theilian

But considering that the Spartans were trained and lived for this type of glory, I wonder how much of sacrifice and heroism this was for them. Theirs is a different kind of heroism from those who enjoy life and do not value glorious death as much but still fight against desperate odds. Plus, the worship of perfect body in the movie reminds me of Sontag's take on fascism of Leni Riefenstahl. Besides, I have nothing against physical courage or heroism in itself, but I find that it often serves as a smokescreen for anti-intellectualism.

Happy Day After Birthday, Viggin

Spring? It's summer with 85F here. Yesterday I slept in t-shirt and shorts.

Happy birthday P-P! Have a white robe hanging from your shoulders, a smoking altar circled by garlands, grains of incense crackling in the flames, with cakes to mark your birthday! (Ovid)

Usually I'm not all that concerned with historical accuracy, especially with a movie that is so manifestly ahistorical. But what I find disturbing about the movie (which I didn't watch and I'm basing my opinion on what I heard about it) is glorification of Sparta and all it stands for - militarism and isolationism gone horribly wrong, sheer contempt for life and glorification of death. I give my thanks to Sparta for saving Greek civilization (though I am not sure how important Thermopylae really was), but aren't they really ancient version of Nazi?

Thanks for the kind words. I posted these links one by one as I made them on HBO ROME forum. (Maybe I should done that here because there are too much material to go over. ) But in overall, I do wonder how typical or atypical Cicero was as a Roman (and I think this is an important issue as we depend greatly on his letters for insights to Roman tempora and mores). He was Italian, and apparently much more emotional and mercurial than most. But beyond that, was Cicero very unusual as paterfamilia? And most of all, how typical was Cicero in his decision regarding the civil war? In the most recent installment 'Caesar vs. Pompey <2>', Cicero is under great deal of pressure to choose between Pompey and Caesar, and it was interesting to see a myriad of factors he was considering in his (in)decision. The good of republic does take top priority, but almost equal priority is given to issue of personal obligation that he thinks he owes to Pompey and Caesar respectively. He seemed particularly concerned about appearing ungrateful. (And other considerations include: his reputation, relationship with hanger-ons of each side, welfare of his family, personal safety, etc) In any case, from his letters, it seems clear that there were well-defined parties (Optimates and Populares) that were based on principle but personal relationship came very close in importance in Republican politics. Can you share what this is about? I am very curious.

Only six months ago, I didn't even know there was such ting as Cicero letters, but at the moment I am postively obsessed about them. I find them just wonderfully fascinating. To share that, I made the following link at HBO Rome forum, and hope you find them useful. <Ciceronian sources> Collection of Cicero letters - from Harvard Classics (some are included below) Political themes Novus Homo (65-50 BC) - "The state of things in regard to my candidature..." Cicero vs. Clodius <1> (61 BC) - Bona Dea scandal and trial Cicero vs. Clodius <2> (60-59 BC) - first triumvirate is formed Cicero vs. Clodius <3> (59 BC) - Cicero under heat Cicero vs. Clodius <4> (59-56 BC) - Cicero's exile and return: Cicero vs. Clodius <5>: Clodia (56 BC) - excerpts from Pro Caelio: "Medea of the Palatine" Cicero vs. Clodius <6>: Coda (52 BC) - Clodius' death (Pro Milone): Battle of Bovillae Cicero's Palinode (56-54 BC) - First Triumvirate: "Good-bye to principle, sincerity, and honour!" Cicero to Lentulus Spinther (54 BC) - How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the First Triumvirate Caelius to/from Cicero <1> (51 BC) - Caelius' gossips: I need panthers! Caelius to/from Cicero <2> (51-50 BC) - Cicero in Cilicia: Get me outta here! (includes Cato letter) Caesar vs. Pompey <1> (50-49 BC) - "I know from whom to fly, but not whom to follow." (includes Pompey and Caesar letters) Caesar vs. Pompey <2> (March - May 49 BC) - "Time has come when I can no longer act either boldly or wisely." (includes Caesar letters) Caesar vs. Pompey <3> (48-47 BC) - Cicero in Pompey's camp and Brundisium Letter to Aulus C

