Johnson, Cincinnatus, Sulla and King Charles III

I began writing this post yesterday morning. I had been inspired to write about Lucius Cornelius Sulla by a comment made by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. As he exited his post this week, Johnson compared his return to simple Member of Parliament to that of the Roman consul and dictator Cincinnatus.

This, of course, occurred just a few days before Queen Elizabeth II died. As with any major news, events immediately prior to her death, such as Jonson’s departure, faded quickly. Yet, over time could his words have been signaling a long-term strategy? The pundits are wondering.

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was famously called away from his 4-acre farm near the Tiber to serve as a general and then dictator, twice, in 458 BCE and 439 BCE. After serving, he returned to the plow, to put survival of the Republic ahead of personal ambitions.

Historians, and even Cicero a few hundred years later, have questioned the veracity of the story or at least Cincinnatus’s motives. His actions were part of a strategy to maintain an oligarchy at the expense of the plebes and the poor.

This is why I thought of Sulla. Unlike Cincinnatus, Sulla (138-78 BCE) wasn’t called from his plow to lead armies and act as dictator. Sulla’s legacy among historians is that of a vicious commander who seized power. Like Cincinnatus, he eventually returned to his villa as a civilian to preserve the Republic.

According to either history or legend, Cincinnatus was called away and then returned to his plow twice. Does this mean Johnson plans a second act as Prime Minister? And will King Charles III then invite him to form a government?

Neither of these ancient Romans is someone I would hold up as heroic. But that reflects a modern and Democratic sensibility. Cincinnatus and Sulla represent the cruelest parts of Roman history. So, why love a history filled with greedy and brutal leaders? I want to consider this for the next two weeks.