posted
Just finished reading Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician by Anthony Everitt (Random House, 2001).
In many ways, Cicero reminds me of some of the great people I've known as friends and mentors. Heck in some ways he reminds me of me (but not the great oratory part, sadly).
Everitt does a good job, I think, of developing hints from letters and life circumstances into an overall picture of the man. He was often obnoxious and couldn't stop himself from making a good joke, even when he knew that he'd be making a powerful enemy in the bargain.
He had the insecurity of the outsider. His family were medium sized "fish" in a small province. He was barely allowed into Rome's polite society. He benefited greatly over the years from the patronage system. And without, he'd have been a petty merchant elsewhere.
He was an extremely competent administrator of the public accounts/interests, as shown in his various official postings. But he was horrible at dealing with his own personal finances. And his relationships with his family were troubled, at best. He seems to have truly loved only his daughter and then his brother from among his family. His poor overshadowed brother only once seems to have been able to define himself in any way other than what Cicero wanted. But then he fell back into the sphere of influence and was never really his own man again. He probably made a comfortable living off of the bargain, though, and didn't have to be stuck in a rural province.
As for his wives, the first one he basically ignored and avoided until he divorced her, and the second one was a teenage girl he married late in life to get at her money. He ignored and avoided her as well. And from the sound of things, neither woman minded not having him around.
Cicero couldn't hold a grudge. Even when he knew that an old enemy was merely flattering him to gain advantage, he would fall for it and embrace the person as if they'd been bosom companions for their entire lives.
He was consciously a peace-maker. Trying at all times to get people to see the benefits of cooperation.
He was loved by the people. And that was the source of his power. He was courted to be part of the first triumvirate (it would've been 4 people, not three had he joined). But he saw the threat to the way of governance that he held dear and he refused.
Later, for a time, he yielded the same nearly despotic power and seemed to rather enjoy it. He was not above arguing openly for assassination of those he saw as threats to the Republic.
Caesar, by rights, should've had him killed. But Caesar loved him and, more importantly, found him witty and amusing. So he instead gave Cicero mostly free rein and had staff report back the daily witticisms that resulted. Even when they were anti-Caesar, it's said to have gotten a good laugh.
The book I read is not full of quotes, but there are two I particularly liked (I'm quoting Everitt's translations):
quote:Victories in the field count for little if the right decisions are not taken at home.
quote:The most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations.
I'm hoping that the similarities you see between yourself and Cicero are not reflected in this tidbit,
quote:Later, for a time, he yielded the same nearly despotic power and seemed to rather enjoy it. He was not above arguing openly for assassination of those he saw as threats to the Republic.
I know how you feel about the present regime and I would hate to see you go away. Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I love Cicero. When I was deep into Roman history, Cicero was by far my favorite. There was something about the brilliant, lonely, persistent outsider that I loved. He was an incredible orator and an excrable poet. In the midst of war, he wrote pleading letter to his brother instructing him not to fight with the neighbors. In a way, he cared far too much about public opinion to be effective as a leader, and not quite enough to be effective as a politician.
His best instincts were used by the boni in the Senate. He was better than his time deserved, and he couldn't stop telling everyone about it.
I love reading about his relationship with his favorite slave (he was a man of his times), and I cringe with pity when I read of his relationship with Caesar.
My first and so far only pet of my life I named Cicero. This is cool. It's like discovering a mutual friend.
posted
The Chickpea was certainly one of the most inspired orators of all time, and also one of the best sources we have on life in the end of the Republic. These two would combine to make him the darling of historians even had he extremely reprehensible other qualities .
Re: his morals, its important to understand that Romans at this time first, did not think like we did; less so than greek society, but still distinctly, the values of the time were fundamentally different, and projecting our thoughts onto them usually results in inaccurate conclusion. Second, political assasination was a fact of everyday life in Rome at the time. There was not even a police force, people were technically forbidden from carrying weapons, and soldiers were not generally allowed within the walls. Gangs roamed various areas of Rome and could be bought by anyone with enough money. This was a populace that had already seen one Dictator, Sulla, and the vast proscriptions he dealt upon them, yet strongly considered the possibility of further dictators so as to keep the order.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chickpea was an amazing orator and a witty and interesting writer and stylist, but I've never had much use for him as a politician. He was uneven, self-conscious, mean-spirited, and unappealingly self-aggrandizing.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Actually, Everitt does an admirable job with the "and times" part of this "life and times" book. He's very careful to convey the mores and events leading up to the things that would most shock a modern reader.
