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 |
No comments:
Post a Comment