theilian

Ides of March <2> (May-June 44 BC) - "courage of men, planning of children"

Ides of March <1> (March - April 44 BC) - "The tyranny lives on though the tyrant is dead." In these letters, we find Cicero rejoicing at Caesar's death, feeling out Caesarian's reactions, gauging people's reaction from theater, soon being disillusioned with Ides of March and fearing a civil war, meeting with Octavian, and then again uncertain on the course of his action.

It's my turn to say come now, as if Clodius was the most principled politician. Though he was populare, he was opposed to both Optimates and triumvirate and changed sides when it suited him.

If you were to choose one person, who is the most to blame (or credit) for the end of 450-years old republic? I pick Sulla not only for his march to Rome, which set precedence for army over state, but he imbodies other problems as well. Reintroduction of dictatorship, backward reform that further alienate Senate from populus, unprecedented violence of proscriptions among others.

I was using a pleb in a later sense referring to middle and especially lower class. But this act of 'civil disobedience' didn't work out too well, and I don't think it requires sprecial foresight to see that. But the thing is while the Optimates were critical of Sulla's method, they were largely supportive of substance of his actions. They were rather dragged by the populares into overturning Sulla's 'reform', and I think this put them in defensive and reactive long before first triumvirate. But Caesar offered to address such issues if the Senate proposed them. This may have been done purely for political show. I don't deny that though I don't think there is real evidence either way. In any case, this put the Optimates in bad position, and they just had no answer. At this point, first triumvirate was not visible (and I don't think it was at this point what it came to be), so one can't say this was some 'civil disobedience' against tyranny. It was plainly obstructionist policy, which could not possibly engender good will of populus. Now, I am not excusing Caesar here. The subsequent use of violence by Clodius escalated the situation perhaps beyond any hope. I am saying that both side contributed greatly to the final collapse. By this time I think things escalated to such such situation that Caesar could and did abuse his power and did irreparable harm to the republic. But still, I think this law was beneficial to the common people, who were after all Caesar's power base. Also it does not mean that Caesar necessarily planned all this in advance or it would have followed original law if the latter was supported by Optimates. Optimates, by opposing the first law, were open to accusation that they were being merely obstructionist and greedy of the interests of senatorial class (which in fact they were). My political inclination is with populares, but I don't think the repulblic was irredeemable. As for Caesar, I don't see him as an ogre that our dear Cato makes him out to be, and I agree with most of his social programme that he enforced once he became, let's face it, the first emperor of Rome. (Maybe his 10-year campaign in Gaul and stay with Cleopatra affected him) But for me this legacy which ended the political discourse (and populares movement as well) for over millenium in Western civilization is more significant and lasting than his populares legacy. But It would be wrong to blame all this on Caesar, I'd say Optimates as a whole were as much responsible.

First of all, I was not advocating the first triumvirate. I agree with Severus that critical first triumvirate was critical step to the demise of the republic, and I also think that the comparison of Crassus and tax-farmers with special interest is very apt. But I thought the Senate should have recognized that people should have more power and spoils and as such propose their own pro-pleb policy to counter triumvirate rather than watch for the skies. And while I can't say that Pompey had right to demand land for his veterans, it must be admited that the status quo as it were was unpopular with plebs, veterans had to be compensated, land reform would have benefited the general population as well with revenues coming from the East. Furthermore, when Caesar first proposed land law, he was apparently willing to negotiate with Senate. Campanian land was not to be touched, all the things that you mention were remvoed. When Optimates responded by sheer obstructionist tactics, it could not be anything but losing game. And the violence, for which I fully blame triumvirate and Clodius, was not meant against urban plebs who were opposed to the land law (why would they oppose?) but to intimidate Optimates and pro-Optimate tribunes.

Life under Caeser <3> - Letters to Atticus: "But what about Brutus?"

I came across this webpage for class called History of Western Civilization from Boise State: http://history.boisestate.edu/westciv/romanrev/21.shtml In another page, it claims that Caesar "did manage to further his reputation by associating himself with the prosecution of the Catilinarian Conspiracy."

But wasn't it the unwillingness of the Optimates to compromise that drove Pompey to Crassus and Caesar? And afterward, it seems that unimaginative obstructionist policy of the Optimates further escalated the situation and undermined their own position as totally ineffectual. I think naturally the struggle is fought on the Senate and between those in magistrate offices, but surely there were forces behind them. And I think Gracchi's legacy is that they unleashed the political power of people in a way that they did not realize before.

