Opinions on Cicero

[votadini]

I've just finished Tom Holland's Rubicon, and I get the distinct impression of Cicero as an eloquent weasel. Am I mistaken or Holland over-the-top?

[Gaius Octavius]

Agreed! Wait till MPC sets eyes on your post. :blowup: :sp_ike:

 

[Primus Pilus]

My opinion of Cicero changes routinely based upon the situation he was involved in. (ie brilliant against Verres, pro-active yet unlawful against Cataline, etc.)

 

Here's a relatively lengthy discussion I started a while back... Cicero, Great Statesman or Over-rated. As I said in the original first post, it was only meant to be an open discussion and was not necessarily reflective of my respect for Cicero. In spite of the self-glorification preserved in his numerous works and letters, he is still a man to be respected and admired for his principals.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

he is still a man to be respected and admired for his principals.

 

With no doubt , one of the most influential man of Western antiquity .

Just look at the scope of his works and their influence on Western civilization . His political movements (in great controvercy as any Political movement) do not "damage" his greatness . He is often described as the "Pure Roman" or the "Perfect Roman" .

[Pompieus]

Poor Cicero. All his flaws, vanities and insecurities are revealed because we have his personal lettters.

 

Actually his actions are usually understandable in the context of his situation. He was a "new man", and had to be careful not to offend the "great men" and to maintain his prestige, reputation and dignity among the aristocracy. That he rose as high as he did without being a military man shows his abilitites must have been great.

 

I think his greatest failure was at the end, when he decided to finally make an uncompromising stand for the Republic and against Antonius. He tried to bring down Antonius by raising up Octavianus - intending to eventually get rid of Octavian (who he thought was the weaker) as well. A terrible miscalculation! Antonius, at least, was a traditional Roman aristocrat - Octavian was a ruthless terrorist and revolutionary who would stop at nothing in his pusuit of power!

[Gaius Octavius]

In my opinion, the problem with Cicero is that he danced to the tune of power.

If Augustus was a 'terrorist and rebel', what was Antony?

[Ursus]

That Cicero loved his country (or, rather his particular idea of what his country should be) I do not argue. And the romantic in me appreciates that a "new man" could rise with the power of pure eloquence to lofty heights usually reserved for the bluest blue bloods.

 

But ... his lofty Stoic ideals (which, by the way, bore the hell out of me) seem to be often at odds with the pragmatic turn coat policies of his politics. I view him as basically a sniveling politician, masked by a grandiloquent rhetoric that has given birth to a partially false notion of him as an avatar of virtue.

 

I think his best use was as a witness to history. Thanks to his letters and his musings we know more about the Late Republic than any other stage of Roman history. He also modeled Classical Latin into what it was.

[M. Porcius Cato]

his lofty Stoic ideals (which, by the way, bore the hell out of me) seem to be often at odds with the pragmatic turn coat policies of his politics.

 

I think there might be a simple explanation for why Cicero's actions didn't live up to his Stoic ideals: the embrace of Stoicism came after most of Cicero's career was already over.

 

In pro Murena of 62, for example, Cicero actually pokes fun at Stoicism, especially the earnest Stoicism of the young tribune Cato. In contrast, Cicero's arch-Stoic Tusculan Disputations were not written until 45, right after Cato's suicide. Cicero's philosophical bend toward Stoicism and Platonism occurred late in his life, were largely reactions to his removal from politics, to the deaths of so many of the best men in Rome, and were his attempt to make sense of that insane civil war that had come over the Rubicon. Moreover, I think the Stoicism (though it may bore you) did Cicero some good. After his period of philosophical study, Cicero finally grew a backbone and stood up to that lap-vomiting wretch Antony.

 

Thus, it's not that Cicero was a born Stoic and only lived up to his principles in his final moments; it's that Cicero adopted Stoicism after the death of Cato, and he became the more Catonian for it--perhaps suicidally so.

[Pompieus]

In my opinion, the problem with Cicero is that he danced to the tune of power.

If Augustus was a 'terrorist and rebel', what was Antony?

 

It is true that Antonius was only marginally less a "lap vomiting wretch" (as Cato says) than Octavianus,

but he was willing to compromise and negote to avoid civil war. And though he was undoubtedly determined to remain at the head of the Caesarean party, he didn't use his name to raise an illegal private army, march on Rome (twice) or demand a consulship at age 21.

Edited January 27, 2007 by Pompieus

[Caesar CXXXVII]

In my opinion, the problem with Cicero is that he danced to the tune of power.

If Augustus was a 'terrorist and rebel', what was Antony?

 

It is true that Antonius was only marginally less a "lap vomiting wretch" (as Cato says) than Octavianus,

but he was willing to compromise and negote to avoid civil war. And though he was undoubtedly determined to remain at the head of the Caesarean party, he didn't use his name to raise an illegal private army, march on Rome (twice) or demand a consulship at age 21.

 

 

Agreed . But think of it , Octavius made himself Caeser and if you are a Caesar , what is left for you to do

Edited January 27, 2007 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Adelais Valerius]

In my opinion, the problem with Cicero is that he danced to the tune of power.

If Augustus was a 'terrorist and rebel', what was Antony?

 

I agree, I would have liked to have seen more Cicero's true thoughts throughout his work, like his letters and various defense work.

[theilian]

In my opinion, the problem with Cicero is that he danced to the tune of power.

If Augustus was a 'terrorist and rebel', what was Antony?

 

I agree, I would have liked to have seen more Cicero's true thoughts throughout his work, like his letters and various defense work.

 

That he often didn't have fortitude or courage to act according to his own philosophy, I agree, but I don't see why he is being seen as a political weasel.

Each time he submitted to prevailing power (first triumvirate and Caesar's dictatorship), he did not seek to further his political standing but rather ended up retiring away from politics. I'd call his actions stupid, but not opportunistic.

And in various occassions (defending Roscio of Ameria, prosecuting Verres, supporting Pompey over Caesar, going against Antony instead of going to Greece), he chose a more dangerous road over safer one. Those times when he submitted, one could argue (whether rightly or wrongly) that resistance was futile.

I'd rather think that in these times of turmoil, Rome needed more of pragmatic moderates like Cicero.

 

I think many of his faults are mainly those that have to do with his personality and emotion. So not exactly the leadership material, but I think to described him as a weasel is not to understand him at all (at least in Roman terms).

[Gaius Octavius]

theilian, then differentiate Cicero's qualities from those of Caesar, Pompey, Augustus and Antony. They also could have taken safer courses than the 'new man' seeking to curry favor with his 'betters'.

[theilian]

theilian, then differentiate Cicero's qualities from those of Caesar, Pompey, Augustus and Antony. They also could have taken safer courses than the 'new man' seeking to curry favor with his 'betters'.

 

I certainly don't mean that suggest that Cicero was braver than Caesar and etc, or that he took more dangerous road than those. Of course, they were all 'braver' or rather reckless as they had to be in their quest for domination. They were basically soldiers, and their ambitions directly led to civil wars.

Cicero, for all his vanities and ambitions, did not seek that type of hegemony.

[Gaius Octavius]

theilian, he could have kept his mealy mouth shut, rather than 'I praise you, yet condemn you'. He wanted to be up front, and played all sides to suit his proclvities and the present state of affairs..