On Cicero

Murder Trials. Trans. Michael Grant. London: Penguin, 1990.

Marcus Tullius Cicero was one of the most famous novus homo of the last days of the Roman Republic. Cicero was born in Arpinium in 106 BC. After studying in Rome, he became a lawyer, and in 66 he was elected praetor. In 63, he was elected to the consulship, a position normally reserved for the Roman aristocracy. Though his efforts to preserve the Roman Republic largely failed, he was a brilliant orator, writer, and thinker. While it is common in academia to deny the Romans the gifts of art, philosophy and original thinking, I believe Cicero was in his own way a true Roman kind of philosopher. In 43, he lost his life at the hands of assassins during a proscription by Marcus Antonius and Octavian. The Murder Trials are testaments to his gifts as a speaker and a man concerned with the preservation of order in the world.

Laws and letters are the backbone of civilization. They are also a mirror of philosophy, whether speaking of philosophy as it is passed down through tradition and history, or philosophy as it is comprehended and developed by academics. The Murder Trials are a portrait of a civilization struggling against internal and external chaos as well as the contradictions inherent in what we call civilization. The Murder Trials are also thought by some to be the origins of the murder mystery novel. They are entertaining and informative, and provide an important primary source for historians of Rome. Thought the speeches are not philosophical texts in the strict sense of the modern definition, they are certainly texts that show a philosopher in action, a man of contradictions, like all men, who reveals the contradictions in his society. Law in itself is intriguing, not merely as the antithesis to chaos, but also since it sometimes blurs into chaos or seems to feed it.

The first trial of the book, "In Defence of Sextus Roscius of Ameria" contains several references to the rustic and simple life, an ideal familiar from the early idyllic history of Rome as told by Livy in the Ab Urbe Condita and as praised in the poetry of the Georgics by Virgil. Sextus Roscius is described favorably as a man of the country: "There is widespread feeling that country life, which you assail as a disgraceful slur, is instead the most honourable and enjoyable existence that any man can possibly lead. And just think of the knowledge and skill which Sextus Roscius displays in these agricultural matters" (54). Cicero sees the rustic life as the origins of Roman greatness: "I am afraid you would have cut a ludicrous figure in your job, Erucius, if you had been born in the times when men used to be called from ploughs to become consuls. For since you regard it as such a crime to be an agriculturalist, then obviously the famous Atilius, whom the envoys found sowing the seed with his own hand, would have seemed to you a thoroughly degraded and disreputable personage. But, heaven knows, our ancestors took a singularly different view about Atilius, and about all the others who were like him. And theirs was the attitude that made this country rise out of insignificance and poverty into the imposing and prosperous commonwealth that they handed down to ourselves. The transfiguration was due to the meticulous care they dedicated to the cultivation of their lands…it was their hard work, in the long run, which enabled them to bestow whole territories and cities and even nations upon our Republic and empire, to the greater glory of Rome" (55); "…it is a fact that country habits, a plain routine, a rough uncivilized manner of life, don't usually produce crimes of this sort. You don't find every variety of crop and tree or every soil, and by the same token you don't see every sort of crime coming from every type of greed, out of greed bursts forth violence, out of violence proliferate all the various kinds of crime and iniquity. Whereas this country life, which you describe sneeringly as so rustic, is the teacher of economy, honest work and fair dealing" (68). Whether or not Cicero really believed this, I do not know; but, there is much sense in what he says. The bucolic dream may just be a dream, but there must be some truth behind it. All of the most basic needs of human life depend upon agrarian work: trees to produce oxygen, fruit and flood control; crops to produce food and medicines, animals for labor, education, fertilizer, clothing and food. All of these things come from rustic life. Cities, according to Cicero, are well springs of vice, but at the same time they are also associated with the dawn of civilization and laws, without which there would be chaos. In this new milennium, with growing concerns over the environment, perhaps humanity will find more and more opportunities to combine the structure and philosophy of the urbs or colonia with that of the rus.

