Back to Main Page

Skip to Cicero
 Skip to Brothers Gracchi
 Skip to Gaius Marius

Skip to Sulla
 Skip to Caesar

Cicero:

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) Roman statesman, lawyer, scholar, and writer who vainly tried to uphold republican principles in the final civil wars that destroyed the republic of Rome...He is remembered in modern times as the greatest Roman orator and innovator of what became known as Ciceronian rhetoric...His relationship with Pompey, whose hatred of Marcus Licinius Crassus he shared, was to be the focal point of his career in politics...[As consul] his chief concern was to discover and make public the seditious intentions of Catiline, who...planned to carry out armed uprisings in Italy and arson in Rome. Cicero had difficulty in persuading the Senate of the danger, but the “last decree” (Senatus consultum ultimum), something like a proclamation of martial law, was passed on October 22...He was hailed by Catulus as “father of his country”...in 58, disappointed by Pompey's refusal to help him, [he] fled Rome...In 57, thanks to the activity of Pompey and particularly the tribune Milo, he was recalled from exile...He did not leave Italy with Pompey on March 17, however...It was in May that Octavian learned of Cicero's unfortunate remark that “the young man should be given praise, distinctions—and then be disposed of”...He was captured and killed near Caieta on December 7. His head and hands were displayed on the rostra, the speakers' platform at the Forum, at Rome.

I started the semester with Plutarch's life of Cicero and it was in many ways (though not chronologically) a great place to start. The *huge* thing that Ms. Moser and I were talking about was that Cicero, at least the way he is presented by Plutarch, is a lot like the Persian kings of Herodotus and certain characters form Greek Tragedies in one major way: he is (very) proud and as a result of his pride becomes overconfident and reckless, and suffers because of it in the end! Cicero, Plutarch says, often praised himself too much (though his accomplishments are worthy of much praise) both in his writing and in person, and though he also praised others, he was often rude and derogatory, which made him many enemies. It was his unwillingness to choose sides (which I think is an admirable quality) as much as his superior attitude that ultimately cause his murder (not to mention a short exile and many assassination attempts in between!). That pattern of pride-recklessness-retribution seemed to be the pattern in most Greek works I read and I am sure that this is not a coincidence. I am looking forward to reading two works by Cicero himself: Pro Caelio and the first Philippic.

Brothers Gracchi:

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (164?-133 BC): Roman tribune (133 BC) who sponsored agrarian reforms to restore the class of small independent farmers and who was assassinated in a riot sparked by his senatorial opponents. Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (153?-121 BC): Roman tribune (123–122 BC), who reenacted the agrarian reforms of his brother, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, and who proposed other measures to lessen the power of the senatorial nobility.

It surprised me how little Plutarch said about these brothers! With the little background I had in Roman history I was expecting a long description of agrarian reforms, political rivalries, important speeches, violent deaths, etc., I mean, according to Britannica that's what they were famous for. He did describe their violent deaths in detail, but I doubt that he wrote more than three paragraphs for the two brothers combines on the reform bills they passed (or tried to pass). He seemed more interested in portraying their characters, how they were similar or different from each other, and describing their important military achievements (which, I'm starting to think, every Roman had at least a dozen of). I was not terribly disappointed, though, because he did often, and at some length, talk about their mother, Cornelia, who I have often heard references to (and who happens to be in one of my favorite paintings). He writes a brief 'life' of Cornelia attached to the beginning of the 'lives' of her sons.

Gaius Marius:

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: Gaius Marius (157-86 BC) Roman general and politician, consul seven times (107, 104–100, 86 BC), who was the first Roman to illustrate the political support that a successful general could derive from the votes of his old army veterans...Gaius Marius was a strong and brave soldier and a skillful general, popular with his troops, but he showed little flair for politics and was not a good public speaker...In recruiting fresh troops, Marius broke with custom, because of a manpower shortage, by enrolling volunteers from outside the propertied classes, which alone had previously been liable for service...He was elected consul in 104 in order to take command against an alarming invasion of the Cimbri and Teutones, who had defeated a succession of Roman armies in the north...He had been consul every year since 104, and he was elected again the year 100...The Roman populace liked him because he was not an aristocrat. He had the further support of his veterans, for it was in their interest to stick closely to their general. Marius perhaps did not realize the potency of their force, one that Sulla, Caesar, and Octavian employed with overpowering effect later.

