This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Classical Leadership Lessons of a Caribbeanist.

Political Thriller

Sunday 12-1:30pm private study

A Political Thriller indeed! The Catilinarian plot details the great orator Marcus Tullius Cicero's rise to Consulship in 63 BCE, by exposing the plot of Lucius Sergius Catilina to overthrow the Roman Republic. Cicero and Catilina (known as Cataline) were Patricians in the Roman Republic Senate, and both were rivals, having their eyes on the Consulship, the highest political position in government. Catiline had competed unsuccessfully for the coveted position among the three hundred member Senate, and at last was plotting to overthrow the Republic, burn Rome, and redistribute resources to the masses.

Catiline was not benevolent in this respect however, it is known that although he was of noble birth, and that "his grandfather had faught against Hannibal in the Punic War," he was almost bankrupt and had borrowed money--going further into debt-- in the hope of winning the elections. He came third, out of the 6 people that were running. Cicero and Gaius Antonius Hybrida bested him, and three others came after, these three running for the position of Consul were not mentioned in the articles Cicero and the Cataline Conspiracy and The Conspiracy of Catiline. Defeated and in debt, Catiline had no choice but to wage war against the Senate, however his plan was foiled. One of his co-conspirators, Quintus Curious revealed the plan to overthrow the Republic to his wife Fulvia, in an attempt to make her stay with him because she threatened to leave. This was due to Quintus' debt that she sought "greener pastures." Fulvia told Cicero's wife Terentia, and that is how word of the plot got out.

Tuesday class 9:40-11am & 6:30-9pm private

Image result for political battle

In class we discussed what it meant to be a tyrant.
The definition was given that a tyrant is someone who ruled monarchically, but also through illegitimate means (although there is something to be said about the "legitimacy" of any monarchy).
We discussed Donald Trump's political leadership style and his focus to the demographic process. The moderator at the presidential debate asked Trump and Hillary Clinton if "their opponent won, would they stand behind and be in support of that person as the new President of the United States."
Hillary Clinton replied yes, and Donald Trump while he did respond in the affirmative, did go on to leave room for doubt. His camp then released statements that a group of immigrants were being given citizen ship rights. The impression was given that:

1.) These immigrants were being given the right to vote so that they could vote for Hillary Clinton and
2.) That there could possibly be a questioning of the "democratic process" of election, which could lead to questioning the validity of the election and the legitimacy of the victor. Legitimacy is another recurring theme that we have seen throughout this course. Legitimacy is key to a leaders authority, and is a symbol of recognition by the collective group. The members of the public who support Donald Trump's campaign, could also come to support his claim that Hillary-- if she does win the election--is not the true and fair president of the United States. This could lead to civil unrest and division of the public, and surely a crisis.
Another sign of a tyrant is his/her hunger for power and his/her inability to control their own passions. they are a slave to their desires. This relates scarily to the recordings of a potential president talking about their inability to control themselves from kissing or groping women, even if they are married. This related to the mate-poaching that we observed in Agamemnon in his quarrel with Achilles. Can a leader legitimately do whatever they want?

Both Cicero and Catiline call into question each others legitimacy. Cicero questions Catiline's intentions and ambition to Consulship. He describes Catiline's ambition as "unbridled" and makes the comparison to Catiline being an unbridled horse, trampling upon Rome. Catiline on the other hand reaffirms his validity and legitimacy as a man of nobility and rhetorically asks if he would ever be capable of such charges that were being brought against him. He does call into question Cicero being a Nuvo Homo meaning a "new man". Although Cicero was a Patrician like Catiline, and was a well known orator and lawyer from a land-owning wealthy family, he came from a small city outside of Rome. He was fairly new to the politics of the Senate. And many would have seen Cicero's ambition to Consul as suspicious, if not a threat. Catiline played on this.

This module identified some of the issues of leadership such as income equality, and the difference between the Populares and the Optimates.
Cicero was an Optimate, and believed that it was best for the Republic to be ruled by the upper-class, and therefor sought to uphold the oligarchy. Catiline was a Populares, they sought popular support against the oligarchy, either for the good of the public or the good of themselves. Catiline was certainly not a philanthropist. It is said that Catiline was jealous of Novus Homo's (like Cicero) who were richer than him even though they were now to the Roman Senate.