Yes, this complicates the narrative. Especially, I find it interesting that Plutarch discounts a story that Cicero was betrayed by freed slave of Quintus Cicero by saying that Tiro does not mention it. So how much of Plutarch's story is from Tiro? Is Popilius story attested by Tiro? I guess there is no way to know. (There is very dubious story of crows helping Cicero in Plutarch - and repeated by Appian - this is probably from Tiro, I'd imagine.) MPC, do you know which of those sources are other than Maximus, Plutarch, and Appian? I'd be very interested to know.

Pilus, I agree with you. The main part of Cicero's death remains same throught the stories. It's really small parts where embellisment (I think) seem to appear. But I think it's remarkable that 2 hands become 1 hand in the history of narrative. And I think the perspective of the time has influenced this change. Totally agree. It amazes me how many of us have so different interpretation of the events. And it's really fun to try truth behind all the polemics and prejudices. Here, in small ways, I feel somewhat like a detective trying to find what really happened on that Dec. 7, 43BC even though these are admittedly only a minor detail. So on the light topic, do you think that Fulvia really hacked Cicero's tongue wiht hairpin?

Thank you for kind words. I find the story of Cicero's death and subsequent retelling interesting because I feel like I can see the process of fiction entering history. How accurate this view woluld be, I don't know. I also find the story of Popillius interesting. He's said to be a parricide, then exactly how many parricide case did Cicero defend?! I think it's possible that this detail was added to Popilius from famous parricide case which made Cicero famous, Roscio of Ameria . Also I have no idea in what context Seneca disputes him being assassin, and would like to know more about that. I heard of the declamations of Cremutius Cordus and Bruttedius Niger. In any case, I doubt I can go much farther into this amateur 'research' because I don't know no Latin.

