Welcome
Aedes Divi Iulii: Julius Caesar and His Times
For discussion of the life of Gaius Julius Caesar, 100-44 BC, and Rome in his time.

Caesar's Contemporaries (8 threads, 728 posts)
    Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC (148 posts)
    Historical Thread

    Rome's great orator and writer, source of much that is known about Republican Rome through his inestimable works and letters. ...
    23 Members have made 142 Posts here to date.
    Google
    AncientWorlds.net Web
    Next: no title
    Prev: Re: Demetrios scripsit
    Re: Sleezy weasels
    roman_speaker_sm_blk.gif
    Author: * Moravius Horatius - 1 Post on this thread out of 265 Posts sitewide.
    Date: Jul 5, 2006 - 22:41

    Salva sis, diva Heraclea Aelia

    After Caesar awarded Publilius Syrus a palm in his contest with Decimus Laberius, Cicero called out to the latter, "Were we not so crowded here (in the Senate seats), Laberius, I would make room for you." Cicero was using the opportunity to slight Caesar's new additions to the Senate. Anyway, Laberius shot back, "I marvel, Cicero, that you should be crowded, who usually sit on two stools."

    In answer to your question, Heraklia, no, I have no respect for Cicero the man. He exemplifies to me some of the worst qualities in certain politicians that I have met. But the criticisms that you made in your one particular post I don't think fairly characterized him. The second Philippic was a rather standard sort of attack on a rival, probably filled with a good deal of hyperbole, but rather tame in comparison to what Romans enjoyed. One thing about Cicero, even when he did enter into such attacks, he was never very vulgar in his words or in his allusions. Exemplary "of a petty, mean-minded, avaricious, nasty man" perhaps, but not explicative.

    In his philosophy, I think if you compare those works to his letters Cicero comes out looking like a hypocrite. He was not a good friend, didn't enter old age gracefully or with any personal dignity, and as for his religious views, he thought of religion only as a means of political control with little evidence that he had any religious faith. He posed himself a Platonist out of convenience, as in his time Platonism was influenced by cynicism, so that he could mock the tenets of other schools without posing any position of his own. His only one true accomplishment was in translating a poem of Aratos of Soli, the choice of which may be interesting as by Cicero's time Hipparchus' criticism of Aratos should have been known by Cicero, especially since Cicero studied at Rhodes where Hipparchus spent his last years roughly a hundred years before Cicero's arrival. I think Cicero selected certain philosophers to quote out of convenience, and not by any sort of intellectual integrity. But then Cicero was a politician, a poor one at that, and not a philosopher by any means. His philosophical writings are more about his reminiscing over a failed political career than any exposition of his own philosophical beliefs. In my opinion, not that it matters.

    Being that he was a politician, well, I think you have to put him into a perspective of his being a politician. It explains much about Cicero. This is where I think you may be wrong, by not putting what he wrote into a context of his political career, which is the criticism you also made of those who prize his "philosophy." Then as a politician, he was not loyal to his supporters or to his political allies. More often he seemed to grovel after those who he served. Always reminding people of favors he provided, and making us wonder why then so many seem to have abandoned him. Even close friends don't seem to have respected him. He was not ruthless against enemies, as may have been required in his times, nor does it seem that he ever had a strength of character or clearness of mind to carry forth any program of his own. In the one instance he tactlessly abused his consular powers. He had been put up to be a tool, a puppet, and in office it served to expose his inabilities. Afterward, quite contrary to any good politician, at every step he took he seemed to further isolate himself politically from the centers of power and from the populace. So Cicero was a politician. And there, maybe by definition, he was a sleezey weasel. But any assessment of him I think would have to conclude that he was also a very poor politician. Always on the fence, seated on two stools, too busy looking to see which way the wind blew and never ever able to decide with whom to place his loyalty. He became no more than a joke, a character almost out of one of Plautus' comedies, or as a model for the farces that were so popular in Caesar's time, and the butt of jokes years after his inglorious death, which may tell us more about the man than anything he had to say for himself.

    Vale optime


    NEXT: no title
    PREV: Re: Demetrios scripsit
iMac


Copyright 2002-2007 AncientWorlds LLC | Code of Conduct and Terms of Service | Contact Us! | The AncientWorlds Staff