergencies.  This case was questioning the right of the Senate to do so.

This trial and the election of Caesar to the position of Pontifex Maximus caused the conservative members of the Senate to lend more and more support to Cicero.  Good timing, because as the summer wore on there was more and more concern that some kind of conspiracy was afoot.  Elections were held.  One of the Consul-elects was Murena.  

As summer became fall, the conspiracy, led by Catiline became more and more of a reality.  Cicero brought up in the Senate the fact that there was a conspiracy.  But he did not receive the support he needed.  

November 1, there was an attempt to seize a city near Rome.  Other activities were reported.  The Senate passed the SCU.  November 7, an attempt was made on Cicero’s life at his own home.  Cicero was informed that Catiline had left Rome.  This took a load off.  At least the leader of the conspiracy was not in the city itself.  The next day, November 8, Cicero enters the Senate and to his surprise, there sits Catiline.  On the spot Cicero delivers what is now called the Ist Catilinarian.  His hope was to get Catiline to make his move.  He did, left Rome and helped to strengthen Cicero's case.

But Cicero had more problems than convincing the Senate of the reality of conspiracy, he also had to face a court case.  In this trial Marcus Cato and Servius Sulpicius Rufus indicted Murena for corruption.  Cicero took the case, used humor and argument to convince the jury that it was dangerous to have the year begin without two consuls in office.  Murena was also a military leader whose services, Cicero realized, would soon be needed.  He won the case.

Cicero knew that there was indeed a conspiracy but had not a shred of proof.  This the conspirators supplied by asking the Gauls to revolt.  This would keep the Roman army busy while the conspirators carried out their plan.  The Gauls decided to report this to Roman authorities.  Cicero convinced the Gauls to play along and insist on signed documents to present to their people.  All of these were arrested as they crossed the Mulvian Bridge (which still stands).  Now Cicero had his proof.

I highly recommend reading Cicero’s speeches, as these give all the details.  There is also the added benefit that Cicero presents a remarkable and exciting narrative.

The conspirators were placed in holding cells under guard.  Even then there was the attempt of a jail break.  

December 5 there was a debate which lasted for three days as to what to do with the conspirators caught in Rome.  Several proposals were made: life in prison, confiscation of property, death.

In the end the Senate voted to execute the prisoners.  All of these were of course Roman citizens.  So the dilemma was difficult- eliminate an immediate threat? or risk a jail break? or risk breaking Roman law?  According to Roman law only a trail of citizens could bring a death sentences.  But is someone still a citizen who  has been proven to conspire to destroy the state?  The argument is still going on.

When Cicero approached the Rostra to give his farewell address (December 31, 63 B.C.), he was prevented by the Tribune Metellus Nepos who said that no one who had put Roman citizens to death had the right to address the people and swear an oath that he had carried out the laws of the Republic.  However, when Cicero raised his voice and said simply “I have saved the state”, there was huge applause.  

Cicero had hoped to work with Pompey upon his return from the east, as commander there.  In this he was somewhat successful but as Pompey could not get the settlement he desired for his troops and other measures, it is this that Lacey feels drove Pompey into the camp of Caesar.  In addition Cato and allies had no intention of giving an inch to Pompey or Caesar for that matter.  This helped to push Caesar to end up using the methods he did.  He had little sympathy for traditional practice anyway.

Cicero is often accused of being subject to sudden and unpredictable changes of mood (mercurial).  Lacey covers this but in a way which admits that he was respected in the Senate and by the people.  Lacey does not seem sure that this explains the whole man and his decisions in politics.

So what is called the First Triumvirate came about.  Caesar, as Consul (59 B.C.), supported by Pompey and Crassus used violence and disruption to achieve what each individually wanted.  Cicero opposed the Big Three but in the end Caesar allowed Clodius to become eligible for the Tribunate.  Clodius used this office to pass measures to allow the formation of political clubs.  These were used to employ former slaves and people of violence to pass his measures .  These at first were opposed by various people but in the riots, people were injured and some lost their lives.  Feeding these clubbers became easy as Clodius passed a law which distributed food for free.

Soon Clodius (Tribune 58 B.C.) turned toward Cicero and had him exiled for putting to death Roman citizens without trial.  Decrees passed by the Senate indemnifying those involved were swept aside. Many attempts were made to support Cicero but to no avail. Although Cicero never forgave those he felt should have offered stronger support. 

In exile Cicero was devastated.  In fact he may have been near a mental break down.  But Lacey does point out that Cicero even in these circumstances did take the time to think of others.  It is a matter for debate, for sure.

