Episode Transcript
[00:00:09] Josh Bowman: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the On Duties Podcast, a production of the Ciceronian Society. We're reading through Cicero's seminal work, On Duties De Officiis. We're reading through the Cambridge Texts and History of Political Thought edition. We hope you'll read along with us. We are in book two, starting at chapter 48. I want to introduce my co hosts. I'm Josh Bowman, Executive Director of the Ciceronian Society, joined by regular Chris Anadale, professor of Philosophy at Mount St. Mary's University, and Ben, Assistant professor of Political Science at Abilene Christian University. Did I get the title right this week?
[00:00:40] Ben Peterson: You got it right.
[00:00:41] Josh Bowman: Nailed it. Okay, fantastic.
Before we get going here, I just want to remind our viewers that Cicerone Society has a lot of other things going on. And here at the end of August, we're getting right up to the deadline for for proposals for our Spring 2027 conference, which will be March 11th through the 13th at Regent University in Virginia Beach.
Deadline for that for the proposals is September 1st. If you like any of the topics that we're talking about on this podcast and you have something that you want to propose as a paper, a roundtable author meets critics.
There's lots of different ways you could go with this. Please do so. We'd love to have a panel on Duties, and the more Cicero the better. So please consider getting some friends together to propose a panel or a paper for that that is due September 1st. More information is on our website. We also have upcoming the deadline for nominations for the Herbert Storing Prize, which celebrates recent books that deal with the American founding. And finally, the deadline for our first term of Logrest Institute for Classical Liberal Studies. It's their online certificate program. The application deadline's coming up in mid September, so take a look at that at Logrest Institute.
You can get to that from our website as well, and there's lots of opportunities there. So without further ado, I want to hand it over to Ben, who's going to start the reading today. And we're going to go. Remember, we're starting at book two, chapter 48. In Deificis,
[00:02:08] Ben Peterson: there are two methods of speaking. Under one falls conversation. Under the other, debate. There is no doubt that debate has the greater effect when glory is the object, for that is what we mean by eloquence. It is, however, difficult to say to what extent friendliness and an approachable manner of conversation will win over men's hearts. We have the letters which Philip wrote to Alexander, which Antipater wrote to Cassander, and which Antigonus wrote to his son Philip, the letters of three of the most sensible of men, for that is what we are told in these they give the advice to woo the hearts of the crowds, to goodwill with friendly talk, and to soothe their soldiers in conversation by gently beseeching them. But often when a speech is delivered to the masses in a debate, it arouses the whole crowd. Great indeed is the admiration aroused by an eloquent and wise speaker whose hearers judge him wiser and more understanding, too, than the rest.
And if in such a speech there is also a weightiness blended with modesty, then no achievement can be more admirable, and all the more so if these qualities are found in a young man.
[00:03:21] Josh Bowman: So this is.
He's having a debate with himself here to a point.
Going back to the first sentence, there are two methods of speaking under one false conversation, which I take to mean there's. These are two different tones, maybe, or two different styles, or I don't know if it's simple enough to say conversation and confrontation.
[00:03:44] Ben Peterson: Right.
[00:03:44] Josh Bowman: I don't know if that's what he means by debate, but these are interesting, interesting perspective.
It is, however, difficult to say to what extent friendliness and an approachable manner of conversation win over men's hearts. You know, what does win over people?
[00:04:02] Ben Peterson: I.
[00:04:03] Josh Bowman: That's. From the rhetorician standpoint, that is an important question. What is it that moves the crowd? Right. Is it that you identify with their anger, their joy, their sorrow, their hope? Is it, you know, is. Is everyone in the audience a narcissist? And you basically have to appeal to whatever they feel and think, right? Yeah. Or, or, yeah, whatever gets you the money.
Or is it that you need to impress them? Right.
And I think it depends on the context. It looks like Cicero here is trying to argue that the person who's essentially intellectually impressive is going to win the hearts of the whole crowd more than the people who are approachable and friendly?
This is very much a, you know, in the context of American politics, especially modern American politics, that doesn't.
That doesn't always ring true. Right. There is something to the. The.
