Cicero is often remembered as the great defender of the Roman Republic—a man who used his extraordinary rhetorical skills to uphold the values of liberty, justice, and the Senate. He stood against the rise of autocrats like Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, championing the cause of Roman tradition. But was Cicero truly the noble hero of the Republic that many believe him to be?
Behind the image of the idealistic statesman lies a more complicated and flawed figure. Cicero, for all his philosophical brilliance, was also a politician—one who made morally questionable choices and often put his own ambitions above the values he claimed to defend. This is the story of a man torn between his ideals and the harsh realities of Roman politics.
Cicero’S Image As The Republic’S Champion
Throughout his career, Cicero positioned himself as the voice of the Roman Republic, and his legacy as a defender of liberty was built on his opposition to men like Catiline, Julius Caesar, and Mark Antony. His eloquent speeches and writings championed the rule of law, the power of the Senate, and the preservation of the republican system against the rise of tyranny.
In 63 BCE, Cicero’s moment of glory came when he uncovered and crushed the Catiline Conspiracy, a plot to overthrow the government. For this, he was hailed as the “savior of the Republic.” Cicero’s role in stopping this coup cemented his reputation as a vigilant defender of Roman values, and he took pride in his title _pater patriae_—“father of the fatherland.”
But this image, cultivated by Cicero himself, obscures the fact that his political career was riddled with moral compromises.
Opportunistic Political Moves
Cicero’s defense of the Republic often came with opportunistic political maneuvering. While he claimed to act in Rome’s best interest, his actions reveal a man who was as concerned with his own power and influence as he was with defending the Senate.
- The Catiline Conspiracy: While Cicero’s exposure of the conspiracy made him a hero, his response to the crisis was morally questionable. He bypassed legal norms and ordered the execution of the conspirators without a trial. Cicero justified this as necessary to protect the Republic, but it was a clear violation of Roman law, and many saw it as an abuse of power. His decision to act as judge, jury, and executioner haunted him for the rest of his life and contributed to his eventual exile in 58 BCE.
- Shifting Loyalties: Cicero’s political alliances often shifted based on what would benefit him. For instance, while he publicly condemned Julius Caesar’s rise to power, Cicero initially tried to ingratiate himself with Caesar, hoping to maintain his influence. He even praised Caesar’s achievements in his letters, but when the political winds changed, Cicero aligned himself with Caesar’s assassins, hoping to restore the Republic after Caesar’s death. This was not the mark of a man who was consistently principled, but rather someone who adapted his position to suit his own ambitions.
Cicero’S Endorsement Of Caesar’S Murder
One of Cicero’s most significant moral compromises came after the assassination of Julius Caesar. While Cicero was not involved in the conspiracy, he fully supported the assassination and quickly aligned himself with the conspirators. To Cicero, Caesar’s death was necessary to preserve the Republic and stop what he saw as the rise of a dictator.
However, Cicero’s endorsement of the murder was less about idealism and more about seizing an opportunity to regain political influence. By aligning with Brutus, Cassius, and the other conspirators, Cicero hoped to steer the post-Caesar political landscape and restore the Senate’s power.
This endorsement also reflected a certain moral inconsistency. Cicero had praised Caesar’s accomplishments in the past and had even sought a peaceful reconciliation between Caesar and the Senate. Yet, after Caesar’s assassination, Cicero was quick to justify the murder, framing it as an act of republican heroism. His support of Caesar’s killers reveals a man willing to shift his moral stance when it served his political interests.
Self-Serving Alliances And Miscalculations
Cicero’s attempts to shape the future of Rome after Caesar’s death further highlighted his moral failings. In his quest to reestablish the Republic, Cicero forged alliances that were not always guided by principle but by self-interest.
- The Manipulation of Octavian: After Caesar’s assassination, Cicero believed that he could use the young Octavian (the future Augustus) as a pawn to eliminate Mark Antony, whom Cicero viewed as the greatest threat to the Republic. Cicero’s famous _Philippics_—a series of speeches attacking Antony—were part of this effort. But Cicero’s plan backfired when Octavian, far more ambitious than Cicero realized, reconciled with Antony and used their alliance to eliminate Cicero. Cicero’s misreading of Octavian’s ambitions was a fatal mistake.
- Political Missteps: Cicero’s self-serving alliances often revealed his political naïveté. His belief that he could control or manipulate powerful figures like Octavian or Brutus to serve his vision of the Republic was not only a miscalculation but also a reflection of his own desire to remain relevant in a shifting political landscape. In the end, these alliances did more harm than good to his cause.
Was Cicero A Pure Idealist?
Cicero’s idealism and his belief in the Roman Republic were genuine, but his actions were far from those of a pure, principled idealist. While he championed the rule of law and republican values, he was also willing to violate those same values when it suited him. His political career was marked by moral compromises, opportunism, and shifting loyalties. Cicero may have been a defender of the Republic, but he was also a man deeply entangled in the pursuit of personal power.
- A Flawed Hero: Cicero’s moral failings do not negate his contributions to philosophy, rhetoric, and Roman politics, but they paint a more complex picture. He was not the flawless hero of the Republic that many imagine, but a man navigating the dangerous waters of Roman power with all the compromises that entailed.
- A Man Torn Between Philosophy and Ambition: Cicero’s life is the story of a man torn between his intellectual ideals and his ambition. He wanted to preserve the Republic, but he was also deeply concerned with his own legacy and influence. His desire to shape Rome’s political future often led him to make decisions that contradicted the very values he claimed to defend.
Conclusion: Cicero’S Complex Legacy
Cicero is remembered as one of the greatest orators and defenders of the Roman Republic, but his legacy is far more complicated than that of a pure idealist. His career was marked by moral compromises, opportunistic alliances, and shifting loyalties that reveal a man who was not always guided by principle.
Cicero’s belief in the Republic was genuine, but his political actions were often self-serving. His endorsement of Caesar’s murder, his manipulative alliances, and his willingness to bypass the law when convenient suggest that Cicero, for all his brilliance, was also deeply flawed.
In the end, Cicero’s legacy is one of a complex figure—a man who fought for the Republic but was undone by his own political ambitions. His story is a reminder that even the greatest champions of liberty and justice can be swayed by personal ambition, and that moral purity in politics is often an illusion.
