I have read the letters of Cicero several times over the last 30 years and each time I am reminded at both the high sophistication and the deadly nature of ancient Roman politics. We have scarcely changed in 2,000 years. My view on Cicero is similar to Brad’s. He dithered and worried and in the end failed miserably at what he sought. His whole life seemed to be sucking up to the conservative wing, but being a ‘new man’ they never took him seriously. In the end, feeling betrayed by the party he so desperately tried to be at the center of, and never able to psychically ever align with the populares, he decided to write his own death sentence with the The Philipics, brutally taking down Marc Antony and railing against autocracy, for which, I think, he knew the outcome. I kind of feel he felt abandoned by all and could only denounce the new anti-conservative imperial regime. On the good side, his railing against tyranny found root in the founding generation here in America. I think a movie about him would be fascinating as could be. In today’s world, he is just like many old-line Rs turned rabid MAGA, saying and doing things they know they should not do. Timely piece, brad. Thanks.
It's always been interesting to me how much of (American?) focus is on Rome, especially the end of the Republic. Outside of American history, the other focus period seems to be the last three Tudors.
I am of course measuring by the only true metric, the number of TV series and movies.
We once had a trivia contest at work to name the most chemical elements from memory. I of course being a Tom Lehrer fan remembered his lyrics for the elements set to Modern Major General.
You might do a similar trivia test of naming the actresses playing Elizabeth. Then you could spend the rest of the evening arguing about who was best.
Rome is a popular period because it has been asserted that Roman cicilization was the most understandable to modern Westerners. The Greeks were not, nor any of the other bronze age civilizations. Yes, the Tudors do seem popular, but they are also anchored in the time that Shakespeare wrote his plays, and his plays supported the propaganda of the time (otherwise it might mean losing one's head.) If Western culture should radically change, then the focus might shift to other historical periods where there is abundant literature and artefacts to interpret the period.
I read "Pride and Prejudice" many times, in those days was probably considered like the Romance novels of today, although have not seen them lately in stores.
I am a lot older now, and the character of Elizabeth Bennett is not so appealing to me anymore. I feel really bad about the portrayal of Mr. Collins. Her own father was the same profession as Mr. Collins, and this looks like a slam to me. There is more to a person than the ability to dance well and be an exceptional conversationalist.
When Darcy's aunt comes to visit her, she makes a comment:
"Your porch windows are full west, and how can you stand it?"
Elizabeth makes some comment that it does not bother her at all.
Sometimes I feel sick if I am by a west window.
She had the chance to marry a sea captain, but she turned him down, probably because she was waiting for moving into the upper class as her character did.
As for Caesar, his very good book could be based on nothing. Just like a very slick PowerPoint presentation.
Although I very much hate to even throw JD Vance in there. He is so not Cicero's intellectual equal. Chief Justice Roberts might be a better candidate.
I have read the letters of Cicero several times over the last 30 years and each time I am reminded at both the high sophistication and the deadly nature of ancient Roman politics. We have scarcely changed in 2,000 years. My view on Cicero is similar to Brad’s. He dithered and worried and in the end failed miserably at what he sought. His whole life seemed to be sucking up to the conservative wing, but being a ‘new man’ they never took him seriously. In the end, feeling betrayed by the party he so desperately tried to be at the center of, and never able to psychically ever align with the populares, he decided to write his own death sentence with the The Philipics, brutally taking down Marc Antony and railing against autocracy, for which, I think, he knew the outcome. I kind of feel he felt abandoned by all and could only denounce the new anti-conservative imperial regime. On the good side, his railing against tyranny found root in the founding generation here in America. I think a movie about him would be fascinating as could be. In today’s world, he is just like many old-line Rs turned rabid MAGA, saying and doing things they know they should not do. Timely piece, brad. Thanks.
It's always been interesting to me how much of (American?) focus is on Rome, especially the end of the Republic. Outside of American history, the other focus period seems to be the last three Tudors.
I am of course measuring by the only true metric, the number of TV series and movies.
We once had a trivia contest at work to name the most chemical elements from memory. I of course being a Tom Lehrer fan remembered his lyrics for the elements set to Modern Major General.
You might do a similar trivia test of naming the actresses playing Elizabeth. Then you could spend the rest of the evening arguing about who was best.
Then Lizzie Bennet.
Best "E1": Glenda Jackson.
Rome is a popular period because it has been asserted that Roman cicilization was the most understandable to modern Westerners. The Greeks were not, nor any of the other bronze age civilizations. Yes, the Tudors do seem popular, but they are also anchored in the time that Shakespeare wrote his plays, and his plays supported the propaganda of the time (otherwise it might mean losing one's head.) If Western culture should radically change, then the focus might shift to other historical periods where there is abundant literature and artefacts to interpret the period.
I read "Pride and Prejudice" many times, in those days was probably considered like the Romance novels of today, although have not seen them lately in stores.
I am a lot older now, and the character of Elizabeth Bennett is not so appealing to me anymore. I feel really bad about the portrayal of Mr. Collins. Her own father was the same profession as Mr. Collins, and this looks like a slam to me. There is more to a person than the ability to dance well and be an exceptional conversationalist.
When Darcy's aunt comes to visit her, she makes a comment:
"Your porch windows are full west, and how can you stand it?"
Elizabeth makes some comment that it does not bother her at all.
Sometimes I feel sick if I am by a west window.
She had the chance to marry a sea captain, but she turned him down, probably because she was waiting for moving into the upper class as her character did.
As for Caesar, his very good book could be based on nothing. Just like a very slick PowerPoint presentation.
And who do you think is our contemporay Cicero?
JD Vance. Lindsay Graham.
Although I very much hate to even throw JD Vance in there. He is so not Cicero's intellectual equal. Chief Justice Roberts might be a better candidate.
I think that would be the author of this substack.
But who are the power players he is caught between?
About half the word's population. I call them twisters. I hope you are not one of them.
I think your interpretation breaks the metaphor.