If you are existing in a context of anti elitism, anti intellectualism, where essentially the. The smart, brilliant, wise person is seen as a pretentious elitist expert. Right. That is, you know, looked down upon. They're not going to win a bunch of hearts in a context that doesn't like that.
But Cicero is hopeful that. And again, that's not saying that that person is.
Is stupid, that they just come across as being more friendly and approachable. That was, you know, Dwight Eisenhower is an example there where he's just like, look, I'm just a simple guy. I'm your friend.
I'm your buddy, the general, right. Who just. I just saved the world. But anyways, you know, that's an overstatement, but I think there's. There's just this battle between him is like, do I. Do I impress the crowd or do I pander to the crowd?
And I. I think he wants it to be. He wants the impressive side to win. I think I could be wrong, but I think that's where he's going with this.
[00:05:54] Chris Anadale: And my take on this was that I think, in part, we can read Cicero here as giving us a kind of optimistic theory of human nature. Well, if the crowd judges you wiser and more understanding than other speakers, and here's where it comes at that. It's debate, right?
I'm trying to be the more persuasive speaker, then great indeed is the admiration aroused by eloquence, wisdom, the judgment that you are wiser and more understanding. And then if you add these additional qualities of weightiness, kind of gravitas and seriousness and modesty, you know, the sort of all shucks thing that all the politicians do to try to appeal to the crowds, well, then there's nothing you can't accomplish, Especially then if you're. If you're young, that is, you're sort of punching above your weight class, as we were talking about previously with Lucius Crassus last week.
But then I think of this in contrast with, again, the sort of Cicero's great opponent across the centuries, Machiavelli, who says quite explicitly, most people are bad, and they will forgive the murder of their father more easily than the theft of their patrimony. So they know what's important to them, and they don't admire virtue. Right. They're looking out for themselves. And so their judgments will follow, will sort of flow naturally through those chann. And so a question from the philosophy teacher in me says there's a sort of question you can put head to head here, who's correct about people. Right. We might admire Cicero and might even think that this is the story we would tell to our sons. But does Machiavelli sort of steal the trick here by saying, I've actually got the more accurate picture of how the crowds are naturally moved by what their human nature is, to assign their own admiration and their own power, how glory is attained through speech to people. That's my take.
[00:07:52] Ben Peterson: Yeah, I kind of read the flow as. Yes, there's two methods, and he very clearly begins with the one that he prefers, what he calls debate, where, yeah, it seems to be you're convincing somebody that you're of the superior position.
It's an argumentative rhetorical task, and he clearly says that's definitely the greater effect. Now, I will concede that, you know, these great conquerors and great leaders, you know, military leaders in particular, used a different. Used conversation, what he calls conversation or friendly speech.
But I do want to also make a case that eloquence, you know, debate can be, is sort of the superior thing. And I mean, I wonder if it's. It's notable that the, the concession he makes is in the context of ginning people up to. To go to battle. Right? I mean, that's a specific kind of appeal, right? It's, it's, you know, the Saint Crispin's Day speech. It's. What do you tell people? You know, you, you, you tell. What does King Henry tell people? You know, everyone else is jealous. Who's back home, who doesn't get to be a part of this? You know, I mean, you, you're, you're trying to, to make a kind of emotional sort of appeal to people in that scenario. Whereas I think, I mean, imagine the different scenarios Cicero might be talking about in the law courts in political debate. I mean, he's imagining, hey, how do you demonstrate wisdom and knowledge? There's something that people admire more.
It reminds me, I mean, and this is a good question of how often do we actually see this in politics, right?
What he's talking about. Eloquence, display of wisdom. Right. I do remember one time a politician, I remembered it because it seemed kind of rare. This wasn't a public speech, but it was a specific conversation with a potential voter in a primary setting. And the politician was taken a position that was different than what the voter was coming at him with. You know, he was saying, how come you're not supporting, you know, my group? And he said, well, let me explain. And he argued and I did. I mean, by the end of the seven minute, you know, in exchange, the potential voter was like, okay, well, you got my vote. You know, I was kind of like, wow, I don't really see that very often. I mean, that actual persuasive process.
