Cicero, Great Statesman Or Over-rated

[Julius Ratus]

I have only felt The Augusta's anger at Cicero once, while translating a particularly hard passage in Latin class, then I translated some Livy and found my self longing for dear Tully.

 

As far as Cicero the author goes, his Latin is impecable, even though his gerunds and dependant clauses are extravagant sometimes.

 

Now I shall attempt to step into the Ciceronian War between The Augusta and Cato. I will side with Cicero for a very un-Catonian reason. By surrendering early and playing the middle man he benefitted the Divine Julius in his work. I very much admire Caesar for carrying on with Marius' policies in freeing the lower classes from the abuse of the Aristocrats. Like Marius, Cicero made himself and he had no shiny name to fall back on like Scipio and Brutus had. Everything that Cicero was, he made for himself. He was the last great Novus Homo.

 

As for the assassins of Caesar, for once I agree with Dante. The reason the devil has three mouths is so he can chew on Judas, Brutus, and Cassius simultaneously.

[The Augusta]

Now I shall attempt to step into the Ciceronian War between The Augusta and Cato.

 

Julius Ratus, how dare you suggest Cato and I are at war? I would not presume.......

 

Seriously - I have the greatest of respect for this esteemed member of the Forum..... and I did not jest when I said that he terrifies me! :notworthy:

...

[Julius Ratus]

Of course I did not suggest that you and Cato were at war, only that you were pursuing policy by other means...

 

edit: I forgot a word

Edited November 1, 2006 by Julius Ratus

[M. Porcius Cato]

As for your point on Cicero apparently renouncing tyrants: notice that Cicero only launched his full-scale condemnation of Caesarian 'tyranny' after the death of Caesar. This in effect proves what has been frequently stated throughout this thread: Cicero was a contradictory coward.

 

There is plenty of evidence for Cicero's cowardice and ingratiating behavior, but I'd not include his silence during Caesar's dictatorship, when free speech and free competition for political office had come to an end. Under such conditions of dictatorship, there is no point in speaking out--there is only revolution or submission. The chief reason Cicero did not join the plot to rid the republic of that thug Caesar was that no one trusted Cicero's resolve. However, once the deed was done, Cicero was energetic in attempting to prevent another Caesar from gaining power.

[theilian]

How much relevance does Roman history have to our own time? Just look at a thread like this and see how much passion there is for people who have been dead for 2,000 years ago.

 

Until very recently, I have been a real ignormus (not that I know much better now) about Roman history, and thought that Caesar was simply an evil tyrant who killed democracy. Wow, now I know that things are much more complex.

 

I still don't know how I should judge Caesar or Cicero, but passion with which people hate or love is quite fascinating.

I've been particularly interested in Cicero, because he's quite interesting guy. Re Caesar, we are probably judging him based on our imagination of him rather than who he really is. But with Cicero, it's more concrete.

I'm not all that much put off by his personality (coward, hypocrite, vain, full of himself, etc). In HBO Rome forum, he seems to be universally hated, which is a bit surprising (well, maybe not). Sure, it can be rather embarrassing, but I also find myself smiling at his foibles. I laughed when Cicero wrote to Atticus (about his nephew telling around how Caesar should watch out for Cicero) that he would have been concerned if Caesar had not known him to be coward.

What disappoints me most about him is his total lack of concern for the common people of Rome. That there was popularist movement itself indicates that the feeling of social injustice was not totally a foreign concept in ancient Rome.

I am not sure if he has always been Optimate or was driven toward them by Catilina (both sound convincing), and I don't know if there could be a third way, but anyway, his so-called Concordia isn't much of concord since it concerns only two exclusive classes.

 

In any case, it seems that opinion on Cicero will always be colored by opinion on Caesar. Most of the time, I am on the side of liberalism, social democracy, and for oppressed people, so I should be with the populares. But despite all the good things that Caesar was trying to enforce, I am not sure how sincere Caesar or other populares (Clodius, Catiline) was about their cause. We can't be sure since Caesar died soon after, but my feeling is that Caesar was following Alexander's footsteps rather than the Gracchi's. Besides, no matter how it was name only it was, it was still representational republic that could have been reformed as it did during earlier class struggle. In the end, Caesar resulted in despotism, from which the world did not recover for more than 1,500 years. So when it comes to Caesar's assassination, I just feel bemused.

