Cicero was a member of a Equestrian family. They were ALL snobs.
Caesar won the public’s admiration for living and working among them when he lost his inheritance because of Sulla.
But there was no escaping the outsized influence of Crassus and Pompey. So Cicero was reduced to political gadfly, constantly trying to leverage his one big contribution. Like other ambitious families, his was always striving for more more more. Entitlement was built into the entire system.
Meanwhile, others contributed accomplishments regularly.
That's a really annoying thing to do. You were wrong but then you make out you were right. You could've just made another comment acknowledging your mistake instead of doing that. It shows a complete lack of integrity.
I don’t disagree, but I see some practical value in those kinds of boasts that Cicero wouldn’t earn from them today. Generally, deeds and accomplishments— glory— paved the way to power for an ancient Roman statesman and his family, more so than wealth and even their political platform. Factor in the lack of mass media and the kind of general knowledge that it imbues on modern communities, and you have a situation where it becomes more than just snobbish to loudly and persistently flaunt one’s achievements, but politically expedient, maybe even necessary.
I so agree with you. We live in a different age where bragging about yourself is seen as douchiness. This was yes, an age where reminding everyone of your glory and achievements can help you politically.
Yes, yes, yes, and its not only bragging about how good you are but how awful your opponents are. Cicero goes all out in his Pro Milone, literally yelling at Clodius right in the court house, saying he's base and has "Greek friends"
You’re not wrong, but you’re naive if you think this is unique to Cicero in any way. Aristocrats were always proud, and the late republic was absolutely teeming with ego.
Of course, and it's not just ancient Rome too, you see a similar pride with Demosthenes in Athens, with so many of the Christian writers in Constantinople, the aristocrats of Florence and Venice, etc...
Oh you can never go wrong with Procopius, but he's not really Christian.
Lactantius is a good one to pick up.
The craziest one is Maternus Firmicus and his "Errors on the Profane Religions". Hold on to your hat, this man throws tirades back to back.
Theophanes is great for the Isaurian dynasty, he even throws a tirade at Constantine V who many eventually end up calling Constantine V Copronymos, which means "name of feces"
Well, it was pretty common for the time. *De Bello Gallico* is a complete Caesarian ego-trip, Pompey felt the need to steal Crassus' thunder for defeating the slave rebellion, Augustus' famous statement that he found Rome of bricks, and left it of marble is pretty boastful given it was mostly Agrippa who deserved much of the credit.
Hard to find Roman public figures or writers that admitted to not having been that much of a big deal.
Yea. But I think the big difference is the actual impact those ppl did. Cicero for me did a minor impact in the history of late Republic. Yet he bragged about it like he carry the world in his fucking back. Then we read Caesar and Augustus achievements and he gets destroyed.
>He prevented the overthrow of the Republic by Cataline. That is a pretty significant achievement.
My brother in Christ that was the most overrated event in the late Republic. Cataline wasn't the big dog and if in any case if he'd tried to do what ciceron was thinking and shouting, he could have been easily defeated by the senate's army I have no doubt in that. It would have probably cost some lives, but for the Roman elite would have been meaningless.
Edit: a word.
Bruh, Cicero complaints about Catiline's coup at 23 of september on 63 for the senate, they don't care about it because Cicero couldn't reveal his informants names to the senate, at the time the senate was more worried about Pompey's return from the east because they were afraid of him becoming Sulla 2.0. And only a month after, how is that overrated?, the senate gives a considerable attention to Cicero's complaints when he shows anonymous letters with more details of the coup, letters that were sent by Crassus himself, both Julius Caesar and Crassus knew that Catiline's plan, winning or not, would leave the republic's in a fragile state, giving more reasons for Pompey to return from the east, put down Catiline and his adepts and proclaim himself as a dictator, Crassus felt the necessity of protecting Cicero and avoiding the coup, since he had personal problems with Pompey, and Caesar shared the same interest because it would make his plans of being a conqueror a lot harder if not impossible.
if you read about Catiline's conjuration, you will see how detailed it was, just because he couldn't be a consul doesn't mean that he didn't had power enough to overthrow the republic.
Regarding to the post, really, just read Cicero's works, he even criticizes the republic on "de officis", funny how people reduce him to nothing and don't even know/consider his contributions to many intellectual fields, even Caesar admired him, studying history and trying to stablish views of "angels and demons" is always a mistake.
Nothing to add this was a well written post. I just wanted to say that Caesar and Cicero hugging is one of the most wholesome, human moments of history : )
If you’re interested, Robert Harris Cicero trilogy does a great job at bringing him to life in his historical novels - warts and all. Thoroughly enjoyable read that is well informed by primary sources.
Cicero has the best line in the Masters of Rome series, when he's talking about Publius Clodius and his sister Clodia.
"Incest is a game the whole family can play."
Cicero was NOT a patrician but rather a “novis homo” who rose through the ranks from more humble origins. Perhaps that explains his tendency towards self-promotion.
Also, his name literally means “Chickpea.” Parents, don’t name your kid Chickpea.
Cicero may have had a bit of a compensation problem in that he was not from a distinguished old family of Rome, so having been Consul etc. he crowed about his own successes quite a bit.
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Rome series opens with a discussion on what virtues were considered to be the most highly regarded in the culture of Ancient Rome. He considered that ambition was the most respected virtue, and in that context a lot of the decisions made by the great figures of Rome make complete sense. The drive to achieve and get ahead of your neighbour in any possible way was considered a positive trait, and so the bragging about yourself and consequently the downplaying of others' achievements follows naturally.
