749. Post Reditum in Senatu by Cicero

Cicero- Capitoline Museum

749.  Post Reditum in Senatu by Cicero.  This speech was delivered by Cicero September 5, 57 BC.  The following is a paraphrase:

It requires ability beyond my powers to offer proper thanks for my return.  If we ought to hold parents, gods, the Roman people, this body most dear, what infinite thanks do I owe you for the recovery of my position?  

On the motion of Lucius Ninnius, I was recalled.  The difficulty of getting this measure through was due to a hostile tribune.  But by the energy and authority of the Senate I have been able to return.

Not laws but walls protected good citizens.  The normal function of government ceased, there was no expression of authority, no judges rendered decisions.  In the city people rushed about with torches and weapons, the houses of magistrates were attacked, temples set on fire, the fasces of a consul were smashed and a tribune was not manhandled but nearly fatally wounded.

At this some reduced their zeal for my cause.  And for the rest many of these were the kind whom terror, violence and fear and threats repelled.

Lentulus (the Consul who helped to engineer Cicero’s recall) was committed to my return from the beginning.  The law was, however, used to silence all opposition, discussion, talk, voting of any measure for my return.  But Lentulus did not consider that this was a true law.

But how did this come about?  Something happened which had never happened before- two consuls were elected who shunned anything decent connected with their office.  A meeting was held at the Circus Flaminius.  One consul, Piso, was introduced to the meeting by a tribune.  At that meeting he said that he was no pleased with what had been decided against un-condemned citizens (this was a reference to the suppression of the Catilinarian Conspiracy).

(At this point Cicero launches an attack against Piso as someone who at best carried a serious expression but what lay hidden showed no interest in anything fine and good.  His only interest lay in himself.  Cicero brings in his Epicurean views for several sections.)

Piso’s ideas  display a lack of interest in the needs of the state and any willingness to expose himself to trouble and conflict.  This explains why Piso sat about and did nothing while I was made ready for exile.  Then Piso associated in my destruction with Gabinius, the other consul, whose reputation would surely make clear what kind of man Piso is.  

To destroy me you sold consular dignity, the prestige of the Republic, the authority of the Senate, the literal and figurative property of a well deserving citizen in that alliance you made for a province.

At the Circus Flaminius you said that you were always a compassionate man and this was meant, of course, to throw a negative light on me, the Senate, and all good people who ended the threat of Catiline.  So were you compassionate toward one of your own relatives (Cicero’s was related by marriage to Piso))  whom you chose as the one in charge of the first group to cast its vote at your election to the consulship?  Whose opinion you sought in a position of honor on January 1, when you took office?  You handed me over bound and gaged to my enemies!  You rejected the pleas of my son in law, your relative, you rejected the pleas of my daughter (Cicero’s daughter was married to a relative of Piso’s), your relation by marriage!  Not one hour passed after my expulsion when you collected your pay (the Province).  Immediately my house on the Palatine was burned, its belongings carried to house near by, a house which happened to belong to a family member of yours.  My Tusculum villa’s belongings were taken to the house of the other consul.

I praise T. Annius and P. Sestius who met force with force-  this appeared to be the only choice when the guardian of the state, the Senate and the laws, were helpless.  Mention must be made of M. Cispius, C. Cestitius, T. Fadius (Quaestor when Cicero was consul), M. Curtius (Cicero was his father’s Quaestor), C. Messius who first proposed my restoration, Q. Fabricius who tried in January to get a recall but was opposed by force.  L. Caecilius as Praetor put forth a bill for my safety and prevented those who had plundered my house to have access to court, M. Calidius, Praetor designate, made clear his zeal for me, C. Septimius, Q. Valerius, P. Crassus, Sex. Quinctilius, C. Cornutius strove to help.

From day one Lentulus said and did what was necessary to protect the interests of the state.

(Cicero also praises Pompey who had thrown his support to the cause of Cicero.  But the manner of Cicero’s address seems to me to be telling Pompey something- the opposition to Cicero and the Senate was not the proper way for a citizen to act and to have anything to do with lawless activity was a mistake.)

So why did I leave?  I saw at the time that I would be forced to fight with weapons, not argument.  The Consul, Piso, announced that he would punish the Equites for the support they had given me.  Some were prosecuted, some harassed in court, others were banished.The other consul was eager to betray me to receive his payment.  There was a consular outside of the city (Caesar) who did nothing to help.  The number of enemy were too great and consequently many, faced with violence, backed off in their support for me.

Gn. Plancius deserves special thanks for it was he who protected me in Thessalonika during my exile.

(Cicero ends up making it very clear that, if anyone expected him to enter semi-retirement after his return, that person was sadly mistaken.  For virtue and good faith can never be taken away from anyone and in light of his universal recall, he was needed and wanted back in the saddle.)

748. Cicero and the Jurists by Jill Harries

Rostra- from here the voice of liberty once spoke!

748.  Cicero and the Jurists by Jill Harries.  This has been a most interesting book.  I have tried to select the author’s main points:

Legal discussion was not separate from public discourse in ancient Rome as it is in modern times.  As can be learned from Cicero jurists were often Senators and through this they maintained a high profile to compete in Roman politics.  Quintus Mucius Scaevola the Pontifex claimed that bona fides (good faith- the mark of an honest person) was a crucial part of societas (partnership).  He was a stoic and viewed this concept, bona fides, in a philosophical manner and the way people viewed it in society.  Just as a partnership relies on working toward mutual benefit, so partnership (societas) in society  works toward mutual  benefit.  This partnership relies, he felt, on legal consent.  These views of Scaevola, a stoic, influenced Cicero, who, as an avid student of several philosophical systems, connected jurisprudence (the knowledge of the law), philosophy and politics.

Varro and Manilius are used as examples of jurists who led active political lives and published in order to enhance their prestige.  Jurists were not in the Roman Republic professionals as they are in modern times, but were active and interested in a number of other activities.

The Republic gravitated toward avoiding monopoly of knowledge in jurisprudence.  The reason for this is that they had to compete.  Once  pontifices, were in control of knowledge of legal actions allowed.  But Flavius the Scribe published the calendar which contained such information.  This removed control of legal actions from them and made it available to public view.  Thus as time passed jurists came about to study what was known as ius civile, as an end in itself, so in that they lacked political clout and prestige.  This forced them to compete in the political world to enhance their position which jurisprudence on its own could not give.  This did not fully change until the imperial period.  Much of their credibility in terms of legal advice was derived from their position in the state as Praetor or Consul, etc.  

This also helped to create a tradition to give them a basis in history and the workings of government.

Cicero felt qualified to write about Laws, because he was immersed in the Republic, part of which was the law.  De Legibus is the philosophy of law.  Cicero defines law (lex, legis) as something chosen (lego, lectus) because it is just and true.  So he does not examine law through the eyes of a jurist but as a philosopher.  His philosophy of law allowed allowed a denial of laws as law which were contrary to the principles of Natural Law.  

As time passed ius civile was separated from religious law.  There are two aspects to the ius civile: written law and custom. So a case was argued in terms of the written law and and non-legal factors (custom).  The principle of fairness may trump the letter of the law and even someone’s intent (say in a will) , if the intention was not fair.  So the laws of the Republic appear to us chaotic and were written with more flexibility for decisions.

