Politics of the Late Republic – Modern Scholarship
A. Various Authors
1. On Cicero
“…but he was a novus homo, without sufficient family connexions, and he had not been an
army commander; he thus lacked an adequate clientela, and he could not build up a faction
to support his political leadership: he depended too much on the goodwill of the Optimates,
who had accepted him with some reluctance.”
(Scullard p. 95 – in context of Cicero, in c. 62 after Catiline conspiracy, trying to heal breach
between senators and equites etc.)
“Cicero was the first (in 63) for thirty years, and even he, though often slighted by the
nobles, may ultimately have had their support”.
(P.A. Brunt - Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic p. 68; part of a discussion stating that in
order to achieve nobility, plebeian families likely had to serve a kind of ‘apprenticeship’
under the guidance of a patrician. Here Brunt refers to Cicero being the first “new man” to
become a consul in 30 years, and his mixed relationship with the nobles.)
Rex Warner on Plutarch’s Life of Cicero: in the introduction to the translation he notes that it
is interesting that Plutarch makes no mention of the challenges Cicero faced as a novus
homo.
“The ‘avarice’ of the ruling class was reflected in the misery and discontent of the masses, of
which Sallust (unlike Cicero) was keenly aware, and it was in this context of discontent that
the ambition of men such as Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, was to wreck the
established order.”
(P.A. Brunt - Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic p. 76; useful view that Cicero was not on
top of popular opinion. Can also be used to argue the ambition of Caesar etc. was a major
cause of the Republic’s downfall. Sallust was a historian who lived during and wrote about
the period in question.)
“The year 63 BC was the turning point of his career: for things were never quite so good for
Cicero again. His career ended twenty years later, in failure. Still confident of his own
importance, occasionally a name to conjure with but no longer in the front rank, he was
murdered in the civil wars……his head and right hand pinned up in the centre of Rome for all
to see….”
(Beard – SPQR p. 25; view that Cicero’s career went downhill following its peak achieved
through his handling of the Catiline conspiracy in 63 BC, and ultimately, despite his high
opinion of himself, ended in failure.)
, “he [Cicero] did not hate the dictator as a man. But he did hate the fact that Caesar had no
desire to restore the Republic.”
K. Tempest - Cicero pp. 180-181; Cicero’s relationship with Caesar.
“From then on [1 January 43BC], he translated his philosophical musings into political
pragmatism: war, Cicero believed, was the only way to save Rome from Antony’s grasp. And
if the law was broken in the process, the law had to be fixed to meet the current crisis. These
two ideas, the need for all-out combat and extra-legal measures, are key to understanding
Cicero’s political activity in the months which followed. For he now championed the illegally-
raised forces of the young Octavian. [….] And his hopes rested on creating a united military
and political force to challenge Antony’s despotic intentions.”
K. Tempest - Cicero pp. 195-197; describes Cicero’s change in approach to politics in his final
months. Helpful in analysing whether such pragmatism undermined or underlined the
idealism and political beliefs Cicero had promoted during his career.
“an interactive genre – one half of a dialogue…It is indeed, a cliché of epistolary theory that
letters are a substitute for a conversation. They anticipate an answer, and…maintain an
apparent realism and seek to minimise the sense of geographical separation between writer
and addressee.”
Morello - Writer and Addressee in Cicero’s letters p 198; description of the form and
structure of Cicero’s letters.
“[the] intense and recurring focus upon the addressee’s persona gives them both the
epistolary quality and their artistic complexity alike.”
Morello - Writer and Addressee in Cicero’s letters p 207; while Cicero’s letters might differ in
style and tone they do focus on the addressee’s persona.
The distinction between “warm, personal, spontaneous, artless, common-private-friendly
letters and impersonal, conventional, artificial literary letters is extremely misleading.”
Stowers - Letter writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity p 19; argument that trying to divide the
letters into ‘public’ and ‘private’ categories is not the right approach.
2. Cicero versus Verres
Vasaly: The political impact of Cicero’s speeches, p. 154: describes Cicero’s own ideal oratory
as being “a means by which the best statesmen achieved an ethically virtuous end: i.e., the
preservation of the state in its best form”.
