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.

728. The Senior Statesman: Cicero by Thomas Mitchell

728.  The Senior Statesman: Cicero by Thomas Mitchell

Thomas Mitchell’s book makes the case that Cicero was a decent person with wonderful ideas who lacked the ability and tenacity to find a way to bring those ideas into play in the politics of his time.  He vacillated in his political doings at Rome but when assigned to his province he brought into play his code of very high standard. In his final struggle to save the Republic, he reluctantly chose to resist dangerous forces.  

Thomas Mitchell fails to take into account the nature of Pompey and Caesar.  Both were obsessed with their own welfare.  Both were willing to sacrifice any concept of traditional Republican code to further their own career.  Cicero enters this picture with standards of conduct which far exceeded either of his contemporaries.  

When he was consul, Cicero crushed the Catilinarian Conspiracy.  He felt that he would then be able to influence the course of events.  

But as time passed he realized that senatorial leaders possessed little tenacity. By 58 BC he was exiled for events which took place during the suppression of the conspiracy.  Cicero felt that his exile was the result of indifference of leading senators and the abandonment by Pompey and the hostility of Caesar.  

When he returned, he consistently worked to maintain a degree of independence in order to be free to address issues as he saw necessary.  He also understood that those who should have looked out for his interests and the interests of the Republic were unwilling to do so.  Some Senators wanted him to resist Caesar, yet embraced his political enemies who caused his exile.  He sought court cases which he could use to build his own power base. Consequently he felt compelled to strike an independent line.  

He maintained a line of independence as best as he could until the Conference at Luca (even then he displayed strong acts of independence).  He then realized that senseless opposition to the Triumvirs brought no benefit to the Republic.  In fact he felt that the opposition of Cato and his friends was doing damage to the system. Cicero admired Cato but saw his inflexibility as a serious hinderance to effect change for the better.  So after Luca, Cicero lent his support to the Triumvirs.  He swallowed many nasty pills but at the same time bound Pompey and Caesar closer and closer to him.  

A constant stream of people whom Cicero wanted to help and respected made their way to Caesar’s staff in Gaul.  A fair look at his efforts shows that he was doing everything he could to find ways to make Caesar a good citizen. Yet, Mitchell consistently portrays him as indecisive and wavering in his commitment, constantly in fear of his self and image.

The Civil War came and Mitchell presents Cicero as someone who could not come up with any clear plan.  

Mitchell at least could have included the possibility that Cicero was displaying sophisticated dexterity in attempting to find a way to work within the limits established by two politicians (Caesar and Pompey) in order to benefit the Republic.  His other choice was what he considered senseless opposition such as that presented by Cato the Younger.  As Cicero’s letters make clear he weighed his options in light of evidence from the past and events of his own time. Yet, this author refuses to examine Cicero’s letters and works and see the complexity of the events which confronted him.  (I suggest reading Philosophical Life in Cicero’s Letters by Sean McConnell. This work reveals the care with which Cicero conducted his actions and his willingness to take the difficult path.)

It just seems that Mitchell prefers to see Cicero as weak and without any long range plan.  I suggest balancing this assessment of Cicero with Magnus Wistrand’s Cicero Imperator.  In this book Wistrand makes a very strong case for Cicero’s ability to assemble a very complex plan and carry it out. 

Cicero stood firm in the final crisis against Antony.  Mitchell gives Cicero much credit for this.  But this is mixed with his insistence that much of what drove Cicero was his own legacy.  Mitchell’s assessment at the end criticizes Cicero for weakness, an inability to rise to his own standards and his blinding desire for praise and his vanity.  

I have always had trouble with this assessment of Cicero.  Why?  If Cicero was vain, he put his efforts and his life on the line to save his country, whereas Caesar was so vain that he destroyed his own country, caused the slaughter of his own citizens in order to protect his political position.  It was also clear in court cases conducted in Caesar’s presence, that the right of free thought was severely curtailed.  If anything was the antithesis of Cicero, it was the suppression of thought.  Cicero often repressed his own advantage for the benefit of the Republic- this is not vanity.     