Cicero defines law:  Law is the refined reason, embedded in the  nature of a human which orders what should be done and prohibits the opposite.   (Leg 1.18).  It seems that Cicero carefully and purposefully removes law, the law he is talking about, from the letter of the law so many associate with the word law.

The juristic tradition in Cicero’s time was under attack.  An example can come from Cicero himself.  In his defense of Murena in December of 63 BC, Cicero argued against Servius Sulpicius Rufus, the premier jurist of the day.  As part of his defense, Cicero argued that jurists did not have the necessary status for high office.  In fact after Flavius the Scribe published the legal actions available, jurists were forced to invent jargon to give themselves a purpose and appearance of value (So says Cicero).  It is true that Cicero took the case at the height of the Catilinarian conspiracy and was concerned that if Servius was successful in his prosecution of Murena, the state could be, at a time of crisis, without two consuls in office and in a state of confusion.  So he would need to say what was necessary to win the case.  But he could not say something which meant nothing to his audience or was wacko.  So what he said about jurists meant something to those listening.

In this attempt to make jurists more legitimate, jurists for good reason traced jurists back to the kings of Rome who alone could give answers to legal questions.  The implication was that the same respect was due to jurists.

The survival of jurists’ writings is meager.  What survives has been distorted.  Servius’ efforts survive because of his students.  His works, which themselves do not survive, were quoted.  This has helped to save passages but these are now out of the context in which originally placed.  But what survives of jurists makes it clear that as jurists they needed to be versed in history, antiquarianism and etymology.  As a result their works are sometimes quoted because of a reference to history or antiquarianism or etymology.  These remarks would be made in the context of a discussion of law. 

There is an overlap between jurists and orators on how they approached argument from cases.  De Inventione (Cicero), at times reads as though it is a textbook on law.  Jurists spent most of their time on law based on custom (mos) fairness (aequitas).  But eloquence was required to persuade a jury of the correctness of the jurists views.  To Cicero the foundation of eloquence was a knowledge of history, and this was to used for the good of the community.  For it was, he believed, eloquence which first brought people together to form states.  It was the “tool” which convinced people to leave the savage world and work for the common good of all.  Eloquence was also needed to protect good people from the bad.  Juristic authority relied on custom, popular will and argument.  This authority was challenged by the orator and the people.  Judges were from the upper class, these represented the people and since trials took place in public view, the trial and judges received the impact of the audience.  

Persuasion could convince judges to vote in contradiction to the law.  Thus there was much room for orators to operate.  But the definitions of the jurists could play an important part.  Often the point at issue in a trial required the right question to be asked which would help the decision- this is another overlap between jurists and orators.

The Causa Curiana shows a jurist and orator in battle.  The orator won but used juristic arguments.  The jurists gave responses to questions.  These responses (sometimes recorded and that is how something is known about these guys) were based on real life events, but were stated as a general guide.  As time passed Cicero realized that citations of individual cases needed to be replaced by a system which stated general principles (this push probably came from his deep interest in philosophy which was always seeking the general principles of things).

In Cicero’s De Oratore, Mucius Scaevola argues that a good man, not eloquence, is needed to keep a state healthy.  Crassus responds that an orator trained in history, questions, philosophy is best suited to bring it all together.  And in truth judges did not explain their decisions and thus there was no precedence.  The orator using eloquence to explain and persuade the correctness of a jurist’s response contributed to the development of law and jurisprudence. 

Cicero argues that jurists depend upon elegance for interpreting law and upon philosophy because philosophy concerns the great questions:  how best to live the good life, what is a good man, friendship, etc. Cicero hoped by approaching law this way to make it accessible to ordinary people.  

What about the influence of Topica by Cicero? In this work Cicero makes the case that rhetoric’s system of arrangement influences better understanding of law.

What about precedents?  Previous decisions in court carried auctoritas but were not binding on the next trial.  The judex was not a professional , represented the populus and their view.  Since the Romans saw this as an advantage, they did not want the judge to be fettered by precedence.  Consequently the Romans never developed case law.  However Roman advocates did cite past cases and used these to support their case but these were not binding.  There was precedence in this sense: ius was law based on custom and consent.  This put limits upon what the populus could declare to be law.  The case which is cited concerning this is the defense Cicero gave for a woman from Arretium.

Ius civile and pontificial law were interconnected in that pontificial law had a part in adoptions and augurs from signs from birds, etc.

Cicero in De Domo suo knew in his effort to get his full property back after his exile that the case before the Pontiffs would shape the debate in the Senate.  Thus he had to prove that the Lex Clodia was invalid, i.e. his adoption.

Jurists and Antiquity:  Jurists were not part of the origin of the Roman constitution but as Romans who looked back on the past as guides to the future, particularly during period of upheaval, of the late Republic, put them in the mix in terms of legitimacy.  This is indicated by a strong antiquarian tendency of jurists and their interest in etymology.  And it makes sense that to understand the Twelve Tables or old legal terms, it was necessary to learn the origin of words and their history.

Cicero slowly realized the connection between specialist jurisprudence and his understanding of law in a wider sense as important for the existence of the state.  The ius civile covered actions permitted but it also represented “advantage and life style common to all.”  (Pro Caecina. 70).

An inheritance can be lost and if done contrary to law, the community (not just the person who loses the inheritance) is endangered.  In the Caecina case Cicero contends that court decisions should not diverge from juristic authority.  Because the courts could be wrong and advocates could use forged testimony to get the verdict they desired (for example).  He was arguing to win his case, but this does not mean that he did not see the need for more authority for jurists.

Bound up in this case for Caecina was the possibility that Caecina could lose his reputation- to a degree the loss of reputation was worse than material loss, so honor was important.  Because losing it was due to being wicked.  Thus Catiline and Clodius did not operate in ways respecting Roman law and society (societas= partnership).  To Cicero such people were not citizens.

What about a situation wherein there was no possibility for Cicero to prosecute someone?  Was there a substitute?  In the speech In Pisonem Cicero attacked Piso, the one who stood by while Cicero was exiled.  In fact it appears he made a deal with Clodius to look the other way; in return he received a plum province.  Cicero made a strong case in the Senate to have him recalled from his province.  So why did he not prosecute the guy in court?  Piso’s son in law was Caesar.  Thus Cicero did not want to risk prosecution and failing in court.  So he delivered a blistering attack in the Senate. (Piso was recalled.) 

(So the author gives a new way to look at the speech against Piso.)

Cicero’s speeches of 57- 55 BC present serious thoughts about law and citizens.  His exile caused him to think about such matters in a very new light.  He felt and defended the idea that ius (law) is to a degree based upon community perception. His return from exile was supported by so many from so many areas: Senate, comitia vote, embassies from all over Italy, elected officials that this, he felt, represented the real Republic, not those who master minded his exile through force.  And this showed that Piso was not a true representation of the feeling of the people.

This is why van de Blom 2003 asserts that if Cicero had known ahead of time what would happen in his fight against Antonius, he would have done it anyway.

In Cicero’s view the honorable must be beneficial, the rule of law produces justice.  To do otherwise was/is against nature.  To join honor with the beneficial/expedient was true gloria (reputation).  Thus true gloria is not gained by personal ambition.  So Antonius by using Caesar’s notebooks as his acts subverted law to his own purpose and not to the advantage of the Republic.

