Caesar & Cicero.

[Gaius Octavius]

"M. Tullius Cicero, Orations: for his house, Plancius, Sextius, Coelius, Milo, Ligarius, etc. (ed. C. D. Yonge)

Editions and translations: Latin (ed. Albert Clark) | English (ed. C. D. Yonge)

Your current position in the text is marked in red. Click anywhere on the line to jump to another position.

 

 

Table of Contents Go to

 

 

 

THE SPEECH OF M. T. CICERO ON THE SUBJECT OF THE CONSULAR PROVINCES.

THE ARGUMENT.

This speech was delivered about the middle of the year of the consulship of Cnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus and Lucius Marcius Philippus, A. U. C. 698. Before the new consuls were elected, the senate assembled to deliberate on what province should be allotted to them on the expiration of their year of office. The provinces about which the question really was were the two Gauls which Caesar had, and Macedonia and Syria which had been given to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesonius, and to Aulus Gabinius, the consuls of the year 696. Several senators had spoken when Cicero rose, and had all, except Servilius, advocated the taking one or both of the Gauls from Caesar, which was in fact what the senate was desirous to do, but Cicero, who had himself been treated with the greatest indignity by Piso and Gabinius, was anxious instead to get them recalled with some marks of disgrace, and to have their provinces assigned to the consuls, and he urged also that Caesar's command should be continued to him till he had finished the war which he was carrying on with such success and till he had settled the conquered countries. This was much against the wishes of the senate and even of the existing consuls, who were principally concerned in the matter so that Philippus reproached Cicero, and reminded him that he had received worse treatment from Caesar than he had even from Gabinius since Caesar had been the real author of the calamities which had befallen him. But Cicero replied that his object was not the satisfying of his own private resentment, but the promotion of the real interests of the republic; that Caesar was deserving well of his country, that if he remained in his province, he would soon reduce all Gaul to subjection, but that Piso and Gabinius were only tyrannizing over and draining their provinces while they were objects of contempt to all foreign enemies. The result was that he brought the senate entirely over to this opinion, and they continued Caesar's command in Gaul and recalled Piso and Gabinius from their provinces which were given to the new consuls.1"

 

From the Perseus Project

 

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext...Prov.:section=1

 

============================

 

It seems that Cicero was the ultimate cause for the Fall of the Republic.

[Primus Pilus]

It seems that Cicero was the ultimate cause for the Fall of the Republic.

 

While it's true that Cicero was supportive of Caesar's war in Gaul, and was instrumental in voting public giving of thanks (Supplicatio) to Caesar for his victory over the Belgae, Caesar's base of power in Rome at that time still rested in Pompey and Crassus. Cicero probably could have damaged Caesar's position to some degree, but he was by no means singularly responsible for Caesar's continuing war.

 

Cicero's return from exile and subsequent conciliatory gestures towards the triumvirs is interesting and quite opportunistic for Caesar (which has also led to a good deal of speculation over the years), but Caesar wasn't going anywhere just yet. Even if Cicero had led a scathing attack on the Gallic War, it seems unlikely that he could have forced a recall that Caesar and his faction would abide by. Had the popularity of Cicero been in clear opposition to the triumvirs at this point, I think only that it may have expedited the civil war or even led to proscription. (Though I am not suggesting that Cicero took this particular stance to avoid any such unpleasantnesses just yet.)

 

Yes, I suppose Cicero could have taken a stance that would be more in line with the historical vision of him as a great Republican, but at this point I believe he was doing what he thought was the proper course to mend the political wounds. Cicero's fault may have been the inability to get the two sides to agree to political compromise, but I can't blame him for the actions of Caesar (or the opposition).

[Kosmo]

Yes, Cicero imperator took his legions over the Rubicon and captured Rome!

Actually, Vercingetorix did it! If he defeated Caesar he could have saved the Republic!

Of course, I still believe that after Marius and Sylla it was dying. All that trouble with Catillina, Sertorius, Clodius and Milo, with Pompey extraordinary rights and the Triumvirate, with votes bribery and corrupt politicians and the proffesional army and the slaves fighting in the Forum for patrons show it. But, I guess this was already debated!

[Publius Nonius Severus]

While it's true that Cicero was supportive of Caesar's war in Gaul, and was instrumental in voting public giving of thanks (Supplicatio) to Caesar for his victory over the Belgae, Caesar's base of power in Rome at that time still rested in Pompey and Crassus. Cicero probably could have damaged Caesar's position to some degree, but he was by no means singularly responsible for Caesar's continuing war.

 

I concur with Primus Pilus here. In the end, it was the Lex Pompeia Licinia that extended Caesar's governorship in Gaul, just as it was the Lex Vatinia that gave it to him in the first place. Even if the Senate had take one of the Gauls away from him, a legally passed lex could have given it back just as the Lex Vatinia had added to his initial term.

