Cicero

[Germanicus]

I have not seen a thread about Cicero and was prompted in another thread where it was commmented that Cicero had a knack for spotting political talent. It seemed odd to me because he neglected to spot he who is often considered the very best talent on the rise, Octavian. (something about using him and discarding him ??)

 

I haven't read the man himself, so can't claim to be an expert, but the impression I have gleaned is one of a truly amazing speaker, who's carefully chosen words were not always so carefully chosen, and landed him in trouble from time to time. No military man, he longed to be the savior of his people so much that he beat up the one intrigue of his consulship to make it so. If anyone had a talent for a good beat up, it was this man.

 

So that's my current feeling on the subject, what's your's and why ?

[Princeps]

AFAIK he most definately did spot Octavian. As you say he was a great speaker and propagandist, an this lead him to make several speeches about the moral corruptness and treachery of Antony (ranging from him taking a barbaric Egyptian wife, through to his conduct at public banquets ie consuming too much alcohol and vomiting into his lap).

[P.Clodius]

Cicero was in the roman eyes a mediocre politician, he tended to flip flop on issues where the romans valued resoluteness. Reading about Cicero you will fully understand the roman concept of Dignitas and why it was so important to the politician, he was always blowing his own trumpet. He achieved greatness after his death, especially from the enlightenment onwards because his letters provided an "eyewitness" account of the tailend of the Roman Revolution. He had a fantastic sense of humor, one which often landed him in trouble as he tended to crack a joke at someones expense when it was not expedient to do so. He was a middle of the road politician, advocating compromise between the orders while touting the supremacy of the Senate in all things political. He was the model govenor (Cilicia), and scolded M.J. Brutus for money lending during his Brutus' govenorship of Corinth. Brutus lending money at extortionate rates when it was "forbidden" for a member of the senate to conduct any business. Most of his "speeches" weren't speeches at all but writen from memory after the fact and were therefore embelished. Some speeches were never spoken but written as manifestos, such as the majority of the Phillipics. He was intimidated under preassure and had a tendency to be somewhat meek while delivering critical speeches but in the end met his death braver than most after being proscribed by M. Antony.

[Pertinax]

"Rubicon" gives a ready to go version of Cicero's behaviour and speechifying-he certainly met his end with resolution .

[phil25]

Cicero's death became him probably more than anything in his life.

 

A good lawyer, her certainly deserves credit for creating a new style of oratory. But as in so many things, his self-advertisement was over-blown.

 

He became consul only because it was convenient for the boni to oppose someone else (Catalina), and then blew out of all proportion his deeds. I don't think there is any way that Catalina was the threat to the republic that Cicero made him out to be, or Cicero's action so important as he maintained.

 

It would be interesting to know whether - if more individuals' writings had survived in the quantity that Cicero's have, they would make similar claims about their deads - surely Pompeius would!!

 

But i doubt, even so, that those other statemen of the republic would have been so pompous and franklyself-satisfied as Cicero.

 

A man who had a moment of fame and could never forget it.

 

Phil

[Ursus]

I'll just echo what Phil wrote. His deep seated desire for fame was at odds with his frumpy Stoical lecturing.

 

A great lawyer, a great Latin speaker. A great Roman? Eh...

[Primus Pilus]

I'll just echo what Phil wrote. His deep seated desire for fame was at odds with his frumpy Stoical lecturing.

 

A great lawyer, a great Latin speaker. A great Roman? Eh...

 

Indeed, though I'm more inclined to believe that it was his social positioning as an Italian novus homo (and his undying awareness of this personal flaw) that made his politics such a roller coaster ride rather than a desire for fame (though this was certainly a part as well). Always aiming to please and be accepted he supported most any measure that was generally considered the most popular of the moment (among the aristocracy that is), and set himself up as the savior of Rome to infiltrate the ranks of the elite.

 

Though I am also quite convinced of his love of the Republic.

 

I highly recommend as an introduction Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician. Everitt is decidedly pro-optimate and anti-Caesarian but its a wonderful read just the same.

[Tully]

I think Cicero did what he could as a new man without military power and being outside the inside circle. I think he flip flopped on many things as he was trying to do the politically expedient thing. I think he lost faith in the optimate ruling elite, but not their values and at least he vindicated himself by being steadfast against tyranny (against Antony) at the end. I really think towards the end of his life he finally gave up his false airs and began to speak his mind, finally comfortable with himself and with the prospect of certain death.

 

For all his faults, you can't say that for many at the time.

[phil25]

Interesting though that in being "steadfast against tyranny", Cicero was silent under Caesar (apart from snide remarks in his letters) but sttod up against a lesser man (Antonius).

 

Could it be that Cicero was afraid of what a really great man could do to him, but thought his chances better against the lesser? If so, it was yet another, and final, miscalculation.

 

But to me, Cicero's silence under Caesar, speaks volumes. The "saviour of his country" was 9to some degree at least) a coward. Though he faced his death (after much dithering which led to it) bravely enough.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cicero was one of only 10 or so New Men to serve as consuls since the office was opened to them in the 4th century. He was able to rise because he was a brilliant defense attorney (almost never a prosecutor), made many friends, and generally went out of his way not to make enemies. As consul, he saved Rome from Catiline, who was one of the two biggest scumbags to ever besmirch the streets of Rome (Clodius was the other). As governor of Cilicia, he was the model of what needed to be done to establish the security of Rome amidst her possessions, which was the key to Rome's longevity.