In the De Officiis Cicero connects moral value of the Republic with ius civile, the value of fairness, trust, obligation and honor.  Antonius in the Philippic 2 did not recognize those rights expressed in the ius civile.  This marked him as a man outside of societas (partnership):  his thefts, ignoring of the Senate, disregard for law put him in the category of a non-citizen.

(Cicero conceived the Republic in terms of Natural Law- if someone conducts himself in such a way to deny the essence of what it is to be a human then that person does not deserve protection, indeed that person is an enemy.  Those laws of the land which prevent implementation of the natural needs of humans, should be ignored.  To be a human every one needs the freedom to think and say what they feel.)

In Cicero’s De Officiis and De Re Publica societas is a partnership for advantage/benefit, united by self will and ruled by law- that law in turn relied on fides (good faith, character).  This is very similar to Mucius’ concept of societas in the ius civile.

Did Cicero go too far?  In his concept of Natural Law?  He took on Antonius not because he thought he could win but because it was the right thing to do.  He argued for what a Republic ought to be.

746. De Amicitia by Cicero

My best friend, Sarah.

746.  De Amicitia by Cicero.  This is also called the Laelius.  As with any work by Cicero, there is much to learn and in fact the more carefully one reads, the more there is.  The dialogue is a paraphrase, unless otherwise indicated.

When Cicero was a lad his father told him to spend as much time as possible with Q. Mucius Scaevola the Augur.  Cicero did.  Once while listening to the old fellow talk, Cicero recalls that he, Atticus and others were sitting on a curved bench in a garden listening to Scaevola.  At this time Scaevola remembered Laelius, C. Fannius and himself talking about friendship.  Both Scaevola asnd Fannius were sons in law of Laelius.  Laelius was the devoted friend of Publis Cornelius Scipio the Younger.  Scipio had recently died.

So Fannius asks Laelius to explain how he deals with the death of Scipio.  He mentions that everyone knows what a kind and tender person he, Laelius, is.  So how does he deal with this?

Laelius:  If I denied that I missed Scipio, I would not be telling the truth.  But in a way I do not need a remedy, because I find comfort within me.  I lack that mistake by which many are distressed at the death of a friend.  I do not think that an evil has happened to Scipio.  Perhaps it is to me personally but not to him.  To be excessively stressed by the death of a friend is characteristic of someone who loves himself.  What more could a person have accomplished?  He never stood as a candidate for Consul but was elected twice, general, author, friend, etc.  His death took place after a contentious meeting in the Senate and was escorted home by throngs of supporters.

I do not believe that the soul perishes with the body.  But if death of the soul happens at the same time as the body, then there is nothing good in death, nor anything bad.  His death and life were well done.  I am in a greater difficulty by his death but I enjoy the recollection of our friendship.

I was blessed to be his friend privately and publicly.  It brings me great joy to think that our friendship will be remembered for all time.

Fannius:  So please, discuss with us your views on friendship and the precepts and advice you may give.

Scaevola:  Please, do.

Laelius:  I encourage you

ut amicitam omnibus rebus humanis anteponas

“to prefer friendship to all other human matters”

for friendship is ingrained in human nature.  Friendship, though, can only be between good people.

(Laelius wants to discuss real life friendship in terms of stresses, tugs and pulls of real life.  He is not going to discuss friendship in terms the perfection required by Stoic philosophy.)

Those who follow nature as a guide will have those qualities a friend should have.  Nature bonds us to each other in many ways but in friendship it is so narrow that it exists between two or only a few people at a time.  Friendship is the harmony of all human and divine things supported by kindness and affection.  Friends must possess virtue (virtus= the pursuit of excellence as far as those things necessary to be a complete human). Life is only worthwhile when spent in mutual kindness of a friend.  Most goals in life have one simple purpose- money in order to spend, etc. But friendship contains so much more.  It is always there, is shut out of no place, always in season, never a bother.  None of these can be said about money, for example.

If you remove kindness, no city could ever survive, no state can survive, no matter how powerful, when beset by hatred and division.  The audience at a play by M. Pacuvius stood up and cheered when Pylades, to save his friend, Orestes, said that he was Orestes.  But immediately Orestes protested that he was Orestes out of fear for his friend.

The desire for friendship comes about more by nature than by need,  Little in life is more attractive than virtue, even in those we have never seen (as in the play).  Our pursuit of virtue is the bast way to attract friends.  

Hannibal is hated because of his cruelty but Pyrrhus not so fiercely because of his honesty.  If honesty is so attractive, should we be surprised, if we see it in those we spend our life?

If friendship were sought out of weakness to supply what we lack, as some suggest, we would pursue friendship and keep friends only when beneficial.

But if someone possesses virtue and wisdom and carries all in himself, he excels in making friends.  Scipio and I loved each other, because of the virtue each saw in the other.

Although many advantages came about for each of us because of our friendship, the cause of our being friends was not predicated on the hope of advantage.  The profit is in the love itself.  The qualities of each will be enhanced by each other’s goodness.

A friendship based on advantage will be dissolved when the situation has been altered.

(Now Laelius talks about a discussion he and Scipio had on friendship.)

It is not easy for a friendship to last until the end of life, for people change. All kinds of things can damage a friendship.

Laelius:  How far should love go in a friendship?  Think of C. Blossius Cumanus a friend of Tib. Gracchus.  In the aftermath of the struggle with Tiberius, there were a number of prosecutions.  Blossius asked me for forgiveness and support because he, Blossius, in the riots and disturbances of the times, did what he did out of his friendship for Tiberius.  I asked him what he would have done, if he were asked to burn down the Capitolium?  Blossius said that Tiberius would not have asked such a thing, but if he did he would have complied.

We should never ask a friend to do a base thing, nor when asked should we do them.

Examples from history and a critique of those who say that close friendships should be limited or are based on need.  Such friendships

solem enim e mundo tollere videntur ei, qui amicitiam e vita tollunt, qua nihil a dis immortalibus melius habemus, nihil iucundius.

“Those seem to remove the sun from the world who remove friendship from life, than which we have nothing better from the immortal Gods, nothing more pleasant.

Any system of friendship which avoids problems and concerns, virtue must be avoided.  If someone can remove their feelings from friends from their heart, what then would be the difference between this person and a log or a rock?  Deep pain felt for friends is not so strong that it removes friendship from life anymore than virtue should be rejected because it brings concerns and problems. Virtue pulls people together like a light attracts, from this love arises.  This source of friendship is virtus and friendship has been established by nature.  It would not be healthy for a friendship if neither one ever needed the other.

To live like this would be to live like a tyrant.  Friendship with a tyrant can only exist out of fear, need or force.

(If only Caesar or Pompey had taken the following words to heart…)

Ut (Tarquinii) mores veros amicos parare non potuerunt, sic multorum opes praepotentium excludunt amicitias fidelis.

“ Just as the character of Tarquinius was not able to gain true friends, thus the power of many very powerful people exclude loyal friendships.”

What are the limits of friendships?

