732. Cicero the Politician by Christian Habicht

732.  Cicero the Politician by Christian Habicht.  I am so glad that I read this book.  I have disagreed frequently with his assertions.  But I have found that reading books with which I disagree is of great value, as a result I am forced to think things through which have not occurred to me before.  So I must admit that in many ways I do not care for this book but I have learned a great deal from it.  I must also admit that his last chapter is of immense value.  In fact the last chapter should have been the first chapter and let that color the bulk of what he says.

Habicht points out that so much of Cicero remains, but even more was in existence in antiquity.  We have something like 58 speeches now, but in antiquity there were 163 published speeches, maybe more.  These, folks, are the speeches alone.

Habicht asserts that Cicero was not a very impressive politician and that his ability such as they were paled beside those of Caesar and Octavian.

He quotes Cicero with:

No man is less timid than I, nevertheless no one is more cautious.  

He uses this as an example of someone poorly suited for a political career.  He gives an example of poor political skills by citing Cicero’s address to Sicilians in Greek.  This information comes from Cicero’s speech against Verres.  Speaking in Greek was considered inappropriate by many politicians.

Sulla,Caesar and Octavian are labelled as exemplary politicians.  These politicians were so skilled as to overshadow Cicero in turn.

Habicht does point out that Cicero displayed courage when defending Roscius when charged with murdering his own father.  In this case Cicero took on the might of Chrysogonus, a close associate of Sulla, Dictator.

But then he also says that Cicero’s megalomania was his own ruin.  He was too eager for praise.  And consistently worried about his image.

It is interesting that Habicht argues that Cicero lost an alliance with Pompey because he helped to get through the Senate the right for Lucullus to celebrate his triumph (Pompey had replaced Lucullus in the command against Mithridates), and Catiline was defeated without giving time for Pompey to return and end the danger.  The Catilinarian  success also bothered Pompey.  Cicero also expected to be treated with the respect he believed that was his due.  But Cicero failed to realize that he had killed citizens by crushing the Conspiracy. There is an interesting discussion on the legality or illegality of the what was done with the conspirators caught in Rome in 63 BC.

He describes Cicero’s withdrawal from politics as opponents mounted following the Catilinarian crisis.  He megalomania made him blind and therefore clueless to what was happening.  But Habicht does attribute this to that fact that Cicero could not hire thugs to bring violence to the streets and thus control events.

His isolation continued when he refused to accept an offer from Caesar which would have given him protection against Clodius.  In addition Cicero attacked Clodius.  And his line of poetry:

cedant arma togae, concedant laurea linguae

Let weapons yield to the toga (of peace), let military laurels yield to speech

offended Pompey who would have thought that this was directed at him.  The Boni (Optimates- a group of leading Senators) did not like Cicero’s support of Pompey and they hated his poem about his consulship.

Habicht makes the case that the handling of the Catilinarian Conspirators by Cicero and the laws passed by Clodius were both examples of politics trumping the law.  He does not seem interesting in pointing out that Clodius used force at every turn to get his will done whereas Cicero opened up a Senate meeting to debate and gave free rein.

First Catilinarian by Maccari

The private letters of Cicero are used as example of his unmanly behavior.  Habicht questions this assessment but defends him on the grounds that Cicero was a man “of extremes, in elation as well as in dejection.”  Again Habicht fails to  mention the promises made by Pompey and others.  In fact Pompey told Cicero to his face that Clodius would harm him (Cicero) over his dead body. Of course Pompey stood his ground, until he and others were intimidated by Clodius’ thugs.

As I read this book I tried to figure out what Habicht meant by politician.  It seems that politics and integrity are incompatible. So politics is the art of getting things done, by whatever means.  If my definition is correct, Habicht first condemns Cicero and then praises him.

5 April, 56 BC Cicero convinced the Senate to discuss an aspect of the land bill passed during Caesar’s term as Consul.  It was a heated debate but Cicero won the day. Habicht states that all this was directed against Caesar by Cicero.  This is an interesting suggestion.  This and other things were done to assert his influence, but when the Big Three put pressure on Cicero, he gave in.  

Soon, Cicero moved that 10 Legates be assigned to Caesar, this was passed.  He moved that pay be given to new legions, passed.  Cicero opposed removing Caesar as governor of Gaul- successful.  This the author uses as examples that Cicero the politician could get things done but at the expense of his principles.  

Interesting that the motion passed but Cicero was a weak politician.  

The letter which Cicero wrote to Lentulus is discussed but only very small portions which add so much to Cicero’s defense.  It just seemed convenient to ignore the whole and the points the letter makes.

Author gives Cicero credit for great courage in the trial of Milo, accused of killing Clodius.

He describes Cicero stay in Italy after the beginning of the Civil War as a sign of weakness on Cicero’s part.

There is an interesting discussion on Caesar’s use of clemency.  He argues that Caesar is the one who caused the war in the first place.

He gives high praise to Pro Marcello.  Cicero displayed courage in telling Caesar that he is not done until he has restored the Republic.

There is a fascinating idea that Cicero’s works starting with the Brutus were actually an attack on Caesar.  For these works praise men of the past who were nothing like Caesar and instead often sacrificed their own advantage for the Republic.  Something Caesar never did.

But blames Cicero for the clash with Antonius. He presents the embassy sent to Antonius during the final crisis as an opportunity destroyed by Cicero. 

He also says that Cicero was kept out of power by someone who with greater skill was more effective in politics, even though fighting battles off in far away Gaul, as Caesar did.  

Cicero was a mix of contradictions.  Cicero’s conscience prevented him from pursuing his own personal advantage.  He was not unscrupulous, rash to return to Italy in 48 and timid in 56 BC. Yet, “humiliation and ignominy forced him to do what was right…”

He also suggests that Cicero’s success in politics only came when he abandoned the Constitution.

The last chapter is very important.  It would have been much better to place this first.  But it does seem that to a degree he was wrestling with his own beliefs and his educational background.  Perhaps it was better to put it here. 

Cicero felt that a renewed morality was needed not a new constitution.  This Cicero said frequently in letters, philosophical works and speeches.  But Habicht criticizes this on the grounds that it was not a solution to the problems facing Romans at that moment.  Interesting idea.

To Germans for many decades after defeats and conquest by Napolean, there was a call for a strong man to unite Germany for protection.  Caesar was viewed as one who understood the need for world order.  This theme was taken up by Hegel and passed on to his student Mommsen.  To them the Empire was a necessity and that Caesar whether he knew it or not was the tool of destiny to bring it about. 

For these reasons and others the murder of Caesar was condemned and those who did it were flat out wrong.  Only later was the murder seen in terms that what he had done to the state was wrong, selfish and disastrous.

The argument became so contentious in Germany that scholars were asked by teachers in Germany to defend the view that Caesar and a man of power was the ideal.

These arguments were very strong all the way into the 1920’s.

A common objection to Cicero the politician is that he was so often on the losing side. But Cicero was aware of this but his answer was that a person’s principles were of more value than success.  Thus it is impressive that Cicero once said in front of Pompey that the failure of Bibulus against his colleague, Caesar, was of greater importance than all of the victories and triumphs of Caesar/Crassus/Pompey.

In terms of the common good Caesar was a failure for he destroyed the Republic, whereas Cicero attempted to preserve it.  

A quote from R.E. Smith best sums this up:

(The Republic) carried none the less within itself the seeds of freedom, as the imperial system never did; the libertas that Cicero cherished and defended was a truer and finer

thing than anything Tacitus could know.