 

Sure, Cicero was a self-promoter, but so what? He was a Stoic, not a Christian, so he would have thought it odd to ask humility from him. No Roman went for humility. They wanted to outcompete their colleagues and surpass their ancestors. Cicero did that, and he earned the everlasting fame he achieved.

[Germanicus]

He was a Stoic, not a Christian, so he would have thought it odd to ask humility from him. No Roman went for humility. They wanted to outcompete their colleagues and surpass their ancestors. Cicero did that, and he earned the everlasting fame he achieved.

 

Are you saying he was a product of his environment ?

[phil25]

Cicero's posthumous fame depends almost entirely on the survival of his writings.

 

There are NOT in the most part what he said, but rewrites aimed to present him in the best light. some, like the (second?) Philippic he was even too craven to speak, but simply circulated among his friends in an attempt to besmirch Antonius. I don't find that particularly laudable.

 

If the writings of more men of his rank and time had had their works survive them in such quantity, I wonder whether we would hold "Tully" in such high regard. I don't think his contemporaries were that impressed, except, as I agree, about his ability as a lawyer. The fact is that several generations of classical scholars, over the C17th-C19th were brough up on Tully and told he was "best" in everything. His ideas chimed with Western liberalism in many ways, however misguided or impractical they may have been in Rome in C1stBC.

 

As must have been the case in his lifetime, there is room for two views of Cicero - I just happen to adhere to the overblown charlatan,self-deciving opinion.

 

Would Ceasar or a Pompeius, had they been Consul at the time, have made the mess of countering Catalina's threat (assuming there was one) that cicero did? Would they have allowed themselves to be "punished" thereafter as Cicero was?

 

Phil

[P.Clodius]

As consul, he saved Rome from Catiline, who was one of the two biggest scumbags to ever besmirch the streets of Rome (Clodius was the other).

As usual your post is inline with what the primary sources would have you believe. Try to see beyond what they wanted you to see instead of linear like the narrow minded moron whose user name you took!

Edited December 23, 2005 by P.Clodius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Most of Cicero's correspondence was released by Augustus and edited by his anti-Republican (and anti-Antony) lackeys. The picture of Cicero that emerges from these writings is no different from that of other sources, so there's no point attempting to disparage primary sources in favor of rank speculation and pedestrian cynicism.

 

That Cicero had little power cannot be disputed, and he often behaved less boldly against the enemies of the Republic than he should have and often too late. However, once the political disputes of Rome passed into the hands of complete thugs and brigands such as Anthony and Clodius, there was little he could do except work to give the law the power it needed to be enforced. Which is why, I suppose, Cicero decided to prosecute Milo, who technically broke the law by having Clodius finished off after the brigand attacked, despite Clodius' violent vendetta against Cicero. Here, Cicero's dedication to his principles was greater than his desire for vengeance, which is more than I can say for most people.

 

History, though, is sometimes just. When the authors of petty violence completed their blood work, their handiwork remained lying in the streets for only a day or so until buried. Today, hardly anyone remembers men like Clodius except as an obscure footnote in the annals of history (or as the guy who slept with his sister Clodia). Yet when a brilliant lawyer and insightful political philosopher left his work on the page for anyone to read, his name could be seen for two thousand years. Ultimately, this is why any schoolchild can tell you who Cicero is, yet hardly one could remember the petty thug who forced him into exile.

 

He was a Stoic, not a Christian, so he would have thought it odd to ask humility from him. No Roman went for humility. They wanted to outcompete their colleagues and surpass their ancestors. Cicero did that, and he earned the everlasting fame he achieved.

Are you saying he was a product of his environment ?

 

No, just not a Christian and so not particularly worried about whether he appeared humble. For my own part, I agree with Aristotle that humility (like arrogance) is a species of dishonesty and should be considered a vice rather than a virtue. But this issue is better left to the thread on moralia.

[phil25]

CATO: "The picture of Cicero that emerges from these writings is no different from that of other sources, so there's no point attempting to disparage primary sources in favor of rank speculation and pedestrian cynicism."

 

Cato, you're obviously not an historian, or maybe your critical faculties are simply weak.

 

My point was that we simply do not have the materials on which to make the comparison you suggest. We do not know Lucullus, or Hortensius in anything like the detail we know Cicero. Secondly, my post in no way "disparaged" primary sources - I merely evaluated and used them.

 

I am not denying Cicero's sature - I (as many in his own time did) do not see him as one of the greatest of Romans. I find his pomposity and self-regard humourous more than admirable. So often he was caught out in his own cleverness - unable to counter Clodius' imposition of exile for what he felt was his finest hour (can you see Caesar settling for that? as I asked before); or Octavian seeing through him and his "cunning plan".

 

But if you like and admire Cicero - that's fine by me. No need to be defensive about it. You are entitled to your view.

 

But equally, be realistic. Cicero's reputation is largely posthumous and the result of the survival of so much of his writing - Seneca is another example. Whether edited by Augustus or others hardly matters in that statistical sense.

 

Phil