There are three views:

1.  We should feel about friends the way we do ourselves.

2.  Our kindness to a friend should be based on their kindness to us

3.  The value a friend places on himself should be the value we place on them.

Response:

1.  Many times we do things for a friend which we would never do for ourselves.

2.  This reduces friendship to a system of keeping accounts on a ledger.

3.  This is the worst- some people lack confidence and what these need is to be supported and encouraged.

There is a need for other limits on friendship.  Chose wisely.  Chose those who are of firm character, stable and steady.  Short tests can be used to find out how solid someone is, this can be used to determine who would be loyal.

It is important that one who is superior in rank or power or wealth is equal to an inferior in a friendship.  Friendship is the great leveler.

What about ending a friendship?  Cato the Elder said- if possible the stitches of a friendship should be taken out one by one, not cut away all at once.

Friendship is  a natural quality possessed by humans in the same way humans possess self love.  Good people re-enforce each other’s goodness.

Virtutum amicitia adjutrix a natura data est, non vitiorum comes…

“Friendship has been given by nature as supporter of virtues, not as a companion of vices.”

Virtue alone will not allow a person to achieve what is really important, thus friendship is needed.  Thus effort toward virtue is worthwhile.

Make good judgements about a friend before offering love.  Some people pooh pooh wealth, office, riches, some do not but all feel that life without friendship is nothing.

Avoid being too frank with a friend but avoid being acquiescent.  A rebuke must be done with kindness and the one rebuked must gracefully accept it.  But truth is important because without it, friendship can not flourish.

The key is virtue- with this all comes together.

I enjoy the company of the young and I take comfort in that Scipio will always be with me.

746. Cicero, Classicism, and Popular Culture by Marshall Fishwick

746. Cicero, Classicism, and Popular Culture by Marshall Fishwick. This is one of the worst books I have ever read. Page after page there are historical errors. He cites one of Cicero's favorite buildings: Pantheon which he could not have seen, since it was built about 150 years after he had been murdered, he states Caesar was the commander who was sent to deal with Catiline (not true), that Cicero founded Florence (not true), the list is endless. These never end but keep coming chapter after chapter. The author wanders and meanders and never draws any meaningful conclusion nor does the author display any evidence to support his claims. This is the kind of book which makes me wonder about the value or meaning of Phd (the author has one) in modern times. He does not display any evidence that he can translate Latin. He rambles from one topic to the next. And the all of it is united by a level of ignorance of the history of the Roman Republic and Cicero I have never experienced before. He does demonstrate the utter weakness of the area I guess is called "popular culture". He and the other "scholars" quoted on the back of the book are so pathetic as to defy description. No one should read this.

745. Cicero Imperator: Studies in Cicero's correspondence 51-47 BC by Magnus Wistband

745.  Cicero Imperator:  Studies in Cicero’s correspondence 51-47 BC by Magnus Wistrand.  This is the finest work yet on Cicero’s capacity for intricate thought and planning.  If only scholars would take the time to write with the clarity and care that this man does, difficult concepts would be easier to understand and difficult thought would reach a wider audience.

In 52 BC the Lex Pompeia de Provinciis required a five year gap between the Consulship and a position in a province.  Thus those who had not served were required to step up.  In February of 51 BC Cicero became Proconsul and was assigned to Cilicia.   His imperium was granted by a vote of the people. His activities in the east won him the right to a triumph.  When it came time to report these activities to friends (in order to seek official recognition), Cicero adapted what he wrote to correspond with the person addressed.  So when he wrote to Cato to ask his support for a supplicatio (an official celebration which often led to the celebration of a triumph) Cicero was careful not to lay the aspect of amicitia upon Cato but instead appealed to him as a philosopher.  But at this time the rudiments of the advantage of a triumph began to appeal to Cicero.  He felt that it would add to his dignitas and help make up for the disaster of his exile.

Cilicia

In contrast to the letter to Cato, those letters to C. Marcellus, L. Paullus, the consuls, Cicero is more open about his desire for a triumph.  He appeals to their amicitia (political friendship), beneficia (distinctions) and officia (obligations). He does not tell Atticus until later, as he knew how Atticus felt about such things.

At this point his desire for a triumph reflects his desire to enhance his position.  Since Caelius had suggested the advantage of a triumph in a letter before Cicero was saluted Imperator by his troops, to Caelius Cicero is very open about it.  

Cato replied to Cicero’s letter.  He informs Cicero that the Senate passed the decree granting a supplicatio.  But clearly in his letter he did not vote for it.  And he reminded Cicero that a supplicatio does not automatically mean a triumph.  Cato did not like triumphs.  He felt that the granting of these encouraged conquest.  And to that Cato was opposed.  He even helped to pass a law which made it more difficult to be granted one.  Thus he opposed the supplicatio.  He had opposed the supplicatio granted to Caesar, Postumius and Lentulus Spinther.  There is another reason Cato opposed this supplicatio, he did not feel that Cicero deserved it; he had not done enough.  Cicero in his letter to Cato suggested that supplicatio/triumphs had been rather freely given, so why stop this one, it is just something done.  But the evidence suggests that Cicero was stretching things a tad.  Although there was recent evidence to support Cicero’s contention.  

Cato’s replies are based on stoic principles and are genuine and honest.  Cicero probably hoped that by his letter to Cato he would at least not actively oppose it.  He was successful.  These men knew each other and respected each other.  There is no hint that Cicero felt the least irritation.  Cicero did change his mind later when he heard that Cato had voted for a supplicatio for Bibulus’ activities in Syria.  Caesar used the opportunity to egg Cicero on, as he hated Cato.  But apparently Bibulus ended the Parthian threat in that area (after the disaster of Crassus).  This was of great relief in Rome.  Hence there was a 20 day supplicatio.  There are other matters at play here.  This celebration for Bibulus may have been a chance to even the score with Caesar who also had been granted 20 days and remember too that Bibulus was the colleague of Caesar in 59 BC.  Caesar made living dangerous for Bibulus that year.  

The Senate’s decision to grant the supplicatio for Cicero displays how complicated it was maneuvering something through the Senate.  Caelius and others worked hard to get it and there were some who were convinced not to oppose and not all agreed for the same reasons.  

As the crisis of the Civil War between Caesar and Pompey approached Cicero contemplated using the request for a triumph as a means to delay making a response to Caesar and Pompey, both of whom sought Cicero’s support in the coming conflict.  The excuse he gave is that he did not want to offend anyone which may jeopardize his triumph.  So now he saw the triumph as a means to avoid being asked his opinion.  Soon after he questioned if he should pursue this line, when the political situation changed. His concern was to maintain a position which would allow him the freedom of movement.  He debated  value of seeking triumph but the scenario indicated that Cicero was caught off guard.  He did not expect the Civil War to actually happen.

Now his situation changed.  The war began.  By a decree of the Senate, he and other officers were ordered to defend the state. He hoped to maintain his place as an independent in order to position himself as a peace negotiator.  But now he was ordered to defend the state.  His imperium was a distraction and he did not want to alienate either side.  This of course he must not do, if he hoped to present himself as a suitable negotiator.  Yet he was told to recruit soldiers.  He could no longer lay down his imperium which he said he would do, if it proved to be a hinderance.  If he were to lay down his imperium, this would imply that he did not support the Senate. This would destroy his reputation and this would make it impossible to be peacemaker.  

