In the Roman world, reputation and character were powerful concepts. A person could be brought up to prominence or down to infamy through their reputation alone. Some attempted to cultivate their image to suit their purposes, while others had theirs ruined by detractors. After the discovery of a conspiracy, the suspected participants could be punished by damnatio memoriae, considered unworthy of remembrance. However, because of the practical difficulties of this and the importance of remembering conspiracies, it was more likely that a conspirator would instead have his or her reputation slandered and any posthumous honors removed from them. Thus their names would remain in the record, but they served as exemplars for any other potential conspirators. The stories of Catiline, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, and Messalina have all been preserved, but they gained ignominious reputations from their contemporaries as well as from historians.
It is debatable whether the Catilinarian conspiracy was actually plotted at all, but it is certain that Catiline was treated as guilty by many of his contemporaries and later historical sources. It does not appear that an attempt was made to erase Catiline from memory; instead his story is recounted in detail by both Cicero and Sallust. Sallust portrayed Catiline as possessing some good qualities that made others follow him, such as physical strength and eloquence, but that he was ultimately depraved (Sallust 5). For Sallust, Catiline represented the moral decay that affected Rome; he was able to surround himself with criminals and reprobates because Rome was already corrupted (Sallust 6, 14). He accused him of corrupting the young and reported the belief that he murdered his stepson (Sallust ...
... middle of paper ...
...Those powerful enough to avoid or cast off any charges could still be criticized posthumously by historians. Maiestas trials showed the power of reputations; based off of them and a delator’s accusation, a person could lose their life. The concept of damnatio memoriae does pose a problem to the historian. If there were conspirators whose legacies were successfully erased by damnatio memoriae, but it would be difficult to discover this. If instead damnatio memoriae was applied more to remove honors and ruin the reputation of a conspirator, as this essay posits, it may be difficult to ascertain the true character of the person and the actual events that took place. However, with the evidence and tools of analysis that exist, it is clear that a person’s reputation, character, and legacy held great significance for Romans and influenced the histories of the period.
The book Julius Caesar is full of happiness, conspiracy, power, and betrayal. The people of Rome deeply loved julius Caesar and wished to make him their king. A group of senators however were not so fond of this idea and formed a conspiracy. The leader of this group was a man by the name of Cassius. In order to make sure that his scheme of killing Caesar would work and would look honorable he had to convince a senator by the name of Brutus to help. After being convinced that they had to kill Caesar to protect Rome from a tyrant Brutus joined the conspiracy and soon became the principal conspirator.On the day in which Caesar was to be crowned king he was on the way to the senate when he was stabbed by all the conspirators panic ensued and to convince Rome of their honorable intentions Brutus gave a funeral speech. Mark Antony, a very close friend of Caesar, gave his speech after Brutus had given his. Mark Antony’s speech is more persuasive to the Roman people because of his outstanding use of pathos, sarcasm, and logos.
Julius Caesar was unquestionable a cunning Politian as portrayed within historical documents, even though the events were documented after the accounts of his rule materialized there are still numerous theories about his political ability’s and how he was viewed by the people he governed. This paper is intended to present the reader clear vision on how Julius Caesar was viewed during his dictatorship of Rome. Was Julius Caesar a selfish dictator or model politician? There will be five diverse source accounts of the events which will be examined for similarities and differences based on the historical evidences.
Daswani, T (January 13, 2011). Legacies of Rome - Communication [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from Trisha Daswani.
Procopius of Caesarea was a scholar and contemporary historian from Palaestina, who wrote about the reign of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian during the time of 527-560 AD . One of the most interesting and important writing by Procopius is Anecdota or better known as “Secret History”. The Secret History was written around 550 AD and it includes Procopius’s true thoughts and criticisms of Justinian as a person and as an emperor.
Julius Caesar was the dictator of Rome in his prime. Some say his journey to the top was paved in corruption, other claimed he was a man of the people. His enemies knew to fear him for his ruthlessness. His followers adored him because everything that he had succeeded in was done for them. Unfortunately, his betrayal transpired by his senators who felt he had grown too powerful and stabbed him to death. However, Julius Caesar’s connection to the political world, his innate ability as an army general, and his desire to advocate for the rights of his people made him a great leader.