But so, I mean, I have seen examples of it. But it's interesting to your point, Chris, that he kind of. It's almost like a faith in, hey, not everybody may be able to achieve this kind of eloquence and it's pretty rare, but people will recognize it.
[00:10:20] Josh Bowman: Yeah, so that, I mean, the eloquence part is really important because just think of the context he's in where you don't have mass media. You know, today, eloquence is not nearly as well. Eloquence is valued, but only in very small bits, like you got to be able to do the, the sound bite.
At least that was the case for a long time. One thing that I'm wondering about today, and again, this is just a thought, is with long form podcasting and with YouTube and, and, and things like that, where, you know, you, you have these longer conversations, they're not, they're not Lincoln Douglas, you know, quality. Right. I mean, we're not, we're not getting, we're not going back to that, but we are going back to longer conversations that have political relevance. I mean, when, when a politician or a candidate goes on Joe Rogan's show, it, it matters. Right. And do you know, I would not call Joe Rogan eloquent.
I don't know if Joe can see this. That'd be great. If you could, though, can you just plug this show? That'd be great.
But, you know, if someone comes on there and is eloquent and can and can be wise and persuasive, that is impressive, Right? In a sense, it's not, as you know. But at the same time, a podcast, of course, is very conversational. Right. So Cicero might not think very highly of that. You know, why even put these at odds with each other, Conversation versus debate. You can be conversationally confrontational. Does that make sense? I don't know, but I don't want to dwell on that too much. Did you guys have anything more to say on that? That first chapter?
Good. Okay, well, I want to continue here. Remember, in book two, and I'm going to read both chapters 49 and 50, and Catherine, you're not here. I might butcher some of these words and names, but forgive me when you come back.
There are many types of cases which call for eloquence. And in our republic, many young men have won praise by speaking before the jurors, before the people, and before the Senate. But the greatest admiration is inspired in lawsuits. The method required here is twofold, as it consists of prosecution and of defense. Defense is indeed more likely to win praise. But frequently, too, a prosecution is approved. I mentioned Crassus just now. Marcus Antonius as a young man, did the same. It was a prosecution also that brought to light the eloquence. Of Publius Sulpicius when he summoned to court Gaius Norbanus, a seditious and worthless citizen. This should not, however, be done often. Further, it should only be done either on behalf of the community, as in the case of those I have mentioned, or for revenge, as in the case of the two Lucullii, or to fulfill a patron's obligation, as I did for the Sicilians and Julius in prosecuting Albuqueus for the Sardinians. Again, the diligence showed by Lucius Fufius, that's a great name in. In prosecuting Manus Aquilius is recognized. It is a thing to be done once, then certainly not frequently. If anyone has to prosecute more often, he should do so as a service to the nation for avenging her enemies. Fairly often is not a thing to be condemned, but still due measure should be observed, for it seems a hard man indeed, or rather scarcely a man at all, who prosecutes a large number on charges that threaten their civic status.
It both endangers a man and soils his reputation to allow himself to be viewed as a prosecutor. That happened to Marcus Brutus, who was born of outstanding stock and the son of one who was an expert before all in civil law.
[00:14:12] Chris Anadale: Thanks, Josh.
I think we feel here the distance between our legal system and Cicero's, where he says, well, of course, a man must speak in the law courts, and he can win glory through his eloquence either in prosecuting cases. And we actually were just mentioning last week the case of Lucius Crassus, who accused, I'm reading from the footnote here, Papirius carbo and drove him to suicide. Right. So in service to the state. Right. In the interests of the republic and the interests of the senate, I must accuse this worthless citizen of corruption or of some other shocking crime and expose him and remove him from the body politic. This sort of offensive use of one's eloquence, he says, this is a weapon to be used very lightly because it's used against one's fellow citizens. It's used sort of within the club of esteemed gentlemen, not against enemies across the frontier or the lower orders of people, but sort of peer to peer violence, so to speak, in the legal system.
That eloquence in defense in which Cicero has distinguished himself is more glorious and more praiseworthy.
So it says, in a sense, you know, defend, absolutely, prosecute when you must.