In January of 57 B.C., Quintus, brother of Cicero, nearly lost his life attempting to move along Cicero’s recall.  With difficulty Cicero was recalled.  It is interesting that crowds turned out to greet him upon his entrance to Rome.  Many expected him to retire but he had no intention of doing so.

Lacey has a nice chapter on Cicero’s literary activity.  It is well worth reading to get a handle on Cicero’s output and ideas he presents.

Lacey covers the events of Cicero’s life through the 50’s.  Sometimes he manages to take a free hand and pursue policy of interest to him, at other times he is compelled to bend to the will of the Big Three.  

Lacey covers Cicero’s tenure as Governor of Cilicia.  It is interesting to see Cicero in this capacity.  It is also interesting to see the problems Cicero faced.

When Cicero returned from Cilicia, he tried to prevent the outbreak of a civil war but failed to do so.  It is a complex period to say the least.  The civil war was fought.  Caesar won at the cost of thousands of lives and at the cost of serious disruption to politics of persuasion.

Lacey also covers the heart rendering loss of his daughter, Tullia.

Caesar was assassinated March 15, 44 B.C.  Cicero entered politics for the last time to attempt to save the state.  Upon Caesar’s death Cicero decided to oppose Antony because Antony indicated that he intended to take Caesar’s place.      

Cicero argued in the Senate on December 20, 44 B.C. that those governors now in place at their provinces should remain there until further notice.  This effectively made it illegal for Antony to march against the governor of Gaul.  Some think that what Cicero did was illegal.   But Lacey points out that when the Senate December 20, 44 B.C. passed a decree concerning the provinces assigned by a law of the people, this decree suspended those laws until a new measure could be presented to the people. It is not an easy issue to figure out.  

Some historians claim that Cicero hated Antony because he was married to Fulvia, the wife of Clodius (who had died) whom Cicero hated.  The argument is that Cicero was responsible for the hostility against Antony and this precipitated another civil war. But Lacey points out that the people elected ten tribunes who took office December 10, 44 B.C.  All ten moved that a Senate meeting needed to be held to deal with the crisis.  Not one vetoed the proposals moved by Cicero and passed by the Senate.  He also makes the point that the Senate which consisted of many members appointed by Caesar himself approved the measure and that all this was done in one day. When Cicero addressed the people, there was huge applause.

Cicero seemed to be everywhere.  His arguments were so strong that he dominated the Senate debate for months.  His success seemed assured when Antony was defeated.  But in the course of doing so, the Consuls sent north to fight Antony both died.  This left a huge gap in elected leadership.  Octavian demanded the Consulship and received it by force.  Antony perhaps put out feelers to Octavian.  Soon they met at Bononia, in northern Italy.  A proscription list was drawn up.  Cicero’s name came first.  He heard the news at Tusculum.  He moved from there to Astura on the coast.  From there he moved to Formiae from which he hoped to set sail.  No one knows why for sure but he set sail and then returned to Formiae.  There he was caught by those sent to kill him, December 7, 43 B.C..  He offered no resistance.   

733. Cicero by D.R. Shackleton Bailey

733.  Cicero by D.R. Shackleton Bailey.  This has been a very worthwhile book.  I highly recommend reading books which find fault with Cicero.  The reason is that this spurs thought on topics not only for rebuttal and defense of Cicero but also lets us understand him as a human.

The Introduction on this work gives only tepid praise for Cicero’s literary works.  In fact after reading this, one would wonder why any one would bother to read his works.  This view has been been refuted by a number of scholars in recent times.  This introduction would not serve well as a poster child for Classics.

However, as the book gets going, if one forgets the above, his life takes on meaning and interest.

Bailey gives high praise for his defense of Roscius who had been accused of killing his father.  The defense needed someone who was not particularly high profile (major politicians did not want to offend Sulla, then Dictator) and bold enough to take the risk.

Cicero is described as good looking, someone who avoided obscene language, was sexually modest.  He was devoted to his cousin Lucius Tullius. They were very close.  Lucius was very valuable to Cicero when he took on the case against Verres.  Cicero did not like extravagant sculpture, he had a deep love of painting and judging by the houses he owned, he may have preferred landscape paintings.  He preferred simple decorations.  This is the portrait of a very interesting man.  This also helps to visualize his houses- large- because he had so many guests, so frequently, complete with gardens which he dearly loved and a view of the surrounding area and yet, with simple decorations.  He was not a man who put on a show.

