My Roman Garden- presented at ACL 2014-William and Mary

My Roman Garden 2014

Biclinium in vineyard near amphitheater, Pompeii

The Romans had various gardens.    There was the vegetable garden much like those of today- in fact modern gardens are very roman for many vegetables grown today are plants developed and improved by the Romans.  The famous family of Caepio may have been well known at one time for their onions, that of Cicero for the chickpea and Fabius for the bean.  There are other gardens, formal and informal- both of these gardens were attractive but also very practical. It was the place where the family often spent a great deal of time- here they dined, walked, talked, sat in silence and enjoyed peace and argued.  This is the garden primarily which we will look at today.  

Why bother to develop a Roman garden?  Can there possibly be any advantages?  To someone devoted to Roman antiquity? To someone trying to interpret texts?

Olive, a symbol for Mercury

Think of the number of times something has been missed simply because of preoccupation with something else.  That scene in the Aeneid where Mercury swoops down from Mt. Atlas to put a fire under Aeneas.  It is easy  to focus on some deep meaning. But if a person is not careful it is easy to miss the realization how much Virgil loved nature and how keenly he observed it.

So when the garden began to take shape and as plants were added and more and more time was spent in the garden, passages in Cicero, Virgil, Ovid or pick your favorite author, became moments to connect with nature instead of passages to be studied in a windowless room.  In fact much of Latin literature is meant to be read outside. 

Entrance from the road

Entrance from barn area

Walkway- house of Tiburtinus, Pompeii

There are three ways to enter this garden.  One from the road, one from the barn ( Romans reveled in design which moved from dark to light or light to dark) and one from the house. From left to right we see herb beds, a pergula with a wisteria clawing its way up, then moving on to a circular graveled area entered via a winding path and last fruit trees, apples, followed by the vegetable garden now with raised beds.

Wisteria

Wisteria

Years ago before this garden was conceived, there was a cherry tree beside which a wisteria seed was placed.  It grew and grew, strangled the cherry and the pergula came along to support the wisteria. This wisteria has long since killed the cherry and now is putting pressure on the pergula.  Now it can be understood why the Romans let such things go- they are beautiful, attractive and delightful.  If the wisteria ever destroys the pergula, another will be built. Better that than cutting down the wisteria.  Just think of those murals with scenes of vining plants climbing a pergula and embracing it.    Beauty trumps practical.  

Yet the wisteria provides shade, even protection in a light rain, and comfort on a hot day.  

The open circle is for cooler times.  Here the sun can be enjoyed and provide warmth and a view of the sky.  Romans found the sky fascinating night and day. 

Warm reading area

Chimney swifts arrive in north eastern Ohio sometime in late Spring. They build their nests with mud and sticks inside the chimney and provide much pleasure because they can be heard descending into the chimney from inside the house. When the young hatch, their eager voices can be heard the moment mom and dad enter the chimney with a mouthful of insects.  No way could anyone ever forget the sight of these agile flyers as they enter and exit a chimney.  Every time they change direction in flight it means that they have seen an insect and grabbed it.  

While watching these acrobats twist turn at will, the sheer beauty of Mercury on his way to tell Aeneas to shove off becomes striking. Mercury sets out and flies down from Mt Atlas and - well, let Virgil tell:

Chimney Swifts

from Mt. Atlas Mercury headlong with his whole body hurtled himself toward the waves, like a bird which around the shores, around rocks full of fish low flies near the water's surface.  In the same way between land and sky he cut the air coming from Mt Atlas. ( IV. 253-258 ) 

Of course the poetry is wonderful, the style is so very artful but it takes on value because it is based on the real world, the world any Roman could see, imagine and enjoy.  The chimney swifts make Virgil's passage beautiful and very real.  This would not have been noticed without this garden. These lines would be worthwhile to translate just for the beauty of the scene.  Virgil was outside in his garden when he wrote these words. 

Romans placed baskets in ivy beds and let the ivy engulf the basket.  Here logs were used. 

