theilian

While surfing internet, I just came across this hilarious description of Cicero

I didn't actually read Sallust, so I don't know, but wasn't Cato the symbol of Republicanism by then? So I imagine that it would be natural to write Cataline conspiracy in terms of Caesar vs. Cato.

I am more forgiving of Cicero's self-promotion (which was apparently excessive even by Roman standard) because not only was he a new man, but I think he was on defensive ever since he executed aristocrats without trial. He probably had to justify his action both to himself and to his social superiors. This was even more so since his exile. Cicero's notorious poem must be seen in that context. And after all, Romans must have thought that the Catiline conspiracy was a big deal at the time. Sallust, no partisan of Cicero, even wrote a book about it.

How much relevance does Roman history have to our own time? Just look at a thread like this and see how much passion there is for people who have been dead for 2,000 years ago. Until very recently, I have been a real ignormus (not that I know much better now) about Roman history, and thought that Caesar was simply an evil tyrant who killed democracy. Wow, now I know that things are much more complex. I still don't know how I should judge Caesar or Cicero, but passion with which people hate or love is quite fascinating. I've been particularly interested in Cicero, because he's quite interesting guy. Re Caesar, we are probably judging him based on our imagination of him rather than who he really is. But with Cicero, it's more concrete. I'm not all that much put off by his personality (coward, hypocrite, vain, full of himself, etc). In HBO Rome forum, he seems to be universally hated, which is a bit surprising (well, maybe not). Sure, it can be rather embarrassing, but I also find myself smiling at his foibles. I laughed when Cicero wrote to Atticus (about his nephew telling around how Caesar should watch out for Cicero) that he would have been concerned if Caesar had not known him to be coward. What disappoints me most about him is his total lack of concern for the common people of Rome. That there was popularist movement itself indicates that the feeling of social injustice was not totally a foreign concept in ancient Rome. I am not sure if he has always been Optimate or was driven toward them by Catilina (both sound convincing), and I don't know if there could be a third way, but anyway, his so-called Concordia isn't much of concord since it concerns only two exclusive classes. In any case, it seems that opinion on Cicero will always be colored by opinion on Caesar. Most of the time, I am on the side of liberalism, social democracy, and for oppressed people, so I should be with the populares. But despite all the good things that Caesar was trying to enforce, I am not sure how sincere Caesar or other populares (Clodius, Catiline) was about their cause. We can't be sure since Caesar died soon after, but my feeling is that Caesar was following Alexander's footsteps rather than the Gracchi's. Besides, no matter how it was name only it was, it was still representational republic that could have been reformed as it did during earlier class struggle. In the end, Caesar resulted in despotism, from which the world did not recover for more than 1,500 years. So when it comes to Caesar's assassination, I just feel bemused. I think Cicero said in his letter even before the civil war that there must be means to remove Caesar other than a civil war. So I can see how Cicero can justfiy a killing of a tryant. Sorry for rather long mumblings.

I know of no ancient source attesting to Cicero's being offered anything by the triumvirs. But according to Britannia Encylopedia, And according to this very website, And according to some other website, Somewhere else, I even read that Cicero decided not to join after much vacillation, so I assumed that there was some ancient source such as his letters, but I guess it may just be an educated guess, and one might add, very reasonable guess.

Thank you, but I am curious what kind of position or influence Cicero was being offered at the time. If I remember correctly, it was soon after consulship when he was at the zenith of prominence, but still I don't know if he would have been regarded as their equal.

Hi, a newbie here. I recently got interested in Roman history (thanks to Rome TV series, I must admit) and this is a great place. From little things that I've learned since, I find Cicero most interesting figure since he's most accessible. So far my impression is that he did things for his own vanity as much as for Republic. It's quite surprising that he was thought of as paragon of virtue for such a long time. Only excuse I can think of is that it was different time. In fact, when I think about it, this is true of almost everyone including Caesar. Although Cicero doesn't quite meet our lofty, idealistic standard we expect of our heroes, he was perhaps more sincere in his cause than anyone else among major players. It may be pure luck that so much of his writings are extant, but maybe they survived because there were so many copies of them. One thing that I find most universally agreed on by historians is that he was without peer as an orator and advocate and that his influence on Latin prose and subsequently European literature was enormous. Anyway, the real reason I'm posting here: I'm surprised that there isn't any talk here about a new novel on Cicero. Imperium, by Robert Harris, is coming out on Sept. 15th (It's already out in UK). It's getting rave reviews across the pond. Supposedly, Harris is planning a trilogy on Cicero's life, and Imperium covers up to his election as consul. Here you can read the opening paragraphs as well as links to some of the reviews. And here you can read Chapter 2 and 3. Sounds interesting. PS: And a question, here. I read that first triumvirate offered Cicero to join them at the time. Was that as 4th member or as one of hangers-on?