So at this point keeping his imperium had nothing to do with a desire for a triumph. So he did not follow orders to levy troops.  Instead he maneuvered for peace.  He remained passive to keep alive the possibility of peace negotiations.  But the peace negotiation failed.  Cicero’s negotiations for taking this position are very complicated.

Cicero then returns to Formiae.  Why?  It was a bad time to set sail to join up with Pompey, yet he still saw a chance for peace.  But he also had to worry that if Caesar and Pompey came to terms behind his back, he would be in danger.  Pompey asks Cicero to come to Luceria, to join him there.  Cicero makes a weak attempt.  Still hoping for peace.  Later when Pompey had moved his forces to Brundisium, he again asked Cicero to join him there.  

At this Cicero writes a very diplomatic letter to Pompey.  It contains just about all the parts one would expect in a speech.  It is a tactful letter designed to maintain  loyal perception and yet make clear that he was not going to Brundisium.   In the letter there is polite criticism of Pompey’s decisions.  With this Cicero hoped to separate himself from Pompey’s policy.

At this point a letter to Atticus indicates that Cicero abandoned his ideal of peacemaker and instead pursued practical politics.  In other words he adapted to the situation.  Now he wants to leave Italy because he knows that he has been criticized by those with Pompey.  Now he delays because he must wait for decent sailing season weather.  He gave every indication that he wanted to work toward a triumph, as this will allow him not to go to Rome and attend Caesar’s Senate.

Cicero writes to Caesar a letter asking to be allowed to remain neutral.  The letter is diplomacy at its highest.  This was designed to let him remain peacemaker for two reasons:  He wished to stay away from Caesar’s Senate (to avoid angering Republicans) and he wished to pursue peace.  To do so he must not be seen to lean toward either side.  

Cicero wanted to avoid meeting with Caesar but this was impossible. So when Caesar paid a visit to Cicero, things did not go well.  It was clear now that Cicero could no longer wait and see how things would develop.  But Caesar now published the letter which he received from Cicero in which there were flattering comments of Caesar made by Cicero in order to get Caesar to grant his neutrality.  Caesar perhaps published the letter in order to embarrass Cicero, cause Republicans to be angry with him and thus drive Cicero into Caesar’s camp.  So of course at this point Caesar is happy with Cicero.

Later Quintus jr. moves to Caesar’s side and fills Caesar with much bitterness toward Cicero.  Caesar begins to distrust Cicero.  But now Cicero can not leave Italy because of the weather.  Soon Cicero receives letters from Caelius, Caesar and Antonius with veiled threats toward himself and his family, if he should join Pompey.  Tullia was very upset for her father when she read these letters.  But Caesar was successful in that Cicero did not leave Italy.  Yet.  Soon Caesar gave orders that no one was to leave Italy.  

So from January to March Cicero thought peace was possible, thus he struggled to remain neutral, then he was forced to wait and see how things would develop, then Caesar’s hostility increased, then there was the order that no on leave Italy.  All the while the lever used for this was his imperium.  At this point Cicero decides to escape.  All the while he still has the lictors (who represent his imperium) which provide excuse not to attend a meeting of the Senate.

Magnus Wistrand emphasizes that Cicero was not motivated by a desire for a triumph because after the decree of the Senate (at the beginning of the Civil War), Cicero’s imperium status changed.  Thus at that point he could not lay down the imperium for political reasons- for to do so would betray the Republic.  Very few letters for part of 48 and 47 BC survive.  But Cicero, after Pharsalus, left Greece and returned to Italy, thinking that the war would soon end.  Cicero arrived at Brundisium.  Atticus advised that he move closer to Rome and move at night so that the lictors would not attract attention.  Apparently Cicero received permission from Caesar to move closer to Rome as a private person.   This means that he could go anywhere he wished, if he lay down his imperium.  The people and the Senate had bestowed this imperium and Proconsular status.  Before Greece Cicero for various reasons had to keep the imperium but after the defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus, Cicero was free to do as he wished.  And so this means that he decided to keep the imperium for a particular reason.  

What was that reason? In speeches and letters it is very clear that Cicero was very sensitive to proper Republican procedure and protocol.  Cicero was determined that his Proconular powers would receive recognition from Caesar as legally and properly bestowed by the people and the Senate (not by Caesar’s grace).  There is probably another reason that Caesar did not want him to go to Rome.  There was unrest there and riots (things were not going well.).  The person in charge at Rome was Antonius, he had 6 lictors as a symbol of his power, but Cicero with the imperium of a Proconsul had 12.  Caesar did not feel it a good idea that a Proconsul with imperium, granted by the Senate and the people, appear in Rome when riots were in progress.  It makes much more sense that Cicero navigated a path to protect the integrity of the Republic than that he simply wanted a triumph. 

Caesar met Cicero August 25, 47 BC on his way from Tarentum.  Cicero sometime in this period received a letter from Caesar recognizing Cicero as Proconsul with imperium and lictors as a grant from the people (which is what Cicero had so carefully sought via his complex diplomacy).  Caesar granted a triumph to Cicero.  Why?  He hoped to bind Cicero by obligation to himself- i.e. Cicero would owe him one.  This is the same reason that Cicero rejected the offer and thus declared his own independence.  So to Caesar’s dismay, Cicero rejected an offer which would give himself (Cicero) great prestige but bestowed by a man (Caesar) whom Cicero saw holding illegitimate power.

744. Post Reditum ad Quirites by Cicero

744.  Post Reditum ad Quirites by Cicero.    This speech Cicero gave to the people of Rome after his return from exile.  As with so many other speeches by this man, it is easy to get caught up in the elegance and careful wording and miss where he lands his punches.

He begins:

It was better for those to aim their hatred at me than you and the Republic.  Although it would be nice to go through life without trouble, I would not otherwise be able to enjoy your kindness at my return (from exile). And in a way all those things we tend to take for granted, family, friends, festivals now mean more than these ever did.

He praises the efforts of his brother.  In the past endangered citizens were supported by friends and powerful family connections and even armies, but I was supported by all of you.

It seems that Cicero is claiming that what people did at large is more impressive than what those accomplished through powerful families.

Cicero gives thanks to Lentulus Spinther, the consul who supported him during his term, Sestius who was tireless in efforts to bring Cicero back, Milo, the same and Pompey who helped get the matter through the Senate.  Cicero also singles out Lucius Gellius who may have prevented fraud at the assembly to bring back Cicero.

( Cicero knew full well that Pompey was no friend during and leading up to the exile, but for political reasons saw it better to find a way to draw Pompey closer to himself and work legitimately through the Senate.)

If anyone assumes that I have come back a broken man, that person is sadly mistaken.

(Many assumed that Cicero would go into retirement after a triumphant return from exile.)

Marius never relented, though weighed down with age, in his efforts to regain his position of importance.  He took vengeance on his enemy.  But we differ in a very important way.  He used the force of weapons, I will use my ability to speak.  

Cicero then describes the four types who tried to destroy him:

1  Those who were angry that the state was saved by my efforts.

2.  Those who pretend to be a friend but betrayed me.

3.  Those too lazy to expend the kind of energy I did.

4.  Those who sold my safety and the dignity of this state.

(These of course should have been the guardians of the state and Cicero.)