I need to study more to add anything meaningful to discussion, and I'm afraid that I'll draw ire from both sides, but here is a wild suggestion. Maybe both Optimates and populares are to blame? My basic understanding of this period is that while the Senate was not monolithic, there existed the majority party of Optimates who unfortunately did not recognize the necesity to adopt to chaning times. I believe the farmer population was being decimated by the wars while wealthy class were taking all the spoils of the conquest. While the situation may have been exaggerated,there seem to have been widespread discontent among the urban plebs toward Senate, which fed populares movement. Optimates should have seen that they could no longer hold on to status quo and should have come up with better strategy than obstructionist policy. And I fault populares for increasingly extralegal measures that justified Optimates in their view. The bottomline is that both the times of Gracchus and later period could use more moderates, and I felt that it was this failure to find compromise that allowed generals to dominate and doomed the republic. So far my impression is that Roman politics was to myopic and too dependent for personal alliances to recognize the general direction it was heading into.

A late interloper here, but I too am confused as to how seriously the Romans viewed these gossips and how important they were in terms of politics. Apparently there were scandalous gossips concerning Clodia and Caelius, and apparently Cicero's public mockery of her left her marginalized afterwards. Maybe if they were believed to be true, I guess it could be very damaging. Cicero piled up on Antony's alleged sins in 2nd philippic to destroy's his reputation. But did they really believe all that? About Cicero's letter, if he heard anything about Caesar and Octavian, he'd definitely share it with Atticus, but as pointed out, we don't have all letters. Actually, Cicero liked gossips, and I found in the letters references to among others, Lucullus' brother being cuckolded by Memmius (he implies some political purpose) , notororious Vedius Pollio maybe having relationship with Brutus' sister and 4 other ladies, somone named Ocella being caught in bed twice in a week, etc.

It's a bit awkard to be the only person posting here, but since I have them ready, I'll share them just as well if that's okay with you. Life under Caesar <2> (46 BC) - Letters to Friends: "In the Ruins of Republic" Cicero is in more somber mood here in his letters to fellow Pompeiians, and many letters follow the tradition of consolation letters as if grieving someone's death. I think it's interesting that although he mourns the current situation, he yet blames it on general condition of war and Caesar's followers rather than the man himself, which is to come later. Letters include those to Varro, Sulpicius, Titius, Cassius, etc In letter to Titius, Cicero writes: Is it just me, or does this quote give very strong vibe of Hamlet's To Be or Not to Be? I didn't know before, but now I know there was long tradition of Greco-Roman consolation literature that throws a new light on the the whole Claudius, Hamlet lines.

St. Patricks' Day Parade in LA LA had a parade on Friday because otherwise no one (ie. office worker) would show up. But still we had one (and no, I didn't attend)

I hope everyone had wonderful St. Patrick's Day. I guess we lovers of Rome have very special reason to be gratefull to the Irish: The Reapperance of the Texts of the Classics So thank you very much to the Irish and Happy St. Patrick's Day!!!

Added Paetus letters. Cicero to Paetus (46 BC) - Life under Caesar: Always Look on the Bright Side of Life First letter depicts Caesar getting daily report of Cicero's witticism, 4th one shows Cicero's uneasiness at the presence of notorious courtesan Cytheris (Antony's mistress), 6th letter is light-hearted discourse on a certain obscene word, which he is careful not to utter.

I added another set of Cicero's letters Caesar vs Pompey <3> letters from Pompey's camp and Brundisium. First two letters are from Caelius and Dolabella. It's kind of interesting that these kinds of letters could be exchanged between very high generals/officials of enemy camps. Also interesting that Caesar still sought to entice Cicero to neutrality even after he joined Pompey's camp. Still more interesting is the fourth letters in which Cicero repeats the bloody plans of the Pompeiians - proscription of large number of people, apparently including Atticus. Any discussion on this?

But doors of imperial palace were also closed to people, I believe. My impression of late Roman republic so far is that it was largely oligarchic but there were enough elements of democracy that could be utilized without the high-handed manner that Julius Caesar took to push his populares agenda. Not that I am all that enamored with the Optimates. I think the reform was clearly necessary afte the time of Gracchi brothers, concessions had to be made for the people both in social programs and political power. But the bottomline is that with the death of republic, the tradition of Greco-Roman political discourse died with it.