In this module we see all the issues of:

Personal Rivalry: Catiline initially refused to partner with Cicero in the election and instead opted to run with Hybrida because he could more easily be controlled. Thus a feud was born. Eventually Cicero won the election with Hybrida, and was indeed able to manipulate him with money. I would have like to know how the relationship dynamic changed between Hybrida and Catiline, given the fact that they were friends and running-mates during the election.

Character morality: What agenda did Catiline have for running in the Senate? What were Cicero's ambitions? Cicero bribed his co-consul Hybrida with the prospect of being able to recuperate his funds, by being the governor of Macedonia, but Hybrida was later driven into exile and Cicero took up position as Consul. How moral was this move by Cicero even though Hybrida was a close friend of Catiline? Was it politics as usual? That is something I am willing to debate. But while the morality of Cicero's move can be debated, it was definitely ingineous on his part in that it served to protect him from Catiline's reach.

Personal finance: The Consulship was very lucrative position. This place in government could definitely have attracted contestants who wanted personal gain. Similarly, Catiline could have canceled his debt if he had won the elections. and Indeed would not have needed to usurp the consulship.

Class: the strained relationship between Cicero the Optimate and Catiline the Populare. Did Catiline fall into this category because he was "poor" and resented the Optimates for this? Did Cicero fall into the Optimate class because he was wealthy and sought to keep the wealth attached to the oligarchy and patricians. What about the Plebans? These commoners who made up the Assembly decided the elections for the Consul and the Forum. While they did not acquire wealth, they did believe in the system of government and contributed greatly to leadership-- Something I found very interesting about the Roman government.

Empire: It is clear that the "Roman Empire" meant two different things to these men. Catiline eventually became known as a enemy of the state for his treason while Cicero became known as the "Father of the fatherland." How were these titles reinforced? I would like to know what the loyal followers of Catiline called him, Especially the "Big 5" that were discovered in the city due to Fulvia and Quintus Curius. (Was Curious telling Fulvia of Catiline's plot against the republic a good leadership move? Was it manly? It reminds me of the "I Know What Boys Like" module, and Anthony's loyalty to Fulvia.)

Rhetoric: what part did the ability "to persuade" have to do with the outcome of both men? what exactly constitutes rhetoric and how can it be measured? What was the genius behind Cicero's four Catilinarian speeches?

In this module we are one generation away from the fall of the Roman Empire. At that time in the late Roman Empire, its regions extended to Gaul (modern-day France), Asia, parts of African and the Mediterranian. Although there was the Presence of Patricins and Plebans and the inequalities that came along with those classes, and the presence of Optimates and Populares, Rome did't yet have any fully developed political ideologies, thus no fully formed political parties.

SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romae
The Senate provided wisdom and leadership of Rome. The public served in the armies. As stated before the Optimates believed that the "best" should govern. In economic hard times, populares would gather together and champion the cause of the poor, with the belief that the Optimates were not adequately addressing the issues at hand. It was also aformentioned that Catiline identified himself as a populare. Was it possible to switch between being an optimate and a populre? I wonder if Cateline in his failed political runnings before identified himself as an optimate and then switched over to the side of the populares in order to apply a different approach to get the consulship? Did he have the conspiracy in mind already, as a premeditated safety net in case he lost the election, that as a populares he could champion the cause of the masses and lead the revolt?
Catiline was seen as AUDACIA - willingness to cross boundaries or break laws. And it was this AUDACIA that was portrayed as an unbridled horse.

Thursday 10/12 9:40-11am

In class we learnt the Five Canons of Rhetoric, neatly expressed in the acronym MEDIA.
Memory
Eloquence
Delivery
Invention
Arrangement

Memory is the depth of knowledge you have about a subject. The speech you give is not extemporaneous exactly, but you have so much knowledge about a particular topic that you are able to draw upon it that knowledge willingly to explain your points. This is not a memory of the speech, but a memory of the topic.
Eloquence is usually referred to as style, how do you portray your speech? do you use alliterations? Metaphors and similes?
Delivery is the physical manifestations of your eloquence? What does you volume and variations in tone say? how do you position your body and does this positioning reinforce or contradict your speech? How is your face arranged and are you animated or stand-still?
Invention, sometimes called discovery is the ability to come up with different lines of arguments and to frame the argument in such a way that it exposes all facets of the argument and shows what are called the "gray" areas that is sometimes hard to recognize. Invention is most interesting to me because it shows a speakers ability to frame the issue well. and usually the better a speaker is, the more succinct the argument can be framed. This is especially tough to do with issues that are not curt and dry and that often will never be solved or fully agreed upon.
Arrangement. Once you have recognized the argument and the points that need to be made, as a speaker you must now decide how to enumerate them in the best and most meaningful order.