In his De Legibus Cicero defined the nature of humans- the prime characteristic was the ability to reason and Cicero reasoned that this ability to think could only be developed, if there was freedom to think.  

It also seems that Mitchell picks and chooses from Cicero’s works what will fit his view of the man.  He, Cicero, was far more complex and craftier than Mitchell makes him out to be.  He only seems willing to praise his abilities at the very end when it is just a tad too late. 

Signed, 

The Obstinate Classicist

727. De Provinciis Consularibus and some letters by Marcus Tullius Cicero

Plato in Capitoline Museum- his example looms in the background of this summary

727.  De Provinciis Consularibus by Marcus Tullius Cicero.  

Some letters relating to this speech:

Ad Quintum ii. 1.  Before Dec 15, 57 BC.  It is a report on a Senate meeting.  There was a large attendance- some 200.  A Tribune, Lycus, brought up the issue of the Campanian Land Law which had been passed by Caesar during his consulship of 59 BC.  Remarks were made against Caesar, Gellius and there were complaints against Pompey who was not there.  The Senate sat silently.  Marcellinus observed that they felt that Pompey should be present for any discussion on this issue.  Then the Tribune Racilius brought up coming trials.  Marcellinus  was asked to open the debate.  Clodius’ activities were sharply condemned and a jury selection was proposed for dealing with his activities.  Several members moved against Clodius including Racilius, Lentulus, Philippus, Vetus Antistius.  The meeting was dismissed when Clodius and his pals caused a ruckus.  

Ad Quintum ii. 5.  end of March 56 BC.  Lentulus is praised as an excellent Consul.  He has been finding ways to block dangerous bills.  Cicero has been busy in court.

Ad Quintum ii. 6  April 9, 56 BC.  Cicero visited Pompey and had a very cordial meeting.  There did not appear to be anything amiss.  Pompey was on his way to Sardinia.  (On the way he met Caesar at Luca where it was decided that Cicero had to be silenced.  This was done through a message with Quintus.)

Ad Atticum  iv.5.  After June 20, 56 BC.  Atticus questions why Cicero gave copy of his speech (this speech, probably- De Provinciis Consularibus) to Pompey and not him first for advice.  Well, replied Cicero, it was Pompey who requested it.  Cicero told Atticus that he was not proud of it but he did what must be done.  Atticus wondered why Cicero not only supported the Triumvirate but also published a speech announcing it, so to speak.  Cicero replied:

1. I must have  political protection from my enemies.

2. Cicero claims that he has been moderate in his change of sides.

3. If this speech is well received by Caesar, he is sure that it will allow him (Cicero) room to maintain independence.

4. Some took delight when he opposed the Triumvirs but abandoned him when he needed them in a crisis.

Ad Atticum, iv.6.  April 19, 55 BC.  Cicero points out his difficult political position:

1.  Labeled as insane if he says what he should about the Republic.

2.  He looks like a slave, if he just chimes in with the Triumvirs

3.  He is treated like a captive, if silent.

4.  He can not retire, it is his code to enter the contest.

Ad Familiares 1.7 to Lentulus Spinther, June/July 56 BC.  Lentulus wants to know how people feel toward him (Lentulus).  Cicero- not easy to figure.  Those Lentulus has offended while pursuing public interests are openly against.  Those Lentulus has helped are less supportive now that they have what they wanted.  Former Consuls are not in support.  Pompey, after Lentulus wrote a letter is in good spirits toward Lentulus.

Lentulus hoped to restore Ptolemy to his throne in Egypt.  Cicero recommends that he arrange his affairs in such a way that Ptolemy be restored.  If successful, there will be praise, if not, jeers.  Lentulus must be the judge of what to do.  