Of all everything I read from Plutarch I enjoyed Marius the least. He and Britannica seem to agree that 'he showed little flair for politics' - Plutrach makes it seem as if Gaius Marius hardly went to Rome at all, spending all his time abroad fighting wars. Though Plutarch seemed less than interested in Marius' life outside of the legion, Ms. Moser and I talked about one of our favorite themes (as, indeed, we had the opportunity to do again with Caesar): arrogance, recklessness, and retribution...or as Ms. Moser put it - live by the sword, die by the sword. Gaiiuus Marius must have been a great general (though Plutarch expresses some doubts about the sole credit he always claimed for his victories), but by using unconstitutional methods to get power (getting elected consul six times, four in a row) he ensured a not-so-great death for himself and his son. Though, in my opinion, his worst act was not getting himself elected illegally, but giving men like Sulla, Caesar, and even Augustus the idea to use their troops to advance themselves at the expense of the Republic.

Sulla:

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (138-78 BC): Victor in the first full-scale civil war in Roman history (88–82 BC) and subsequently dictator (82–79), who carried out notable constitutional reforms in an attempt to strengthen the Roman Republic during the last century of its existence...After service as a Roman praetor (one of the chief magistrates) in 94 BC, Sulla fought in the Social War (90–89 BC), the struggle of Rome's Italian allies to obtain Roman citizenship. [Despite opposition from Marius] In 88 Sulla set off for Greece in charge of the war against Mithradates. By the spring of 87 most of Greece was in his power, and after a long siege he captured Athens in 86...During his absence Sulla had been declared a public enemy by the ruling popular party...From Brundisium, Sulla began his march on Rome, joined by opponents of the popular regime...Sulla's victory of Colline Gate in the northern environs of Rome and the fall of Praeneste at the end of 82 ended the war, which was followed by massacres and proscriptions...Sulla was appointed dictator under the Lex Valeria (Valerian law), which vested constituent, legislative, military, and judicial power in him, without, however, for the first time in Rome's history, limiting the duration of his dictatorship. The state was reorganized and the new legislation enacted in 81...By his extensive program of constitutional reform he intended mainly to reestablish the supremacy of the Senate in the Roman state, and many of his reforms did indeed survive to the end of the republic...At the beginning of 79, Sulla resigned and withdrew to the neighborhood of Puteoli in Campania.

Sulla seemed to be very similar to Gaius Marius in both his military and political pursuits: both wanted power and would use the military to get it. But Plutarch inserted fun tidbits about Sulla that I do not remember from Marius, such as his love for wine and entertainment when he was younger and his affair (only alluded to) with Metrobius. Instead of naming battles and battle formations (well, I'm not going to lie, he does that a lot too), he talks about interesting or brave things he did in the army, such as single-handedly capture Jugartha, an African rebel against whom Quintus Metellus was fighting a war. But I was disappointed at how Plutarch downplayed Sulla's later life, the proscriptions and reforms. Strangely enough, Plutarch does not seem to want to make Sulla a villain, which is how I have always though of him - he writes mostly about his military accomplishments and his love for his fourth wife, etc. As with the Gracchi, I would like to have read more about his political reforms, what he did to change his country, which, Britannica says, he changed significantly...in a good way? I'm not sure what to think of Sulla as a man, but as a general/dictator/reformer I know that I have some kind of strange respect for him, mixed with the knowledge that he was one step closer than Marius to the ultimate destruction of the Republic which Caesar achieved.

Caesar:

Gaius Julius Caesar (100?-44 BC): celebrated Roman general and statesman, the conqueror of Gaul (58–50 BC), victor in the Civil War of 49–46 BC, and dictator (46–44 BC), who was launching a series of political and social reforms when he was assassinated by a group of nobles in the Senate House on the Ides of March. Caesar changed the course of the history of the Greco-Roman world decisively and irreversibly...From 133 onward there had been a series of alternate revolutionary and counter-revolutionary paroxysms. It was evident that the misgovernment of the Roman state and the Greco-Roman world by the Roman nobility could not continue indefinitely and it was fairly clear that the most probable alternative was some form of military dictatorship backed by dispossessed Italian peasants who had turned to long-term military service...From the beginning, he probably privately aimed at winning office, not just for the sake of the honours but in order to achieve the power to put the misgoverned Roman state and Greco-Roman world into better order in accordance with ideas of his own. It is improbable that Caesar deliberately sought monarchical power until after he had crossed the Rubicon in 49, though sufficient power to impose his will, as he was determined to do, proved to mean monarchical power.

The big question Ms. Moser and I had was whether he seemed to want only power of if his intentions were virtuous...or at least how Plutarch makes it seem!