Cicero’s De Oratore adopts a highly moralising tone when discussing the return of Gaius Marius to Rome and ‘the bloody pogrom’ that awaited his opponents. Cicero was a contemporary to this event and henceforth, the actions of both Sulla and Marius would leave an indelible mark on Cicero’s political understanding. The moralising tone of De Oratore is influenced by its dialogue form. Mary Beard argues that Cicero’s dialogue form when concerned with politics is used to direct the argument to a conclusion that is similar to the writer’s own position. Cicero blatantly shows his opinion on Marius’ capture of Rome when he asserts that the great orator Lucius Crassus was granted ‘the boon of death’ prior to it. Cicero suggests that it is better to …show more content…
De Oratore was published in 55 BCE; thirty-two years after Marius captured Rome. Marius’ capture of Rome and subsequent execution of his political opponents are viewed by Cicero as the precursor to future calamities such as Sulla’s march on Rome. Cicero highlights this action as the starting point for Rome’s further moral decline by changing its political landscape. The civil war between the Marians and Sullans was disastrous for the Republic. Distinguished and skilled men like Marcus Antonius were lost due to the partisan conflict. Cicero in this passage places the blame of Rome’s moral decline at the loss of many competent officials during the civil war. The people who replaced them were prone to be sycophants of Sulla. His use of proscription enriched his supporters while punishing his opponents. The apparent moral decline originating from Marius and Sulla is perhaps the reason why Cicero decided to write De Oratore. He wanted to promote the idea of the philosophic orator back into Roman discourse. The intrinsic problem of this retrospective account is that it appears to be teleological. The decline of Rome to Cicero was specifically due to the moral degradation of its people. There may be some truth to this. Ernst Badian claims that the inertia and irresponsibility the Senate post-Sulla was what led to a decay in the Republic. Cicero’s weariness to take on
In final analysis, Sulla’s actions as a politician and a military leader, while occasionally bringing him prestige - dignatas, were major factors leading to the subsequent weakening of the Republic. Sulla was an odd mixture of cynicism and superstition, public sobriety and private indulgence. His reforms achieved very little besides adding to the sum of human misery. He brought an unprecedented ruthlessness to Roman life; and, though it may be conceded that his political intentions were good, his contemptible methods , notably marching his own Roman army upon the capital, contributed more than those of any other man to the debasement of the Republican constitution, he avowedly restored.
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
Cicero’s essay, titled On Duties, presents a practical approach concerning the moral obligations of a political man in the form of correspondence with his young son. Essential to the text, the incentive for Cicero to undertake On Duties emerges from his depleted hope to restore the Republic within his lifetime. Cicero therefore places such aspirations in the hands of his posterity. The foremost purpose of On Duties considers three obstacles, divided into separate Books, when deciding a course of action. Book I prefatorily states, “in the first place, men may be uncertain whether the thing that falls under consideration is an honorable or a dishonorable thing to do” (5). Cicero addresses the ambiguities present under this consideration and codifies a means through which one can reach a justifiable decision. Subsequently, he expounds the four essential virtues—wisdom, justice, magnanimity or greatness of spirit, and seemliness—all of which are necessary to conduct oneself honorably. As a result, the virtues intertwine to create an unassailable foundation upon which one can defend their actions. Cicero’s expatiation of the four virtues, though revolving around justice and political in context, illuminates the need for wisdom among the populace in order to discern a leader’s motivations. This subtly becomes apparent as Cicero, advising his son on how to dictate decision-making, issues caveats regarding the deceptions that occur under the guise of virtue.
The hypothesis of this report is that the military reforms instituted by Gaius Marius ultimately paved the way for the fall of the Roman Republic.