Interesting that he says, towards the end, it will damage your reputation if you become. Become known as the guy who's prosecuting people, who's Always sort of taking out the trash, dealing with people who have to be dealt with, politically speaking, that seems like that's an unpleasant task that we should sort of pass around and make sure no one of us becomes sort of tainted too much by having to do what is absolutely necessary.
Ben, what do you think?
[00:16:00] Ben Peterson: Yeah, this is all really interesting.
My first, I think I misspoke last episode last week when I mentioned that it was a kind of a bold action on Crassus part to begin his legal career with a prosecution. But apparently that was fairly common as an opening. We learned from our editors here. So I think I misspoke about that. Another thing I want to mention is one of the highlights of a book I had the opportunity to review for Pietas, Josiah Osgood's book about.
I think it's called the Rise of Cicero and the Fall of Rome. And fantastic book. And, you know, one of the highlights of it is that you learn a little bit about the Roman legal system in this period. And I mean, it's not the same kind of bureaucratic system that we have now. Right. In terms of there's kind of, you know, you know, a district attorney or a prosecutor. Right. It's kind of a weird hybrid public private system to where you have, again, the examples here of, okay, how am I going to make my career in politics and in the law?
Maybe I'll prosecute somebody. Or you kind of like to depend on private initiative in a way that we would find odd. The other thing is just to keep in mind, in the background that Osgood brings out in that book is there's essentially, we would see it as a pretty much no rules in the legal. In the courts. Right. You can say, you know, character assassination was the norm or, or. Or the opposite. Right. If you're trying to defend somebody, you. You just talk about all the amazing, awesome things that they did before, you know, totally unrelated to the. The charge that they're accused of. I mean, it's just totally fascinating. What it was sort of pure oratorical rhetorical contest that was in some ways driving the results. Anyway, I just want to put that as the background there and, and, and there's a lot more to learn from. From that book and, and other sources.
And it is interesting, though, that the kind of. I mean, I hear or I see and maybe I'm reading this in kind of anachronistically, but the idea that, hey, if we have to, we would prefer a kind of lenity or lenience. Right. And we would rather, you know, the famous. I Think it's called Blackstone's ratio, where we'd rather 10 innocent people go free than wrongly accusing one guilty person. Or.
Yeah, 10. 10 guilty. Sorry. We'd rather 10 guilty people go free than wrongly accusing one innocent or convicting one innocent person. I mean, I think you see some of this here in, in Cicero, the idea that we. We really want to make sure the defense is strong and prosecution may be necessary. Sometimes, of course, you know, you got a case of revenge. Of course, you have to have prosecution, right. But.
Or for the good of the state. But there is a sense of, hey, we ought to be careful about deploying the sort of force of the community in that way against somebody, even just, you know, tarnishing their. His civic status. You know, that's a hefty thing to, To.
[00:18:58] Chris Anadale: To be.
[00:18:59] Ben Peterson: Not to be undertaken lightly or frequently.
[00:19:03] Josh Bowman: It's so different from our legal system. And in a way that's just almost comical. I mean, for one thing, like you said, Ben, there's. I don't know if there's a complete lack of due process, but certainly not nearly the. The amount of attention to due process that we have today.
It is. I mean, what's not admissible in a Roman court, Right. In that sense, I think that's. That's really interesting also, this, this view of prosecution. Just think today about how you can make an entire career saying, I'll sue those. Those people for you.
[00:19:35] Ben Peterson: Right?
[00:19:35] Josh Bowman: You can make a whole career out of like the injury lawyer, right.
Or these celebrity lawyers who are, you know, they find chances to sue everybody. They can.
And, you know, sometimes we. We dislike them, but, you know, you can make. There certainly is not a.
The stigma is not attached to prosecution today the way it was in ancient Rome. In fact, today, if you're a defense attorney, you know, you don't. It's kind of, you know, the joke is you don't make any money, right. In that sense, you know, why is that? Why do we see at least, why does it seem like the American public in particular, and actually, I would guess this is similar in Europe that the prosecution is favored.