Cicero lived in chaotic times, and possessed an ambiguous attitude toward history. In the speeches of "In Defence of Aulus Cluentius Habitus," former times are sometimes seen as barbarous; antiquity is idealized. Comparisons of times appear to be matters of convenience for Cicero the lawyer. One important point that Cicero makes, however, is that while truth itself does not change, its acceptability changes from one age to the next: "I must say I am glad to be defending Cluentius now rather than then. It is true that his actual case is exactly the same as it was, because nothing can change the facts. But those days of prejudice are gone for good. The result is that the disadvantages of the earlier epoch no longer stand in my way, whereas the full strength of Cluentius' case can be given adequate expression. In this happy situation, I am pleasantly conscious of the close attention I am receiving. And those who are listening to me so carefully are not only the judges, the men who will actually be called upon to pronounce the verdicts, but also everyone else who is capable of forming an opinion about the issue. Whereas if I had been obliged to make the same speech at that previous period, no one would have listened to me at all. It was not that the case was different then. Indeed, as I have said ,it was precisely the same. But the times were entirely different" (169). Cicero's use of historical periods shifts from argument to argument. Later, in connection with the tasks of censors, he speaks of the "stern school of ancient virtue" (203); and in addressing Caesar in a later defence, he complains: "How times have changed, how customs with them!" (321). On the other hand, when defending Gaius Rabirius, Cicero declaims: "Those torturers' formulas which your gentle, democratic heart so delights in pronouncing, like Veil his head, hang him on a barren tree, emanate rather from Tarquin, that most arrogant and brutal tyrant. Such phrases, citizens, as I say, disappeared from our community an enormously long time ago, obliterated by the dusk of antiquity and the rising sun of freedom" (274-275). The ambivalence Cicero shows towards different eras reflects the difficulty of assessing what is good in antiquity, what traditions should be upheld and continued, and knowing what is wrong and must change in the laws of a society. Most people tend to lean towards extremes—conservatism or liberalism, tradition or progress. Cicero is honestly uncomfortable with both, and this seems to be a sound way of thinking.

One of the main concerns that emerges from the speeches is the fear of political violence. Cicero reflects on the devastation wreaked by Sulla, under whom there had been massive proscriptions, a truly dark period of Roman life: "…the city is full of advocates, and I am prepared to admit that I am only one of the common herd: whereas the recent slaughter of accusers, a veritable battle of Cannae, has left your family high up in the ranks of survivors. We have witnessed a wholesale massacre…Who was not wounded there by Phrygian steel? There's no need to make a list of them all. There was a Curtius and a Marius, and a Memmius as well, although he was exempted from active service by his age, and finally there was that elderly Priam himself, Antistius, whom not only his years but the law had withdrawn from battle. And then there were hundred more men who used to act as prosecutors in murder and poison cases, whose names nobody mentions because of their insignificance. As far as I am concerned, I wish there were all still alive…While the leader in supreme control was preoccupied with quite different matters, there were other individuals who concentrated on attending to their own private wounds or scores. As they sped from place to place under cover of darkness, as they spread disorder and chaos wherever they went, our country seemed to be enveloped in a night that would never end. I only wonder they did not actually burn up those benches in this very court, so that every trace of duel legal process might be utterly eradicated. They certainly struck down judges and prosecutors alike" (76-77). More than just fearing a dark age in which such proscriptions are possible, Cicero fears the desensitizing and paralysis that could result from such bloodbaths: "Judges—it is up to you to stamp out this cruelty from our midst. Suffer it no longer to stalk abroad in our land! For it has destroyed many Roman citizens by terrible deaths. And it has had another lamentable result as well: by familiarizing us with evil in all its forms, it has stifled the sentiments of pity in the hearts of hitherto merciful people. For when, hour by hour, we never cease seeing or hearing about some appalling deed, the constant repetition of horrors drains even the gentlest natures of every feeling of humanity" (110). These words are striking to the modern ear. Out of the depths of time, Cicero seems to rise up and speak to us of the blood-letting in our media and arts. For the past two hundred years, our literature and our newspapers have been inundated with crimes, tortures, rapes and evil of every kind, and modern citizens have likewise become desensitized and beaten down into abjection by this parade of violence. At the same time, Cicero seems to ask us, is this the cost of civilization?