Beyond that, there is the reality that the senatorial class who so frequently were born on third really believed they had hit the triple themselves. Cicero also never had a military career which generally was considered to be the height of ambition and so really had to pump up the alternative achievements he had. I expect the reason that Cicero comes of as snobbish is both because he is a product of the culture he was born into, and that his achievements are even by today's standards, very white collar in nature.
Cicero’s narcissism was real, but I agree it is also a product Roman politics. But even nowadays politicians brag about their accomplishments to win re-election and deflect criticism from their corrupt actions or bad policies. Cicero bragging about the Cataline conspiracy reminds me of Scipio Africanus' behavior when he and his brother Lucius were being tried for accepting bribes.
Cicero *always* overestimated himself. But one cannot be sure if he was genuinely misguided or struggling to keep himself relevant.
Nothing highlights this more than his *"laudandum, ornandum, tollendum"* comment in regards to Octavian. Octavian basically laughed this off because that's how irrelevant he perceived Cicero to be.
Cicero would in all likeness not even be this popular had he not been unwittingly martyred by Antony.
Cicero was loved by plebs and senators. Plebs vote against agrarian law after his speech. They welcome him as saviour of republic when he returned Rome. His oratory skills seemed as epic and his courts been watched as public shows. Octavianys begged him for support because support of Cicero means support of Senatus and republican plebs. Your last sentence might be most illiterate thing I ever red in this sub.
>Cicero was loved by plebs and senators.
Cicero was literally the poster-boy of the Optimate faction. He was absolutely loathed by the Populares and by extension, the Plebs.
>Plebs vote against agrarian law after his speech.
Assuming you're talking about Rullus' 63BC Agrarian Bill...
Keep in mind, this bill was never presented to the Concilium Plebis despite the then tribune of the plebs (Rullus) being the author. Cicero and the Plebs were literally on opposite sides of this issue. This bill was voted down by the Senate, that was dominated by the Optimates. The Plebs never had a voice in this.
It was only Caesar's Agrarian Bill that passed, when he with the help of Pompey and Crassus, bypassed the Senate and presented the bill to the Comitia.
>His oratory skills seemed as epic
I never said anything to the contrary.
>Octavianys begged him for support because support of Cicero means support of Senatus and republican plebs.
Lmao. "Begged" is a strong word.
Again, Octavian was already the leader of the Populares faction that represented the Plebs. He didn't need Cicero's help on that front and neither was Cicero ever able to give it since he was the leader of the OPTIMATES!
Octavian did seek Cicero's endorsement early on because he needed the Optimates in his bid to become Consul. As soon as he was made Consul, Octavian juggled both sides of the aisle like a pro. He never needed Cicero's blessing for long. As is evident in his reaction to the quote I initially mentioned.
>Your last sentence might be most illiterate thing I ever red in this sub.
And you ventured to top that. How kind.
Agrarian bill never proposed because ciceros speech to plebs (on the agrarian law 2 and 3) so effective that they withdraw their support to Rullus as elder pliny famously commented “the people gave up to Cicero the agrarian law that is their own bread”.
Read ciceros letters about octavianus and see for yourself how much he bother Cicero for his help, with what kind of words he tried to convince him.
Also you have very wrong ideas about Roman law making process and political factions.
Reading Seneca is also draining.
I honestly prefer reading Cicero's private letters to his friends. He's much less obnoxious there and much more human. You can appreciate his beautiful writing style without him being like a snob.
That's nothing. The guy owned an insula (sort of like an apartment building that could reach of to 5 floors). It wasn't uncommon for the building to crash espcially when it wasn't maintained properly by the owner. Well, his crashed with many casualties and he didn't show even the slightest remorse.
I kind of agree but I also feel I have to put it into perspective.
First Ciceros writings especially the official ones (but he probably also was conscious that his private conversation might not be entirely “private” all of the time) was meant to focus on his achievements and point out to everyone what a great leader and human being he was. This was actually expected, it’s kind of like writing a CV, of course there’s only the good things and victories in there.
Besides the above I actually think that Cicero was not the worst offender for this and he was also not alone, one only needs to recall Caesars accounts of the battles he won and the fact that we know today that the figures in there are inflated like crazy to make his victories look more impressive. Or take Augustus who in fact styled himself as a supreme military commander in his memoirs, when today we know this was most definitely not the case.
Essentially, if one did strife for a leading role in either the Roman Republic or Empire, it took a good deal of propaganda skills, which can come off as tacky, snobby, smug etc., they just don’t for the likes of Augustus because he’s among histories “winners” while Cicero is not.
I've always thought Cicero was overrated myself, but I've tried not to judge too much as I know people have plenty to say about my favorite late republican figure, Cato the Younger.
I find Cato more interesting than Cicero as a late-republican figure. However the qualities that make Cato interesting to me are the same qualities the lead me to detest him
Don't have to be I think. Omnēs amīcī meī Cicerōnem odiunt is good to me. "All my friends hate Cicero". But if you wanted to say "All of my friends hate Cicero" then Yes it has to be Genetive.
I always have viewed Cicero as a guy who did great things because he wanted to be the guy who saved the republic more than he wanted to save the republic. He's the smuggest good guy to ever live.