He has praise fo his handling of the Catilinarian Conspiracy.  He evidently had a talk with his friend, Peducaeus, concerning what to do about the conspirators caught in Rome (Cicero knew full well the dangers involved) and Peducaeus told him that this was his chance in history- he had better take it.

Cicero faced increasing problems at the end and after his Consulship. Upon ascending the Rostra, Cicero was denied the right to give a farewell speech at the end of his term.  This was prevented by Metellus Nepos, Tribune, who said that one who had put Roman citizens to death without a trial was not permitted to address the Roman people.  The brother of this Metellus was angry.  His feathers were ruffled when Cicero criticized Nepos. Cicero’s problems multiplied when Pompey upon his return was cool toward Cicero.  Cicero had hoped that the two would work together.  Then too, Cicero was demoted by the new Consul M. Pupius Piso, when he did not name Cicero as first speaker in the Senate.  The Senate moaned disapproval at this.  Pompey does begin to support Cicero but only after he began to experience serious problems himself. Cicero felt that he had strong support but his independent line alienated some Senators.  He served as a witness against Clodius in the Bona Dea trial.  Clodius held a grudge.  Cato was obstinate and took a hard uncompromising line in the Senate.  Atticus suggested that Cicero be very cautious with any alliance with Pompey.  These and other factors drove Caesar, Pompey and Crassus to form what is called the First Triumvirate.

The Big Three with Vatinius, Tribune, and the use of force carried the legislation they wanted.  Cicero was offered a post over and over by the three together and Caesar.  But Cicero refused, for it was contrary to tradition and fair practice.  As trouble began to increase for Cicero he was promised support by a number of people and he felt confident.  Worse was to come, the Consul refused to help Cicero and did nothing about excess of violence and the use of intimidation.  Without both the Senate had no leadership.  

This is how Bailey describes Cicero’s failure in this scenario:

Pompey and Cicero always had for one another the basic sympathy that is apt to exist between two mental atmospheres both containing a high percentage of fog.

Neat sentence and even an impressive sentence but not exactly a statement based on evidence.  Let me put it this way- Bailey does not even consider that the letters offer a very different alternative.  True the letters are so varied and so complex and written to so many people with different political views that one can if one desire select what fits their pistol.  But sentences like these do provoke thought and that makes it worth while.

Cicero was exiled by a law passed by Clodius, as Tribune.  It was passed amidst violence and intimidation.  Cicero was depressed.  He was having trouble with his brother.  He appears in his letters to be on the verge of a mental breakdown. However, it was interesting to look at the Latin of some of these letters and examine the style.  There are numerous places where Cicero is very expressive.  These simply do not in my opinion mark a man unhinged or unable to function.  It is interesting that during this time, Cicero does not turn to philosophy for comfort.  At least there is no evidence that he does.

Cicero was recalled from exile by a vote of the Comitia Centuriata by a huge majority.  Just about the entire Senate voted to recommend his recall.  One voted against this- Clodius.  Crowds came to meet him at the Porta Capena.  But Bailey criticizes Cicero for returning to politics too soon.  A cooler brain was needed in the opinion of Bailey.  Cicero, as time passes, witnesses many of the Boni (Senators who were the shakers and movers) cozy up to Clodius, and this in front of Cicero.  Bailey makes the case that Cicero comes close to saying “Respublica sum ego= I am the Republic.  He feels that Cicero held little distinction between himself and the Republic.  Cicero was having trouble with Terentia, his wife.  Cicero, ever ambitious, attempts to bring Pompey over to his side.  Cicero had noticed that the Triumvirate was showing signs of breaking apart.  But all his attempts unraveled when the Big Three met at Luca to renew the alliance.

They threatened Quintus, Cicero’s brother, with the promise that he had made on Marcus’ behalf to keep him in line.  In the end Cicero supports the Big Three.  Bailey says that it was out of pride, conceit and energy. Cicero had to defend several friends of the Triumvirate when brought up on trial.  But he really resisted defending Gabinius.  He was one of the Consuls of 58 BC who sat about while Clodius did his thing.  I appreciated Bailey’s rather harsh views on Cicero in this.  But it did cause me to wonder what was said to Cicero to force him to defend a man whom he genuinely hated.  It is interesting that Cicero lost the case- something which did not happen very often.

However, Cicero was enjoying his court work.  He clearly liked Caesar as a person but was repulsed by his one mindedness. I wonder if another way to say this was that Cicero did not like his self-centeredness.