Cicero was able to demonstrate these 5 facets of Rhetoric. As a result of him being a student of Aristotle in his teachings of Rhetoric and argumentation, Cicero was also familiar with the logical fallacies like the appeal to force and appeal to pity; he would also have been aware of the value of decorum and the rhetorical vices like repetition and long-windedness. Above all he would have been aware of the parts of the rhetorical triangle (author, audience, message) and the three rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, pathos).
Pathos (pity) involves appealing to the audience's emotions. Ethos (ethics) involved appealing to their sense of justice of what is right and wrong. But Aristotle considered logos (logic) to be the most powerful appeal, as it dealt with the audiences sense of logic and reasoning.

Decorum, derived from the words decorate and decent mean "what is fitting"
Decorum takes into account the following four aspects and how these aspects fit together:

Speaker - Who is the speaker and who is the speaker perceived by his audience to be? This will determine how the speaker's purpose and how they interact with the audience. It will also what the audience expects from the speaker. A politician won't address a crowd with a bunch of laugh out loud jokes (even though this may be her personality in private), and similarly a comedian won't address a crowd in a very serious tone throughout.
Audience - The age, circumstance, ethnicity and other different identifies of the audience will also determine what is appropriate to be said by the speaker and what would be inappropriate or offensive or obscene.
Occasion - Whether the occasion is an acceptance speech, concession speech, commencement, wedding or funeral, there are certain conventions in place. There is a certain level of expectation for what is appropriate for these events. A funeral is usually a somber and reflective atmosphere, while a wedding reception is jovial.
Circumstance - This may be whatever is going on at the time of an event. A popular or controversial piece of news or the atmosphere or settings, usually any external factor can be considered circumstance. A speaker who is able to tie in these circumstances that the audience may connect with can be very effective.

We also learned in class about emotional intelligence and how it is tied into decorum. Emotional intelligence as opposed to traditional intelligence has a lot of value for leaders who have to make complex problem-solving decisions. Any emotional intelligent person must have:

Empathy - The ability to feel what someone of feeling.
Perspective taking - The ability to understand why someone is feeling that particular way. Whether it involves coming up with good theories to explain why they are feeling like that, it is necessary for getting to know people on an intimate level.
Self awareness - The ability to know thyself. It also includes knowing the impact you are having on others and/or how you are being perceived.
Self regulation - Being able to control yourself, physically and emotionally
Social skills - Being able to talk and interact with people. Network.

Thursday CommonSession 7-8pm
In the Common Session on Thursday we learned from Dr. Christine Tulley at the University of Findlay about how our opinions of leaders and leadership can be affected everything from a smile, to gender, attractiveness, and probably can be extended to other physical attributes like race and everything else. It was explained how Cicero studied rhetoric from a very young age (95-90 BCE) and how he believed that a liberal arts education was important for a student to develop in the art of rhetoric. Cicero believed a few basic principles about Rhetoric:

Student must have a knowledge of many matters to have successful rhetoric. It is not enough to know how to persuade; a knowledge in the liberal arts will give a student a wide knowledge base
Students must form a certain style through word choice and arrangement; it is not enough to speak well, the speech must be thoughtfully put together.
Students must also learn to understand human emotions so that they can appeal to their audience.

Using these principles we were able to analyze president Obama's commencement speech to Notre Dame and Cicero's first Catilinarian speech. We discovered how Obama was able to isolate the heckler, and to continue his speech, even inventing on the spot and incorporating the personal anecdote about the letter he received about abortion from one of his supporters. A very controversial topic at a Catholic school, yet he was able to frame the issue in such a way as to not offend anyone. Cicero on the other hand isolated Catiline from the Senate and in the same breath, mobilized the Senate to act against Catiline. Using PRAETERITIO (passing over Cateline's questionably) to call into question Catiline's past offences without seeming to. Cicero was able to completely disarm Catiline.

Dr Sandridge asked, since both Catiline and Socrates ended up dying enemies of the state, if there was any other similarities between them. I couldn't think of any, except that in the circumstances surrounding both of their deaths, they were poor financially. History though, judges the art of rhetoric, Socrates for his skill in the art, Catilina for his lack thereof.