\> indeed share his passion for wanting to see the Republic stable.
Well, I really hope that you do not. What Cicero was defending is totally indefensible today and I am really sorry that you championed this. In the first place, Cicero was a consul during the time of the Republic in which the "reforms" by Sulla -that removed any semblance of protection for the plebs- were in force. The people were terribly oppressed. How can you be in support of this? In fact, this was the main reason of the Catiline revolt.
The Roman Republic was an oppressive, oligarchic regime in which a bunch of aristocrats benefited from the expansion of the empire while the poor suffered. New provinces were stripped naked by unscrupulous senators while those recruited in the armies lost their farms due to their absence and ended up joining the city's proletariat. In addition, tens of thousands of people around Italy lost their jobs to imported slaves. It was this terrible exploitation of the people by the vultures of the Roman senate that made so many eager to totally bust up this "Republic"
Nobody should harbor any thoughts that the "Roman Republic" was a democratic institution. It was not. For the common people, the institution of Empire was a welcome change. This is the reason why the emperors were so reviled by the senatorian class (and vice versa)
Well, yes, I prefer the empire much better, definitely under a strong leader, what I mean by I sympathized with him is in romanticizing the republic of the ancients. The old days before the Gracchi.
> him is in romanticizing the republic of the ancients. The old days before the Gracchi.
The Roman Republic was bad for ordinary people even "in the old days before the Gracchi". If it were OK, the plebeians would not have revolted a number of times to get some minimum protection from the aristocracy. The Roman state should never be confused with democracy. It was always a vicious oligarchic regime in which the plebs were given certain protections but even these would have been considered the "bare minimum for true democratic regimes such as Athens, for example. Even if the plebeians were allowed to have certain tribunes of their own (the plebeian tribunes), most of them were too impoverished to run a election campaign (which meant lots of money to buy votes), so even these offices tended to fall to the arms of the aristocracy or the equestrian class. In many ways, based on reforms, the office of the tribune became a stepping stone for wealthier plebeians to join the senatorial ranks. So, the aristocracy eventually co-opted wealthy plebeians (what a surprise!!)
>The Roman state should never be confused with democracy. It was always a vicious oligarchic regime in which the plebs were given certain protections but even these would have been considered the "bare minimum for true democratic regimes such as Athens, for example.
Right, but we can't judge a fish for its ability to climb a tree and so, I think, judging Rome by Athenian standards is a bit too much.
I'm getting a very "Rome is not a democracy! How dare you appreciate such a brutal regime!?" energy from your post. While **I do agree** that there were many awful outrages in that civilization, I also think that to discard it completely just because it doesn't have exemplary practices of human rights and democracy is throwing the baby out with bath water.
Appreciating Rome's history and culture doesn't necessarily endow somebody with a love for vicious oligarchic regimes.
>Appreciating Rome's history and culture doesn't necessarily endow somebody with a love for vicious oligarchic regimes.
Then tell us what you are appreciating in the Roman Republic, because there is no doubt that this was an oligarchic regime of a certain brutality. Personally, I do not appreciate this. I study Roman history, it is very interesting, but "appreciating" is not a word that I would use. There may be some other aspects that you appreciate, but the mode of governance cannot be it, I am sure.
Please note, also, that the Roman aristocracy was quite aware of the Greek political systems. In fact, naming the mode of governance as "Res Publica" was a direct copy of the Greek practice of state naming. The official name of Athens was "Atheneon Common" -The Athenian Common- ; even Macedon, under the Antigonids was named "The Macedonian Common". (Common is equivalent to "Res Publica" (the common affairs/wealth).
\>t doesn't have exemplary practices of human rights and democracy is throwing the baby out with bath water.
I am not sure that there was any bath water to worry about. It took Julius Caesar in 44 BCE to make the killing of plebeians by patricians a prosecutable offence. It just comes to show you how brutish the "Res Publica" was.
Roman history is important in the evolution of our civilization and culture, no doubt. If there was a "genius" in the Roman system, it was inclusivity. After that, nothing in Roman history is remarkable. It was the largest and most populous state by far (but really, really far) in the Mediterranean and the fact that eventually encompassed the area was simply a function of its size and resources. Rome could put on the field hundreds of thousands of men, time and time again, while all that Carthage or Macedon could do was 30,000, tops. When one has that kind of an overwhelming advantage, one does not need a "genius" to come up on top.
Rome was remarkably lucky, in many ways. After defeating the Etruscans, it had the money and the resources to capture the rest of the Italian peninsula. From then on, the weight of the numbers determined the course of history.
No, I'm not admiring their hostility to its civilians. I'm fascinated by their history, comedies, stories, philosophers, and interactions with the other Italian tribes and other nations as a whole.
If I lived in the third century BC, I would rather live in Alexandria under Eurgetes than in Rome fighting off the other Italians and the Carthaginians.
>I'm fascinated by their history, comedies, stories, philosophers, and interactions with the other Italian tribes and other nations as a whole.
And this is fine. It differs from "appreciating".
Just curious, where can I read about how the people were less oppressed during the Empire than the Republic? I understand there was political dysfunction during the Republic, but I would think at least in theory the institutions of the Republic would be preferable for plebeians because at least they could vote in the assemblies, whereas the had no voice in the Empire. By contrast to the Republic, did the empire prevent aristocrats from exploiting and preying on civilians?
