734. Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic by W. K. Lacey

734.  Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic by W. K. Lacey.  This book is an ideal introduction to the life of Cicero.  This is not meant to minimize its value as a quality biography.  Lacey has incorporated difficult material covering a wide range of Cicero’s interests and activities without bogging one down in details that tend sometimes to obscure the objective.

Cicero’s qualities are evident when he was Quaestor in Lilybaeum, Sicily.  His activities there indicate a man who is conscientious, just and approachable.  He was a humane person.  When back in Rome after his Quaestorship in Lilybaeum, Cicero continued to build up support by kind acts, court cases and a clear willingness to work very hard.

Delacroix- Cicero attacking Verres

Lacey relates a neat story Cicero told about himself upon returning from Sicily.  Cicero expected that his fine work there would be the talk of Rome but when he arrived at a town loaded with vacationers from Rome, he quickly learned that no one had any idea where he had been or what he had done.  The story presents a nice contrast to those assertions that he was vain and self-centered.  Also while in Sicily, he took the time to find the tomb of Archimedes.  Sicilians had no idea where it was.  One story lets us know that he could laugh at himself, the other that he had a wide range of interests.

When he became Consul in 63 B.C., Tribune Rullus proposed a land bill which would set up a powerful commission to administer the law, it would also interfere with Pompey’s settlements he had arranged in the east when commander there.  This plan was hatched by what Cicero referred to as the pauci.  That is a secret group who met in private to work out a deal to avoid debate in a Senate meeting and face the inevitable thrust and parry.  Cicero disliked any move which avoided the use of debate to settle an issue.

Once during his Consulship, Roscius Otho, then a Praetor, was booed as he entered the theater to watch a performance.  The reason for this was that as Tribune he carried a measure which gave special seats to the Equites.  Cicero who was there called the audience to the temple of Bellona nearby, gave a speech, after which, the audience returned and greeted Roscius with applause.

Later there was the trial of Rabirius.  Rabirius was accused of killing the Tribune Saturninus in 100 B.C.  So in 63 B.C. Labienus, perhaps at the urging of Caesar, brought Rabirius to trial for treason.  The trial was not brought to completion.  So what was the point?  After all the murder took place nearly forty years previous.  It seems that the trial was meant to bring the right of the Senate to pass Senatus Consultum Ultimum (Senate’s Last Decree) into question.  The SCU had been used in the past to deal with emergencies.  This case was questioning the right of the Senate to do so.

This trial and the election of Caesar to the position of Pontifex Maximus caused the conservative members of the Senate to lend more and more support to Cicero.  Good timing, because as the summer wore on there was more and more concern that some kind of conspiracy was afoot.  Elections were held.  One of the Consul-elects was Murena.  

As summer became fall, the conspiracy, led by Catiline became more and more of a reality.  Cicero brought up in the Senate the fact that there was a conspiracy.  But he did not receive the support he needed.  

November 1, there was an attempt to seize a city near Rome.  Other activities were reported.  The Senate passed the SCU.  November 7, an attempt was made on Cicero’s life at his own home.  Cicero was informed that Catiline had left Rome.  This took a load off.  At least the leader of the conspiracy was not in the city itself.  The next day, November 8, Cicero enters the Senate and to his surprise, there sits Catiline.  On the spot Cicero delivers what is now called the Ist Catilinarian.  His hope was to get Catiline to make his move.  He did, left Rome and helped to strengthen Cicero's case.

But Cicero had more problems than convincing the Senate of the reality of conspiracy, he also had to face a court case.  In this trial Marcus Cato and Servius Sulpicius Rufus indicted Murena for corruption.  Cicero took the case, used humor and argument to convince the jury that it was dangerous to have the year begin without two consuls in office.  Murena was also a military leader whose services, Cicero realized, would soon be needed.  He won the case.

Cicero knew that there was indeed a conspiracy but had not a shred of proof.  This the conspirators supplied by asking the Gauls to revolt.  This would keep the Roman army busy while the conspirators carried out their plan.  The Gauls decided to report this to Roman authorities.  Cicero convinced the Gauls to play along and insist on signed documents to present to their people.  All of these were arrested as they crossed the Mulvian Bridge (which still stands).  Now Cicero had his proof.