[Gaius Octavius]

What I conclude from that and other readings, is that the Senate had fallen to a low estate; that Cicero 'knew what was good for himself' and bowed to the winds.

[Primus Pilus]

What I conclude from that and other readings, is that the Senate had fallen to a low estate; that Cicero 'knew what was good for himself' and bowed to the winds.

 

Certainly, Cicero was a politician too after all. While he was clearly interested in the health of the Republic, he was not above the age old Roman practice of self-promotion.

[Gaius Octavius]

Self promotion I understand. Here, I am speaking of his alleged principles.

[Kosmo]

Cicero wanted to keep a balance of power more then to be a stunch republican. He was quite friendly with both Caesar and Pompey.

 

This is why he waited so much before choosing sides when the civil war broke out and he reconciled easily with Caesar after Pharsalus. Cicero was no Cato.

[Gaius Octavius]

Cicero wanted to keep a balance of power more then to be a stunch republican. He was quite friendly with both Caesar and Pompey.

 

This is why he waited so much before choosing sides when the civil war broke out and he reconciled easily with Caesar after Pharsalus. Cicero was no Cato.

 

1. Or, perhaps, he had Sulla in mind.

2. Bingo! So much for principles.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[theilian]

Cicero tried to sever the triumvirate shortly before, but Caesar succeeded in renewing triumvirate at the Conference of Lucca. Pompey brought pressure to Cicero especially reminding him of his brothers' pledge that Cicero would behave if recalled from exile.

 

In his letters, he explains his turnabout that Optimates expected to fight the triumvirate without offering any protection to him. He also found comfort in believing that he was in Pompey's debt.

I guess honorable thing to do for him at this point is to retire from politics, which he did but after doing more services for triumvirate agaiinst his will.

 

From his letters, we know he was pretty agonized about the whole thing.

Edited February 20, 2007 by theilian

[M. Porcius Cato]

What I conclude from that and other readings, is that the Senate had fallen to a low estate; that Cicero 'knew what was good for himself' and bowed to the winds.

 

How do you reach this conclusion? From the excerpt you quoted, the Senate was prepared to deny to Caesar the Gallic provinces. If anything had "fallen to a low estate", it was Cicero, not the Senate.

 

In any case, Cicero's argument for continuing Caesar's tenure doesn't have any more bearing on the fall of the Republic than any other debate on provincial rule. Had the senate gone the opposite way, there was still nothing preventing Caesar from assembling his legions and attacking Rome.

[Gaius Octavius]

What I conclude from that and other readings, is that the Senate had fallen to a low estate; that Cicero 'knew what was good for himself' and bowed to the winds.

 

How do you reach this conclusion? From the excerpt you quoted, the Senate was prepared to deny to Caesar the Gallic provinces. If anything had "fallen to a low estate", it was Cicero, not the Senate.

 

Then why did the Senate comply with his wishes?

 

In any case, Cicero's argument for continuing Caesar's tenure doesn't have any more bearing on the fall of the Republic than any other debate on provincial rule. Had the senate gone the opposite way, there was still nothing preventing Caesar from assembling his legions and attacking Rome.

 

The Rule of Law. Principle. One can't pick and chose when to apply principles. Or, is this a case of situational ethics?

[M. Porcius Cato]

The allocation of provinces was up to the senate. There was nothing illegal, unprincipled, or immoral about the Senate extending tenure to a capable governor. In my view, Caesar should have been turned over to the Germans (j/k), but if the senate voted to extend Caesar's tenure, their decision is legally binding.

[Gaius Octavius]

MPC, my last comment was with regard to Cicero. In re your last comment, was Caesar one of those capable governors? (In your opinion, of course.)

Edited February 20, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Publius Nonius Severus]

After doing a little more looking into the backgrounds of Gabinius and Piso, their tenures as governors of Syria and Macedonia respectively, and their roles in exiling Cicero...perhaps Cicero was of the viewpoint that in choosing between the lesser of two evils...

 

1) Relieving Caesar from one of the Gauls to make a consular province available.

 

OR

 

2) Recalling Gabinius and Piso, who apparently were not the most respectable of Romans (and not just because they railroaded Cicero (but I am sure that is part of it)) who had been screwing up their provinces much to the dissatisfacton of the Senate, provincials, and allies alike and give those provinces to the new Consuls when their term of office expired.

 

...that recalling Gabinius and Piso was the better option. This was also probably coupled with the opinion of regardless of how Caesar got his command of Gaul and the legaility of his term that he was there, showing results, and soon promised to forever bring Gaul into line (or at least until 476 AD). To put some one else in there would could erase all the gains the Romans made.