 

It is wrong to kill, but not if the victim is 'a tyrant'

I think Cicero said in his letter even before the civil war that there must be means to remove Caesar other than a civil war. So I can see how Cicero can justfiy a killing of a tryant.

 

Sorry for rather long mumblings.

[Gaius Octavius]

Cicero bent with the wind. He invariably tried to ingratiate himself with those in power at the moment. As a New Man and self proclaimed 'father of his country', he never really took a dangerous principled stance against power.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cicero bent with the wind. He invariably tried to ingratiate himself with those in power at the moment. As a New Man and self proclaimed 'father of his country', he never really took a dangerous principled stance against power.

 

He stood up to the nearly the entire political establishment when opposing Verres and his opposition to Antony cost him his life. If that's never taking a "dangerous principled stance against power", what in Hades is????

 

Also, can you provide your source that Cicero was a self-proclaimed pater patriae? I've read in at least a half dozen sources that it was Cato who declared him thus.

[Gaius Octavius]

Cicero bent with the wind. He invariably tried to ingratiate himself with those in power at the moment. As a New Man and self proclaimed 'father of his country', he never really took a dangerous principled stance against power.

 

He stood up to the nearly the entire political establishment when opposing Verres and his opposition to Antony cost him his life. If that's never taking a "dangerous principled stance against power", what in Hades is????

 

Also, can you provide your source that Cicero was a self-proclaimed pater patriae? I've read in at least a half dozen sources that it was Cato who declared him thus.

 

I may be out of order with the 'self proclamation' since I am relying on memory (no excuse). It may have been the Sicilian people who gave him that title as a reward for his prosecution of Verres. Verres was not a strong enough 'power' to affect Cicero's career. The Senate may have awarded him that title at Cato's instigation and Cicero bragged about it forever. Certainly there were greater men than him who may have deserved the title but did not receive it, e.g., Scipio.

 

Your logic comes into question as regards Antony. Because Cicero was on Antony's list of the proscribed (?), and not on Octavianus', it does not follow that this was a courageous stance against tyranny and for the liberty of Rome. He may have miscalculated.

 

I ask this in all humility, without rancor or sarcasm, and respecting your knowledge of things Roman; was there ever a time when Cicero or Cato were on the side of the popularies? Did they ever institute legislation to cure the ills of the popularies? What did they do to cure the corruption of the Republic and thus maintain it against Caesar or Antony?

 

For a short synopsis of the causes of the ills of the popularies see: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/CRISIS.HTM

[M. Porcius Cato]

I may be out of order with the 'self proclamation' since I am relying on memory (no excuse). It may have been the Sicilian people who gave him that title as a reward for his prosecution of Verres. Verres was not a strong enough 'power' to affect Cicero's career.

 

Cicero was acclaimed pater patriae after Catiline was defeated, not after successfully prosecuting Verres. Also, obvioulsy Verres wasn't the threat to Cicero--Verres was buddies with nearly the whole Sullan order, and these guys most certainly could affect Cicero's career.

 

Your logic comes into question as regards Antony. Because Cicero was on Antony's list of the proscribed (?), and not on Octavianus', it does not follow that this was a courageous stance against tyranny and for the liberty of Rome. He may have miscalculated.

 

That's not the reasoning at all. We needn't even infer that Cicero opposed Antony (let alone from the fact that Antony had Cicero killed). We have Cicero's Phillipics themselves. You should read them GO.

 

I ask this in all humility, without rancor or sarcasm, and respecting your knowledge of things Roman; was there ever a time when Cicero or Cato were on the side of the popularies? Did they ever institute legislation to cure the ills of the popularies? What did they do to cure the corruption of the Republic and thus maintain it against Caesar or Antony?

