The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
On Politics
PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICS
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK 8 AND WEEK 9: - (September 21st 2015 - October 4, 2015) - Chapter 4: Roman Insights: Polybius and Cicero - page 111 - 148 - (No Spoilers, please)
date
newest »
newest »
message 2:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 06, 2015 06:00PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
message 3:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 05:29AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
, we are reading Chapter 4: Roman Insights: Polybius and Cicero.
The eighth and ninth week's segments reading assignment are:
WEEK EIGHT AND WEEK NINE: September 21st, 2015 - October 4th, 2015
Chapter 4: Roman Insights: Polybius and Cicero - pages 111 - 148
Chapter Overview and Summary
Chapter 4: Roman Insights: Polybius and Cicero
These weeks we will be discussing the following:
a) Politics for Statesmen, not philosophers
b) The peculiarities of Rome are explained
c) Roman success and its basic tenets
d) What freedom is and what it is not
e) Three Orders of Citizens
f) Cicero's and Polybius's political theories
g) Good laws and good citizens
h) Theories of the mixed republic
i) Motors of political change
j) Self-discipline
message 4:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 06, 2015 06:20PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
message 5:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 19, 2015 06:42PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
"Neither of the subjects of this chapter was primarily a philosopher; Cicero was a statesman, although he was a more accomplished philosopher and a less accomplished statesman than he supposed. Polybius was a soldier, a diplomat, and the third of the great Greek historians after Herodotus and Thucydides. His intellectual successors as writers of political and military history are the Roman historians Tacitus and Livy. Polybius's work entitled The Rise of the Roman Empire has survived only in part; but his explanation of the extraordinary political and military success of the Romans provided Cicero and writers thereafter with their understanding of the Roman or "mixed republican constitution", and the dangers to which such a mixed republic might succumb. Since the constitutions of modern republics owe more to Republican inspiration than to Athenian democracy, we are ourselves his heirs.
by Polybius (no photo)
message 6:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 20, 2015 01:04PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
"Polybius was a highly educated Greek aristocrat from Achaea, in the northwestern Peloponnese, and as a young man was active in the military and political life of his homeland. He was born at the beginning of the second century, sometime after 200 BCE and before 190. Roman military power had by then reduced the kingdom of Macedon to client status, in spite of attempts by kings of Macedon to recover their independence. At the end of the last of these Macedonian Wars in 168, he was one of many upper-class Achaeans taken off to Italy for interrogation and to be kept as a hostage.
He was in exile for eighteen years, during which time he had the good fortune to become close friends with Scipio Africanus the Younger, whom he served as tutor and lifelong friend he remained. Scipio was the son of the Roman general who had won the decisive Battle of Pydna against the Macedonians, where the younger Scipio had also fought. Grandson by adoption of Scipio Africanus the conqueror of Hannibal, he was responsible for the final destruction of Carthage in 146.
That is the terminus ad quem of Polybius's Rise of the Roman Empire. Scipio the Younger plays the central - fictional - role in Cicero's De republica, articulating the values of Roman republicanism in its final years of glory before the republic's institutions decayed and civil war overtook them. Polybius spent his exile in Rome, where he served his friend as secretary and learned all there was to know about the workings of the Roman republic.
In 150 he was allowed home, although he remained close to Scipio, accompanied him during the Third Punic War, and witnessed the destruction of Carthage. Polybius later served his homeland well by acting as a mediator with the Romans after another ill-judged rebellion ended as badly as rebellions against Rome usually did; he did such an excellent job that after his death a remarkable number of statues was erected in his honor all over Greece. The fate of Carthage, sacked, put to the flames, and razed to the ground, suggests the value of his services.
His last years are obscure, but he is said to have died after a fall from his horse at the age of eighty-two in 118. The tale attests to a temperament more friendly to soldiers and statesman than to speculative philosophers".
by Polybius (no photo)
by
Marcus Tullius Cicero
message 7:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 10:49AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
http://www.history.com/topics/ancient...
Source: History.com
A good easy youtube about the history of the Punic Wars - even for kids
https://youtu.be/gYck2OxqK9M
Rome: The Punic Wars - I: The First Punic War - Extra History
https://youtu.be/EbBHk_zLTmY
First Punic War - (264 - 241BC)
- Mainly naval war - some land fighting in Sicily and Africa
- Started as local conflict between Hiero of Syracuse and Mamertines of Messina
- The Mamertines asked for Carthage's help then doublecrossed them and asked for help from the Romans
Some of the more important or larger battles:
- Battle of Agrigentum - 262 BC
- Battle of the Lipari Islands - 260 BC
- Battle of Tunis
Mercenary Wars - (240 - 238 BC) - Rome seizes Sardinia and Corsica
Location: North Africa, Carthage, Utica, Tunisia, Sicca Veneria (modern El Kef)
The Mercenary War (240 BC – 238 BC), also called the Libyan War and the Truceless War by Polybius, was an uprising of mercenary armies formerly employed by Carthage, backed by Libyan settlements revolting against Carthaginian control.
