Cicero used humor to charm audiences–and humiliate opponents
wsj.com
wsj.com
Of course in the end Cicero was silenced by those who were taking power. You may have humor and charm, you may be well-behaved and your claims may be correct, but if you are an impediment to the agendas of those in power, they will silence you in whatever ways they can unless others in society restrain them.
It is the lesson of history that Noam Chomsky shouted from the rooftops: when you use your power to silence speech you don't like, you are corrupt, regardless of how you try to disguise it, and the more power you have to do it, the more corrupt, until absolute power corrupts absolutely or society refuses to allow it and restrains you.
The conflict between Cicero and Mark Antony is a splendid case study of influence versus power and how that conflict ends when power chooses to play its hand.
That event is still remembered across the world. Recently the Register noted that "Tank man" vanished for a while from certain search engines but has made some re-appearances again. It may also surprise you to learn that "Cicero sic in omnibus, et Brutus aderat" (Big C puked in the bus and Brutus had a rat)
I understand where you are coming from and I think the notion of:
"power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely"
is a very, very old notion.
This would appear to mean "Cicero [was] this way in everything, and Brutus was there", which comes across as two clauses with absolutely no connection between them. On the other hand, it is comprehensible Latin, unlike "semper ubi sub ubi". Is it a quote from a real source, or was it composed purely for the sake of sounding like English when read in the British standard Latin pronunciation?
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_English_pronunciat... )
I find it interesting that what gerdesj remembered were two lines (in the wrong order) that didn't go together in the English, but which were also the only two lines that made sense as Latin.
I recall those lines that my Latin teacher prefaced with something like "I can't remember the whole thing but ...". I was 10 in 1980 and he was quoting probably from his youth at school or a further 20-30 odd years before then, so I'm recalling something second hand from around 1950-1960! There were some errors. Who knows if he got the "correct" poem to start with. You should hear my rendition of the Jabberwocky.
I feel quite sorry for historians.
> I feel quite sorry for historians.
Yep, this happens everywhere. Context is gradually lost to time and eventually questions just can't be resolved.
Something I read that really stuck with me was a comment on some correspondence between a Mesopotamian king and a high-ranking water engineer:
> His letters contain many poorly understood technical terms for weirs, sluices, dykes and the activities associated with them, so that accurate translation is impossible
We know, broadly, what he was talking about, we have a huge corpus showing the vocabulary in use, and we understand the technology he was using pretty well. But we don't know exactly what he was saying, and it's vanishingly unlikely we ever will.
(quote from https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16179911-the-mystery-of-... )
Caesar adsum jam forte
Brutus aderat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Brutus sic in atThis is a spin on the fact that he was a participant in the murder of Caesar. Cicero was trying to take back power that had been lost to a very popular Leader by participating in the murder of said leader.[0] The killers and conspirators involved were all hunted down and killed.
[0] - for those not up on Roman institutions, Dictator had a different role than we would ascribe today, albeit with many similarities.
Cicero was killed because Antony had a personal vendetta against Cicero. Antony's political partner, Octavian, had a good relationship with Cicero and even looked on him as a father figure. Giving him up to Antony was a compromise he was very unhappy to make (but Antony was not flexible on this demand).
Cicero, if anything, is an example of how one can be loud and open with their thoughts and actually get along well with political leaders (and he got on well with Caesar as well, supposedly). His murder is primarily indicative of Antony's pride.
The Equites were purely a social/wealth based class, any Roman citizen could become one if he we satisfied the wealth requirements.
However, the Senatorial class was not an economic distinction either but rather an aristocracy. Even in the Late Republic these were old families who had had Senators and Consuls in their heredity. There were fewer of these clans, 14 at the time of Caesar (of the Julii clan). Cicero by comparison was of Equestrian rank and a New Man, novus homo, in the Roman political world.
Equestrians weren't knights anymore, expected to field a horse, .... The Roman legions had been professionalized by then. There were property and suitability requirements enforced by the Censors.