I wasn't so much condemning Cicero for trying to order Antony's assassination, but showing how he'd changed. Sulla's proscriptions hit very close to home. And had Caesar been the vindictive type, Cicero's family would've been pretty hard pressed when old Julius tightened his grip on Rome.
But somehow people tended to court Cicero and he finally decided when Caesar's nephew (and heir) and Antony were decidng which of them would be the next dictator that it really ought not to be Antony. In part, I think Cicero thought Antony was not smart enough. At the very least, he was offended by his oratory (the quality of it more than the content).
Or so it seems to me.
And by today's standards, Cicero was a vain man. But bragging about ones accomplishments was just another way of saying "hello" back in ancient Rome. Self-promotion was an art form.
That he was a man of his times is pretty clear. He also tried to sound like he was a man ahead of his times. In that respect, he was a terrible hypocrite.
He wasn't as stuffed a shirt as Cato (who wouldn't know a judicious compromise if it bit him).
But he was certainly pompous in his belief in his own abilities.
"I am the greatest orator." Or something like that leaps to mind.
An estimated pronunciation from the Golden Age of Rome (80-14 C.E.) is used for the reading of ancient literature. This pronunciation differs greatly from English scientific Latin, and is more difficult to master. For example, Cicero is "kickero," Caesar is "Kysar," vertebrae is "wertebrye," and Vaccinium is "wakkeeniom." Some naturalists apply classical sound values to scientific names, and may employ hybrid pronunciations such as "fun-jee" for fungi. The English pronunciation is "funj-eye" and the classical is ~"foongh-ee." An excellent reference for classical pronunciation is Vox Latina by Sidney Allen.
posted
If you haven't already done so, you might read Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome Series. Beginning with The First Man in Rome, The Grass Crown, Fortunes Favorites, Caesar's Women, Caesar, and The October Horse, she paints a vivid, realistic, and accurate picture of Rome and the fall of the Republic. Cicero, beginning in The Grass Crown, figures prominently until his death.
And in the books he is everything you have stated and more. Being historical fiction, she is able to flesh out the characters and make some suppositions that are not based on any known facts. But none of them contradict the historical record except in one place- the timing of old Gaius Rabirius' trial in relation to Catolina's revolt- which she explains in the afterward to Caesar's Women. Basically, she argues that Cicero might have been guilty of 'rewriting' history in order to make himself look better, in this incident involving the execution of Roman citizens- senators at that- without any trial, all at his instigation.
Anyway, I loved this series and have read them repeatedly. Marius, Sulla, Cicero, Cato, Caesar, Pompey, Aurelia, Servilia, Terentia- they all really live and the world in those days is amazingly alien and familiar all at once.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I second the reccomendation of the Masters of Rome series. They are just incredible, and they set the standard for the...novelization of history. She does for the history of Rome what Scott does for the women of Genesis - if something is known, she'll stick to that, and what isn't known, she makes it up and keept it consistent with what is known about the characters. Great read.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another good fiction series dealing with the end of the republic is by steven saylor. Its the Roma Sub Rosa series, but that's not really mentioned on the covers or anything.
As for the historical context . . . I'm not sure anyone around nowadays really can get what it was like to be around back then. We can state conditions and acceptable actions academically, but the whole way of thinking that led to people like Sulla is, I think, extremely alien.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enthusiastically second Saylor's Roma Sub Rosa books. Well-written historicals which are also well-written mysteries -- wonderful!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I second the reccomendation of the Masters of Rome series. They are just incredible, and they set the standard for the...novelization of history. She does for the history of Rome what Scott does for the women of Genesis - if something is known, she'll stick to that, and what isn't known, she makes it up and keept it consistent with what is known about the characters. Great read.
I sure hope not, kat, considering how dry I found Card's Women of Genesis series.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This is cool. It's like discovering a mutual friend. 
