730. Cicero the Statesman by R. E. Smith

Cicero in a British Museum

730.  Cicero the Statesman by R. E. Smith.  This is an interesting book.  He presents Cicero as a clever politician who lacked depth of vision of the troubles confronting his own society.  He provides a nice defense against those who accuse Cicero of weakness based on information derived from Cicero's letters.  He points out that of those people whom we admire very little is known of their private moments.  He cites as an example that Winston Churchill once cried when he lost an election. He makes the note that few would claim that he had no qualities of leadership.  He also points out that Cicero knew first hand what difficulties the Republic faced but since he was consistently confronted by those more than willing to use force and violence to achieve their ends, his options were limited.  

Smith also makes the case that one should appreciate how close he came in the period after his return from exile to bringing the Senate back into a leadership position.  He must have come close, since Caesar, after Cicero's stunning successes in court cases and the debate in the Senate in reviewing the land law passed by Caesar using violence and intimidation, moved very quickly and suddenly to bring Crassus and Pompey together at Luca to renew their alignment.  This was done of course through rough methods.  Cicero was muzzled.

He also assesses Caesar in strong terms,as someone who viewed the Republic as a tool for his own benefit.  And as long as it proved useful to him, worked to a degree within the system but when it failed to bring about his desires marched against it.  

Caesar's argument that he marched against his country to protect the rights of tribunes and laws passed by Tribunes and his own personal dignity carry little weight with Smith.  He shreds Caesar's use of dignitas as an excuse for war- Caesar was not too concerned for the dignitas of his colleague in office, nor of Cicero's when he helped to engineer his exile.  I could feel Smith's blood boil as he wrote about Caesar's concern for his own dignitas, when  he transferred by dubious methods Clodius in 59 BC from a Patrician to a Plebeian and then stood by while Clodius, as Tribune, proceeded to use intimidation and force to work his will on Cicero and then again in 56 BC forcibly silencing Cicero by threatening his brother.  Smith points out that Caesar was more than ready to deprive someone of their political freedom but as he says  complain that "he was victimized by the behavior of others and their operation of the constitution."

Smith makes the case that Cicero more so than anyone else foresaw the need for the Senate to maintain its position as best hope for the Republic.  This he made clear during his consulship of 63 BC.  He foresaw the need for the Senate to deal with the danger of Caesar and did his best to direct the Senate to counter his ever growing power.  This he did upon his return from exile and upon his return from Cilicia.  

Overall he is impressed with Cicero.  But it just seems that his views on Cicero's concept of the ideal state seem somewhat simple and unsophisticated.  These views do not seem backed up by careful reading of his letters and works.  There is more to Cicero than Smith seems willing to give him credit.

At the end Smith writes:

There is a fatal quality in history, and he who tries to fight against that fate must needs be a loser.

This question is as old a Herodotus- is history fate or is it the work of decisions made by individuals? But interestingly with Smith's statement, Cicero would take issue.

signed,

The Obstinate Classicist