Ivy mounds buried in snow

The mound of ivy takes on a pleasant shape in winter.  Virgil's description of Mercury's flight past Mt Atlas could easily be appreciated here:

Ivy mounds

Then flying along he sees the head and lofty sides of Mt Atlas, who balances the sky at his peak.  Atlas whose pine covered head continuously with dark clouds is pounded by wind and rain. Snow covers his shoulders, then rivers of snow trail from his chin and his beard bristling with pine is stiff with ice.  (IV.  246-251)

No birds, no mountains but the chill of ice and snow is there. Was Virgil swiftly composing these lines while outside in the c

old? Imagine Virgil's delight when he witnessed falling leaves and then composed the scene near the River Styx.

In Cicero's work, De Oratore, he lays out what an orator needs for excellence.  Here, just as in the Aeneid, it is easy to miss how much these people enjoyed nature. In De Oratore I.28 we see Cicero's beloved teacher, Crassus, and friends talking and walking through a garden.  In II.20 they are walking along a portico, looking out on to a palaestra, part of a garden, around which were several benches. The scene in III.17 is interesting as Cotta, one of the gathering, relates how after their rest he found Crassus in the garden in serious thought, so much so that Cotta backs away.  In III.18 they decide to locate in the woods because it is shady and cool.

The literary images makes the scenes come alive.  The scene is presented as one familiar to Romans. It was chosen as a place suitable for discussion.  A garden breathes life into old books.

Leaf skeleton in early Spring

Looking at Virgil, Pliny, Cicero, Ovid and others through the lens of a garden it becomes clear that Romans liked nature.  They enjoyed flowers, insects, trees and the fragrance these bring and animals.The very nature of their gardens attracted countless birds, insects and reptiles.

In De Natura Deorum Cicero sets out the different views on religion.  One view, that of Epicurus,  suggests that the universe is the product of chance.  Beyond the material world there is nothing.   Matter is all that matters.  It seems that the epicureans are winning the argument that chance and not any plan has brought life and the universe to this point. They met at someone's home, seated around a curved bench in a garden.  

Maybe they are correct but it seems that it is more than valuable to have someone like Cicero who holds out for another view. I have learned few things in life but of this I am sure- no advancement has ever been made in understanding when everyone is in agreement.  Partly because each person must learn what others have learned.  Knowledge is not something which one person learns and then everyone else accepts it as truth- that is the road to dogma.  The acquisition of knowledge is constant and ever reaches back.  

Even though our culture has so many differences with antiquity it is well to remember that the nature and needs of humans have not changed.  

The stoic replies to the ideas of Epicurus:

Examine the earth, placed in the middle, a solid sphere and everywhere rolled up into itself by its own gravity, clothed with flowers, plants, trees, fruits, all of whose incredible magnitude with its own endless variety is distinguished /marked.  Add to this the cool ever flowing fountains, the crystal clear rivers, their banks clothed with radiant green, the vaulted loftiness of caves, rugged rocks and cliffs…..but how much beauty there is of the sea, the appearance of its vast expanse, countless variety of islands, charming shores and bays… (II. 98)

In another work, De Finibus (III.73), he wonders how anyone can make judgements about good and evil unless the whole system of nature has been learned.   

The garden was the place where these people thought, wrote and talked and argued.  The garden influenced thought and supported argument.

It is difficult to miss the fascination, the respect and awe the group has for the world around them.  The garden questions a common modern view that all of life, the complexity of humans is no more than statistical data.  

De Natura Deorum takes place around an exhedra at someone's house.  There is one similar at Pompeii- part of a tomb with a garden at one time behind it.  It makes sense that this discussion took place in a garden in an exhedra.  Its shape is very conducive for a discussion as no one is left out.  Those present must surely have looked around at the plants, sky, birds over head as points were made.  In a garden one can hear their voices.

So often chance seems to explain it all.  But then again how can chance come from reason and order? How can chance be predictable?

