To what extent would you agree that Cicero had strong principles, but
lacked good judgement? Justify your response. (30)
A staunch optimate, Cicero was a major figure in Roman politics, often praised as a virtuous
personification of stoic Roman values and traditions and idolized by a great many. Yet the inverse was
also true; he also created many enemies for himself, many through his own miscalculated actions, and
the strength of his principles vs his judgement has been debated among many scholars. To begin with, a
shining example of his conviction in his ideals would be the prosecution of Gaius Verres. Verres was a
corrupt governor of Sicily, whose crimes covered extortion, outlawed executions, abusing tax laws, and
generally just highly reprehensible actions against everything the very republic stood for. At the time,
Cicero was still largely an unknown figure in the arena of politics, and this trial would lead him to
become one of the most highly respected orators in all of Rome. Cicero fought tooth and nail to ensure
Verres’ prosecution, even despite Verres’ corrupt strategies to prevent this, such as putting up a false
prosecutor, trying to bribe the court and attempting to occupy the court with another case in order to
delay his own sentencing. Despite this, Cicero ensured he was indeed sentenced, and he used many
rhetorical techniques to make sure the jury would have to find him guilty: an exordium of a grave crisis,
exaggerative language to highlight his crimes, apostrophe to judges and including them in such a
manner that they would appear guilty themselves if they found Verres innocent, and simply presenting a
vast amount of evidence all in huge thorough detail, ensuring there was no situation in which the judges
would find this clearly guilty man innocent. This event skyrocketed Cicero’s career and image as the
greatest orator, but more importantly it showed his unwavering commitment to justice, his strong
principles, and his defence of mores maourum and the virtues that hold the very fabric of the Republic
together- a guardian of the Republic in many Roman eyes.
Similarly, Cicero also followed his strong convictions in the trial against the Cataline Conspirators in
63BC. After the conspirators were captured and their plot to overthrow the Republic was foiled, they
were brought upon the court. Here, Cicero argued for immediate execution of the conspirators without
a trial as they were enemies of the Republic, the execution of which was actually unconstitutional.
Caesar and a select few others argued against this, and the court was considering their pleas, until Cato
delivered a rousing speech which convinced them they deserve immediate execution- Cato actually
saved Cicero’s argument here. This highlights Cicero’s strong conviction in his ideals as well as his
perceived role as a guardian of the Republic, and he clearly believed letting them live was against the
Republic. Yet in actuality, the opposite was the case; by ensuring the conspirators were allowed no trial
and executed without one, this violated the Porcian Law, which established that every Roman citizen has
the right to appeal to the assembly, showing that Cicero actually violated the Republic in pursuit of his
own narrow view of the situation coupled with his principles. Furthermore, in 59BC under the
instruction of the Triumvirate due to Cicero’s declined offers from Caesar to join him, Publius Clodius
passed the Clodian Law, which stated that any who executed defendants without a trial would face
either death or exile- this law was retrospective, meaning it also applied to cases that have happened in
the past. Cicero was clearly the intended target here, and it resulted in his exile. Although Cicero could
of course not see the future and foresee this event, it clearly shows him sacrificing his judgement (if any
was present) of the situation in exchange for satisfying his principles, as he knew he would be violating
the Porcian Law by executing the conspirators without a trial. Consequently, he should have also known
that violating any established law would of course come with consequences, whether immediately or