I will go after these one at a time:

By conducting business of the Republic with integrity

By putting no faith in treacherous friends

Take vengeance on the envious by serving virtue and excellence.

Avenge the traffickers of provinces by getting these called home.

It was shortly after this that Cicero attacked Piso, the Piso, who let chaos rule in Rome which led to Cicero’s exile.  Piso very likely received a plum province for his inactivity.

743. Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino by Cicero

743.  Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino by Cicero.  This speech is divided into four parts.  In the first part Cicero defends Roscius on the charge that he murdered his father.  In the second part he claims that the real murderers were two fellows from Ameria, Titus Roscius Capito and Magnus.  In the third part Cicero attacks Chrysogonus as the real power manipulating events leading to the trial, in the fourth part he lays on the judges the necessity of ending the reign of terror instituted by using the courts.

Background.  This is only a simple version, further study is required to have much better understanding.  The Social War (91-88 BC) produced severe unrest and turmoil in the Republic.  The Senate appointed Sulla to command the army against Mithridates.  This command was removed and given to Marius by an assembly of the people.  Sulla marched on Rome.  He defeated his opponents.  He had his enemies declared outlaws.  Sulla has his command reinstated and goes off to defeat Mithridates.  November 1, 82 BC, Sulla, after returning to Italy, defeats those opposed to him. The famous Lex Valeria/Lex Cornelia setting up the proscriptions brought about the deaths of thousands and the confiscation of their property.  It was murder and plunder on a large scale.  The law was set to expire June 1, 80 BC.

The point of the above is to demonstrate that society was in turmoil and the rule of law was seriously threatened.

Then in August of July of 81 BC, Sextus Roscius, father, was returning home from Rome after a party.  He is murdered.  Within hours his death was reported not to his son but to Amerinans hostile to the father.  These bring in Chrysogonus, freedman of Sulla who had control of the records.  Chrysogonus has the name of the father placed on the proscription list.  His property is confiscated and Chrysogonus bought it for the incredibly low sum of 2,000 sesterci (a few hundred dollars). When the government body of Ameria learned of this, they sent a delegation to Sulla to explain what had happened.  (It is fair to say that Sextus Roscius, the son, must have found support in the local government body.)   But Titus Roscius Capito managed to get his name on the list of delegates and sabotaged the delegation.  They never met with Sulla.  Chrysogonus, informed by Capito, convinced them that he would take care of everything.  At this point the partnership of Chrysogonus/Capito/Magnus decided that Roscius, the son, had to go.  So they brought accusation before the court to try him for the murder of his father.  

Cicero decides to take the case.  He puts his own life in danger.  Why?  Because Sulla is Dictator and Consul and it is he who instituted the Proscription and was in a very powerful position.

From this portrait of Cicero others have been identified.

The case:

Many are surprised when Cicero, instead of other leading figures, stands up to speak.  He points out that a trial of this nature indicates that there is something wrong in the republic.

tametsi non modo ignoscendi ratio, verum etiam cognoscendi consuetudo iam de civitate sublata est.

Not only the ability to pardon but also the customary right of inquiry has been removed from the state.

The property of the father, Sextus Roscius, was purchased by Lucius Cornelius Chrysogonus, a freedman of Sulla.  However, Sextus, the son, stands in the way of luxurious life style.  It is clear that Chrysogonus wants the judges to be assistants in his crime.

If you think that Chrysogonus’s request is fair that he claims the property of Sextus, the son, I have another idea- resist bold people, remove Sextus from danger, a danger which hangs over all of us.  Do not let these wicked people do to Sextus via the courts which they they have been used to doing via the sword.

(There was a huge attendance at the trial.)

If we do not get a handle on this, crimes will soon take place here in the forum in front of all of us.  

To make things clear, Cicero begins at the beginning:

Sextus Roscius, the father, stood by the nobility through the Civil War.  The Proscriptions took place.  He was pleased that the nobles had won.  He felt secure.  There were old hostilities with fellow people of Ameria:  Titus Roscius Capito and Magnus.  It may be of interest to the court later on that both men were trained by professional gladiators.  Sextus, the son, was on his farm and Magnus was in Rome when Sextus, the father, near the baths of Pallacina, was murdered.  The murder was committed in the early night.  By morning a messenger delivered the news of the death of Sextus, the father, not to the son but to Capito who was in Ameria.  This is a distance of 56 miles.  Someone clearly was in a hurry to relay the news.

Four days later this murder was reported to Chrysogonus who was with Sulla at Volaterrae.  Chrysogonus was informed of the thirteen farms owned by Sextus, the father.  All of these were ideally located along the Tiber River.  Magnus and Capito make it clear that Sextus, the son, the legal heir to the property, could be taken care of.

Although the Proscriptions were over as of June 1, 81 BC, and now it was late summer, the name of Sextus, the father, was placed on the list.  Soon three farms were turned over to Capito, the rest Magnus held as manager for Chrysogonus.

So what was Sulla doing during all of this? He was busy settling the state after the upheaval of almost a decade of war. He was putting the state on firm ground.

What Capito does not possess, the rest was disposed of somehow.  

At this point the local government of Ameria, sends a delegation to Sulla to expose what they knew of what has been going on.  But Chrysogonus is informed of the delegation.  He convinces certain nobles to meet the delegation and explain that everything will be handled and all property will be returned to the rightful owner.  

Someone may wonder how the delegation was derailed.  Capito, a member of the delegation, made sure that the plan failed.

It was at this point that the syndicate decided that Sextus, the son, had to go.  So they charged him with the crime of killing his own father.  The son, very concerned, met with his friends and they urged him to seek safety in Rome.  So he went to Caecilia, a friend of his father.

But the syndicate was not worried about this.  They could not imagine that anyone would come forward to defend the son.  Why?  Chrysogonus would make sure that no one would.  After the brutality of the Civil War who would dare stir Sulla’s anger?

They had tried to kill the son, this failed; consequently judges, they hope that you will do the job for them.

Then Cicero seems to divert but, if one thinks about it, he does not.  He recalls the lawlessness of the state at the time when Scaevola was butchered ( during the massive upheavals of the late eighties).  This Cicero deftly compares to the lawlessness which now faces the son.

So what is opposed to Sextus, the son?  The charge of murder, boldness and shear power.  The prosecution alleges that the father hated the son.  But there is a problem here.  There is no proof.  Their proof is that the father put him in charge of the farms.  Does this make any sense?

Then the prosecution makes a big deal that Sextus, the son, loved farming.  Cicero shreds this by talking of the qualities of farming and that the solid hard work improves a person.  

The prosecution claimed that the father wanted to disinherit the son.  But offers no proof what so ever.

The only reason this accusation exists at all is because Chrysogonus was sure that no one would take the case.

As if often the case, Cicero realized that there was a need for relief in a trail which was so serious and dangerous.  So he presents a humorous description of the prosecutor, Erucius.  

He wandered around while speaking.  Sometimes he sat down.  One time he called a slave over.  At this point Cicero suggests that he did so to order dinner.  When he finished, he sat down and while Cicero began his defense, he smiled, talked to those with him on the bench, joked and ignored Cicero until Cicero mentioned the name, Chrysogonus.  Erucius, the prosecutor, jumped up,  Cicero said the name, Chrysogonus again and then again.  At that point messengers ran to and fro to announce to Chrysogonus that apparently there was someone with guts enough to make a real defense for Sextus, the son.