Then to add more understanding, Cicero tells Lentulus that the manner in which he (Cicero) has been treated by those who should have found ways to bind him to common cause have been jealous and have alienated him (Cicero).  Cicero has determined that it is not his birth which they resent but distinctions which they resist.  Thus Lentulus’ problem and Cicero’s problem have this common ground.  Cicero writes:  Do not let the injustice of someone deter you from the excellence you have proposed for your life.  But keep in mind your future in politics in Rome.  Select with care those you can trust and those you should keep an eye on.

Then Cicero follows the above with the observation that the stupidity and lack of coherent plan (inconstantia) of Cato and friends has been out maneuvered by money, violence and shear force by appearing to possess greater legitimate authority.

The Triumvirate (Cicero , of course does not call it this- this is a modern term) has gained more than they expected as a result.  Caesar has gained 10 Legates he requested and pay for his troops and a successor has been blocked.  None of this is to my liking but it seems that neither calculation of our welfare must be considered by us without a sense of our moral goodness, nor must a calculation of our moral goodness be considered without a thought for our welfare.

Ad Familiares 1.9 to Lentulus Spinther, Rome, December, 54 BC.

Lentulus (presently governor in Cilicia) wrote to Cicero expressing surprise at his association with Caesar and Appius.  Lentulus has no problem with that but does ask for an explanation of the defense Cicero has made for Vatinius whom Cicero previously had slashed to pieces in court.

Cicero feels that he must go back in time.

1. Because of Lentulus, Cicero realizes that he has been recalled from exile.  For this Cicero owes Lentulus so much.

2.  Cicero felt he owed his country to remain involved, since it had helped Lentulus restore Cicero.  These sentiments, Cicero points out to Lentulus, were themes in Cicero’s speeches before the Senate.

3.  Cicero notices that Lentulus did not have an easy path in the complete restoration of Cicero- there was ill will and meager support from those who should have been more vigorous.

4.  The memorials in honor of the suppression of Catiline- those who should have helped did not and there was violence done to Cicero’s house and Quintus’.

5.  Cicero had no easy time getting compensation for the destruction of his property. But owed the Senate a great deal for what they had done.

6.  But Cicero had owed Pompey,too, for what he had done in the matter of his return but Cicero kept his political independence.

7.  Pompey made a special trip to Rome to stand witness for Sestius whom Cicero was defending.

8.  Vatinius said that Cicero was supportive of Caesar because Caesar was successful. (So this was a call for Cicero to display independence.)

9.  So at the trial of Sestius Cicero said that while Pompey was present that Bibulus’ difficulties were better than a triumph.  Cicero also said that the same people who kept Bibulus in his house, threw Cicero out of his.  Cicero thoroughly attacked Vatinus, his career and Tribunate.

Cicero, later in the Senate meeting, concerning the Campanian Land Issue, was so forceful that April 5th both Consuls, Marcelinus and Philippus put Cicero’s proposal to the vote and it passed that the land issue should be discussed May 15.

By doing so Cicero showed

a. He was willing to strike at the heart of the Triumvirate

b. He was independent

10.  Cicero’s speech affected Caesar and Pompey as he expected but others he did not anticipate.

11.  Pompey gave no hint of displeasure.  He left for Sardinia and Africa but met Caesar at Luca.

12. Cicero learned that Caesar AND Pompey were upset and Cicero claims that these were stirred up by Crassus.

13.  But Cicero’s principal informant was Quintus to whom Pompey gave an ultimatum.  Cicero was told not to discuss the land issue.

So at this point Cicero had a conversation with himself : 

Should he not honor his brother’s pledge?  But the real kicker was this- he learned that those things he had said which irritated Pompey, although in line with key Optimates (Senatorial leaders), pleased these that Pompey was annoyed and that Caesar would hate Cicero.  Plus these hugged and chummed with Clodius.

Cicero continues- Pompey is a primary figure.  Pompey and Cicero worked together in the past and Pompey helped to restore Cicero.  So support of Pompey was not inconsistent on Cicero’s part.  Caesar is close to Pompey.  Thus Cicero supports Caesar.

But as Plato said the kind of leaders determine the character of citizens.  Example- when the Senate voted to condemn Catiline, the power and authority of the Senate was evident.  The same was true down to the Consulship of Bibulus and Caesar.  But with Piso and Gabinius of 58 BC, Cicero was thrown under the bus, even though all of Italy come to Cicero’s defense.  Cicero had an army but no generals.  There were people ready to support but no one to lead.

Then Lentulus turned things around when he provided the leadership people needed to recall Cicero.  Thus these who showed weak inclination to prevent his exile possessed courage for Cicero’s recall. Even Caesar and Pompey were inclined to support the Senate.  

But Clodius was allowed to escape punishment and those who aided my restoration allowed Clodius to accommodate the memorial for ending the Catilinarian Conspiracy to his own purposes.  

These hostile and jealous expected Cicero to return fro exile humbled and was expected to retire from politics.  But these failed to see that Cicero was recalled with a universal cry.  Cicero thus felt an obligation to participate.

Despite the irritation expressed by the jealous and hostile, Cicero only worked to help friends and the Republic.  

Now Cicero sees it as hypocritical for those to criticize his support of Caesar, as they feel that I have abandoned my former ways.  But the problem is- where are the good men?

So Cicero has been forced to reconsider.  Plato comes to mind again- he said- push your country as far as you can but never use force.  Plato did not see his people agreeable to persuasion and force was improper.  But Cicero felt that he did not live in a country in a state of decline and as he was actively involved in politics, he hardly had the means to bail out.  But he, as opposed to Plato, has a cause to pursue which is the unity of two men for the benefit of the Republic.

So Cicero supports Vatinius in part because he supports Caesar.  Cicero reminds Lentulus that he has done the same kind of thing in the difficult world of politics.

Those who hug Clodius forced me to associate with Caesar and Pompey as a counter to their actions.

Now Cicero explains his connection with Crassus.  Cicero and Crassus had a set to in a Senate meeting.  Many said that they were glad that Cicero had come back to his old ways but then Cicero also heard that these were glad that Crassus would now be Cicero’s enemy.  So when Pompey and Caesar asked Cicero to make up with Crassus, he did.

Cicero’s aim has not changed: to serve the Republic.  But circumstances have caused him to alter the way he does things.

Cicero then cites Lentulus’ restraint and moderation as an example of the qualities Cicero admires: give and take, willingness to see and understand differences, willingness to see that there are many roads to do what is right, etc.

Cicero mentions a return to the Muses but in terms of publications in terms of ideas suitable to participate in politics.

Cicero gives frank advice concerning Appius and Lentulus’ dispute with him over a successor to his province and Cicero suggests that it is not worth it to oppose Appius but also says that he, Cicero, will support whatever decision he makes.  (This is another example of the kind of give and take Cicero misses in others.)

Summary of the letters

The letters to Quintus make it clear that Cicero strove for a position which allowed him an independent voice.  The letters to Atticus indicate that he felt that lack of support drove him into alliance with Caesar and a desire to find a way to benefit the state.  In the first letter to Spinther Cicero makes the point that it is getting difficult to judge those who offer solid support and those who drift with the wind.  He also points out that stupidity of the opposition (perhaps Cato and buddies) has severely blunted the their own efforts.  Clearly in this first letter Cicero expresses the difficult task of adhering to one’s principles and yet being effective in politics for the benefit of the state. In the second letter to Spinther, Cicero makes the case that if he desires to bring benefit to the state he must in the present climate change tactics and allies.  He is not happy about it but believes that Plato is right in that one should not do violence to one's country.  Cicero also implies the importance of people like themselves to remain involved because they possess that happy balance of give and take and a willingness to work with others.

The Speech

No one should be surprised at the line that I take concerning what is to be done about governors for the four provinces of Syria (Gabinius), Macedonia (Piso), Transalpine Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul (Caesar)  My resentment fits with the needs of the Republic concerning the assignment of Syria and Macedonia.  Publius Servilius’ lead I follow whose motion makes clear that both should be disgraced.  What else can I feel about those who exchanged my safety for their own benefit (both apparently made a deal wit Clodius to get plum provinces, if they let him do his will against Cicero).

