CICERO's IDEAL STATESMAN in THEORY and PRACTICE by JONATHAN PETER ZARECKI a DISSERTATION PRESENTED to the GRADUATE SCHOOL of T
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CICERO’S IDEAL STATESMAN IN THEORY AND PRACTICE By JONATHAN PETER ZARECKI A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005 Copyright 2005 by Jonathan Peter Zarecki MEAE CARISSIMAE REBECCAE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Numerous people deserve mention for their help in the completion of this dissertation. First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee chair, Prof. Lewis A. Sussman, for his willingness to put up with my digressions and new perspectives, for keeping me on task, and especially for the incredible editorial help he provided. My writing, as well as my research, has improved immeasurably because of his careful eye. The other members of my committee also deserve recognition: Prof. Konstantinos Kapparis, for continuing to educate me about professionalism in this field; Prof. Jennifer A. Rea for her unwavering support and meeting all my frustrations and aspirations with the same even temperament; and Prof. Robert A. Hatch, for allowing me to look at things through his unique perspective. Prof. Robert Wagman, Prof. Timothy Johnson, and Dr. James Marks all contributed in their own way to my success in this venture. Avery Cahill, Hanna and Joseph Roisman, Laura Mawhinney, Caleb Carswell, Andrew Nichols, Randall Childree, Jennifer Blackwell, Teresa Hanula, and especially Fizzgig all played a valuable part; my deepest thanks to all of them. Druscilla Gurahoo deserves special mention. For keeping me in line for the last six years, as well as always having a smile and a cookie for a weary, struggling graduate student, she has truly proven herself to be the heart and soul of the Classics Department at the University of Florida. I could not have done it without her omnipresent guidance. iv My parents, Steven and Marcia Zarecki, and my sister, Dawn-Marie Reidy, have been nothing short of divine strength and inspiration. After all the trials and tribulations, I hope that this work, in some small measure, makes them proud. Lastly, my eternal love and gratitude go to Rebecca Muich. Beyond her sharp eye for mistakes and misspellings, the kindness, support, and unconditional love shown by her over the past three years make her just as responsible for the completion of this work as I am. It is to my Rebecca that I dedicate this little work, for whatever it is worth. v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 2 THE THEORY OF CICERO’S IDEAL STATESMAN..............................................7 Composition and Transmission of the Texts ..............................................................13 The Greek Influences on Cicero’s Political Theory ...................................................19 Cicero’s Attitude Towards Monarchy ........................................................................30 Cicero’s Definition of the Rector ...............................................................................35 The Identity of the Rector...........................................................................................43 3 POMPEIUS’ FAILURE AS A CICERONIAN RECTOR..........................................47 Pompeius’ Qualifications as Rector............................................................................52 Cicero’s Lack of Support for Pompeius .....................................................................68 Pompeius’ Ultimate Failure........................................................................................78 Cicero’s Final Judgment of Pompeius........................................................................85 4 REX CAESAR AND THE RECTOR CICERONIS ..................................................91 Caesar’s Career Prior to 59 BCE................................................................................97 Caesar as Consul.......................................................................................................108 Cicero under Caesar and the Background of the De Officiis....................................122 Caesar’s Tyranny......................................................................................................127 Caesar’s Legacy in the De Officiis ...........................................................................136 5 CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................143 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................148 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................163 vi Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CICERO’S IDEAL STATESMAN IN THEORY AND PRACTICE By Jonathan Peter Zarecki August 2005 Chair: Lewis A. Sussman Major Department: Classics In this dissertation I argue that Cicero had no ideological problems with monarchy. During the composition of the De Republica, and especially after Pompeius’ sole consulship in 52, Cicero recognized that Rome had evolved beyond the Greek polis model, and that rule by the Senate was no longer practical. Monarchy was the solution to the problems of empire. Through a careful consideration of the terminology he uses to describe one-man rule, I will demonstrate that Cicero did not in fact consider monarchy to be an unacceptable form of government in the late Republic. Most historians hold that the idea of monarchy in Rome was abhorrent to Cicero, and to Romans in general. I argue to the contrary, that Roman hatred of monarchy actually traces back no further than the mid-second century, and only emerges as a major theme in Roman political rhetoric with Caesar’s dictatorship. My aim here is to demonstrate that Cicero’s philosophical writings reveal a nuanced, and in part, sympathetic, view of the possibility that Rome will return to a monarchial form of government. vii Cicero’s reluctance to support the primacy of either Pompeius or Caesar is not indicative of distaste for one-person rule. Rather, the problem with either Pompeius or Caesar ruling Rome as a monarchy was that Cicero did not think that either man was intellectually or morally capable of performing a just monarch’s duties. Thus the creation of the rector rei publicae. This is the name Cicero gave to his concept of the ideal Roman magistrate, and it is a blueprint for the type of monarch Cicero hoped that first Pompeius, and then Caesar, would become. Since Cicero realized that he could not lead the state on his own, he was content to be the Laelius, or moral and philosophical advisor, to someone else’s Scipio. Both Pompeius and Caesar, however, failed to live up to the ideals of the rector. This dissertation will examine exactly how both men failed to live up to Cicero’s ideal, and the reasons for Cicero’s seemingly ambiguous opinions towards them. viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The major problem – one of the major problems, for there are several – one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem. And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they’re not. And somewhere in the shadows behind them – who? Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to? - Douglas Adams The Restaurant at the End of the Universe Drawing parallels between Julius Caesar and Zaphod Beeblebrox is admittedly a tricky venture, going far beyond the cosmetic difference in the number of heads and arms each possesses. But the sentiment expressed in the above paragraph, minus the comment about Galactic Presidents, strikes perilously close to the political crisis of the 50’s and 40’s BC. The last three decades of the Roman Republic were consumed with a continuing struggle for supremacy among demagogues and traditionalists, radical popular politicians and staunch supporters of rigid class distinction and privilege. Those who sought the ultimate authority, such as Caesar, Cicero, and to some extent Pompeius, eventually proved themselves incapable of ruling effectively; none even managed to escape their short times of preeminence with their lives. 1 2 Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to? This was problem confronting Cicero in the last years of the 50’s BC. Though Rome had traditionally enjoyed a republican form of government, in the years since his consulship in 63, she had undergone an enormous change. The regal element in the Roman constitution had become the dominant one; Caesar especially had shown the impotence of the Senate in controlling a strong-willed consul intent on