I wonder if it's. We live in a moment where you're guilty until proven innocent. Like, once you've been accused, the prosecutor is the one who's going to get you, right? The prosecutor is the one who's going to finally bring justice to the situation. Well, what if you're not guilty? Right. Why not celebrate the defense?
This wasn't always the case. You think of the famous case of John Adams defending The British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. That's an instance in. Where it certainly was not a popular move on his part, but we still remember him for it because he believed that, like, these men deserve a defense.
This situation is not as simple as the public wants it to be.
So he's going to mount a defense for the British soldiers, as I recall. He wins, right? I'm blanking. Yeah, he wins. Yeah.
Which is interesting. So I would just remark on that. I don't want to get into all the details of the individual cases.
There's the biography of Cicero by Andrew Dyke that I'm reading right now is chock full of details about each of those particular cases, at least the ones that we have a record of.
And in. In those individual cases, you can see all these different nuances of discovery and how. And how Cicero's struggling with how to. How to paint the case and how to. How to be eloquent, how to be wise, how to be persuasive here.
[00:21:46] Ben Peterson: What.
[00:21:46] Josh Bowman: What information to bring up and what information to leave out.
You know, did he know this about this person when he. You know, it's. It's an interesting study to be done with each of those cases that I feel like would. Would bog down the. The podcast here, though, so.
[00:22:02] Chris Anadale: Okay, well, I think I will take next turn reading chapter 51 of book two here on page 82 of this edition, There is one piece of advice concerning duty which must be punctiliously observed.
That is never to threaten the civic status of an innocent man by prosecution that could not fail to be a criminal deed.
Is anything so inhuman as to take the eloquence that was given by nature for the protection and safe keeping of mankind and to turn it to the destruction or ruin of good men?
But on the other hand, though that must be avoided. Still, scruples should not prevent us from occasionally defending a guilty man, provided he is not wicked and impious.
The masses want it, custom permits it. Humanity tolerates it in lawsuits. A judge should always strive for the truth. But an advocate may sometimes defend what looks like the truth, even if it is less true.
I should not dare to write that, especially when I am writing on philosophy, had it not been acceptable to Panaetius, a most respected Stoic.
It is indeed defending that gives the richest yield of glory and gratitude, and the more so if it. It happens that the man you assist appears to be overwhelmed and oppressed because of the influence of some mighty individual.
I myself have done that often. In particular, I did so as a young man on behalf of Sextus Rosicus of Ameria in the face of the influence of Lucius Sulla, who was then despot. That speech, as you know, is still in existence.
[00:23:54] Ben Peterson: Well, this is a really interesting. I may have got a little bit ahead of myself in my comments on the. On the last round.
This. This preference here that he has for you. You. It is. It is a, you know, wicked, terrible thing to. To prosecute somebody you know is innocent. Right. For. For Cicero, it is not great, but it maybe is okay to defend somebody sometimes who, you know is guilty.
Right. You know, that it's. And I think it goes beyond here. We often hear the idea, well, everybody should get their day in court. And, I mean, I think maybe that's at play here. That's due process, like Josh was talking about. But I think it goes beyond that to where the way. I wonder if what's going on with here is the law courts are a kind of extension of politics.
Right. And so, I mean, you're. There's not this divorce between them to where it's something that we would see almost as like, well, that's the. You know, the law ought to be shielded from politics. Right. And we don't want political. And he was saying, well, especially if you're defending somebody who, you know, is kind of getting buffeted by powerful, influential people, even if they're guilty, it might be. You know, it might still be a good thing to use your rhetoric on behalf of this weaker person who is sort of facing up to more powerful interests and more powerful people. That's kind of how. What I was maybe getting from this, that.
And there is still glory to be had here, which, again, it's helpful to keep in mind, this is. The whole goal of these last few chapters, is like, how do you gain glory in a way that's appropriate. Right.
So I think that's kind of how I read the chapter.
[00:25:39] Josh Bowman: Yeah. I'm really struck by the sentence. Is anything so inhuman as to take the eloquence that was given by nature for the protection and safekeeping of mankind and to turn it to the destruction or ruin of good men?
There's a lot at stake here for Cicero.