I highly recommend reading Cicero’s speeches, as these give all the details.  There is also the added benefit that Cicero presents a remarkable and exciting narrative.

The conspirators were placed in holding cells under guard.  Even then there was the attempt of a jail break.  

December 5 there was a debate which lasted for three days as to what to do with the conspirators caught in Rome.  Several proposals were made: life in prison, confiscation of property, death.

In the end the Senate voted to execute the prisoners.  All of these were of course Roman citizens.  So the dilemma was difficult- eliminate an immediate threat? or risk a jail break? or risk breaking Roman law?  According to Roman law only a trail of citizens could bring a death sentences.  But is someone still a citizen who  has been proven to conspire to destroy the state?  The argument is still going on.

When Cicero approached the Rostra to give his farewell address (December 31, 63 B.C.), he was prevented by the Tribune Metellus Nepos who said that no one who had put Roman citizens to death had the right to address the people and swear an oath that he had carried out the laws of the Republic.  However, when Cicero raised his voice and said simply “I have saved the state”, there was huge applause.  

Cicero had hoped to work with Pompey upon his return from the east, as commander there.  In this he was somewhat successful but as Pompey could not get the settlement he desired for his troops and other measures, it is this that Lacey feels drove Pompey into the camp of Caesar.  In addition Cato and allies had no intention of giving an inch to Pompey or Caesar for that matter.  This helped to push Caesar to end up using the methods he did.  He had little sympathy for traditional practice anyway.

Cicero is often accused of being subject to sudden and unpredictable changes of mood (mercurial).  Lacey covers this but in a way which admits that he was respected in the Senate and by the people.  Lacey does not seem sure that this explains the whole man and his decisions in politics.

So what is called the First Triumvirate came about.  Caesar, as Consul (59 B.C.), supported by Pompey and Crassus used violence and disruption to achieve what each individually wanted.  Cicero opposed the Big Three but in the end Caesar allowed Clodius to become eligible for the Tribunate.  Clodius used this office to pass measures to allow the formation of political clubs.  These were used to employ former slaves and people of violence to pass his measures .  These at first were opposed by various people but in the riots, people were injured and some lost their lives.  Feeding these clubbers became easy as Clodius passed a law which distributed food for free.

Soon Clodius (Tribune 58 B.C.) turned toward Cicero and had him exiled for putting to death Roman citizens without trial.  Decrees passed by the Senate indemnifying those involved were swept aside. Many attempts were made to support Cicero but to no avail. Although Cicero never forgave those he felt should have offered stronger support. 

In exile Cicero was devastated.  In fact he may have been near a mental break down.  But Lacey does point out that Cicero even in these circumstances did take the time to think of others.  It is a matter for debate, for sure.

In January of 57 B.C., Quintus, brother of Cicero, nearly lost his life attempting to move along Cicero’s recall.  With difficulty Cicero was recalled.  It is interesting that crowds turned out to greet him upon his entrance to Rome.  Many expected him to retire but he had no intention of doing so.

Lacey has a nice chapter on Cicero’s literary activity.  It is well worth reading to get a handle on Cicero’s output and ideas he presents.

Lacey covers the events of Cicero’s life through the 50’s.  Sometimes he manages to take a free hand and pursue policy of interest to him, at other times he is compelled to bend to the will of the Big Three.  

Lacey covers Cicero’s tenure as Governor of Cilicia.  It is interesting to see Cicero in this capacity.  It is also interesting to see the problems Cicero faced.

When Cicero returned from Cilicia, he tried to prevent the outbreak of a civil war but failed to do so.  It is a complex period to say the least.  The civil war was fought.  Caesar won at the cost of thousands of lives and at the cost of serious disruption to politics of persuasion.

Lacey also covers the heart rendering loss of his daughter, Tullia.

Caesar was assassinated March 15, 44 B.C.  Cicero entered politics for the last time to attempt to save the state.  Upon Caesar’s death Cicero decided to oppose Antony because Antony indicated that he intended to take Caesar’s place.      