The war began as a dispute over the payment of money owed the mercenaries between the mercenary armies who fought the First Punic War on Carthage's behalf, and a destitute Carthage, which had lost most of its wealth due to the indemnities imposed by Rome as part of the peace treaty. The dispute grew until the mercenaries seized Tunis by force of arms, and directly threatened Carthage, which then capitulated to the mercenaries' demands. The conflict would have ended there, had not two of the mercenary commanders, Spendius and Mathos, persuaded the Libyan conscripts in the army to accept their leadership, and then convinced them that Carthage would exact vengeance for their part in the revolt once the foreign mercenaries were paid and sent home. They also persuaded the combined mercenary armies to revolt against Carthage, and various Libyan towns and cities to back the revolt. What had been a hotly contested "labour dispute" exploded into a full-scale revolt.
Heavily outmatched in terms of troops, money, and supplies, an unprepared Carthage fared poorly in the initial engagements of the war, especially under the generalship of Hanno the Great. Hamilcar Barca, general from the campaigns in Sicily, was given supreme command, and eventually defeated the rebels in 237 BC.
The war had repercussions for Carthage, both internally, and internationally. Internally, the victory of Hamilcar Barca greatly enhanced the prestige and power of the Barcid family, whose most famous member, Hannibal, would lead Carthage in the Second Punic War. Internationally, Rome used the "invitation" of the mercenaries that had captured Sardinia to occupy the island. The seizure of Sardinia and the outrageous extra indemnity fuelled resentment in Carthage. The loss of Sardinia, along with the earlier loss of Sicily meant that Carthage's traditional source of wealth, its trade, was now severely compromised, forcing them to look for a new source of wealth. This led Hamilcar, together with his son-in-law Hasdrubal and his son Hannibal to establish a power base in Hispania, outside Rome's sphere of influence, which later became the source of wealth and manpower for Hannibal's initial campaigns in the Second Punic War.
Result: Decisive Carthaginian victory
Territorial changes: Roman annexation of Sardinia and Corsica
Rome: The Punic Wars - II: The Second Punic War Begins - Extra History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf0-Y...
Second Punic War - Referred to as The Hannibalic War or The War against Hannibal - (218 - 201 BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...
- Antagonists - Carthage and Rome
- Called the Punic Wars because Rome's name for Carthaginians was Poeni, derived from Poenici (earlier form of Punici, a reference to the founding of Carthage by Phoenician settlers
- Hannibal lay siege of Saguntum - Iberian city - loyal to Rome - conflict instigation
- Most costly traditional battles of human history
- Initiated by Rome - marked by Hannibal's overland journey and crossing the Alps into Italy, also in Iberia at Carthago Nova and in Africa
- Some of the major battles: Trebia, Trasimene, Cannae, Carthage Nova, Ilipa, Zama, Metaurus as well as the Battle of the Rhone Crossing, Ebro River, Cissa
- Known strategically for Hannibal's crossing of the Alps with elephants and for Fabian strategy
Rome: The Punic Wars - III: The Second Punic War Rages On - Extra History
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT_re...
Rome: The Punic Wars - IV: The Conclusion of the Second Punic War - Extra History
Hannibal put an end to the Second Punic War. Scipio's stringent terms of surrender were to:
a) hand over all warships and elephants
b) not make war without permission of Rome
c) pay Rome 10,000 talents over the next 50 years.
The terms included an additional, difficult proviso:
d) should armed Carthaginians cross a border the Romans drew in the dirt, it automatically meant war with Rome.
This meant that the Carthaginians could be put in a position where they might not be able to defend their own interests.
https://youtu.be/McT1H-NVCMQ
The Phoenician Carthage - The Roman Holocaust - The Third Punic War - ended with the destruction of Carthage and it people.
The Third Punic War (Latin: Tertium Bellum Punicum) (149–146 BC) was the third and last of the Punic Wars fought between the former Phoenician colony of Carthage and the Roman Republic.
This war was a much smaller engagement than the two previous Punic Wars and focused on Tunisia, mainly on the Siege of Carthage, which resulted in the complete destruction of the city, the annexation of all remaining Carthaginian territory by Rome, and the death or enslavement of the entire Carthaginian population. The Third Punic War ended Carthage's independent existence.
Video - https://youtu.be/fn4EtY8pVnI
Downfall of the Carthaginian Empire
Lost to Rome in the First Punic War (264BC – 241BC) - Teal
Won after the First Punic War, lost in the Second Punic War - Green
Lost in the Second Punic War (218BC – 201BC) - Lighter Blue
Conquered by Rome in the Third Punic War (149BC – 146BC) - Purple
by
Adrian Goldsworthy
message 8:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 19, 2015 09:04PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
message 9:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 05:22PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Polybius was an upper class Achaean who was exiled due to these wars and taken off to Italy.
The Macedonian Wars - Spend some time understanding these wars going on during the time of Polybius. Cicero came later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedon...