(The passage is well worth reading to get an idea of how forceful and clever Cicero could be.)

There is no evidence for parricide.  

Again Cicero excuses as too busy to know every detail of what everyone was doing.  

(But if one thinks about it, a large part of this whole speech is an attack on Sulla, indirectly, but an attack nevertheless.)

At this point Cicero accuses Capito and Magnus of committing the murder.  Magnus was at Rome when the father was murdered.  He had associates known to be involved in assassinations.  The murder was announced to Capito at Ameria by Mallius Glaucia.  Did he travel by night the long distance by chance? Yes, and in a hurry.  Was it a long journey? 56 miles.  Was there a need for numerous carriage changes? You bet.  Did he inform Capito or the son?  He informed Capito.  Clearly there was haste to inform Capito.  Weird, huh?

(It is essential to imagine that Cicero must have hired detectives to gather so much information spread out over several months and in different places.)

There were clearly high emotions before the trial.  Capito waved his intended testimony in the son’s face at the trial.  But Cicero quickly picks up on this as odd.  He holds this testimony of Capito up as evidence of the sorry state of legal inquiry.  There is a law that a person can not give testimony in a case that concerns them.  So Cicero says that it was a mistake to sit at the bench of the prosecution.  

A mere four days later the death of Sextus, the father, was announced to Chrysogonus.  Who sent the message?  Why was Chrysogonus eager to sell a person’s property whom he did not even know?  How can the triangle of Magnus/Capito/Chrysogonus be a fiction?  Clearly Capito sabotaged the delegation by working with Chrysogonus behind the scenes.  But here again Capito blundered.  He was part of a delegation to give honest report to Sulla of what had happened.  He betrayed that trust and trust is very important.  This man betrays trust and yet Sextus, the son is on trial.  Fides, trust is the bond that holds everything together.  Break that and there is only the law of the jungle.  Capito did not betray the trust of one person but nine others as the delegation consisted of ten people.  

The slaves of Sextus, the father, were present at the murder.  But these, Capito, refuses to allow to be interrogated.  This is suspicious; they surely know something.  Enough of this but there is something fishy here.

Now Cicero turns to Chrysogonus.  Cicero suggests hesitation, as the man is powerful.  He bought the properties.  By what law could the property of the father be sold?  The Proscription Law (Lex Valeria/Cornelia) states:

ut aut eorum bona veneant, qui proscripti sunt; aut eorum qui in adversariorum praesidiis occisi sunt…

that either the property of those may be sold who were proscribed; or of those who in the opposition forces were killed…

There is a big problem here.  Sextus was never proscribed.  He was on Sulla’s side.

So Chrysogonus lied, made up the story that the father was a bad citizen, that the father was killed along with those who opposed Sulla and prevented the delegation from seeing Sulla.

Remember too that the proscription edict expired June 1, 81 BC.  The murder of the father and subsequent events took place at the end of the summer.  So of course it was impossible that the name was on the list.  So Chrysogonus is playing a game, here.

Judges may wonder where Cicero is going with this, but he asks for time.

This case pertains not just to Sextus but to all of us.  Every person in this state.  Chrysogonus is the one behind all of this and Sulla is not being attacked as the prosecution would like everyone to believe.  Sulla was busy and everyone misses things.  

There is a lost section of the speech at this point.  But enough evidence survives that Cicero argued that the property was not sold but has been dispersed in such a way to conceal ownership.

Cicero proceeds to describe Chrysogonus’ belongings.  Where did he get the money for all of this?  The war has given great power to a person like Chrysogonus and at this point takes the opportunity to warn the nobles that if they should rest on their laurels (after putting the state back into their hands) they may lose what they hold so dear.  

This domination of Chrysogonus is making plans to control your loyalty, your allegiance and even court verdicts.

The following displays Cicero’s utter diamay at what has been happening:

hicne etiam sese putat aliquid posse Chrysogonus?

first word by word:  here indeed himself thinks some power possesses Chrysogonus?

The word order shows how dismayed and angry Cicero is.

 Chrysogonus thinks that Even here in this court room he possesses influence and power?

Cleary, Cicero is making the case that people had better set things right.

This passage is designed to drive a wedge between decent people and even tepidly decent people and Chrysogonus.

Then Cicero assumes the part of the son (called prosopopoeia).

You have everything I own, let me live in peace.  

This is used to show the immense power of Chrysogonus and how he has called all of the shots.  The attack on the son has no other purpose than the display of naked power.

You judges have the chance to do the right thing.  Grasp it.  If Chrysogonus is not content to be taking whatever he wants. then the last refuge for not only Sextus but the entire Republic is the mercy and integrity of the courts.

Then Cicero has an awesome metaphor:

Good generals set an ambush for those of the enemy who might escape.  This is exactly what Chrysogonus and his crew have done- they are using you, the court, to set an ambush for those who have escaped.  

How weird that this state, famous for its mercy toward the enemy, today deals with cruelty toward its own citizens.

signed,

Obstinate Classicist

742. Cicero's Correspondence: A Literary Study by G.O. Hutchinson

742.  Cicero’s Correspondence: a literary study by G.O. Hutchinson.   This book is well worth a study.  Hutchinson makes the point that Cicero’s letters are crucial for so much concerning the Roman Republic.  Yet, what most scholars do today is plunder his letters for cultural and historical details.  Appreciation for these letters for their literary value is pretty much ignored.  Neglect of the literary aspect is due, the author believes, to the general neglect of prose.  Consequently many do not view letters as literature. (This was something I noticed, with a great degree of irritation, while in graduate school.) 

Cicero- Apsley House, London- the only surviving portrait labeled with his name.

Literary analysis can not ignore history nor can history ignore literary appreciation.  

Cicero himself suggests a division for letters:  informative, humor, consolation.  Cicero is aware of and reflects on the style required to meet the needs of the person he addresses.  As a result there is a wide differentiation of style required.  Apparently our man could do them all.  The use of rhythm varies according to his correspondent: those letters not to Atticus or Tiro or Terentia are almost all rhythmical.  

This pretty much smashes allegations that his rhythmical cadences were somewhat unconscious (as claimed by S. Bailey, for one) and for that matter the absence of rhythm does not indicate the absence of art.  

Letters to politicians display courtesy and friendliness, even to so-called tough guys.  The care in composition shows affection and interest. Letters have the intention to show sincerity to the reader using any number of devices:  sounds, word order, pleasantries, humor, etc.  

Hutchinson's first category:  Exile letters.

Cicero’s letters are often used to display his weakness of character and indicate that the letters are embarrassing, incoherent and random in structure.  Hutchinson says that this is not true.  He makes the case that his letters are demonstrations of powerful expressions.

Many scholars also claim that the letters display and abnormal personality and this shows his mercurial temper.  But most people do not take the time to appreciate how devastating the exile was not just to Cicero but to his brother, wife, daughter, son and household, the danger presented to his family. ( In fact his wife was actually manhandled to force any money which Cicero had left her.) 

His letters are not unusual.  Ovid, Catullus both wrote letters displaying deep emotion using forceful language.  Cicero’s behavior was not unusual either-  Quintus Metellus Celer, no wimp, put on mourning clothes in support of his brother whom he felt was mistreated by Cicero.