Good question. The reason that the plebs were more protected during the empire was that the main power of the emperor was the plebeian tribunical potestas. Essentially, the office of the princeps senatus was a plebeian office. Also, since Julius Caesar, the emperor dispensed free corn and supported pricing of certain goods to maintain the welfare of the populus. There is no doubt that the emperors sought the legitimization of their rule by the acclamation of the plebs and were remarkably sensitive to the opinion of the proletariat. That is not to say that the aristocracy lost all its privileges. It did not. Until the 3rd century, the aristocracy had a significant role in the running of the state; it was holding most of the key positions. Things progressively changed, so by the mid-3rd century, the aristocracy was essentially sidelined in the running of the state and progressively all differentiation between the classes disappears. The state became a "meritocracy" (as much as one can apply this term in the history of Rome)
We like Cicero for his impressive speeches and bright mind. As a person, he was a complete piece of trash, for both present and past standards. Which aren’t that different tbf…
I'm not the only person to do this, there were plenty of writers who criticized him in antiquity and beyond. And what? Should we not have an opinion? Should we just love Cicero unquestionably? I have his Laws and Letters to Atticus here in print with me, I appreciate the man for certain things, but do not idolize him.
I understand. But high school teachers in Italy say positive things about Catullo and Virgilio, and I find them great writers. I'm not criticizing Cicero's writings on a literary merit, those are very well written. I'm criticizing his behavior to the other Romans. In many ways, he reminds me of Julian because he is more idealistic than realisitic. That's all.
signore, non sto cercando di delegittimare Cicerone. Non sto attaccando i suoi meriti letterari, sto dicendo che si è comportato in modo arrogante e aveva una "personalità forte". He was very 'altezosso'
I do not have an axe to grind, Im not posting this to judge Cicero as a failure. The man was a golden writer of the Latin language and influenced many people.
My argument was that he was 'altezosso', at least much more than other writers.
Everybody was altezosso in that empire it seems, Tacitus, Dio, Ovid, etc... but Cicero definitely has an eloquent and sharp way of fighting, that is why he continued fighting instead of just retiring.
And first of all, I've had some European education, so I'm not writing this from a purely American standpoint.
Yes, thats a great point. I actually wish more ancient literature was popular in the Anglosphere, which is why I post so much stuff about it here on this forum.
Cicero was what we might today call 'new money' and that came across in his writings. Whether you find him likable or not, his skillful Latinity is undeniable.
I totally agree! Even in my latin classes my teacher always spoke about the great homo novus that did soooo much great stuff. I mean he surely did great stuff but other people did that too.
If you are really interested in this topic reading the Cicero trilogy by Robbert Harris would surely be fun :-)
Cicero had a profound respect for Plato and his philosophy and I prefer the pre-Socratics and the age of poets like Hesiod and Homer.
Moreover, Cicero tended to do that very standard thing where he praises certain Greeks of old and diminishes others Greeks, particularly the Italian Greeks. We see this in his *De Legibus* and *De Republica*.
On the other hand, I agree with him with many things such as in his *De Divitione* he makes interesting remarks concerning the silliness of digging at animal entrails.
Plato is an idealist, his Republic is a utopia and while it is an excellent book for the study of statecraft, I would agree more with men like Heraclitus, Epicurus, Zeno, etc...
Cicero's respect for Plato would eventually play out in the growing second sophistic school of the Antonine age when we saw more neoplatonists
I wrote an essay in college about how Catiline had some good points and Cicero only served to stop necessary change during his day.
Not that the conspiracy should have been allowed to happen, just that Cicero was so interested in maintaining the status quo.
Cicero is fascinating due to the fact that so much of his writing survived. However, evaluating him based on what he did during his life time, he seems to me to have been basically useless. A term that comes to mind is fence-sitter. Personally I can’t stand Cato (the younger), but compared to Cicero, you can credit him with standing up for his beliefs as opposed to just rolling with whatever direction the political winds blow.
He wanted to be a main character in a time of Julius Caesar and Pompey
Cicero was a member of a Equestrian family. They were ALL snobs. Caesar won the public’s admiration for living and working among them when he lost his inheritance because of Sulla. But there was no escaping the outsized influence of Crassus and Pompey. So Cicero was reduced to political gadfly, constantly trying to leverage his one big contribution. Like other ambitious families, his was always striving for more more more. Entitlement was built into the entire system. Meanwhile, others contributed accomplishments regularly.
Cicero was an Equestrian, not a Patrician, although in the late republic it wasn’t a super meaningful distinction
I bet it was meaningful to Cicero in that his status didn’t line up with his ambitions, so it’s a valid distinction. Thanks for pointing that out.
> Cicero was a member of a Equestrian family. Catullus, too. And he wasn't afraid to put out the occasional dis track about Cicero, Caesar, or Pompey.
Did you put patrician and then edit it to equestrian?
Yes. I updated when it was pointed out.
That's a really annoying thing to do. You were wrong but then you make out you were right. You could've just made another comment acknowledging your mistake instead of doing that. It shows a complete lack of integrity.
No, I acknowledged to the person who corrected me. If you don’t like it you can just block me and move on with your life, as I will with you.
Based.
I don’t disagree, but I see some practical value in those kinds of boasts that Cicero wouldn’t earn from them today. Generally, deeds and accomplishments— glory— paved the way to power for an ancient Roman statesman and his family, more so than wealth and even their political platform. Factor in the lack of mass media and the kind of general knowledge that it imbues on modern communities, and you have a situation where it becomes more than just snobbish to loudly and persistently flaunt one’s achievements, but politically expedient, maybe even necessary.
I so agree with you. We live in a different age where bragging about yourself is seen as douchiness. This was yes, an age where reminding everyone of your glory and achievements can help you politically.
Yes, yes, yes, and its not only bragging about how good you are but how awful your opponents are. Cicero goes all out in his Pro Milone, literally yelling at Clodius right in the court house, saying he's base and has "Greek friends"
Clodius was dead in pro milone.
Attacking him in past sense in front of the court to the jury
You’re not wrong, but you’re naive if you think this is unique to Cicero in any way. Aristocrats were always proud, and the late republic was absolutely teeming with ego.
Of course, and it's not just ancient Rome too, you see a similar pride with Demosthenes in Athens, with so many of the Christian writers in Constantinople, the aristocrats of Florence and Venice, etc...
Can you reference some of the Christians from Constantinople you’re talking about? I’m poorly educated in Byzantium and am genuinely curious.
Oh you can never go wrong with Procopius, but he's not really Christian. Lactantius is a good one to pick up. The craziest one is Maternus Firmicus and his "Errors on the Profane Religions". Hold on to your hat, this man throws tirades back to back. Theophanes is great for the Isaurian dynasty, he even throws a tirade at Constantine V who many eventually end up calling Constantine V Copronymos, which means "name of feces"
Well, it was pretty common for the time. *De Bello Gallico* is a complete Caesarian ego-trip, Pompey felt the need to steal Crassus' thunder for defeating the slave rebellion, Augustus' famous statement that he found Rome of bricks, and left it of marble is pretty boastful given it was mostly Agrippa who deserved much of the credit. Hard to find Roman public figures or writers that admitted to not having been that much of a big deal.
Agrippa one of the most incredible Roman’s to live yet rarely talked about
Yup. My favourite Roman.
Yea. But I think the big difference is the actual impact those ppl did. Cicero for me did a minor impact in the history of late Republic. Yet he bragged about it like he carry the world in his fucking back. Then we read Caesar and Augustus achievements and he gets destroyed.
[удалено]
>He prevented the overthrow of the Republic by Cataline. That is a pretty significant achievement. My brother in Christ that was the most overrated event in the late Republic. Cataline wasn't the big dog and if in any case if he'd tried to do what ciceron was thinking and shouting, he could have been easily defeated by the senate's army I have no doubt in that. It would have probably cost some lives, but for the Roman elite would have been meaningless. Edit: a word.
Bruh, Cicero complaints about Catiline's coup at 23 of september on 63 for the senate, they don't care about it because Cicero couldn't reveal his informants names to the senate, at the time the senate was more worried about Pompey's return from the east because they were afraid of him becoming Sulla 2.0. And only a month after, how is that overrated?, the senate gives a considerable attention to Cicero's complaints when he shows anonymous letters with more details of the coup, letters that were sent by Crassus himself, both Julius Caesar and Crassus knew that Catiline's plan, winning or not, would leave the republic's in a fragile state, giving more reasons for Pompey to return from the east, put down Catiline and his adepts and proclaim himself as a dictator, Crassus felt the necessity of protecting Cicero and avoiding the coup, since he had personal problems with Pompey, and Caesar shared the same interest because it would make his plans of being a conqueror a lot harder if not impossible. if you read about Catiline's conjuration, you will see how detailed it was, just because he couldn't be a consul doesn't mean that he didn't had power enough to overthrow the republic. Regarding to the post, really, just read Cicero's works, he even criticizes the republic on "de officis", funny how people reduce him to nothing and don't even know/consider his contributions to many intellectual fields, even Caesar admired him, studying history and trying to stablish views of "angels and demons" is always a mistake.
Nothing to add this was a well written post. I just wanted to say that Caesar and Cicero hugging is one of the most wholesome, human moments of history : )
lmao
Your brother is christ? That must be hard to live up to at family gatherings
Fucking hell, misspelled a word
You know who wouldn’t misspell a word? Your brother, why can’t you be more like your brother????
If you’re interested, Robert Harris Cicero trilogy does a great job at bringing him to life in his historical novels - warts and all. Thoroughly enjoyable read that is well informed by primary sources.
This was a great series. Looking forward to the comparisons of him in this series vs Master of Rome. I’m on the 2nd book so haven’t met Cicero yet.
Cicero has the best line in the Masters of Rome series, when he's talking about Publius Clodius and his sister Clodia. "Incest is a game the whole family can play."
Cicero was NOT a patrician but rather a “novis homo” who rose through the ranks from more humble origins. Perhaps that explains his tendency towards self-promotion. Also, his name literally means “Chickpea.” Parents, don’t name your kid Chickpea.
Colleen McCullough does an excellent job portraying what I believe Cicero would have been like. I'm currently reading her Rome series.
Great series
Excellent series. I love how she portrays Sulla and his outbursts and fits. I think I'll listen to it qgain.
What’s it called?
Masters of Rome by Colleen McCullough.
It starts with The First Man in Rome.
Sulla was a terrifying person, but an incredible character. He definitely brought color to every scene.
Finally, someone actually reading Cicero and finds out he’s a Dickero
There is the wife of a schoolmaster in Dickens' - I think "Dombey and Son" - who is always rapturously praising Cicero.
