731. Cicero a Portrait by Elizabeth Rawson

731.  Cicero a Portrait by Elizabeth Rawson.  This has proven to be an interesting book.  I have learned a great deal.  There is much of value.  There are, to put it mildly, numerous tidbits which lend reality to and interest in the life Cicero:  Tullia's manner of walking, a table of citrus wood owned by Cicero or his interests in the Druids, Cicero's poor penmanship.  

To Ms. Rawson he was not an original thinker, he often displayed courage and often lacked courage. He vacillated.  He was weak.  He at times wrote badly.

She wonders how much courage was necessary for his defense of Roscius accused of murdering his father.  Cicero directed his attack against Sulla's powerful freedman.  Cicero won the case but the author wondered how much courage he actually needed in that Sulla, though still alive, had resigned as Dictator. 

Coin thought to have been minted while Cicero was governor in Cilicia

She makes the case that the real buzz waiting the return of Pompey from the east was the coming contest between Caesar and Cicero.  This is a very interesting idea. 

In the aftermath of his consulship and the ever increasing troubles Cicero faced, he caused problems for himself because of his self-centeredness.  She tries to balance this with a reference to his ability to laugh at himself.   Yet, in much of the book there are frequent references to his conceit.

She asserts that at times he wrote badly.  However, there are no examples to demonstrate this.  But in the same passage points out cleverness found in In Pisonem. 

She provides an interesting discussion on Cicero's De Re Publica and his De Legibus. The De Legibus she views as a dogmatic list of rules.  I assume that she is referring to those books which discuss the constitution he recommends.  Book one is used to create a basis for the later books with its discussion of the origin of law.  To apply the word dogmatic to the whole work is convenient.  

His qualities as governor of Cilicia are noted but modified by suggesting that he was only willing to buck lesser powerful people.  Cicero enjoyed the task in ways but was eager to return to Rome.  In contrast to Rawson's assessment, Cicero was very concerned about how matters were developing back in Italy.  That weighed heavily on his mind.

Rawson makes an interesting suggestion about Cicero's Brutus.  She wonders that perhaps Cicero was actually directing the work to Caesar in hopes that it would nudge him toward contemplation of the Republic.  She also suggests that the Stoic Paradoxes were meant to be offer comfort to those on the losing side of the civil war.  Why? Because Cicero evidently chose not to follow stern and absolute Stoic lines but instead to argue that virtue is sufficient to achieve happiness or that a wise person can never suffer loss of freedom. This was very interesting.

During the crisis after the death of Caesar, Cicero, Cassius, Brutus, Tertia, Porcia and Favonius met at Antium.  Cicero was asked his opinion.  He gave it.  Then Cassius and others began to complain for sometime about lost opportunities.  When Cicero tossed in his complaints, Servilia shut him down.  Rawson rebukes Cicero for failing to abide by his own suggestion not to bring up past mistakes.  It just seems a tad rash to criticize Cicero for something which everyone did.  She does not seem to grasp the fear and concern which people must have had.

Rawson rebukes Cicero for rejoicing at the death of Caesar in light of a letter by Matius.  Matius was a close friend of Caesar and long grieved his death and expressed anger in his letter over those who had abandoned Caesar's memory.  She suggests that Cicero was ungrateful.

I agree that Caesar was kind to Cicero.  But his kindnesses only stretched as far as his own needs required.  For example Caesar did offer Cicero opportunities to escape Clodius.  Each offer would have required that Cicero dump his code of ethics and put him in Caesar's camp.  Then when Clodius did his thing, Caesar stood by and did nothing and in a way gave nod to the activities of Clodius.  Upon Cicero's return from exile, Caesar offered tepid support to his recall and when Cicero actually began to find ways to direct the Senate to re-establish its authority, Caesar did not hesitate to use the threat of force to restrain Cicero.  Caesar was no friend to Cicero.

Rawson covers Cicero's last fight for the Republic and gives him a great deal of credit.  But her book is filled with comments which remind me of Tacitus:

The Third Philippic persuaded the Senate- perhaps a less crowded and representative body than Cicero claimed- that Antony's act…..

Comments like these are very common throughout.  Yet, these are not backed up with any proof or examples.  But just as with Tacitus, there is no direct way to claim bias, yet, the suggestion cleverly lingers.

Yet, it is often not clear when she criticizes Cicero what it is he should have done.  It seems at times that she has little appreciation for the shifting sands of the late Republic or politics in general.  Cato, for example, is criticized for his obstinacy, yet Cicero is criticized for his willingness to wait, evaluate and do the best he can in often more than difficult situations.

The book is methodical, full of information and possesses intellectual qualities.  But she seems to me to be detached from an appreciation for human experiences.

signed,

The Obstinate Classicist