A curiosity

To return to the garden in winter setting, there was this leaf whose stem somehow imbedded in the snow.  Look closely and then imagine how the circles were made in the snow.  The bulbous end of the stem kept the leaf in place but the wind blew from enough different directions to cause the leaf to spin.  That is chance, an accident. A wondrous accident.  But the complexity of the leaf, its structure, development and final form is merely a result of accident?  The fellow who espoused Epicureanism would say yes but the stoic would point to plants about them and express doubt.  Perhaps life is too complex for numbers alone to explain it all.

In Pliny the Elder's Natural History we learn that peppermint (menta) was used to stuff pillows and brushed on tables to provide a pleasant scent for dining(XIX.160.).  This was also used to increase energy, promote eagerness for food, prevents milk from souring(XX.147) .

In Ovid's Baucis and Philemon we see Baucis leveling the table with a broken piece of pottery; and then wipe clean the table with mint. (VII. 662-663)

The mint just outside the door no doubt was used to bring pleasant odor to the scene and make their guests eager to eat.  The scene must have been one familiar to anyone reading this.  One of the most fun areas to weed in this garden are these patches of mint.  Afterwards the hands are very redolent and the fragrance lasts.

Herbs, a pot and a frog- all of which were welcome in a Roman Garden

One of the pleasantries of a garden is that nature is everlasting and that the worries with which the news media bombards us pales beside the pervasive power of nature.  

So what good would  a garden be during trying times?  During the Civil War of the Republic, Roman armies had marched all over Spain, Africa, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt by the time Cicero wrote to Varro in June/May of 46.  In 46 BC all was not going well.  The Civil War was still raging. Munda was yet to come.  The courts were a mess. Tens of thousands died on fields of battle at the siege of Brundisium, early battles in Spain, Pharsalus, Zela and Thapsus.  Elections, real elections were non-existent. 

Gardens are havens for fascination- note spider deep in nest

In a letter Cicero mentions to Varro (177) the difficulty of enduring the arrogance of Caesar's crowd, the pain of watching what was taking place in Rome and the need to dive into literature and philosophy.  Cicero does suggest that if no one seeks their advice, perhaps they should write on political theory in hopes of the future. As Varro and Cicero make their plans for a visit, Cicero writes:

if you are less able to come to me, I will rush to you.  If you have a garden as part of your library, nothing will be lacking (180).

When Cicero went to visit Varro he looked forward to their talks, Varro's library and garden. Gardens empowered these people. Was there mint nearby? Peppermint?  The times could gnaw at the heart but books and a garden could make it better.  

A doll made from an althea flower

Sometimes a garden can give us a glimpse into the lively imagination of children. A sweet young lady picked an althea, placed it on a spindle and imagined a dancer with skirt billowing as she spun about. 

These gardens meant more than the house itself.  After the earthquake at Pompeii in 62 AD, Jasemski's digs at Pompeii showed over and over that the first repairs done were to the gardens. ( D. Octavius Quartio/Loreius Tiburtinus) 

So it makes sense when Cicero went to check on his brother's place that he gives an update on progress for his house at Laterium.  While there were many comments about room plans and column alignment, Cicero commented on the utter beauty of the gardener's efforts (21):

although your house which is a place for contemplation seems to scold the insanity of certain luxurious houses. I praised the gardener. Ivy has so thoroughly entwined everything ; the foundation of the house and the spaces between the columns of the walkway that those draped statues seem themselves to be busy in the garden and offering the ivy for sale.

Thyme was used to treat snake bites and huge fields were grown to allow bees to make honey of it, honey which was highly prized(XX.245).

Few herbs have the potent fragrance and flavor of rosemary.

Rose from my parent's farm

Rose was used in perfume, chaplets, garnish on tables and amorous crowns in bedrooms. (XXI.  14-15)

Penny royal (puleium) was used for its sweet scent and to relieve headache(XIX.159-160).