What we say and how we say it is so important to understanding friendship, community, politics, justice? It's not today you'll hear in the media, oh, it's just rhetoric. Right. Cicero might be like, well, what do you mean, it's just rhetoric? This is something that makes us human and deeply connected to our nature.
Why would we ever use words to do injustice? Why Would we ever use words to hurt and harm and someone who doesn't deserve it? Right.
And I think there's something really powerful and important there. Right. These aren't that. It's. It gets to an appreciation of language that, you know, I think, I think both Tolkien and Lewis will recognize in Cicero later, by the way, where essentially they. They see him sharing their belief like it's not just. These aren't words.
They're not just words. They actually have cosmological power.
I'm reading with my daughter right now the book Aragon.
You ever read that about his. Like a dragon. And anyways, one of the things, one of the premises in there is that there's this ancient language that only like these wise magicians people know. And if you say things in that ancient language, you are. You are bound by it morally and just and. And spiritually. Like you cannot go against it. It's a really interesting concept. They don't really give. I mean, in the way he tries to portray the ancient language is almost impossible to pronounce, but I think it's almost that kind of reverence here for Cicero. How dare you use language to destroy an innocent life.
Yeah, and I think there's something to that, is there? As a Christian, do we often undersell the importance of language to a point?
Remember, it was by the word of God that we believe the world was created. God spoke the world into existence. And I think if you can speak a word, I mean, we're not God, we cannot speak a planet into existence. We cannot speak creation into existence. But the fact that we are made in the image of someone who does should tell us something about the way we view our words written or spoken. So,
[00:28:20] Chris Anadale: yeah, I love this. I love that same sentence about the abuse of eloquence. Thinking actually here, my philosopher's brain goes to one of the last things that Socrates says to Crito in the scene of his execution is to speak poorly, by which he means inaccurately or sort of lazily sloppily is not only bad as far as language is concerned, but also does some harm to the soul.
So that when you speak sort of out of joint with reality, you're actually hurting yourself. And this is sort of an act of charity towards Socrates, towards his old friend Crito, as he's just about to die, to sort of point this out to him, right. You have to speak well, you have to speak truly. You have to be in harmony with reality, with the world. But my thought on this as well, my additional thought on this is that we Think about eloquence as a kind of tool. That would be an instrument. We say, well, it's a tool, and just like any tool in the hand, it can be used well, it can be used poorly. It can be used for this or for that. It can be used or misused. But Cicero here seems to be speaking of eloquence that's dedicated to prosecuting the innocent as being a kind of violation of the telos of eloquence and even of the sort of the very nature of the human.
A note also that in passing, that this entire chapter is itself a work of eloquence. You can sort of see the rhetorician's moves, right? The rhetorical question, could anything be so inhuman? Right? And then the threefold repetition, right? The people want it. The custom permits it. And.
Sorry, I'm trying to find the section here. Right.
[00:30:02] Ben Peterson: Humanity tolerates it.
[00:30:04] Chris Anadale: Humanity tolerates it. Right.
[00:30:05] Ben Peterson: So
[00:30:08] Chris Anadale: it's very persuasive, even in the way that the speech comes across. But the point is that eloquence has been given to us, to you, we might say, by God, but certainly for Cicero, by nature, for the protection, safekeeping of mankind, to uphold the good of the community. And now you, the unscrupulous prosecutor who uses this to drive a good man, an innocent man, to suicide or into exile, which are the two common fates of people who are convicted at this level, is one of the worst things. And then, of course, Ben, you mentioned the Blackstone ratio, right? We certainly should avoid.
We can defend the guilty. I'm struck again here. I don't know how this strikes my ear in the English translation versus the Latin original.
An advocate may sometimes defend something that looks like the truth. Even if it is, he doesn't say false, but less true. Overall, it feels a little bit shady. And I'm willing to give Cicero some grace here. Cause we're not reading him in the original language, but it does sound. I've had conversations with some of my high school students when reading On Friendship here, where he says something similar, that one must never ask a friend to do unjust things, but one should be willing to commit a sort of small injustice, maybe tell a little white lie to save a friend from utter disgrace. And a lot of the teens I was talking with were sort of blowing the. Throwing the red card on that one.