Cicero argued in the Senate on December 20, 44 B.C. that those governors now in place at their provinces should remain there until further notice.  This effectively made it illegal for Antony to march against the governor of Gaul.  Some think that what Cicero did was illegal.   But Lacey points out that when the Senate December 20, 44 B.C. passed a decree concerning the provinces assigned by a law of the people, this decree suspended those laws until a new measure could be presented to the people. It is not an easy issue to figure out.  

Some historians claim that Cicero hated Antony because he was married to Fulvia, the wife of Clodius (who had died) whom Cicero hated.  The argument is that Cicero was responsible for the hostility against Antony and this precipitated another civil war. But Lacey points out that the people elected ten tribunes who took office December 10, 44 B.C.  All ten moved that a Senate meeting needed to be held to deal with the crisis.  Not one vetoed the proposals moved by Cicero and passed by the Senate.  He also makes the point that the Senate which consisted of many members appointed by Caesar himself approved the measure and that all this was done in one day. When Cicero addressed the people, there was huge applause.

Cicero seemed to be everywhere.  His arguments were so strong that he dominated the Senate debate for months.  His success seemed assured when Antony was defeated.  But in the course of doing so, the Consuls sent north to fight Antony both died.  This left a huge gap in elected leadership.  Octavian demanded the Consulship and received it by force.  Antony perhaps put out feelers to Octavian.  Soon they met at Bononia, in northern Italy.  A proscription list was drawn up.  Cicero’s name came first.  He heard the news at Tusculum.  He moved from there to Astura on the coast.  From there he moved to Formiae from which he hoped to set sail.  No one knows why for sure but he set sail and then returned to Formiae.  There he was caught by those sent to kill him, December 7, 43 B.C..  He offered no resistance.   

733. Cicero by D.R. Shackleton Bailey

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

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.

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

730. Cicero the Statesman by R. E. Smith

Cicero in a British Museum

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the end Smith writes:

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

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

signed,

The Obstinate Classicist

A Pig in a Poke

A Pig in a Poke

I retired in July of 2013.  Ohio public teachers have their own retirement and health coverage system.  At 65 the retirement system requires that I sign up for Medicare Part B. Failure to sign up for Medicare Part B, allows the state retirement system to cancel my health insurance. 

So Sarah began the process months in advance of my 65th.  As in all endeavors Sarah and I have a partnership.  Which in this case required two minds, two college degrees and a combined years of experience of some 125 plus years.  

So here is the story.  Most stuff on FaceBook consists of short notes, but those of you who persevere may find some benefit.

In an effort to save paper, Sarah signed me up on line for Medicare Part B.  The application went through.  It was so easy.  Sadly the tail ends not here. 

One week later a call came to our house asking if I had received my Medicare Card.  Sarah said no, it had not arrived.  We were told to look for it in the mail, as it would soon arrive.  A week later a letter arrived which informed me that I was not eligible for Medicare because I had never paid into Social Security.  This, of course, is true as I had paid into Ohio state teacher retirement system.

Please, keep in mind that Medicare, Washington, D.C. has a website.  On this website it states that every US citizen, 65 or older, and a resident for 5 or more years has the right to sign up for Medicare Part B whether that person has paid into Medicare or not.

I called to register with the Medicare system.  Thinking of course that personal contact is always better.  I dial.  A computer says press 1 for this, 2 for that, etc.  Press 3 if you desire more information on measures passed by Congress to save paper.  I knew better and waited for a human.  I was told that there was a 55 minute wait, if I stayed on line.  If I leave a call back number, they will call back at some time.  I say “call back”, as I am still talking to a computer.  

60 minutes later a call arrived.  I tell the human that I wish to sign up for Medicare.  I am asked for my name, my Social Security number, my mother’s maiden name, my address, by birthday and year.  Pause as she waits for computer to load a reply.  

Soon Social Security says- you have not paid into Social Security, you are not eligible.  

No questions were asked, no curiosity, no interest at the other end of the line, no willingness to take time to serve my interests.  

Me: I need to sign up for Medicare Part B because Ohio teachers have their own retirement system for health insurance and it requires that I sign up for Medicare Part B.  

Social Security: You can not sign up, you did not pay into Social Security.    

Me: Please, make an appointment for me with the local office in order to discuss this.

She agrees.