 

Leaving Cato out of this (despite having much to say on the topic--this is a thread on Cicero), Cicero's prosecution of Verres--a man who crucified a Roman citizen without trial--was certainly to the benefit of the populus. I suppose that since he opposed the whole Sullan order in the trial, many would have considered Cicero a potential populare. There is no term 'popularies', and from the context, I'm not sure whether you mean "people" (populus) or "populist" (popularis). They're not synonyms: one can be 100% anti-populist and 100% pro-people. Presumably you're not asking me to provide evidence that Cicero was a populist, are you? Why would I want to insult Cicero as such a crude fool?

 

In any case, it sounds like you need to read (or re-read) the Verrine Orations and the Phillipics. To say that Cicero never took a principled stance against those in power is just wrong. There are also a number of good secondary sources on Cicero, including Everitt's Cicero, and there's a nice fictional account of the events surrounding the prosecution of Verres (Harris' Imperium) if you want something very easily digestible.

[WotWotius]

Your logic comes into question as regards Antony. Because Cicero was on Antony's list of the proscribed (?), and not on Octavianus', it does not follow that this was a courageous stance against tyranny and for the liberty of Rome. He may have miscalculated.

 

Cicero's Phillipics were cited by the man before Antony was in a position to put him on his proscription list.

 

In regards to Cicero being a self-promoter, it seems that GO was right in saying that the title of Pater Patriae was fine example of him being so: he was always willing to remind people of his achievement; it gave him almost delirious visions of grandeur; and, apparently, Cicero even went as far as writing a poem regarding the story behind his title.

Edited November 6, 2006 by WotWotius

[Primus Pilus]

Leaving Cato out of this (despite having much to say on the topic--this is a thread on Cicero), Cicero's prosecution of Verres--a man who crucified a Roman citizen without trial--was certainly to the benefit of the populus.

 

Without question this was a stance that was largely popular with the masses and unpopular with the conservative senatorial faction. This is not to suggest that Cicero did not have some support, but the opposition was definitely among the most powerful of the aristocracy. Cicero may or may not have had his own ulterior motives at heart, but the end result was a victory for the people. He took a considerably dangerous stance on this trial.

 

QUOTE Gaius Octavius

Your logic comes into question as regards Antony. Because Cicero was on Antony's list of the proscribed (?), and not on Octavianus', it does not follow that this was a courageous stance against tyranny and for the liberty of Rome. He may have miscalculated.

 

I don't think there is any question that he miscalculated. However, it was not his own position that was in question but the convictions of Octavian that ultimately ended Cicero. His stance was quite courageous when one considers that at the time it was Antony and Lepidus who largely controlled the remains of Caesar's legions. Cicero understood that Caesar's heir was a necessary counter to Antony's influence with the legions, but he failed to realize that the boy didn't quite see eye to eye regarding the Republic and Caesar's assassins (and/or his personal ambitions).

[Aurelianus]

Usually I would be inclined to be anti-Cicero because of his self promoting hypocrisy, and yet whilst I take this view assured that I am supported by modern moral standards, I find myself thinking that in truth they were minor things. Cicero had to work his way to the top through hard work and natural talent; he had to be self promoting to get into the elite from the outside. It is unfortunate that it became a habit, as his career passed its theoretical peek, but such is the interesting human psyche.

 

Cicero as a politician I cannot fault; apart from being able, he tended to be far more moral. I think he really did believe Catilina was a threat to the stability of Rome, and his philippics against Antonius are admirable, and no doubt to Cicero

[theilian]

I am more forgiving of Cicero's self-promotion (which was apparently excessive even by Roman standard) because not only was he a new man, but I think he was on defensive ever since he executed aristocrats without trial. He probably had to justify his action both to himself and to his social superiors. This was even more so since his exile. Cicero's notorious poem must be seen in that context.

 

And after all, Romans must have thought that the Catiline conspiracy was a big deal at the time. Sallust, no partisan of Cicero, even wrote a book about it.

[Gaius Octavius]

MPC, will be back at you when I have finished re-reading the Philippics. Up to now, you are not in good shape.

[WotWotius]

The various viewpoints on Cicero