Ad Fam. xiv.4  A letter to Terentia is a tender letter of his love and affection set in powerful language.  The letter presents the problem of Terentia coming to see him in exile.  He takes great pains to make sure that she knows how much he cares for her but also is at pains to let her know that, if there is a chance for his recall, he would need her at Rome.   There is rhetorical skill at play in his efforts to say what he needs to say. 

Ad Att.  iii.7.  This letter is more controlled than the one to his wife.  There is some rhythm. Cicero takes care not to offend Atticus who had asked Cicero to stay at his villa in Epirus.  In this letter Cicero longs for isolation (while using a tricolon) in contrast to the letter to Terentia.  It makes sense that he is not going to write the same kind of letter to Atticus as to his family. In this letter he expresses his agony effectively.  He will not kill himself but living at the same time is a meaningless life.  Hutchinson seems to treat this in a way as a means for Cicero to express his anger/dismay,shock, depression.  Yet, does so, while in control of his mind.  A powerful alliteration (using “ms”) reveals his depth of feeling. 

Ad Quantum i.3  It is rhythmical and rhetorical and Cicero takes pains to explain himself to Quintus.  Cicero makes the point that out of love for Quintus he did not want to put him through the anguish of a meeting.  Some of the phrasing is also found in some speeches.  In this letter Cicero speaks of his son:

quem ego ferus et ferrus e complexu dimisi meo…

Whom I, hard and like iron, from my embrace sent away…

(Take the time to absorb the man's anguish.)

Cicero in this letter deals with a paradox: the emotions of a meeting and the danger to Quintus of prosecution.  He deals with this paradox to produce a sensible reason for his decision. 

It should be coming clear that Cicero adjusts his letters to the needs of the moment, the needs of the correspondent.

Consolation:

Cicero mentions in the Tusculan Disputations  (iii.73-79) that what is written must take into consideration the nature of the person addressed.

Ad Fam. v.16.  To Titius.  Titus lost children in a plague. Cicero artfully offers comfort.  He had waited to write because it was not considered to be in good taste to write about such things too soon..  Cicero uses self reproach to display sensitivity.  He uses “we” to join the two into a common mutual feeling.  All this via elegance.  Cicero discusses the common ground between philosophy and politics.  As an example he uses mors and immortalitas to combine the two possibilities of death.  

Ad Brutum i.9.  Cicero writes to Brutus on the death of Porcia, his wife.  Cicero treats Brutus as an authority on philosophy.  He uses philosophy to comfort his loss but suggests the need to serve the interests of the state (the crisis with Antony was in full swing).

Ad Fam. v.14.  This letter is from Lucius Lucceius.  He uses forceful language to jolt Cicero out of his misery. It is not done smoothly but it is forceful.  It is another example that not all people use the same technique and each used the approach that was felt best for the addressee.  

Ad Fam. iv. 5-6.  Servius Sulpicius Rufus to Cicero on the death of Tullia.  His view is rhetorical and meant to direct Cicero’s emotions.  He uses history immersed in personal experiences to make his case to minimize Cicero’s sadness.  Clearly Servius has a different approach than Cicero.  He should not be criticized for being different.  There are numerous ways to approach such a subject and each person, as Cicero suggests, should adapt to the nature of the addressee.  

These letters display a wide range of approach- all are different and all are valid.

(Perhaps the manner in which Brutus and Servius address Cicero tells us how open his personality was to such letters.- just a thought).

Narrative

The speeches show interest in using narrative to persuade and entertain.  The same is true for the letters.

Ad Fam.  x.30.  From Servius Sulpicius Galba, his report on the Battle of Forum Gallorum.  This letter was written so that Cicero could feel the uncertainty of battle as Galba experienced it.

Ad Fam.  xv.4  To Cato.  Cicero narrates the battle in Cilicia to persuade Cato to support the Supplicatio.  So the narrative is combined with rhythm and elegance to persuade.

Ad Atticum v.21.  This letter is about Scaptius/Brutus who together concocted a pretty dubious business deal.  Cicero here employs techniques found in plays by Terence.  This letter uses short clauses, historical infinitives to strengthen his case.  

Ad Fam. x.32.  From Pollio.  Pollio narrates the story of Balbus to help explain the difficulties he faces in Spain and does so artfully.

Dialogue

This was used in speeches and in the letters.  Cicero uses dialogue to describe and impact what he writes.

Ad Atticum v.1  Cicero uses dialogue and commentary to make the case for Quintus’ behavior and Pomponia’s lack of it.

Ad Atticum xv.11 This is, for me, a letter which always seemed greatly over used by historians as a hammer on Cicero’s personality.  Speakers in this letter are Servilia, Brutus, Cicero and Cassius.  They all were discussing problems facing them (final crisis of the Republic, recent death of Caesar).  As Cicero was talking Cassius butted in with very intense comment.  Then Brutus talks to Cicero in a very deferential way and with respect.  The contrast is meant to indicate that Cassius was rude.  Cicero even with Cassius and more so with Brutus shows humane conversational manner.  But when he addresses Brutus, he does not direct any of the conversation to Cassius.  Then later when Cicero and others were rehashing old missed opportunities, Servile breaks in and a shuts down Cicero.  He politely gives way and the conversation makes it clear that Servilia was out of line.  

It was fun to read this passage because most authors I have read put this whole thing down to something which made a fool out of Cicero.  Hutchinson does not see it that way at all.

It is worthwhile to quote Hutchinson:

Most important of all, they (the letters) show us how Cicero’s own verbal and personal sensitivity and his desire to persuade and be approved run through what he writes, and says, on every level.  Artfulness and art are never more apparent than when he seems merely to be playing back his mental tapes; but the artistry appears within his utterance as well as his narrative.  Nor is the urge to persuade cynical or amoral:  he wishes to show in himself, and those he commends, rectitude and restraint, good manners and good sense.  And his is driven, and wishes to to be seen as driven, by warm affection.

Time

Cicero’s references to the past, present and future force him to employ different kinds of thought in terms of the person addressed. The passage shows the complexity of thought which these letters have.

Humor

The use of humor shows that the correspondent is trusted.  Joking is used to put both in the same room.

Ad Fam. vii.18  to Trebatius.  It is clear from this letter that Trebatius treats Cicero with deference.  And Cicero teases Trebatius as an older man to a younger person.  Cicero uses humor to encourage their friendship.

Humor is handled in different ways with different people.  Cicero clearly enjoyed a variety of form and yet always managed to make clear his personal feelings.  He used humor as he did everything else- to be expressive.

Now I know why Atticus and Tiro published these letters- they saw in these examples of great literary value and examples for imitation and examples for despair that many people meet in life.  It is mostly in modern culture that we seem so smug in judging others.  Kind of weird that antiquity grasped this with ease, yet we have so much trouble with this.  I wonder if some of this is due to the massive fractionalization and specializing which has occurred in education.  

Here are some problems:

Hutchinson creates confusion by consistently setting up discussion for a particular letter only to write on and on about other letters, until finally addressing the letter at hand.  There are times he could be more succinct and clear by avoiding language which fails to make it clear.  Often a simple clear statement is all that is needed.