Cicero

[M. Porcius Cato]

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".

 

Caesar and Octavian each had a military machine at their beck and call. Cicero had none. What would you have had him do against Clodius' imposition of exile? Having the benefit of your professional historical expertise, I'm really very curious.

 

Earlier you depicted Cicero's circulation of the second Phillipic as 'craven'. Again, given Antony's military power and known disregard for the law, what would you have had Cicero do?

 

As an historian, you are no doubt aware that in any evaluation of primary sources one must consider whether the author was at liberty to write what he wished. In point of fact, Antony had legions and was rapidly assuming dictatorial powers more onerous than any assumed by Caesar, thereby putting Cicero in exactly the same position as Renaissance atheists, Soviet dissidents, and Iranian critics of Islam. To call Cicero's Phillipics, most of which he delivered publicly and with full knowledge that he was risking his life, "craven" is astoundingly unjust.

Edited December 24, 2005 by M. Porcius Cato

[phil25]

Cato: I am unjust in my opinions of historical personalities, because they are just that, subjective opinions.

 

There is no right or wrong here - it is simply an evaluation of the scanty evidence we have.

 

By the way, at the time of Catalina, Caesar had no military machine at his back - but I still cannot imagine him being as supine as Cicero.

 

And as for courage - it was Cicero himself who continually harked back to his courage against Catalina - courage not much in evidence later.

 

Unable to bring himself to actually help kill Caesar, Cicero was happy enpugh to carp and criticise the "Liberators" for not going farther; and was keen to ensure the coup was effective, but only if he himself could avoid responsibility or danger.

 

But, I am not against Cicero for one moment - i regard him as a significant figure and a great lawyer. I just think he needs to be seen in perspective.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

And as for courage - it was Cicero himself who continually harked back to his courage against Catalina - courage not much in evidence later.

Unable to bring himself to actually help kill Caesar, Cicero was happy enpugh to carp and criticise the "Liberators" for not going farther; and was keen to ensure the coup was effective, but only if he himself could avoid responsibility or danger.

 

Generally, I agree. My guess is that the Liberators avoided getting Cicero involved because they knew what a blabber-mouth he was and that they suspected he wouldn't have the stomach to follow through. Cicero, I think we can both agree, was a very fine lawyer and his rise was an accomplishment in its own, but he was never able to match his political vision with actions that were equally worthy. I admire the Phillipics as an eloquent (if belated) protest and a fitting (if now quixotic) attempt to prevent the permanent loss of Roman freedom, but Rome's need for a Washington was greater than its need for a John Adams or Patrick Henry.

[phil25]

And as for courage - it was Cicero himself who continually harked back to his courage against Catalina - courage not much in evidence later.

Unable to bring himself to actually help kill Caesar, Cicero was happy enpugh to carp and criticise the "Liberators" for not going farther; and was keen to ensure the coup was effective, but only if he himself could avoid responsibility or danger.

 

Generally, I agree. My guess is that the Liberators avoided getting Cicero involved because they knew what a blabber-mouth he was and that they suspected he wouldn't have the stomach to follow through. Cicero, I think we can both agree, was a very fine lawyer and his rise was an accomplishment in its own, but he was never able to match his political vision with actions that were equally worthy. I admire the Phillipics as an eloquent (if belated) protest and a fitting (if now quixotic) attempt to prevent the permanent loss of Roman freedom, but Rome's need for a Washington was greater than its need for a John Adams or Patrick Henry.

 

Cato

 

The American republican references (was Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty of give me a Coke"?) are somewhat lost on a British monarchist like me, but I think I grasp your meaning. At the end of the day, I respect your view, and in reality I suspect there is little difference (save nuance) between us.

 

Happy Christmas,

 

Phil

 

[M. Porcius Cato]

Phil--Io Saturnalia!

--Cato

[P.Clodius]

Which is why, I suppose, Cicero decided to prosecute Milo...

 

Pro Milone...Pro means what?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Which is why, I suppose, Cicero decided to prosecute Milo...

 

Pro Milone...Pro means what?

 

For--doh! My bad. Forgot which side Cicero was on. Better take my meds.