I can't believe that Ides of March is really Cato's birthday, but still Happy Birthday! :king:

I guess we just have to accept that. But what I find interesting about Cicero's death is that I think it shows us the process in which embellishments were added. I'm yet divided as to how applicable this would be to other historical accounts. About history being dull subject, I wouldn't think so, but apparently it was so in Seneca the Elder's time. He uses metaphor of needing to feed medicine by couching it with honey, medicine being history and honey being declamation. So declamation was possibly bigger part of history that we'd usually imagine.

Come on, there is only one LA. Los Angeles!

And the pi moment would be right before 16 hr.

Ilian, Where exactly is here? Here would be LA, USA Today it's more manageable mid 70's.

Since posting this, I came across an article 'Color-Blindness: Cicero's Death, Declamation, and the Production of History' by Matthew B. Roller So not so original idea, but hand theory is still mine In fact, I was thrilled to be vindicated in my little detective work. Anyway, Roller believes that declamation tradition on the theme of Cicero's death started at least in early Augustan era if not triumviral period. This puts declamatory tradtion much earlier than I thought - contemporary if not earlier than historical accounts by Tiro, Nepos, and Pollio. If so, one would imagine that influence of declamation on subsequent historical account (Plutarch and since) on Cicero's death would be even more pervasive. According to Roller, imperial imaging of Cicero was being shaped within at most a generation of the event itself. Also particularly interesting is declamation about Cicero's killer, Popillius, which became a separate theme of its own from death-of-Cicero themes. Popillius appears in various (at least 7) accounts of history and is thoroughly co-opted into history. In Plutarch, we learn that Popillius was a parricide who was successfully defended by Cicero, and we know from Seneca the Elder, Popillius the parricide was already current in declamaton. But Seneca, after checking declamation traditon against historiographical accounts, surmised that the charge of parricide is declamatory fabrication. Roller goes further and suggests that entire tradition that Cicero defended Popillius at all, on any charge, is a fabrication created in declamation noting that his name appears only in connection with death-of-Cicero tradition. As Roller notes, for instance, in Livy and Bruttedius's accounts, Popillius is a legionary soldier and Bassus calls him a veteran. All these suggest a humble origin of Cicero's killer. However, by Plutarch's time, he becomes a military tribune, an aristocratic position. In later accounts (Appian, Dio, Maximus), Popillius gains a cognomen 'Laenas', also suggesting aristocratic origin (though Appian says he's a centurion, which is unlikely to be held by an aristocrat). In either case, it is unlikely that a humble legionary would have been defended by Cicero and if the killer was significant enough to be defended by Cicero, there would be more reference to the trial outside the death-of-Cicero tradition. Roller doesn't mention this, but I'd like to note: His actions (like Antony's reaction to Cicero's head) also become more outrageous with each retelling. In Maximus, he is described to carry out Antony's order with joy and gladness. In Appian, he becomes even incompetent "drew his head out of the litter and cut it off, striking it three times, or rather sawing it off by reason of his inexperience". (Gory details for the sake of pathos is also one of hallmarks of declamation.) In Dio's narration, he even builds "a statue of himself "a statue of himself sitting crowned beside his victim's head, with an inscription that recorded his name and his deed." This progression in Popillus' villany is mirrored likewise in Antony's reaction to Cicero's head as I mentioned before. I find all this fascinating because it allows us to see the probable process by which a historical fact is embellished further and further and becomes more of a stuff of legend.

I like Rome, especially Late Republican period for mainly two reasons. First, I am fascinated by the weird mixture of something so familiar (like election, law courts, and even name of months) and yet so foreign and violent (like proscription, games, and corrupt emperors). Especially with their politics, combination of polite civility and unbelievable violence is quite shocking. Another reason is that this period comes down to us so vividly through various sources (especially letters). The Greek civilization is so much more accomplished and imaginative, and if we can get to know them better, no doubt more fascinating. But compared to Romans, they seem rather far away and distant, and maybe in too idealized picture like their statues. But with Romans, we see wrinkles and warts and all.

BTW, I think it's only right to post what Cicero has to say about this. In his 2nd Philippic, where he rather histronically attacks Antony for making his letter public: Can you imagine why his reaction would be now? Quite a read, isn't it? I also like how Caelius so casually ask Cicero to write a book and dedicate it to himself: