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.
In contrast to the publicity spin of today’s tabloids, ‘losers attract notoriety,’ (Fear, 2008, p, 6) Roman society was no different with one’s reputation of paramount importance and continually defended. Antony and Cleopatra’s union was ammunition for Octavian and propaganda used against the couple in their pursuing battle of Actium. (Fear, 2008, p.7.)
Plutarch presented history through biographical stories of the people that were important and influential during the time period he wished to address. However, after having read some of his work, one realizes that Plutarch inserts his own personal opinion and views of the people at hand into the factual documentation of their lives. For example, in The Life of Crassus, Plutarch expresses a general dislike and negative view of the man, but in The Life of Caesar he portrays the life through a lens of praise. It also seems that he uses his opinions of the people that he writes about to subtly extend moral lessons to the reader. What follows is a further isolation of Plutarch's opinions and lessons from within The Lives of Crassus and Caesar.
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
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.
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.
In Titus Livius’, The Early History of Rome, Livy takes on the task of documenting Rome’s early history and some of the famous individuals who help contribute to the ‘greatness’ of Rome. Livy dedicates an entire portion of his writing to describe the reigns of the first seven kings of Rome; all who influence the formation and governance of Rome in some way. However, of the seven kings in early Roman history, King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius achieved godlike worship and high esteem from their fellow Romans. While both highly important and respected figures in Rome’s history, the personalities and achievements of King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius are complete opposites of one another. Despite the differences found in each king and of their rule over Rome, both Romulus and Numa Pompilius have a tremendous influence in the prosperity and expansion of Rome in its early days.
Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) was one of the most outstanding leaders in history. He was the first ruler of the Romano-Hellenic civilization and achieved his goals with great success throughout his life of 56 years. He was assassinated by the conspirators, who accused him of practicing tyranny. This essay will discuss whether it was right for the conspirators to murder Caesar and what its consequences were. The conspirators were wrong to kill Julius Caesar because he contributed to the upturn and reformation of Rome into an orderly state.
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
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...
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
Tiberius Sempronius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus were born into one of Rome’s most politically connected families of their generation. This in turn, benefitted both of their short controversial political careers. Tiberius Gracchus, the eldest of the two, was described by Florus as “a man who easily stood out from others in birth, appearance and eloquence...” (n.d., p. 221) and Velleius identified Tiberius as being the epitome of perfection (p. 55). These sources, created nearly 100 years after the death of Tiberius Gracchi, describe Tiberius to be the ‘perfect’ human-being which could demonstrate a bias accou...
“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.
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.
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...