March 07 Essay Entry

[Virgil61]

But people were also exhausted after the civil wars of Marius/Sulla and the Social Wars, which is when Cicero made his premature declaration. From Cicero's standpoint, why should he have been less optimistic about changing the political culture than Augustus?

 

I honestly believe that it could be the simple contrast of a competitive Republic versus a Principate in which advancement was only gained by the goodwill of the Princeps. As distasteful as that may seem to us now, we have to remember that the wars of Marius/Sulla and Octavian/Antony had been seen as factional rivalries, and once there was one man in control, promising an end to all the strife, the exhausted populace fell for it. (What is really interesting is why?) Whatever Republican facade Augustus may have hid behind, he was very firmly in control of the state. It is what I have always believed, Cato - but I would certainly welcome other views and arguments. It was anathema to Cicero to conceive of one supreme ruler - it went against everything he believed in. Augustus had been brought up with Julius as a 'role model', so the idea was not so alien to him. But you are right - a discussion on how the populace saw the merits of peace and a halt to imperial expansion would be fascinating.

 

You may be on to something. It just may be that the answer to MPC's question is that it is a measure of Augustus' control that he was able to 'manage' such expectations. Governors like Cornelius Gallus who got carried away with self-promotion in Egypt or generals such as Crassus' grandson who expected a triumph and a spolia opima (those who got 'to big for their britches' as they say) seem to have simply disappeared from public life.

 

Whatever else he was, he was an extremely competent politician. Karl Rove might even learn a trick or two from our Octavian.

[docoflove1974]

It was anathema to Cicero to conceive of one supreme ruler - it went against everything he believed in. Augustus had been brought up with Julius as a 'role model', so the idea was not so alien to him. But you are right - a discussion on how the populace saw the merits of peace and a halt to imperial expansion would be fascinating.

 

First...great essay, Augusta. Very informative and well-written...I enjoyed it thoroughly!

 

Second...and, please, forgive the ignorance...but I was under the impression that Cicero supported Octavian's advancement as the Caesar in control (so to speak). If he was so contrary to the proposition of a monarchy (which, for all intents and purposes, describes Empirial Rome), why did he support Octavian/Augustus? Is it merely to save his own neck? Was he playing his political cards in such a way as to garner a Royal Flush, and thus making the other pretenders fold? (Sorry, couldn't resist the poker analogy.)

 

How off am I on this?

 

 

Whatever else he was, he was an extremely competent politician. Karl Rove might even learn a trick or two from our Octavian.

 

That would imply humility...which no one in that administration seems to posses nor comprehend!

[M. Porcius Cato]

Second...and, please, forgive the ignorance...but I was under the impression that Cicero supported Octavian's advancement as the Caesar in control (so to speak). If he was so contrary to the proposition of a monarchy (which, for all intents and purposes, describes Empirial Rome), why did he support Octavian/Augustus?

 

Octavian was a 19-year-old boy at the time with no apparent monarchical ambitions. Keeping Caesar's heir from uniting with Antony was Cicero's chief object.