ogic: violence might be the status quo in ancient Rome, but it was not always the logically sound practice to follow. Thus, as Consul, Cicero would have this to say to an angry and blood-seeking Senate about his adversary, the rebellious conspirator Catilina:
Senators, we have been living for a long time among the perils and snares of his conspiracy . . . If the horde of looters is diminished by the removal of this single man, we shall perhaps have the brief illusion of finding a respite from our anxieties and fears. But the danger will still be here . . . When a very sick person, tossing about in a burning fever, takes a drink of cold water, at first he thinks it makes him better, but afterwards feels much more seriously and violently ill than he did before. In just the same way . . . our nation will at first seem relieved by the punishment of this single individual, but later it will get much worse ("Against Lucius" i, xii, 31).
Cicero considered violence a political tool, one far too overused. More important, like every political tool, violence was to be used only for the service of the state. Cicero was insistent on that point. Thus his championing of Pompey (Cnaeus Pompeius) to take command of the Roman legions in Asia Minor battling 20-years-successful Mithridates VI; Pompey had earlier shown military and political acumen in resolving the problem of Mediterranean pirates who had menaced Roman trade for decades: "Pompeius is also a thoroughly humane man: it is hard to say which is the more impressive, the dread his valour inspired in his foes while they were fighting against him, or their gratitude for his mercy after they were defeated" ("On the Command" xiii, 40-41).
While Cicero accepted the fact that he lived in a violent world - and, on occasion, voiced his endorsement for its use by the military and the judiciary - by his actions and his words it is clear that Cicero did not personally strive to use vi...