Things became chaotic in Rome with riots and disturbance.  In 52 BC Pompey was made Sole Consul.  He restored order and soon picked a colleague.At this time Cicero was elected Augur.  He was very proud of this.  Bailey also points out that at this time Cicero becomes more and more attached to Tiro, his freedman.  

Bailey says that war came because both sides wanted it in spite of the peaceful majority.  Cicero tried to negotiate peace.  Cicero viewed Caesar lacking in any sympathy except for himself.  Cicero had a major problem at hand.  He declared support for the Republic.  Of course there was no way he could support Caesar for his actions endangered the Republic.  But he had a great deal of problem with those leading the fight for the Republic.

Cicero often voiced the view that there was just about as much danger to the Republic offered by Pompey’s crew as that by Caesar’s.  But Bailey writes:

But in his heart of hearts, a region to which his conscious mind so seldom penetrated, did he believe this?

The particulars, which Bailey cites, do not seem to allow full scope to the crisis Cicero faced.

Cicero was opposed to the war from the beginning.  He did go to Greece and support Pompey.  But after Pompey’s defeat at Pharsalus, Cicero returned to Italy and landed at Brundisium.  His time here was not pleasant.  In a way, Bailey points out, this was more difficult than his exile.  For then he had his brother, wife and friends offering support.  An interesting observation.

At this time, Cicero’s brother and his son change sides and move over to Caesar.  This was bad enough but these also attacked Cicero to Caesar.  Evidently many nasty things were said.  Bailey makes a great point when he disagrees with those biographers who tend to make light of the incident.  These do so because there appeared to be a reconciliation later on.  But Bailey suggests that such a blow up could never simply heal with out some scars.  Cicero did not seem to be close to his brother ever again.  When Tullia died, there were many friends who offered condolence.  But there is nothing from Quintus and no mention of him.  The tone of letters between the brothers drops the once pleasant familiarity.  Bailey also points out that no matter what Quintus’ faults, Cicero himself must have felt some sense of guilt.  This makes very personal sense to me.  

The Civil War is fought.  Many lives lost.  Caesar wins.  The victors are arrogant toward the losers who are now back in Rome.  This includes Cicero.  But in a way we can sum up Cicero’s view of Caesar by a quote from a letter he wrote to his friend, Varro:

Some think he (Caesar) may come by way of Sardinia.  That is one of his properties that he has not yet inspected.  It’s the worst he owns, but he doesn’t despise it….

If one thinks about it, it is not very complimentary for Cicero to describe the entire set of Provinces as Caesar’s personal property. 

Bailey points out that Cicero clearly felt the loss of his theater, the courts, and free speech.  But it is interesting that Cicero worked tirelessly to help those in exile.  He used influence he built up with Caesar to find ways to bring about their recall.

Tullia dies.  This is a serious blow to Cicero.  He loved her as a father loves a daughter but also as a confidant and friend.  A rare combination.  Cicero learns that is being criticized for his extended grief.  But he rather angrily defends his time with the amount of material he has written.  But Bailey sees in all this a response to his domestic failure and his defeated ambitions.  Rather a simple view in my opinion.  But one that makes sense in light of Bailey’s introduction- his thought very little of Cicero’s literary works.

Later in Caesar’s tenure as master of Rome, something happened which must have made Cicero very angry.  He does make a joke out it but the joke seems to reveal a hatred which ran very deep.

During the elections being held for Quaestors, the presiding Consul died.  His death was on the last day of his term in office.  Caesar, when informed, quickly convoked assembly and new Consul was elected.  Thus the new consul served for the last few hours of the term.  Cicero wrote to a friend:

So in the Consulship of Caninius (the newly elected Consul) you may take it that nobody had breakfast! However, at any rate no crime was committed during the same period- the Consul’s vigilance was extraordinary!  Throughout his entire term of office he never closed an eye!

Upon Caesar’s death, Bailey contends that Cicero entered into politics to defend the Republic via his “humiliation and disappointments”.  I do think that Bailey’s dim views of Cicero’s contributions to literature make such statements easier to make.  The reason is this.  He denies that his works reflect someone who felt very deeply about what the Republic had to offer to humanity and he denies that Cicero made a significant contribution to political thought.

Bailey is impressed with Cicero’s support of Octavian and also his management of the crisis.  He sympathized with Cicero that what he did and whom he supported were the only choices that he had.  But he did not feel that Cicero could have won the peace.

He covers Cicero’s murder and the different accounts of his end. 

All in all a book worth reading. 

Cicero in Capitoline Museum