[Cicero, Great Statesman Or Over-rated]

Whenever I approached someone about reading Anthony Everitt's Cicero

about two out of three people thought that he was an EMPEROR!

those that didn't heard the name but really had no idea who he was.

I guess its inevitable though with the decline in classics taught in schools.

 

Its depressing

 

While surfing internet, I just came across this hilarious description of Cicero

Cicero was a lawyer and a well respected statesman for the government in Sicily. He gained notoriety through representing small, well presented cases and built up a strong reputation. He was a rather flamboyant lawyer - much like the F. Lee Bailey of his times - and was noted as an ornate, effusive speaker who used broad gestures to keep his audience involved. His most famous case was the Cataline trial where Cicero represented the government against Cataline for crimes against the government. Cataline was tried for attempting to overthrow the government. Cicero won and, even though Cicero argued against the death penalty, Cataline was put to death.

 

Following the Cataline trial, Cicero was found guilty of irregularities in preparation of the trial and kicked out of Rome. He remained political and supported Pompeii but later reconciled with Caesar (even though he disliked Caesar greatly and continued to speak out against this dictatorship. In fact, he hated dictatorship so much, he helped persuade Rome to march war against Mark Anthony on Octavius' side, even though he was a pacifist.) In 43 A.D., he was proscribed to be killed (people were placed on a secret list by the government for a proscription of their death), but he learned of this and escaped. He was eventually assassinated in 45 A.D. and his head and hands - his two most powerful tools - were put on public display. Cataline's wife insisted they be presented to her as proof he was dead. They were presented to her on a silver platter.

[Cicero, Great Statesman Or Over-rated]

Yes, but keep in mind that, for some reason, the book seems to focus on the antics of Cato and Caesar.

I didn't actually read Sallust, so I don't know, but wasn't Cato the symbol of Republicanism by then? So I imagine that it would be natural to write Cataline conspiracy in terms of Caesar vs. Cato.

[Cicero, Great Statesman Or Over-rated]

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.

[Cicero, Great Statesman Or Over-rated]

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.

[Cicero, Great Statesman Or Over-rated]

Thank you, but I am curious what kind of position or influence Cicero was being offered at the time. If I remember correctly, it was soon after consulship when he was at the zenith of prominence, but still I don't know if he would have been regarded as their equal.

 

I know of no ancient source attesting to Cicero's being offered anything by the triumvirs.

 

But according to Britannia Encylopedia,

At the end of 60, Cicero declined Caesar's invitation to join the political alliance of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, which he considered unconstitutional,...

 

And according to this very website,

Many leading men were involved, such as Lucius Lucceius and Lucius Calpurnius Piso, whose daughter Calpurnia Caesar later married. The great orator Cicero was even asked to participate in forming this 'majority' style government but he refused to side with his boni companions. Even without Cicero, the alliance was formed in late 60 BC, and remarkably remained a secret for some time.

 

And according to some other website,

The arrangement Caesar made between Pompey, Crassus, and himself is best known today as the "First Triumvirate" even though it was not a legal entity like the Second Triumvirate was. The three "triumvirs" had hoped to bring the silver-tongued Cicero in to make it a foursome, but to his credit Cicero could not be conned in to joining.

 

Somewhere else, I even read that Cicero decided not to join after much vacillation, so I assumed that there was some ancient source such as his letters, but I guess it may just be an educated guess, and one might add, very reasonable guess.

[Cicero, Great Statesman Or Over-rated]

The first triumvirate is a bit of a misnomer. Clearly there were 3 power players, but it was also a factional coalition with many members beyond the three. It was never labelled a triumvirate nor held any official governing status, but the term was coined as such in light of the actual triumviri of Octavianus, Antonius and Lepidus. Cicero could've joined the alliance and possibly even been a moderating influence if his politics were in more general agreement.

 

Thank you, but I am curious what kind of position or influence Cicero was being offered at the time. If I remember correctly, it was soon after consulship when he was at the zenith of prominence, but still I don't know if he would have been regarded as their equal.

[Cicero, Great Statesman Or Over-rated]

Hi, a newbie here. I recently got interested in Roman history (thanks to Rome TV series, I must admit) and this is a great place.

 

From little things that I've learned since, I find Cicero most interesting figure since he's most accessible. So far my impression is that he did things for his own vanity as much as for Republic. It's quite surprising that he was thought of as paragon of virtue for such a long time. Only excuse I can think of is that it was different time. In fact, when I think about it, this is true of almost everyone including Caesar. Although Cicero doesn't quite meet our lofty, idealistic standard we expect of our heroes, he was perhaps more sincere in his cause than anyone else among major players.

 

It may be pure luck that so much of his writings are extant, but maybe they survived because there were so many copies of them. One thing that I find most universally agreed on by historians is that he was without peer as an orator and advocate and that his influence on Latin prose and subsequently European literature was enormous.

 

Anyway, the real reason I'm posting here:

 

I'm surprised that there isn't any talk here about a new novel on Cicero. Imperium, by Robert Harris, is coming out on Sept. 15th (It's already out in UK). It's getting rave reviews across the pond. Supposedly, Harris is planning a trilogy on Cicero's life, and Imperium covers up to his election as consul.

Here you can read the opening paragraphs as well as links to some of the reviews.

And here you can read Chapter 2 and 3.

Sounds interesting.

 

PS: And a question, here. I read that first triumvirate offered Cicero to join them at the time. Was that as 4th member or as one of hangers-on?