I pass by the fact that they achieved their goal by condemning this Order, destroyed your prestige, deserted public oath, sacrificed the safety of the Roman people and harassed me and my family.

I will not mention the wrongs here in Rome.  But let’s turn to the provinces.

Macedonia was fortified at one time by success of governors.  It is now in chaos.  The army is lost.  Piso’s crimes have been paid by the destruction of our army.  Once a small force brought security, now an army can not contain the chaos.  Allies in the area are being bled dry.  The manner in which he administers justice has made us hated.  But for an honest legate, Byzantium would not have a single statue.  You purchased the province by overturning the Republic.  

His appearance belies his  depraved nature.  

What about Syria?  Chaos and mayhem rules here.  The Province has been run as a profitable business by Gabinius.  He has made the work of tax collecting impossible.  Gabinius has done nothing but find ways to destroy the tax gathers at the moment that our treasury is so low.  Do not be fooled by Piso’s serious brow- for he has deprived Gabinius of the title of worst.

Both of these must not be recalled but dragged here.  

There is a fascinating sentence:

Quo tempore si liberum vestrum iudicium fuisset nec totiens dilata res nec ad extremum e manibus erepta, restituissetis, id quod cupiebatis, vestrum auctoritatem iis, per quos erat emissa, revocatis et iis ipsis praemiis extortis quae erant pro scelere atque eversione patriae consecuti.

“At that time (during Clodius’ madness) if you had been free to make decisions and if so often the matter had not been put off and if the issue had not finally been snatched from your hands, you would have reclaimed, what you desired again and again, your moral authority when those have been recalled through whom your moral authority had been lost in the first place and when those prizes have been twisted out of the hands, prizes, which they had obtained through wickedness and subversion of the Republic.”

(This speech was referred to by Cicero as his palinode, a peace offering to Caesar and company.  And in ways it is just that but sentences like this also indicate that he intends to keep whatever measure of independence he can.  After all Piso was Caesar’s father in law and Gabinius was a close associate of Pompey.  Admittedly Cicero, as his letters indicate was forced to take a different direction, if he wished to benefit the Republic.  But the letters and this speech indicate that he not only bristled under the Triumvirs but struck out where and when he could.)

Gabinius has been refused a supplicate.  How embarrassing.  Piso sends no reports at all.  But Gabinius can take comfort in that one other time a supplication was refused.

Assigning Syria and Macedonia to the Consuls of 55 BC I approve.  But these will not govern until 54 BC.  So I move that Praetors be assigned to these for 55 BC.  

Even if these consuls were excellent, I will not recommend that Caesar be replaced.  

(Apparently at this point the Consul Lucius Marcius Philippus interrupted Cicero and said that Caesar was the cause of Cicero’s exile.  So why take this line?

Cicero responds:  I am thinking of the needs of the state.  Cicero then backs this up with examples from the past where people patched up differences for the sake of the state.  E.G. Gracchus alone of the Tribunes of the time defended Lucius Scipio even though he was bitterly opposed to Lucius and Africanus.  In public assembly he said that they had not suddenly become friends but that ill treatment of Lucius Scipio was not acceptable considering his services to the state.  He cites the example of Marius who was given an extraordinary command in an unusual situation.

So Caesar’s work is not yet done.  In spite of his success, much remains to be done.  He must bring it to a conclusion.  Though I am an enemy of Caesar I am a friend of the state.  

(These examples testify to Cicero’s definition of a true statesman found in his De Re Publica.)

The interest of the state must trump personal feelings.  My love of country brings me into a friendship with Caesar.  

(Then Cicero uses current examples of odd couples in politics.  These reveal a desire for give and take in terms of the state.)

Cicero states in full terms his reasons for opposing Clodius, even to his own peril.  He did this while some looked to their own interests, while defending Cicero. They played it safe by catering to both sides.