“He [Cicero] does conceive of its optimal function as presenting the best possible arguments
on any issue to the people, who are then meant to weigh each side dispassionately and
make an informed decision. Rather, oratory is a tool to manipulate an audience, most
A. Various Authors
1. On Cicero
“…but he was a novus homo, without sufficient family connexions, and he had not been an
army commander; he thus lacked an adequate clientela, and he could not build up a faction
to support his political leadership: he depended too much on the goodwill of the Optimates,
who had accepted him with some reluctance.”
(Scullard p. 95 – in context of Cicero, in c. 62 after Catiline conspiracy, trying to heal breach
between senators and equites etc.)
“Cicero was the first (in 63) for thirty years, and even he, though often slighted by the
nobles, may ultimately have had their support”.
(P.A. Brunt - Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic p. 68; part of a discussion stating that in
order to achieve nobility, plebeian families likely had to serve a kind of ‘apprenticeship’
under the guidance of a patrician. Here Brunt refers to Cicero being the first “new man” to
become a consul in 30 years, and his mixed relationship with the nobles.)
Rex Warner on Plutarch’s Life of Cicero: in the introduction to the translation he notes that it
is interesting that Plutarch makes no mention of the challenges Cicero faced as a novus
homo.
“The ‘avarice’ of the ruling class was reflected in the misery and discontent of the masses, of
which Sallust (unlike Cicero) was keenly aware, and it was in this context of discontent that
the ambition of men such as Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, was to wreck the
established order.”
(P.A. Brunt - Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic p. 76; useful view that Cicero was not on
top of popular opinion. Can also be used to argue the ambition of Caesar etc. was a major
cause of the Republic’s downfall. Sallust was a historian who lived during and wrote about
the period in question.)
“The year 63 BC was the turning point of his career: for things were never quite so good for
Cicero again. His career ended twenty years later, in failure. Still confident of his own
importance, occasionally a name to conjure with but no longer in the front rank, he was
murdered in the civil wars……his head and right hand pinned up in the centre of Rome for all
to see….”
(Beard – SPQR p. 25; view that Cicero’s career went downhill following its peak achieved
through his handling of the Catiline conspiracy in 63 BC, and ultimately, despite his high
opinion of himself, ended in failure.)
, “he [Cicero] did not hate the dictator as a man. But he did hate the fact that Caesar had no
desire to restore the Republic.”
K. Tempest - Cicero pp. 180-181; Cicero’s relationship with Caesar.
“From then on [1 January 43BC], he translated his philosophical musings into political
pragmatism: war, Cicero believed, was the only way to save Rome from Antony’s grasp. And
if the law was broken in the process, the law had to be fixed to meet the current crisis. These
two ideas, the need for all-out combat and extra-legal measures, are key to understanding
Cicero’s political activity in the months which followed. For he now championed the illegally-
raised forces of the young Octavian. [….] And his hopes rested on creating a united military
and political force to challenge Antony’s despotic intentions.”
K. Tempest - Cicero pp. 195-197; describes Cicero’s change in approach to politics in his final
months. Helpful in analysing whether such pragmatism undermined or underlined the
idealism and political beliefs Cicero had promoted during his career.
“an interactive genre – one half of a dialogue…It is indeed, a cliché of epistolary theory that
letters are a substitute for a conversation. They anticipate an answer, and…maintain an
apparent realism and seek to minimise the sense of geographical separation between writer
and addressee.”
Morello - Writer and Addressee in Cicero’s letters p 198; description of the form and
structure of Cicero’s letters.
“[the] intense and recurring focus upon the addressee’s persona gives them both the
epistolary quality and their artistic complexity alike.”
Morello - Writer and Addressee in Cicero’s letters p 207; while Cicero’s letters might differ in
style and tone they do focus on the addressee’s persona.
The distinction between “warm, personal, spontaneous, artless, common-private-friendly
letters and impersonal, conventional, artificial literary letters is extremely misleading.”
Stowers - Letter writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity p 19; argument that trying to divide the
letters into ‘public’ and ‘private’ categories is not the right approach.
2. Cicero versus Verres
Vasaly: The political impact of Cicero’s speeches, p. 154: describes Cicero’s own ideal oratory
as being “a means by which the best statesmen achieved an ethically virtuous end: i.e., the
preservation of the state in its best form”.
“He [Cicero] does conceive of its optimal function as presenting the best possible arguments
on any issue to the people, who are then meant to weigh each side dispassionately and
make an informed decision. Rather, oratory is a tool to manipulate an audience, most