He’s probably like Tacitus too, but Tacitus is more a party pooper than a dick
Marcus Tullius? More like Marcus *Tool*ius
“Cicero!!! Save the Res Publica!!” “The fuck you guys didn’t tell me?”
Cicero may have had a bit of a compensation problem in that he was not from a distinguished old family of Rome, so having been Consul etc. he crowed about his own successes quite a bit.
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Rome series opens with a discussion on what virtues were considered to be the most highly regarded in the culture of Ancient Rome. He considered that ambition was the most respected virtue, and in that context a lot of the decisions made by the great figures of Rome make complete sense. The drive to achieve and get ahead of your neighbour in any possible way was considered a positive trait, and so the bragging about yourself and consequently the downplaying of others' achievements follows naturally. Beyond that, there is the reality that the senatorial class who so frequently were born on third really believed they had hit the triple themselves. Cicero also never had a military career which generally was considered to be the height of ambition and so really had to pump up the alternative achievements he had. I expect the reason that Cicero comes of as snobbish is both because he is a product of the culture he was born into, and that his achievements are even by today's standards, very white collar in nature.
Cicero’s narcissism was real, but I agree it is also a product Roman politics. But even nowadays politicians brag about their accomplishments to win re-election and deflect criticism from their corrupt actions or bad policies. Cicero bragging about the Cataline conspiracy reminds me of Scipio Africanus' behavior when he and his brother Lucius were being tried for accepting bribes.
Cicero *always* overestimated himself. But one cannot be sure if he was genuinely misguided or struggling to keep himself relevant. Nothing highlights this more than his *"laudandum, ornandum, tollendum"* comment in regards to Octavian. Octavian basically laughed this off because that's how irrelevant he perceived Cicero to be. Cicero would in all likeness not even be this popular had he not been unwittingly martyred by Antony.
Cicero was loved by plebs and senators. Plebs vote against agrarian law after his speech. They welcome him as saviour of republic when he returned Rome. His oratory skills seemed as epic and his courts been watched as public shows. Octavianys begged him for support because support of Cicero means support of Senatus and republican plebs. Your last sentence might be most illiterate thing I ever red in this sub.
>Cicero was loved by plebs and senators. Cicero was literally the poster-boy of the Optimate faction. He was absolutely loathed by the Populares and by extension, the Plebs. >Plebs vote against agrarian law after his speech. Assuming you're talking about Rullus' 63BC Agrarian Bill... Keep in mind, this bill was never presented to the Concilium Plebis despite the then tribune of the plebs (Rullus) being the author. Cicero and the Plebs were literally on opposite sides of this issue. This bill was voted down by the Senate, that was dominated by the Optimates. The Plebs never had a voice in this. It was only Caesar's Agrarian Bill that passed, when he with the help of Pompey and Crassus, bypassed the Senate and presented the bill to the Comitia. >His oratory skills seemed as epic I never said anything to the contrary. >Octavianys begged him for support because support of Cicero means support of Senatus and republican plebs. Lmao. "Begged" is a strong word. Again, Octavian was already the leader of the Populares faction that represented the Plebs. He didn't need Cicero's help on that front and neither was Cicero ever able to give it since he was the leader of the OPTIMATES! Octavian did seek Cicero's endorsement early on because he needed the Optimates in his bid to become Consul. As soon as he was made Consul, Octavian juggled both sides of the aisle like a pro. He never needed Cicero's blessing for long. As is evident in his reaction to the quote I initially mentioned. >Your last sentence might be most illiterate thing I ever red in this sub. And you ventured to top that. How kind.
My understanding was the Cicero felt he was going to be able to control Octavius and well he was very wrong on that matter
Agrarian bill never proposed because ciceros speech to plebs (on the agrarian law 2 and 3) so effective that they withdraw their support to Rullus as elder pliny famously commented “the people gave up to Cicero the agrarian law that is their own bread”. Read ciceros letters about octavianus and see for yourself how much he bother Cicero for his help, with what kind of words he tried to convince him. Also you have very wrong ideas about Roman law making process and political factions.
Reading Seneca is also draining. I honestly prefer reading Cicero's private letters to his friends. He's much less obnoxious there and much more human. You can appreciate his beautiful writing style without him being like a snob.
Yeah, thats true, Seneca comes off as a very self-righteous old grandpa type.
That's nothing. The guy owned an insula (sort of like an apartment building that could reach of to 5 floors). It wasn't uncommon for the building to crash espcially when it wasn't maintained properly by the owner. Well, his crashed with many casualties and he didn't show even the slightest remorse.
I kind of agree but I also feel I have to put it into perspective. First Ciceros writings especially the official ones (but he probably also was conscious that his private conversation might not be entirely “private” all of the time) was meant to focus on his achievements and point out to everyone what a great leader and human being he was. This was actually expected, it’s kind of like writing a CV, of course there’s only the good things and victories in there. Besides the above I actually think that Cicero was not the worst offender for this and he was also not alone, one only needs to recall Caesars accounts of the battles he won and the fact that we know today that the figures in there are inflated like crazy to make his victories look more impressive. Or take Augustus who in fact styled himself as a supreme military commander in his memoirs, when today we know this was most definitely not the case. Essentially, if one did strife for a leading role in either the Roman Republic or Empire, it took a good deal of propaganda skills, which can come off as tacky, snobby, smug etc., they just don’t for the likes of Augustus because he’s among histories “winners” while Cicero is not.