I have disagreed with Caesar in the past as you have.  Now I am in agreement with you as you have granted more supplications to Caesar than any general in history.  You have changed your mind.  I voted days of supplication for Pompey.  Pompey supports those for Caesar even though they surpass his own.

We have granted ten legates to Caesar and pay for his troops.  Now a cry is raised concerning my views in the assigning of these provinces.

It is not the charm of the province which holds Caesar there but a desire to complete the task.  Disliking Caesar is no reason to recall him from his province.  What Pompey did for other parts of the empire, let Caesar do in Gaul.

In the past we protected Italy and drove out the Gauls.  Now Caesar realizes that security can only come when the whole is conquered.

One proposal assigns Syria and Transalpine Gaul to the next consuls.  This validates the Lex Vatinia in that it leaves it in place in that Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum were assigned to Caesar in 59 BC.  Another proposal assigns Cisalpine Gaul and Syria to the next consuls.  But this would violate the Lex Vatinia because the consul would enter the province before Caesar’s term ended March 1, as the consul would enter the Province January 1.

Another proposal takes the war in Gaul into consideration even though that Senator disapproves of the Lex Vatinia.  His proposal fixes a day for the successor at March 1.  But this means that the Consul would have no province from January 1 through end of February.

All these proposals leave Piso in Macedonia.

These extraordinary honors voted to Caesar either were done because he deserves it or to bind him to this Senate.  If someone starts a career a darling of the people, this does not mean that when they have rendered good service that a place should not be found for them in this most august body.

(Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus may be been the one to propose that an opportunity to make Cisalpine Gaul a consular province should not be missed in that a popular law, Lex Vatinia, passed under dubious or even illegal circumstance removed it from the prevue of the Senate.  But Cicero politely suggests that it is unwise to miss an opportunity to bring Caesar into the fold.  Cicero possessed immense respect for Marcellinus)

Cicero reminds the Senators:  I was asked by Caesar to be a member of Board of Five (for his Land Law).  Caesar asked me to be part of his political alliance (Triumvirate) and Caesar offered me a position as Legate.  I refused all three.  I went my own independent way, for I would not abandon my principles for safety.

Caesar transferred Clodius to the plebs which allowed him to run for Tribune.  Either he did so because he was angry with me for the rejections or because he failed to win me over.  But then he offered me a position on his staff.  I declined.  And I had no idea the danger which would come to the state and me with the next consuls.

Caesar has repeatedly displayed good will toward me.

If I did not want leading Senators to share in my difficulties (exile?) they should not want me to be a companion in their hostility toward Caesar.  I can defend the acts of Caesar when in the past I did not attack or defend his policies when he was Consul.

By the advice of leading Senators I saved the state, by the advice of these same I did not join up with Caesar because they denied the legitimacy of those laws passed during Caesar’s tenure.  YET they decried my exile but said that it was passed legally.  

A leading Senator (Bibulus?) said that my exile was a disaster to the state but that it was done properly.

I have no ill will about what was said but I am going to use it to support my argument.  For the laws of Caesar are declared invalid by many of these but conveniently ignore the same set of circumstances concerning my exile.

If Clodius’ laws are valid, even when circumstances declared his adoption illegal (to become a pleb), these people can not willy nilly choose to examine these laws with a fine tooth comb but give others just a quick look see, when both were carried under the same questionable circumstances.  If I do have disagreements with Caesar, I must first look to the needs of the state and pick my fight with him some other time.

Levissime feram, si forte aut iis minus probaro, qui meum inimicum repugnante vestra auctoritate texerunt, aut iis, si qui meum cum inimico suo reditum in gratiam vituperabunt, cum ipsi et cum meo et cum suo inimico in gratiam non dubitarint redire.

But very lightly I will endure, if by chance either less to these I find approval, who concealed my enemy (Clodius) while your authority resisted, or to those if any will attack my reconciliation with their enemy (Caesar), when they themselves both with my and their own enemy (Clodius) do not hesitate to make reconciliation.

Signed,

The Obstinate Classicist