Hi, I got interested in Roman history thanks to HBO series Rome (sigh, I know), and I am still learning. I've been focusing on Cicero especially. Recently with his death on the series, I've been paying attention to the ancient accounts of his death and reception by the later Romans, and noticed a few things that might illustrate how 'fact's of history may change over time. So here is my rather inadequate thought: When Cicero's head and hand(s) were nailed on the rostra, this was witnessed by tens of thousands of people. But for some reason, there is a great deal of confusion as to how many hands were nailed. Why? There are at least 6 surviving accounts of Cicero's death. According to Livy, Cicero lost both hands, but according to Appian, Dio(see bottom of Livy page), and V. Maximus(middle of Livy page), they cut off 1 hand. Plutarch(lower part of Livy page) has it both ways, saying 2 hands in Cicero biography but 1 hand in Antony biography. In a poem (Latin) by C. Severus, it's 2 hands. What's interesting is that if you look at them chronologically, in the earliest versions(Severus and Livy), it's 2 hands. In the next earliest (Maximus), it's 1 hand. In Plutarch, it's both 1 and 2 hands, and then in later histories(Appian and Dio), they all become one right hand. What's more interesting is that in the earliest version, Severus' poem, hands may not have been even associated with oratory. I don't know Latin, but hands are described as "servants of such great deeds", that is the opposition to Antony, oration being subjugated to the 'act'. But by the time of Livy, which is 30-40 years later (I think), two hands come to mean writing against Antony. In Plutarch, both 2 hand (with oratorical connotaton) and 1 hand (literary connation) are maintained, and in later stories, they become the right hand that wrote Philippic and loses oratical connotation altogheter. My thesis is that as image of Cicero is changed from that of statesman against Antony, to performing orator, and then to literary writer, in the process of molding these images, one certain detail of historical fact is changed. (So, it seems that two hands being nailed was the historical fact) But furthermore, the account of Cicero's death seems to have been further corrupted by rhetorical exercises at Roman oratory schools. From Seneca the Elder, we learn that Cicero's death was very popular topic for oratorical declamation. And it seems that the declaimers in their enthusiasm for praising Cicero and denouncing his killers, added stories which later may have been picked up by historians. (In case of Vellieus' account, described right below Livy, the author even breaks off from his historical narrative to adopt declamatory tone condemning Antony personally.) For instance, I read that Seneca the Elder criticized declaimers for assuming that Popilius was the assassin, having previously defended by Cicero on a charge of parricide. By the time of Plutarch, it's an established fact that Popillius is one of the assassins along with Herennius, who is the actual killer. By the time of Appian, Popilius is the sole assassin who saws off Cicero's head. And maybe such declaiming is the source of other dubious details such as betrayal of ex-slave of Cicero's brother, which is rejected even by Plutarch. This reappears in another form in Appian, where Cicero is betrayed by Clodius' client. And I think that the popular story that Fulvia stabbed Cicero's tongue with hairpin is same type of fiction because Cassius Dio (chronologically the last) is the only writer who mentions this. Surely, if it really happend, considering the prominence of Fulvia and symbolism of tongue, earlier authors would have mentoned the story. Also seeing Antony's reaction in these accounts is interesting. In Livy, his reaction is not described at all. In Plutarch, Antony is shown to be much pleased saying: "Now let our proscriptions have an end." Then in Appian, "It is said that even at his meals Antony placed the head of Cicero before his table, until he became satiated with the horrid sight." By the time of Dio, Antony is not enough, so Fulvia appears with her hairpin. So Livy's account is probably the least corrupted. Livy even mentions that Cicero had it coming to him because he would have destroyed Antony if he could. In all later accounts, Cicero's death is divorced from political situation and he is basically depicted as an innocent victim, which he became as Cicero the politician was forgotten and Cicero the writer is remembered. Dio, even though hostile to Cicero, seems to reflect this by adopting 1 hand theory. Sorry for long post, I hope I didn't waste your time, but I think it raises question about how much we can trust our ancient sources. So learned friends, what's your opinion on this? If anyone knows some other account of Cicero's death that I am not aware of, please let me know. For the reference, timeline of the authors Cicero's death - Dec. 7, 43BC Cornelius Severus fl. 38BC Livy 59BC - 17AD Seneca Elder 54BC - 39AD Valerius Maximus c. 20BC - c. 50AD Velleius Paterculus c. 19BC - c. AD31 Plutarch 46AD - 127 AD Appian 95AD - 165AD Cassius Dio 155AD - 229AD

MPC, your critique of the series is the best I've read so far. I totally agree with you.

Cicero tried to sever the triumvirate shortly before, but Caesar succeeded in renewing triumvirate at the Conference of Lucca. Pompey brought pressure to Cicero especially reminding him of his brothers' pledge that Cicero would behave if recalled from exile. In his letters, he explains his turnabout that Optimates expected to fight the triumvirate without offering any protection to him. He also found comfort in believing that he was in Pompey's debt. I guess honorable thing to do for him at this point is to retire from politics, which he did but after doing more services for triumvirate agaiinst his will. From his letters, we know he was pretty agonized about the whole thing.

[quote name='Julia C

You mean, Tiro, the hand-servant of Cicero? Yes. The bald guy who's riding together with Cicero. About second philippic, there is more web-friendly version here, but I think it's same text.

Was anyone else disappointed that Tiro was so ugly in the episode? I first noticed in the 2X02 episode, but thought that it couldn't possibly Tiro.

How about Baiae? Sounds like a fun place.