The local office turned out to be in Painsville, Ohio.

Three days later I receive in the mail a letter telling me that I am not eligible for Medicare.  The same day a letter arrived telling me that my appointment would be the Monday after Thanksgiving at 2:09 PM.  You guessed it, there had been no discussion about suitable times, or a time frame or choices- just here is the date and the time- 2:09 PM.  

We spent Thanksgiving with Bob, Elizabeth and Faye.  Bob has become a master fryer of turkey in peanut oil.  He loves it.  While I stood out with him Thanksgiving Day, holding up a board to prevent the wind from extinguishing the flame, a call came reminding me of my appointment on Monday.  Saturday after Thanksgiving, Sarah and I and Elizabeth and Faye drove to Alabama to visit Charles, Susan and Walton.   Elizabeth leaves Charles’ on Monday at 2 PM.  I missed the call for my appointment.  But not to fear the lady called a  whole 5 minutes later to give me a second chance. I had missed this, also.

So we return from Georgia.  I call Social Security to sign up for Medicare.  By now I felt experienced in the nuances of which button to push and what to say.  I call.  There is a 35 minute wait, the computer speaks.  I say again- “call back” and leave a number.  A call arrives. 

Me:  I must sign up for Medicare Part B.  

I give my name, social security, birth day, year date, mother’s maiden name, my favorite politician (just kidding).  

Pause.  

Social Security: You are not eligible.    

Me: I must sign up by law and I must do so to keep my insurance with Ohio.  

SS: You can not, you did not pay in.  

Me: I realize that but Ohio State Teacher Retirement System requires that I must sign up for Part B.  If I fail to do so, they will cancel my insurance.  

SS:  You are not eligible.  This rule is the same for every state. 

Me:  The rule is not the same for every state.  Ohio has its own system.

SS:  You are not eligible. 

Me: Would you please make me an appointment with the office in Painesville, Ohio?

SS:  Yes.

Pause.

SS:  Your appointment will be January 9 at 1:00 PM.  But the call may come between 12:30 PM and 2:00 PM.

The Thursday before my call, a call came in reminding me that the call will come at 1:09 PM.

So, I set a notice on my phone to alert the time of the call.

The call came at 1:09 PM.  The lady was very nice.  She skipped most of the questions and in 8 minutes I was signed up.

A letter arrived of 6 pages informing me that I would soon receive a letter soon which could be used to inform Ohio retirement system that indeed I had complied with their rules.

Yesterday, January 17, the letter arrived.

This took 5 months.

It all worked out and I am glad.  But even a scenario which worked out took months.  And people actually want the government more involved in our lives?  This movement of more and more government to “solve” our problems is not a train wreck in the making but the focus of power in unaccountable hands.

729. Stonewall Jackson The Black Man's Friend

729.  Stonewall Jackson The Black Man's Friend by Richard G. Williams, Jr. This has been an interesting book.  I am so glad that I have read this.  The book immerses the reader in the Christian concept that one has a duty to love others which transcends world reality.  

The bed where T. J. Jackson died

The author details the incredible cruelty associated with slavery and the unjust nature of it.  Slavery is condemned very forcefully.  However, since this is a review/summary of the book it is necessary to be brief. So we will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

We have the wolf (the evil of slavery) by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let go.  Justice is on one scale, and self preservation on the other.

Much of slave owners' capital was in slaves.  Letting go would mean economic disaster.  Reason and love of justice clearly say that slavery is wrong.  

This in a nut shell sums up the essential dilemma  which confronted slave owners.

The other aspect is that slavery was an American problem, not just a flaw in Southern character.  Virginia repeatedly attempted to outlaw slave importation before the Revolutionary War.  However, these laws were overturned by the British King.  Why?  Northern shipping and economy heavily relied on the slave trade.  In fact the first colony to legalize the slave trade was Massachusetts in 1641.  The first state to outlaw the slave trade was Virginia in 1778.

Given time, the slavery problem would have been handled without a war which was so destructive.  But that was not to be.  

The author does not intend this as a game to see who was wrong first or last.  It simply makes the point that slavery was wrong and both North and South had a hand in it. 