In Pliny the Elder it is fun to see that Varro, a very serious scholar, had a sense of humor.  Pliny says: 

As far as Varro was concerned a crown of pennyroyal was more properly in the bedroom than one of the rose for it possessed the ability to relieve headache.(XX.152)

Sculptures of rabbits , deer, ducks, dogs, cows, birds, and so on have been  found on site in Pompeii.  Here we have Rana custos who is on guard duty and La Tartaruga plods. Romans did invite tortoises into their homes as they devoured insects.

Ara Pacis- there are numerous insects and birds

If ever in Rome, spend a day sitting around the Ara Pacis.  It is a place of peace.  Here numerous plants favored, used, grown, admired by ordinary Romans are everywhere.  There are grasshoppers.  This fellow feasts on the flower of the acanthus.  But he needs color- a garden can provide that.  Interestingly many plants are common weeds. Lizards dart about.  Snails softly glide. Frogs are there too.  But frogs are green.  What is more beautiful than a butterfly?  He begs for color.  How about a striking yellow? And look at that morning glory; blue would suit it just fine. Here one can learn that there is no need for statues in a garden, for the rose speaks of Venus, the frog of Apollo, the scorpion of Dionysus and grain of Ceres. A garden makes the Ara Pacis explode with color. 

Ovid's  Baucis and Philemon kindly receive a disguised Jupiter and Mercury.  Lelex, the story teller, describes the area.  An oak tree beside a linden stands among grassy hills surrounded by a low wall.  On the lower branches hang garlands placed there by those who have gone to visit the spot.  This is a garden tomb such as those at Pompeii.  Such a story would conjure up the reality of the presence of divinity.  A garden empowers the mind to color a tomb.  The sight takes on its own intrinsic beauty. What greater gift can divinity give than for two so devoted to pass together while doing what they loved?  These tombs are places of celebration and joy far more than a spot for grief.

Gardens are a vehicle for time travel.  Pliny the Elder gives detailed information on the grafting of trees.  He says that it was discovered by accident- after a farmer  had cut down a row of trees he jammed young branches into and among the stumps. The fence above began to grow using the base of the other tree below as a host. (XVII. 101).  From there the Romans became masters at grafting. 

Apple trees are an odd group.  Take a seed from a yellow delicious, plant it and what do we get?  Who knows but maybe not a yellow delicious.  The Romans somehow figured out that grafting preserved genetic purity.  If one takes a twig, called a scion, from a yellow delicious,  and grafts a bud to a suitable trunk, we get a yellow delicious.  There are some apples very very old which have been preserved through the centuries in this manner.  The pendu plat apple is the oldest known apple, brought to England by the Romans, perhaps during the time of Claudius. When near this tree it is easy to argue that this tree, the pendu plat, the one here in this garden, is a continuation of one grafted by Columella, Cato or Pliny.  When we touch this tree, we can touch Cato or Cicero.  A garden allows us to walk with Cicero as he discusses natural law along the Liris River in De Legibus.

Technology is not needed for time travel.  All we need is a love of nature. That has been here with us since the beginning of time.

Why have a garden? In a day and age when Hollywood mentality sets the tone for society's view of the past, it is nice to meet reality and wallow with Romans in the music of Nature's lessons. After watching Romans tend, fit, weed and fill their gardens, I have a suspicion that this is their source of power and this is at least part of the reason why they toiled and fought so hard.  

In every garden lies a pot of gold.

749. Post Reditum in Senatu by Cicero

Cicero- Capitoline Museum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

748. Cicero and the Jurists by Jill Harries

Rostra- from here the voice of liberty once spoke!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

746. De Amicitia by Cicero

My best friend, Sarah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scaevola:  Please, do.

Laelius:  I encourage you

ut amicitam omnibus rebus humanis anteponas

“to prefer friendship to all other human matters”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the limits of friendships?

There are three views:

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

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

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The key is virtue- with this all comes together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cilicia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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