Whether he is sometimes conservative, sometimes progressive, Cicero is always behind law and order, and he voices an honorable position while defending Cluentius: "…Meanwhile, even if I were prepared, for purposes of argument, to concede that it might be wrong, you for your part would have to concede to me that it is a great deal more wrong still, in a country which depends upon its laws, to refuse to obey them. For law is the bond which assures to each of us his honourable life within our commonwealth. It is the foundation of liberty, the fountain-head of justice. It is what keeps the heart and mind and initiative and feeling of our nation alive. The state without law would be like a body without brain; it could make no use of its sinews, its blood or its limbs. The magistrates who administrate the law, the judges who act as its spokesmen, all the rest of us who live as its servants, grant it our allegiance as a guarantee of our freedom" (216-217). Again, later on he says: "What requires to be done is that the laws should be changed—not that we should fail to obey them in their existing forms" (220). Despite this veneration for law, Cicero also sees its dark side, showing himself to be a man who is not content with simplistic answers to complicated problems: "For the life I lead is one which requires me to dedicate all my care, all my endeavours, to the defence of men subjected to the perils of the law. And what is evident to me now is the formidable, menacing, unlimited powers of this novel sort of court which the prosecution…is evidently determined to establish" (225); "Atilius' proposal to apply these provisions to the entire community would mean that every Roman commoner who had ever given evidence in his life would henceforward have the menace of prosecution perpetually hanging over his head" (225). And yet, having said this, Cicero also says: "Whereas the place for prejudice is a public meeting, a court of law is the abode of truth" (253). For someone who has lived through confusing times, all but this last comment are understandable. Ideally, though, a court should be an abode of truth. The state that Cicero dreams of is a state that protects the individual and makes a myriad of possibilities open to the individual; it is the freedom of the individual that Cicero sees as a cornerstone of social freedom: "For if a Roman, however humble his origins, lives in such a way that his character seems capable of sustaining the dignity of high rank, he will be able to advance every bit as far as his own hard work and decent behaviour warrant" (191); "…it is impossible to excuse the way you have violated every right of the individual, every right of humanity itself" (321). To defend the individual is to defend humanity. Most of the time, I would agree with this. Not every one belongs to a privileged class or privileged minority group or special interest group claiming to lack privileges, but every human is also an individual, deserving the rewards that the individual has merited from his or her own hard work and contribution to society within the bounds of morality, decency and law. To treat citizens as individuals rather than as fragments of classes, races or political parties is to treat them as human beings.

When defending Sextus Roscius, Cicero makes a comment about plays that reminds me of a statement Epictetus would make much later, when he said that we are all actors: "And besides, it makes not the slightest difference to the validity of my argument whether I use the name of this young man in the comic play or some actual person, say, from the territory of Veii. After all, the reason why the poets invented these stories was surely jus this—so that we should be able to see our own behaviour mirrored in these other, imaginary characters, which thus cast a vivid light upon our own daily lives" (53). In the defense of Cluentius, Cicero tells an amusing story which certainly calls into question the whole game, the whole drama of laws and letters altogether: "For it is a serious mistake to imagine that the speeches we pleaders make in the law courts represent an authentic record of our personal attitudes. All orations of this type reflect the requirements of some particular case and circumstance, not the private opinions of the advocates themselves. If a case could speak for itself, no one would bother to employ an advocate at all. But since a spokesman has to be found, we are called in, and it is our job to express not our own individual points of view, but whatever conclusions the facts of the case seem to warrant. There is a story about something that very talented man Marcus Antonius used to say. He had never written any of his speeches down, and the reason for this, he remarked, was because, if one of them happened to include some statement he might later prefer to have left unsaid, he would then be at liberty to deny he had ever said it. Though, in fact, a lot of things we say, and actions that we perform, get remembered very well, even if we have never committed them to writing…On this sort of point one of the models I myself prefer to follow is that paragon of eloquence and learning Lucius Licinius Crassus. On one occasion he was defending Cnaeus Plancus against Marcus Junius Brutus the Prosecutor, an orator of great forcefulness and skill. Brutus brought two readers into court and got them to read out, one after the other, two passages from different speeches by Crassus which directly contradicted each other. In one of them, while opposing a bill intended to disband the settlement of Roman citizens at Narbo, Crassus had done everything possible to bring the senate into disrepute. In the other speech, however, which was in support of the law of Quintus Servilius Caepio, he praised the senate most warmly" (211-212).

Anyone who reads the Murder Trials of Cicero will not be able to maintain any kind of simplistic view of law, politics or even civilization. The law is not unlike a drama, a staged thing involving masks and scripts. It is not always the abode of truth. Its absence, however, would mean the deterioration of civilization, the very horrors Cicero saw in his own lifetime, the horrors which took his life. In order to be truly civilized, one must accept this as one of the burdens human beings must bear. Cicero suggests that, even with its hazards and disappointments, a good life in a good republic depends on maintaining laws and order, and a good republic is worth living, fighting, and even dying for.