Whether attempting to maintain safe relations, keep family out of harms way or to die with honor, each character placed reputation above religious morals to keep a good name in society. The importance of reputation makes a prominent appearance in today’s society as well as in the Crucible. For example, if a politician makes one bad move, it can end their career for good, which reflects what Parris’s fear of losing his place in society because of accusations of witchcraft in his family. Reputation is immensely important in 1692, and possible even more so, in modern
Abolitio memoriae has been described as wiping out all existing memory of an individual from the public face. This process involved withdrawing any form of legacy, successes, and triumphs from the public for eternity. According to Victor Davis Hanson, Abolitio memoriae is the damnation of an individual’s memory. As described in the text, Abolitio memoriae is also referred to as damnatio memoriae and thus the connotation of the damnation of an individual’s memory for eternity. An individual in power in history was highly regarded for their deeds and triumphs, however, following a damnation of their memory, any commemorations of their time in power would be wiped out from existence. This exercise, carried out self-proclaimed moralists, would
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...
Many characters in Julius Caesar demonstrate qualities of contrasting ambitious objectives. Deception and manipulation appear to be two of the main qualities contributing to the plot for the assassination of Caesar. Although Brutus is seen as the leader of the conspirators Cassius established himself as a deceitful manipulator with an immoral agenda. Although seen throughout the play, Cassius’s soliloquy primarily demonstrates the immoral aspects of his character as he is driven by manipulating Brutus’s political position for personal advancement.
Tacitus’s interpretation of the rulers as fear inflicting people, who were hated posthumously, helps to suggest the idea that terror in history can bring individuals to act or not act. Through his view of the emperors as terrorizing, Ondaatje is able to demonstrate fear as something that enables the shaping of an individual’s personal history.
Romans placed a lot of value on effective and good leaders and being a good leader constituted a number of things. Throughout Sallust’s speech, he give instances where Catiline made quips of “honor, fortune, and dangers” to impressionable young men who followed him (16.2). This occurrence of Catiline, who has been portrayed overall as greedy by Sallust, starts the display of Catiline acting devious and charismatic in order of to get followers. Sallust provides a speech that Catiline said to his participants where he starts by stating how he knows he can trust them because of their past deeds and actions they have done to prove this to him as well as for his gain. Catiline continues to complement these followers with equating them with him by stating they
While Suetonius’s scriptures of Nero may pose a risk of bias, similar perversions were discussed within Edward Champlin’s ‘Nero Reconsidered’. Champlin discuses Nero’s descent into debauchery and malfeasance; how his personal exploits gradually began to corrupt his political and military affairs (Champlin, 1990). Nero began alienating and persecuting much of the elite for higher interests in personal concerns, as well as neglecting military advances and affairs completely. Nero’s exorbitant personal affairs and expenditures left the treasury thoroughly exhausted. His period was riddled with deflation as shortage of money began to emerge (Champlin, 1990). Nero’s adolescence and unruly upbringing was largely contributory to his inadequacy during his years as Roman Emperor. While Nero contributed significantly to the city, his reign demonstrated the unravelling of the Roman
This (Brutus' body) was the noblest Roman of them all. All conspirators, save only he did that they did in en...
“Assumptions are normally the mother of all mistakes,” a quote by the philosopher Eugene Fordsworthe. In 58 B.C., Julius Caesar was a Roman General who ruled Rome along with two other men, Crassus and Pompey. Caesar was renowned for his numerous victories against the Gauls. He even defeated one of his alleged partners Pompey, which ultimately gave Caesar full reign of Rome. Caesar was a brutal leader; he even appointed himself dictator for life. Many feared he would become king, and the Roman Republic would have to resort to the past ways of the Roman Monarchy. A group of ‘nobles’ took it upon themselves to assassinate Caesar. Caesar may have been a brutal ruler, but he was accused and judged for actions that had not taken place yet. Therefore, the ‘nobles’ should not have killed Caesar. The first reason they should not have killed him was the fact that they were basing their decisions and anger off of assumptions made about Caesar. Secondly, the death of Caesar created animosity among the Roman people spurring mobs. Lastly, all of the conspirators ended up on the same road as Caesar, and that road was death.
The Roman delict can be defined as a wrongful act which causes damage to someone’s personality, their family or property and for which the victim or his heirs are entitled to compensation , similar to the definition of the common law of tort, which suggests that a tort is a wrong that interferes with a person’s legally protected interests . The Roman law of Delict was divided into four main delicts, the wrongful damage to property (damnum injuria datum) or the Lex Aquil...