Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of suicide on society
Essays on cicero
Suicide effects on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact of suicide on society
Cicero vs. Cato: The Martyr for Roman Liberty
Cicero and Cato the Younger were the premier orators and statesmen that the Roman Republic produced. Both enjoyed political success within Rome during the waning years of the Republic. In addition, both were participants and witnesses of the collapse of the Republic. Before Caesar could gain full control over Rome, Cato committed voluntaria mors, voluntary death or more commonly known, suicide. After Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C.E., Cicero was murdered in 43 B.C.E. as he was placed on the proscription list during the triumvirate of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus. Cato and Cicero were the defenders of the republic and in their eyes freedom as well. Following their deaths Cato enjoyed fame for his supposed martyrdom, such as Lucan’s Bellum Civile, while Cicero was lauded for his work on ethics, philosophy, and the ideal statesman. However, Cicero, not Cato, should be considered the martyr on behalf of the Republic and freedom due in a part to his insistence on maintaining the republic after the assassination of Caesar. Cato was the supposed martyr that Rome received but Cicero is the martyr Rome deserved and needed. To navigate this proposal a foundation of the concept of martyrdom is required. Secondly, define how the republic equates to freedom. Followed by the exploration how Cato is falsely elaborated upon and remembered as a martyr, and finally the illumination of why Cicero is the martyr the republic deserved.
When describing a martyr or martyrdom one often thinks the terms within the ecclesiastical way in which a person dies for his or her religious cause often against his or her own desire. We must therefore look to the concept of dying for ones belief or cause by broaden...
... middle of paper ...
...t he did not die for the republic, he died for his personal liberty. With the passage of time Cato’s suicide was transcribed over and over taking on a new life eventually becoming the martyr that died for the Republic. Upon completion of the paper it is shown how Cato should never be considered a martyr where in fact it is Cicero that is the true martyr because of what he offered to Rome in the context of the ideal statesman. The ideal statesman embodies the virtue of liberty but more importantly Cicero stressed that the ideal statesman should look to Rome’s citizens and not only for themselves. This is in stark contrast to Cato’s personal stoic act of taking his own life in the name of his own liberty. He did this without regard of the good he could have done for the Republic if he remained alive. Because of this, Cicero becomes Rome’s martyr on behalf of liberty.
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...
...ation and well being of a country, people, and republic. “‘This was the noblest Roman of them all. All the conspirators save only he did that they did in envy of great Caesar; he, only in a general honest thought and common good to all, made one of them’”(998). Although a seemingly menacing traitor to his country at first, Brutus makes the journey to a sympathetic and noble tragic hero in the end.
By examining these two different views of Roman politics: Polybius’ The Histories of Polybius and Quintus Cicero’s Handbook on Canvassing for the Consulship as well as examining Plutarch’s Fall of the Roman Republic account on the collapse of the Republic in the lives of Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar it will be clear how friendship, specifically the private ambition of a few citizens and their rivalry for office, was the internal decaying factor that destroyed the Roman Republic. According to Polybius, the Roman Constitution was “the best of any existing in my time” (Polybius 467). He defines friendship as “whoever gives any sign of an inclination to you, or habitually visits your house” (Cicero 37).
The ancient Romans are known for placing value in a virtue called gravitas. To possess this virtue, a Roman must be disciplined and obedient, be physically strong, and be loyal to Rome. The Romans also valued empirical reasoning and logic over decisions based on emotions. In addition to these moral and physical standards for men, the Romans also stressed the importance of social standing. Money and power, especially political power, were coveted by all Romans. In the eyes of the Romans, a model man would possess great wealth, hold a significant position in the government or military, and have a strong mind and body. The great Roman poet Catullus defied these expectations for a Roman man in almost every sense, challenging the values and mindset
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.
Brutus murdered Caesar with honorable purpose so that the Roman people would not “die all slaves”, but “live [as] freemen” (117). Caesar’s death was believed to be in the best interest of Rome and a necessary loss to the empire. Brutus did not seek glory or power, but stability for Rome (unlike most of the conspirators). The Tragic Hero makes an ethical decision, in which the repercussion of his choice was the bringing forth of his own downfall. Brutus did not seek glory and power because he was dissatisfied with his life — he sought to protect the place he loved. He already held a noble status, and was married to a “true and honorable wife” (71). He had no need to stir up the empire and his own personal life, but he felt obligated to protect the country and i...