There is going to be Marcus Agrippa after all

I'm sure I'm hardly the person to suggest this. But I think it's mistake to apply modern moral/interpretation to time that's two millenia ago. Nevertheless, we will continue to do so and how each generation viewed them in the last 2000 years is itself quite interesting. In a way, their individual virtues and faults are not the paramount importance in our judgement. They rather became bigger than what they were and came to symbolize bigger picture - monarchy vs republicanism, order vs chaos, progress vs conservatism, practicality vs principles, etc. So when Europe had kings, Caesar was of course to admired. It didn't matter how he achieved the power and whether the power itself was justified. Chrisitianity was also favorable to Caesar, whose empire was thought to be God's chosen medium of spreading the faith. But when monarchy was to be demolished, the heroes of Roman republic were to be inspiration. it doesn't really matter what kind of 'republic' it was. In more modern times, Caesar is viewed more favorably thanks to social issues, but yet victims of dictatorship will again be less sympathetic to Caesar, and probably it has not much to do with Caesar's individual qualities. I am hardly knowledgeable about Roman history (but I'm willing to learn), but it seems to me the compromise reached after Caesar's death was in a way established also in the way Romans viewed the struggle. Of course, Caesar was to be worshipped, yet Romans (at least aristocrats who wrote history or left literature) were soon longing for the good old days of Republic when there was no emperor to grovel at. So I think both Caesar and Cato/Brutus became heroes while Mark Antony, like sacrificial lamb, came to become the villain whether deservedly or not.

I watched the first episode of the second season. Others at HBO and TVWP are calling it the best episode ever, but I'm not sure I agree. (You can get the episode 1 DVD at Best Buy or Circuit City with purchase of HBO DVD or via torrent) Some notable things from first episode: The spoiler below contains only the details regarding historical figures/representation. I won' spoil stories about Pullo, Vorenus, etc. After Caesar's death, Antony is pursued by Quintus Pompey and his gang. Later, it's revealed that Brutus gave explicit order not to harm Antony, but that Cassius gave different order to Quintus. Predictably, it's Octavian who comes up with idea of amnesty and continuation of Caesar's acts. It seems that Cicero's death is being set as to be 'cathartic' event. He makes a brief appearance to Brutus' house praising them as immortal liberators. Antony also shows up and hears Cicero saying these things. Cicero insists to Antony that he was not involved in 'deplorable act ' and has Brutus confirm the fact. Antony presents his compromise and waits outside while inside conspirators discuss. Cicero says it's not too late to kill Antony. He's in their hands. He adds that he's not advising a certain course of action but simply stating the facts. Brutus, sarcastically, insists that he won't do what Cicero is 'not' urging. Right after the compromise is agreed, Brutus and Antony kiss each other. After Brutus goes inside, Antony nonchalantly walks to Quintus Pompey and slits his throat right in front of Brutus' house. Caesar's funeral gets somewhat Pharsalia treatment. We see Brutus and Antony preparing for the big day(Antony's preparation being ****ing Octavia, but it's not explicit shown. So what's the point? ), but never see their speeches. So no Romans, friends, countrymen here. It is just described in much later scene by some ruffian in a bar. Shots of angry mob in a very short montage. Later Brutus and Cassisus are shown in sweat as Antony smilingly suggests that maybe his speech was a tad bit too intellectual for the occasion. He offers them tour of Asian grain supplies and although Brutus insists that he will not run away, they leave Rome.

Hmmm, I thought the way story had been set that Vorenus would do the service while Pullo would have to kill his own son Caesarion.

Somone in TWOP looked at the IMDB cast info for future episodes and posted the following: So it seems the timeline is: Cicero meets the sword on episode #3, Brutus in #6, Antony and Cleopatra in #10. BTW, the titles of upcoming episodes are:

According to the article that I linked above, Galen wrote in Greek and left no less than 2 million words (20% of extant Greek writings). That sounds rather dubious, but just mentioning.

I've read over the internet that we only have 5% of writings that might be found in ancient Rome. (I don't know how accurate this is, since the same article says that 3/4 of surviving works are of Cicero, but that's only for his period and not the entire ancient Rome, right?) That leads me to this poll: which of all those ancient works would you like to have preserved most? And by the same token, if you could bring back those works, which extant works would you most like to give up? (Not just a rhetorical question since parchment was precious and in some cases certain works were destroyed to make way for different works.) As for me, I'm not that familar as to what kinds of books were lost, but I'd like to see Caesar's lost works. I am curious why Octavian suppressed them. Also I'd like even more of Cicero - particularly lost letters with Caesar, Octavian, etc and maybe that secret memoir.

I think Cicero's head and hand(s) being on public display is about the only thing that the article is right.