Book Two, Letter Four, part 4 of 5

To Cicero: on Friends and Enemies

June 27th

I have now listened to all fourteen of the Philippics, all the remaining speeches you gave against Marc Antony and I find, as always, more and more parallels between our times, and more reasons still to call you my brother Cicero.

In the eighth Philippic, you speak on the self same issue I raised while writing only days ago, in this very letter to you. I will paraphrase.

“Some men, in delivering their opinion, did not choose to insert the word “war.” They preferred calling it “tumult,” being ignorant not only of the state of affairs, but also of the meaning of words. For there can be a “war” without a “tumult,” but there cannot be a “tumult” without a “war.” For what is a “tumult,” but such a violent disturbance that an unusual alarm is engendered by it? from which indeed the name “tumult” is derived. Therefore, our ancestors spoke of the Italian “tumult,” which was a domestic one; of the Gallic “tumult,” which was on the frontier of Italy; but they never spoke of any other. And that a “tumult” is a more serious thing than a “war” may be seen from this, that during a war exemptions from military service are valid; but in a tumult they are not. So that it is the fact, as I have said, that war can exist without a tumult, but a tumult cannot exist without a war. In truth, as there is no medium between war and peace, it is quite plain that a tumult, if it be not a sort of war, must be a sort of peace; and what more absurd can be said or imagined?”

“But why need I say more? Decimus Brutus is attacked. Is not that war? Mutina is besieged. Is not even that war?”

And here in the same speech you quote from a letter written by Antony regarding his own military actions against Rome:

“I drove out the garrison.” “I got possession of Claterna.” “The cavalry were routed.” “A battle was fought.” “A good many men were slain.”

What peace can be greater than this? Levies of troops are ordered throughout all Italy; all exemptions from service are suspended; the robe of war is to be assumed to-morrow; the consul has said that he shall come down to the senate-house with an armed guard.

Is this not war?”

So you now come full against the main body of my argument. Why is war not declared? In my own time, though soldiers are stationed all throughout Syria and Afghanistan, and though cities and civilians burn like so much kindling, we do not declare ourselves to be at war. Why? I have a theory, and please do not insult me for my ignorance me if I am wrong, or short sighted in my early theories. I am only trying to reason this problem out.

The world is currently experiencing the greatest volume of displaced people in recorded history. That is, war has made refugees of such huge populations of people from the middle east, that western nations are in a storm of confusion and conflict about what to do with them all as they flee the wars we fight in their homelands. But many nations refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of their refugee status, a human rights category that makes allowance for a person to seek asylum in a foreign country, if their homeland is in a state such that their life is in serious risk if they return.

But you see, my country refuses to accept the legitimacy of such refugee claims, and has continually imprisoned and deported those who have come seeking a new homeland in Australia. My government deports them on the ground that their lives are not truly in danger in their home country. My government is able to make this utterly false claim, because there is not an official state of war declared between our countries. If there were a declared war, then the governments of those enemy countries would needs be accepted as not only enemies of my country, but also enemies of their own citizens, citizens who are fleeing across the oceans in their millions to escape the 'war' we are presently fighting in their home. This would legitimise their refugee status claims and make legal their irregular entry to my country, where they would be able to enjoy the benefits of protection under Australian and international human rights laws.

Now, I will admit openly that I am not a student of international law. I am not a student of middle eastern politics (though I did study political philosophy, moral philosophy, poetry, creative writing, library science and drama at university). But I have advocated for the rights of refugees in my country for nearly two decades and have witnessed the most absurd lies being uttered by my government to defend their actions, actions which openly violate international human rights laws, of which my nation is under oath as a treaty signatory to obey.

I keep asking myself why? Governments always have rational motivations for their choices, usually tied to budgets, but often allied with the more insidious causes of racial hatred, religious intolerance and fear. Fear which has always been a successful tool for manipulating the opinions and passions of the masses.

The senators in your time had their own reasons for not wishing to use the word 'war'. You repeatedly declare in your speeches that Antony is the enemy of Rome, the enemy of the Republic, even admitting to a personal mission to forever oppose Antony. You declared your life in service to the Republic, only caring that your death, should it come, would be of service to the Republic. I see how foolish and ignorant the assumption I made about you earlier, was. Against such a foe, who could call himself a man and not stand warrior-like against him? Defying fate.

You, Cicero, could never let it go.

I'm sorry to mention it again, but my ignorance continues to plague me. I have to ask why? Why was Antony your enemy? Why was he the enemy of the republic? Why Antony? Why Caesar?

Why Cataline?

Because it always seems to come back to Cataline, and he leads back to the Gracci brothers, all of them embroiled in the ongoing civil wars of Rome. Before Mark Antony, through all the years leading up to the death of Caesar, is the long story of the ongoing struggle of the people's Tribunes, (the representatives of the people of Rome, Italy and the greater empire), to win better rights for the common folk, land rights, voting rights. A cause supported by Caesar. Yet you, Cicero opposed them all the way. For the Republic.

How strange it seems, that you, the author of treatises on friendship, duty, the nature of good and evil and the nature of the gods, should seem such a villain yourself amidst the bloody years of civil war. Over and over the struggle spilled blood in the streets, blood in the senate house, blood on your hands. You claim Cataline was a demagogue aiming at Kingship and tyranny, a murderous, morally crooked maniac, hell bent on burning Rome. You destroyed him with your speeches in the Senate, drove him from the city and into the waiting embrace of the army he had called to his cause.

They were all killed of course, a paltry few thousand men, poorly organised. Cataline was found among the dead.

                                                                The Discovery of the body of Cataline

You were cheered in the street for saving Rome, a title you proudly claimed ever after: The saviour of Rome. But still the question lingers.

Why? For no one would seek to destroy Rome, other than those who hated Rome.

Hatred is a powerful cause, with a terrible curse.

You, Cicero, were guilty of hatred, just as Cataline hated you, just as Antony hated you, just as Fulvia hated you. Fulvia, wife of Antony. Fulvia who hated you because of the terrible things you said about her husband. Fulvia who, when your severed head was hung upon the rostra in the senate house, stabbed your bloated tongue over and over with her long, piercing hair pins.

                                                                Fulvia with Cicero's head