Cicero, was truly a man of the state. His writings also show us he was equally a man of
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, born in 138B.C. to a minor branch of the Cornelian gens, has been heralded as a fortuitous and cunning man, a formidable commander, and yet an unfit politician with perplexing motives. Sulla’s early campaigning allowed him to rise to great military distinction, and earned him the later invaluable respect of his fellow soldiers. Nevertheless, his career illustrated the demoralisation of the Republic and contributed to its ultimate degeneration. The reformative measures he took in his last years of power - which were intended to preserve the Republican institution, were homicidal and ephemeral; they were altogether ineffectual compared to the example of Sulla’s own career. Sulla chose for his own epitaph, ‘no one ever did more good to his friends, nor more harm to his enemies’ (Southern Utah University, p.6). No words speak so succinctly of his political ideology as these.
Theme in “Defender of the Faith” can be interpreted in many varying ways, some of which are life-long lessons and others to the relation between faith and the individual.
Pro Caelio is a speech given by Roman politician and famed orator Marcus Tullius Cicero in defense of his former student and now political rival Caelius. Caelius was charged with political violence in the form of the murder of Dio. Caelius’ defense was structured so that Caelius first spoke in his own defense, following him was Crassus, and finally Cicero. Cicero attempted in his defense to not just refute the accusations brought forward by the prosecutors. Instead, he first demonstrates that Caelius is an upstanding citizen and provides many examples to prove this. He further defends Caelius by swaying the jury in his favor through the employment of comedy. Vice versa he turns the jury against the prosecutors through slander (i.e. he constantly
Julius Caesar was a strong leader of the Romans who changed the course of the history for the Roman world decisively and irreversibly. With his courage and strength, he created a strong empire and guided the empire for almost 20 years. His life was short, but had many adventures. I will tell of some of this man’s remarkable life. He did many things, therefore, I will only discuss a few. His name, part of his reign, one of his greatest battles, and his death will be told.
Julius Caesar was a great leader, strategist, and thinker. On the 15th of March, 44 B.C., he was stabbed by members of the roman senate and bled to death. This gruesome homicide has been reviewed by many historians, but the most famous account is “Julius Caesar” by Shakespeare. Throughout reading this play, the audience must make the hard decision between whether or not they believe Brutus’ motives were justifiable, or if Caesar was the victim of a cruel, heinous crime. This opens up the question, is murder ever justifiable?
Greed, ambition, and the possibility of self-gain are always constant in their efforts to influence people’s actions. In Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, a venerable politician, becomes a victim of the perpetual conflict between power-hungry politicians and ignorant commoners. He is a man of honor and good intentions who sacrifices his own happiness for the benefit of others. Unfortunately, his honor is strung into a fine balance between oblivion and belief and it is ultimately the cause of his downfall. His apparent obliviousness leads him to his grave as his merciful sparing of Mark Antony’s life, much like Julius Caesar’s ghost, comes back to haunt him. Overall, Brutus is an honest, sincere man who holds the lives of others in high regard while he himself acts as a servant to Rome.
In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, Brutus and Cassius are both considered honorable men by the public. But, like all traits, honor is in the eye of the beholder. Honor is defined as evidence or symbols of distinction. Those who are placed in power are often chosen because of their traits, which include being honorable. If those in power have any faults, it could diminish their position in the eyes of the public.
Two powerful leaders, one power hungry whose ambitious ideas lead to his downfall, the other mindful of people who deserve their higher positions. A true leader is someone who has a vision, a drive and commitment to achieve what's best. In the play written by William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Brutus and Caesar are one of the main characters. They demonstrate leadership qualities that are still relevant to today. They are both very ambitious characters; however, they do so for different reasons and differ in their openness to others. There are many similarities and differences that lie between them. Both are noble and great men with loyal followers and neither man questions the rightness of his own path. Both made crucial mistakes that resulted in their death. However, Caesar acts out of love for for himself, his country, and to retain his power as ruler of Rome. Brutus on the other hand acts out of love for freedom of Rome. This essay will discuss and compare their qualities as leaders as well as their styles and how they are effective/ineffective in the play.