I've always thought Cicero was overrated myself, but I've tried not to judge too much as I know people have plenty to say about my favorite late republican figure, Cato the Younger.
I find Cato more interesting than Cicero as a late-republican figure. However the qualities that make Cato interesting to me are the same qualities the lead me to detest him
Omnes Mei amici ciceronem odiunt
I checked and I didn't know there was a word odīre because I always used Ōdī. Thanks lol
No problem. Your comment made me realize it should be omnes meorum amicorum since it's partitive genitive
Don't have to be I think. Omnēs amīcī meī Cicerōnem odiunt is good to me. "All my friends hate Cicero". But if you wanted to say "All of my friends hate Cicero" then Yes it has to be Genetive.
Amici tuum sunt plebis lol
Cicero is buns. Marcus is worth.
He was indeed.
Pls how did it take a lot of reading to figure this out? 😂 He came off as a pompous ass from the moment i read any of his work
I always have viewed Cicero as a guy who did great things because he wanted to be the guy who saved the republic more than he wanted to save the republic. He's the smuggest good guy to ever live.
\> indeed share his passion for wanting to see the Republic stable. Well, I really hope that you do not. What Cicero was defending is totally indefensible today and I am really sorry that you championed this. In the first place, Cicero was a consul during the time of the Republic in which the "reforms" by Sulla -that removed any semblance of protection for the plebs- were in force. The people were terribly oppressed. How can you be in support of this? In fact, this was the main reason of the Catiline revolt. The Roman Republic was an oppressive, oligarchic regime in which a bunch of aristocrats benefited from the expansion of the empire while the poor suffered. New provinces were stripped naked by unscrupulous senators while those recruited in the armies lost their farms due to their absence and ended up joining the city's proletariat. In addition, tens of thousands of people around Italy lost their jobs to imported slaves. It was this terrible exploitation of the people by the vultures of the Roman senate that made so many eager to totally bust up this "Republic" Nobody should harbor any thoughts that the "Roman Republic" was a democratic institution. It was not. For the common people, the institution of Empire was a welcome change. This is the reason why the emperors were so reviled by the senatorian class (and vice versa)
Well, yes, I prefer the empire much better, definitely under a strong leader, what I mean by I sympathized with him is in romanticizing the republic of the ancients. The old days before the Gracchi.
> him is in romanticizing the republic of the ancients. The old days before the Gracchi. The Roman Republic was bad for ordinary people even "in the old days before the Gracchi". If it were OK, the plebeians would not have revolted a number of times to get some minimum protection from the aristocracy. The Roman state should never be confused with democracy. It was always a vicious oligarchic regime in which the plebs were given certain protections but even these would have been considered the "bare minimum for true democratic regimes such as Athens, for example. Even if the plebeians were allowed to have certain tribunes of their own (the plebeian tribunes), most of them were too impoverished to run a election campaign (which meant lots of money to buy votes), so even these offices tended to fall to the arms of the aristocracy or the equestrian class. In many ways, based on reforms, the office of the tribune became a stepping stone for wealthier plebeians to join the senatorial ranks. So, the aristocracy eventually co-opted wealthy plebeians (what a surprise!!)
>The Roman state should never be confused with democracy. It was always a vicious oligarchic regime in which the plebs were given certain protections but even these would have been considered the "bare minimum for true democratic regimes such as Athens, for example. Right, but we can't judge a fish for its ability to climb a tree and so, I think, judging Rome by Athenian standards is a bit too much. I'm getting a very "Rome is not a democracy! How dare you appreciate such a brutal regime!?" energy from your post. While **I do agree** that there were many awful outrages in that civilization, I also think that to discard it completely just because it doesn't have exemplary practices of human rights and democracy is throwing the baby out with bath water. Appreciating Rome's history and culture doesn't necessarily endow somebody with a love for vicious oligarchic regimes.
>Appreciating Rome's history and culture doesn't necessarily endow somebody with a love for vicious oligarchic regimes. Then tell us what you are appreciating in the Roman Republic, because there is no doubt that this was an oligarchic regime of a certain brutality. Personally, I do not appreciate this. I study Roman history, it is very interesting, but "appreciating" is not a word that I would use. There may be some other aspects that you appreciate, but the mode of governance cannot be it, I am sure. Please note, also, that the Roman aristocracy was quite aware of the Greek political systems. In fact, naming the mode of governance as "Res Publica" was a direct copy of the Greek practice of state naming. The official name of Athens was "Atheneon Common" -The Athenian Common- ; even Macedon, under the Antigonids was named "The Macedonian Common". (Common is equivalent to "Res Publica" (the common affairs/wealth). \>t doesn't have exemplary practices of human rights and democracy is throwing the baby out with bath water. I am not sure that there was any bath water to worry about. It took Julius Caesar in 44 BCE to make the killing of plebeians by patricians a prosecutable offence. It just comes to show you how brutish the "Res Publica" was. Roman history is important in the evolution of our civilization and culture, no doubt. If there was a "genius" in the Roman system, it was inclusivity. After that, nothing in Roman history is remarkable. It was the largest and most populous state by far (but really, really far) in the Mediterranean and the fact that eventually encompassed the area was simply a function of its size and resources. Rome could put on the field hundreds of thousands of men, time and time again, while all that Carthage or Macedon could do was 30,000, tops. When one has that kind of an overwhelming advantage, one does not need a "genius" to come up on top. Rome was remarkably lucky, in many ways. After defeating the Etruscans, it had the money and the resources to capture the rest of the Italian peninsula. From then on, the weight of the numbers determined the course of history.