“Whatever distinction a Roman Equestrian can possess—and it can undoubtedly be very great—has always been judged as belonging to Marcus Caelius in the fullest measure, and is still so judged today” (Pro Caelio 3, pg 130). This quote is taken from the early parts of the defense speech and is used by Cicero to build a foundation surrounding the character of Cicero. Cicero states himself that “he must sway the hearts of the audience” that is exactly what he is doing with this statement about the character of Caelius. He is first refuting the assertion made by the prosecution that Caelius is a vagabond of types who does not obtain the traits of a Proper Roman because of his Equestrian ancestry. Cicero utterly deny’s that and instead demonstrates that Caelius is a man above reproach who comes from an esteemed line of Roman Equestrians and that the Equestrian class is not a class to be looked down on. “Being the son of a Roman Equestrian is something that the prosecution should never have used as a slur before these jurors, or before myself as an advocate.” (Pro Caelio 4, pg 130). There is quite a bit of irony in this statement, Cicero is to an affect reprimanding the prosecution for utilizing slander in order to tear down Caelius. This is something that Cicero himself will do later in his speech when he attacks the
...ee tasks are accomplished can vary to suit the orators purpose or the circumstances surrounding their speech. Cicero does just this and he does it with a purpose. He avoids heavy emotional appeals because they don’t suit the day and go against the relaxed almost careless tone he utilizes throughout the rest of his monologue. He emphasizes the use of persuasive arguments in order to detract from the claims of his opponent in the only way he can (since the case contains no material evidence) and Cicero flatters and entertains the jurors in the hopes that they will view his arguments more favorably. Everything he says and does in this speech of his drive toward his ultimate goal, an acquittal for his client, and from this speech one can see how Cicero not only achieves the three goals he sets forth, but how and why those three goals can and should be adapted at need.
Friendship’s Decay on Rome In looking at the late Roman Republic, one can find many different accounts of how politics worked in Rome. One of these accounts by Polybius gives us a sense of the way politics worked in Rome. Polybius believed, “in all politics, we observe two sources of decay existing from natural causes, the one external, the other internal and self produced” (Polybius 506). The second account by Cicero gives us a framework of how Roman politics play out, stating “The canvass for office resolves itself into an activity of two kinds, of which one is concerned with the loyalty of friends, the other with the feelings of the people” (Cicero 37).
Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) was one of the most outstanding leaders in history. He was the first ruler of the Romano-Hellenic civilization and achieved his goals with great success throughout his life of 56 years. He was assassinated by the conspirators, who accused him for practicing tyranny. This essay will discuss whether it was right for the conspirators to murder Caesar and what its consequences were.
...ion this all showed that style of governing and ruling an empire started a century long pattern of events that eventually lead to the fall and destruction of the old oligarchy led by the Senate. The combination of desire for personal gain and glory of a politician or general was what weakened the Roman customs and the Senate. This was a cycle among the Senate, to find themselves stuck in a problem and to find others to fix with of course military means but in turn make everything more corrupt with their disruptive practices such as Pompey and Julius Caesar. But they were not the only ones there were others who were to blame for causing such decay and corruption such as Marius, Sulla, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus. They were the ones who kept this corruption cycle going and it was Augustus Caesar who finally broke the cycle and brought stability and order back to Rome.
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
Writers, such as Cicero and Ovid, investigated philosophical issues of life that bewildered antiquated Romans. These problems include, how to compose laws that can be justified as moral and civil absolutes, and how to manage the changes of love between two individuals. Within Cicero's On The Laws and poems written by Ovid, the authors address some of these issues and offer a resolution for each.
Cicero, was truly a man of the state. His writings also show us he was equally a man of
Ultimately, the Roman Republic’s downfall lay in its lack of major wars or other crises, which led to a void of honor and leadership. War united all of Rome’s people, and provided the challenge to its leaders to develop honor and leadership by their causes and actions. The lack of war allowed the Roman Republic to stagnate and become self-indulgent. By the end of the Punic Wars, which combined these elements, Rome was sure to fail. Without a common thread uniting its society, the Roman Republic unraveled because it had nothing left holding it together.
One of the first occasions presented was the plotting of Caesar’s assassination. Cassius, Casca, Trebonius, Ligarius and the other conspirators all wanted to rid Rome of Caesar. However, not one of them could give the green light.” They needed one who held a high place in the hearts of the people, to support them and to justify their actions. They needed an “honorable” man.
In a sense, these contrasting titles symbolise the way in which this speech is two-faced, and can leave its reader with multiple impressions and interpretations. Despite claiming to speak Pro Lege Manilia, Cicero capitalises on this opportunity to better his political position by excessively praising Cn. Pompeius. Since the De Imperio is Cicero’s first