The important point is that no one should mistake the equestrians for anything close to even the top end of the middle class.
He loved the Roman Republic and it's senatorial grandeur, and hated Caesar for his illegal arrogation of power.
Another triumvirate was formed after the death of Caesar with Anthony, Octavian and Lepidus. The proscriptions were from that triumvirate and not just Anthony. Cicero favored Octavian but as future emperor, Octavian favored Octavian. Antony certainly hated Cicero and Octavian didn't find Cicero all that useful and well, that was that.
What matters is we've discussed it all week in every newspaper, certainly a lot more than we would have done before. The crowds were around the park too, the police had to understand why this was necessary, etc. There s not one hong kong resident last Friday who didn't know what had happened on June 4, so maybe let the covid restrictions play out, and make sure we dont start talking more abt HK problems than tiananmen ?
In a loose, one is inclined to say a swinging, translation, Mr. Fontaine makes use of such words as “zingers,” “badmouthing,” “shtick” and “chutzpah.” (Bet you didn’t know the Romans knew Yiddish.) He also employs such contemporary phrases as “virtue-signaling,” “metrosexual” and “politically incorrect.” To enjoy his translation, one must smother the pedant in oneself and recall that there is no such thing as the perfect translation; only more or less inaccurate ones. I have myself long owed a debt of hearty laughter to a French translator who rendered “Englishmen always love an underdog” as “Les Anglais aiment toujours le ventre du chien,” or Englishmen love the belly of the dog.
But, great thinker and tried his best despite failings. I kind of think that is a good role model - try to be better, know you are going to screw up, and keep on trying.
Also - he pokes young people in the eye in a book and I always thought it was funny in a philosophical way:
"And yet is there anyone so foolish, even though he is young, as to feel absolutely sure that he will be alive when evening comes? Nay, even youth, much more than old age, is subject to the accident of death; the young fall sick more easily, their sufferings are more intense, and they are cured with greater difficulty.
Therefore, few arrive at old age...
They say, also, that the old man has nothing even to hope for. Yet he is in better case than the young man, since what the latter merely hopes for, the former has already attained; the one wishes to live long, the other has lived long."
Source: https://newsletter.butwhatfor.com/p/takeaway-tuesday-on-old-...
I don't find this weird. There are plenty of English phrases that have seemingly literal translations in other languages (when you translate back to English), and vice-versa. For example in Hindi (and at least a few dialects), there's a phrase that translates to "you're eating my head". This phrase does not literally mean that, it means: "you're pushing my buttons" or "you're driving me crazy". But "you're pushing my buttons" and "you're driving me crazy" are both English phrases that also should not be taken literally. Both the non-literal Hindi and English phrases are understood to mean "you're annoying me, but I love you, so I'm using this phrase instead of actually getting mad at you".
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Cicero-Anthony-Everitt/dp/1402576536
It was used to great effect - mostly to villianize Russia, but as needed against all of his opponents. When he was criticized for his age, he responded "I won't use my opponent's lack of experience against him" gaining a laugh and owning the conversation (worth watching).
It also made him more approachable and liked by the common man (and hated by the media, but whatever...)
"I've instructed my aids that in case of emergency they should wake me in all circumstances; even in a cabinet meeting!"
I don't believe Reagan was ever Bozo, perhaps you are thinking of his starring role in Bedtime For Bonzo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime_for_Bonzo in which he also did not play Bonzo.
(The confusion between "Bonzo" and "Bozo", as well as between chimp and clown, appears to be widespread, FWIW. Also between "Reagan" and "Regan".)
His humour took a very defined and clever format. However, he’s absolutely not the recent politician to use humour. While Trump’s humour is less clearly defined than Reagan’s, he still uses it to great effect. The same for Boris Johnson, or Putin, and Obama too.
Especially Trump though. Trump plays his rallies like a stand-up gig