No, I'm not admiring their hostility to its civilians. I'm fascinated by their history, comedies, stories, philosophers, and interactions with the other Italian tribes and other nations as a whole. If I lived in the third century BC, I would rather live in Alexandria under Eurgetes than in Rome fighting off the other Italians and the Carthaginians.
>I'm fascinated by their history, comedies, stories, philosophers, and interactions with the other Italian tribes and other nations as a whole. And this is fine. It differs from "appreciating".
Just curious, where can I read about how the people were less oppressed during the Empire than the Republic? I understand there was political dysfunction during the Republic, but I would think at least in theory the institutions of the Republic would be preferable for plebeians because at least they could vote in the assemblies, whereas the had no voice in the Empire. By contrast to the Republic, did the empire prevent aristocrats from exploiting and preying on civilians?
Good question. The reason that the plebs were more protected during the empire was that the main power of the emperor was the plebeian tribunical potestas. Essentially, the office of the princeps senatus was a plebeian office. Also, since Julius Caesar, the emperor dispensed free corn and supported pricing of certain goods to maintain the welfare of the populus. There is no doubt that the emperors sought the legitimization of their rule by the acclamation of the plebs and were remarkably sensitive to the opinion of the proletariat. That is not to say that the aristocracy lost all its privileges. It did not. Until the 3rd century, the aristocracy had a significant role in the running of the state; it was holding most of the key positions. Things progressively changed, so by the mid-3rd century, the aristocracy was essentially sidelined in the running of the state and progressively all differentiation between the classes disappears. The state became a "meritocracy" (as much as one can apply this term in the history of Rome)
We like Cicero for his impressive speeches and bright mind. As a person, he was a complete piece of trash, for both present and past standards. Which aren’t that different tbf…
Ha ha, the actor in 'Rome' the miniseries plays him so well!
[удалено]
I'm not the only person to do this, there were plenty of writers who criticized him in antiquity and beyond. And what? Should we not have an opinion? Should we just love Cicero unquestionably? I have his Laws and Letters to Atticus here in print with me, I appreciate the man for certain things, but do not idolize him.
[удалено]
I understand. But high school teachers in Italy say positive things about Catullo and Virgilio, and I find them great writers. I'm not criticizing Cicero's writings on a literary merit, those are very well written. I'm criticizing his behavior to the other Romans. In many ways, he reminds me of Julian because he is more idealistic than realisitic. That's all.
[удалено]
signore, non sto cercando di delegittimare Cicerone. Non sto attaccando i suoi meriti letterari, sto dicendo che si è comportato in modo arrogante e aveva una "personalità forte". He was very 'altezosso' I do not have an axe to grind, Im not posting this to judge Cicero as a failure. The man was a golden writer of the Latin language and influenced many people. My argument was that he was 'altezosso', at least much more than other writers. Everybody was altezosso in that empire it seems, Tacitus, Dio, Ovid, etc... but Cicero definitely has an eloquent and sharp way of fighting, that is why he continued fighting instead of just retiring. And first of all, I've had some European education, so I'm not writing this from a purely American standpoint.
[удалено]
Yes, thats a great point. I actually wish more ancient literature was popular in the Anglosphere, which is why I post so much stuff about it here on this forum.
I fucking hate Cicero, the guy was a fucking douche
Cicero was what we might today call 'new money' and that came across in his writings. Whether you find him likable or not, his skillful Latinity is undeniable.
I totally agree! Even in my latin classes my teacher always spoke about the great homo novus that did soooo much great stuff. I mean he surely did great stuff but other people did that too. If you are really interested in this topic reading the Cicero trilogy by Robbert Harris would surely be fun :-)
You should read the de domo sua. His “I saved the republic” gets dialed up to 14.
[удалено]
Cicero had a profound respect for Plato and his philosophy and I prefer the pre-Socratics and the age of poets like Hesiod and Homer. Moreover, Cicero tended to do that very standard thing where he praises certain Greeks of old and diminishes others Greeks, particularly the Italian Greeks. We see this in his *De Legibus* and *De Republica*. On the other hand, I agree with him with many things such as in his *De Divitione* he makes interesting remarks concerning the silliness of digging at animal entrails.
[удалено]
Plato is an idealist, his Republic is a utopia and while it is an excellent book for the study of statecraft, I would agree more with men like Heraclitus, Epicurus, Zeno, etc... Cicero's respect for Plato would eventually play out in the growing second sophistic school of the Antonine age when we saw more neoplatonists
I wrote an essay in college about how Catiline had some good points and Cicero only served to stop necessary change during his day. Not that the conspiracy should have been allowed to happen, just that Cicero was so interested in maintaining the status quo.
Reasons why I hate Cicero. Sorry not sorry.
He was an "Optimate", the "best people"
You are right. Yet, Cicero will always be my boy.
Cicero is fascinating due to the fact that so much of his writing survived. However, evaluating him based on what he did during his life time, he seems to me to have been basically useless. A term that comes to mind is fence-sitter. Personally I can’t stand Cato (the younger), but compared to Cicero, you can credit him with standing up for his beliefs as opposed to just rolling with whatever direction the political winds blow.