In fact not just North and South but simple logic and evidence indicate that leaders in Africa were eager to deal in the slave trade as they saw a profit in it.

The idea of the book is not to lay blame but simply to set out the complexity of the whole tragedy.

Much time is spent in detailing the deep religious feelings among slaves and freed blacks in the South before the war.  But who taught these people about religion?  Christianity was not the religion of their homeland.

Christianity required that all people have an opportunity to share in God's love.  So it began that slave owners felt an obligation to teach the Christian religion to slaves. The author seems intent on revealing the evil of slavery and the good which Christianity offered.    

So we have the stark contradiction that slavery is an evil, yet slave owners taught slaves a religion which tells the story of the Hebrew escape from slavery in Egypt.  These two opposites existed side by side.

Thomas J. Jackson enters the picture.  He was orphaned very young and raised by his Uncle Cummins Edward Jackson.  His uncle (who had no interest in religion) owned slaves and it appears that it was his slaves who introduced young Jackson to Christianity.

When  T.J. Jackson moved to Lexington, Virginia to teach at VMI, he joined a church.  He soon met people interested in teaching slaves about the Bible.  He took up the idea and began his own Bible classes for slaves.  He went about to the houses of slave owners and asked permission to teach their slaves about the Bible.  They agreed.  T. Jackson made it clear to the slaves, as he went about signing them up for class, that they were to agree to come every week on time and that they must do so of their own free will.  A large number signed up.

Mr. Jackson was not the only one to run a Sunday-school for slaves.

Class size grew.  It is clear from the evidence which survives that he taught his pupils how to read.  Two lawyers once challenged him in the street that he was breaking a Virginia law which forbade teaching slaves how to read.  T. Jackson would have none of it and persisted in his classes.  No lawsuit ever came up.

T. Jackson had a habit that whenever he met one of his students in the street he always greeted them.  He was known as a stickler but kind at heart and was greatly admired by his students.

When called to serve in the Confederate Army, T. Jackson made provisions for the upkeep of the school.  Once after the battle of First Manassas, people at the post office at Lexington, Virginia waited eagerly for news of the result.  A pastor friend of T. Jackson was handed a letter from the General.  His friend announced to all there that they would soon know the facts of the battle.  General Jackson's note read:

My Dear Pastor,

In my tent last night, after a fatiguing day's service, I remembered that I had failed to send you my contribution for our colored Sunday-school.  Enclosed you will find my check for that object….  

This and numerous other notes and incidents indicate that the school meant a great deal to Mr. Jackson. 

The many graduates of the school and descendants became ministers, doctors, educators and leaders.

Mr. Jackson accepted slavery but did not approve.  In this situation he felt, because of his Christian beliefs, that he owed these slaves and Blacks an opportunity to learn of the value in the Bible.

People owned slaves.  The religion of these owners believed that love of God should be denied to no one.  These people, kept in bondage, were given a religion which freed them of sin at the hands of those who sinned against humanity by enslaving people. 

Is this a contradiction?  Yep, on a major scale.  But as I read this book a quote from a Roman author I admire kept coming to me:

"Servus est." Sed fortasse liber animo.  "Servus est." Hoc illi nocebit?  Ostende quis non sit.  Alius libidini servit, alius avaritiae, alius ambitioni, omnes timori.  (Seneca.)

"He is a slave."  But perhaps he is free in the mind.  "But he is a slave."  Will this harm him?  Show me who is  not a slave.  One is a slave to lust, another is a slave to greed, another is a slave to ambition, all are a slave to fear.

I always shared this with my students each year.  I did not use it to support slavery but to try and get my students to see that slavery is not so simple and can work for and against the master. 

The author makes the point that Christianity helped to create a common bond between Black people and White people.  Many would disagree with this today but perhaps he has a point.

But it must mean something that Mr. Jackson who owned slaves felt obligated to teach slaves how to read because of his religious beliefs.  

When the statue for General Jackson was put up in the cemetery where he is now buried, the first contribution came from Lexington's Baptist Church for negroes.  This church was established  by a member of Mr. Jackson's Sunday-school.

The main thrust of the book seems to be that love of fellow man despite differences and contradictions of circumstances has been challenged in modern times by a love of hate for anything different.