You've crossed the line there. So I wonder what you guys think of that. Is Cicero, you know, dodging a little bit here on the morality of.
Of speaking in defense of the guilty?
[00:31:55] Ben Peterson: I don't know, I mean, to me it seems like he, he does say it. It might even be okay to defend a person who is guilty. Right. And so I, I mean, yeah, I don't think he. I think you're right. And again, I don't know the original language, but he, he may want to paint it a little less starkly than that, but it seems like what he's saying is, hey, there it. Actually, you're not.
You still might be doing a public service.
Right. You still might be doing something that's glorious to defend somebody, especially as long as they're not. You know, again, it's back to this idea of like, you take the whole person. It's not just about.
We want an impartial procedure that is just about determining. Determining innocence or guilt and exacting, you know, the right penalty if it's. If applicable. We want, you know, to judge the whole person. Is this an impious person? Is this overall a person who is worthy of defending, even if in this particular instance they're guilty, you know, and are they, you know, sort of arrayed against force, against powerful individuals? So, I mean, there's all these mitigating factors that you kind of determine what's the right course. And yeah, I mean, it may be that he doesn't want to paint it that way, but I read him as defending, you know, hey, sometimes it's okay. Not, maybe not all the time, but sometimes okay to defend someone who is in fact guilty and, and essentially to lie. Right. I mean, use your eloquence to paint as true something that isn't. But maybe I'm stressing it too far.
Yeah.
[00:33:23] Josh Bowman: I'm not sure Cicero would take it that far, but I think there is something to be said about.
He understands the practical realities of being in this situation. Right.
It's easy to imagine yourself as a defense lawyer who is going to defend someone that you're not sure about.
Maybe they did it, maybe they didn't do it.
I don't know. Right. I'm gonna, I'm gonna defend them because it's possible that the prosecutor is lying or maybe they're being prosecuted for the wrong crime or they're being over, you know, they're. They're being treated too severely. Right. You might be saying, look, I understand this person did this, but I don't think the punishment fits the crime. Or you're defending their humanity in a sense. Like, look, yes, this person did something terrible, but, you know, are we really going to take it so far as to. As to, you know, maybe I'm defending them against execution, maybe I'm defending them against solitary confinement, something like that. Right. I mean, granted, I think that's part of it here, especially in Roman times.
Think of how the stakes with many of these laws, I mean, many times the punishment is death, right. And that kind of vibe, if you will, will continue for, you know, thousands of years. Right. I mean, it wasn't. I mean, for a long time, for example, in, in England, right, a huge number of laws were punishable by death.
And it really wasn't until the late 18th, early 19th century where that starts to change.
But slowly but surely, right, there still is a lot of room for capital punishment, I think. You know, you can see how Cicero could say, look, this person did something bad and they may be guilty, but he doesn't articulate it like this. But I almost can imagine him saying like that there still could be a life at stake here.
And so, you know, how far are you going to take this? So I think. I think that's where he's.
[00:35:14] Chris Anadale: Where he's at.
[00:35:17] Ben Peterson: Yeah.
[00:35:17] Chris Anadale: I'll mention here, just a movie that I had the pleasure of seeing recently for the first time, was a movie from the 1950s, witness for the Prosecution.
And I'll just share with you what my friend who recommended it to me shared with me. You're best going in, watching it, knowing nothing, nothing about it. Don't even read the. The labels, the description on the box of the DVD or the description wherever you're streaming it. Just start it, watch it all the way through. And I can say without spoiling anything, it is an excellent movie with, with some great performances. And I'd highly recommend Witness for the Prosecution, especially if you go into it cold, not knowing anything about what. What the movie is about, other than what the title says. So it comes to some of the issues we've been talking about.
So I think we'll wrap it up for this episode.
This has been another episode of the On Duties podcast with the scholars of the Ciceronian Society. I want to thank our executive director, Josh Bowman and Ben Peterson of Abilene Christian University, for joining us here today. We hope you'll check out more of our programming on our website, ciceroniansociety.org and join us next week as we read further into On Duties. Thanks for watching today. Goodbye.