Source: Wikipedia
The Macedonian Wars - Part One
https://youtu.be/Grb-THFjNYc
First Macedonian War - (214 - 205 BC)
- Caused by the fact that during the Second Punic War - Philip V of Macedon allied himself with Hannibal
- Conflict was only skirmishes to keep Macedon busy while Rome was fighting Hannibal
- Ended with Treaty of Phoenice (205 BC)
- Opened the way for Roman military intervention in Macedon
Second Macedonian War - 200 BC – 197 BC
- The Second Macedonian War was fought between Macedon, led by Philip V of Macedon, and Rome, allied with Pergamon and Rhodes. The result was the defeat of Philip who was forced to abandon all his possessions in southern Greece, Thrace and Asia Minor. During their intervention, and although the Romans declared the "freedom of the Greeks" against the rule from the Macedonian kingdom, the war marked a significant stage in increasing Roman intervention in the affairs of the eastern Mediterranean which would eventually lead to their conquest of the entire region.
- In 204 BC King Ptolemy IV Philopator of Egypt died, leaving the throne to his six-year-old son Ptolemy V.
- Philip V of Macedon and Antiochus the Great of the Seleucid Empire decided to exploit the weakness of the young king by taking Ptolemaic territory for themselves and they signed a secret pact defining spheres of interest. Philip first turned his attention to the independent Greek city states in Thrace and near the Dardanelles. His success at taking cities such as Kios worried the states of Rhodes and Pergamon who also had interests in the area.
- In 201 BC, Philip launched a campaign in Asia Minor, besieging the Ptolemaic city of Samos and capturing Miletus. Again, this disconcerted Rhodes and Pergamon and Philip responded by ravaging the territory of the latter.
- Philip then invaded Caria but the Rhodians and Pergamonians successfully blockaded his fleet in Bargylia, forcing him to spend the winter with his army in a country which offered very few provisions.
- At this point, although they appeared to have the upper hand, Rhodes and Pergamon still feared Philip so much that they sent an appeal to the fast rising powerful state of the Mediterranean: Rome.
- Rome had just emerged victorious from the Second Punic War against Carthage.
- Up to this point Rome had taken very little interest in the affairs of the eastern Mediterranean. The First Macedonian War against Philip V had been over the issue of Illyria and was resolved by the Peace of Phoenice in 205 BC. Very little in Philip's recent actions in Thrace and Asia Minor could be said to concern the Roman Republic directly. Nevertheless, the Romans listened to the appeal from Rhodes and Pergamon and sent a party of three ambassadors to investigate matters in Greece. The ambassadors found very little enthusiasm for a war against Philip until they reached Athens.
Here they met King Attalus I of Pergamon and diplomats from Rhodes. At the same time, Athens declared war on Macedon and Philip sent a force to invade Attica. The Roman ambassadors held a meeting with the Macedonian general and urged Macedon to leave the Greek cities in peace, singling out Athens, Rhodes, Pergamon, and the Aetolian League as now Roman allies and thus free from Macedonian influence and to come to an arrangement with Rhodes and Pergamon to adjudicate damages from the latest war. The Macedonian general evacuated Athenian territory and handed the Roman ultimatum to his master Philip.
-Philip, who had managed to slip past the blockade and arrive back home, rejected the Roman ultimatum out of hand. He renewed his attack on Athens and began another campaign in the Dardanelles, besieging the important city of Abydus. Here, in the autumn of 200 BC, a Roman ambassador reached him with a second ultimatum, urging him not to attack any Greek state or to seize any territory belonging to Ptolemy and to go to arbitration with Rhodes and Pergamon. It was obvious that Rome was now intent on making war on Philip and at the very same time the ambassador was delivering the second ultimatum, a Roman force was disembarking in Illyria. Philip's protests that he was not in violation of any of the terms of the Peace of Phoenice he had signed with Rome were in vain.
Polybius reports that during the siege of Abydus, Philip had grown impatient and sent a message to the besieged that the walls would be stormed and that if anybody wished to commit suicide or surrender they had 3 days to do so. The citizens promptly killed all the women and children of the city, threw their valuables into the sea and fought to the last man. This story illustrates the reputation for atrocities that Philip had earned by this time during his efforts at expanding Macedonian power and influence through the conquest of other Greek cities.
- Publius Sulpicius Galba made little headway against Philip and his successor, Publius Villius, had to deal with a mutiny among his own men. In 198 BC, Villius handed command over to Titus Quinctius Flamininus, who would prove a very different kind of general.
- Seeing things were going Rome's way, Philip's few remaining allies abandoned him (with the exception of Acarnania) and he was forced to raise an army of 25,000 mercenaries. The legions of Titus confronted and defeated Philip at the Aous, However the decisive encounter came at Cynoscephalae in Thessaly in June 197 BC, when the legions of Flamininus defeated Philip's Macedonian phalanx. Philip was forced to sue for peace on Roman terms.
- The Peace of Flamininus
An armistice was declared and peace negotiations were held in the Vale of Tempe. Philip agreed to evacuate the whole of Greece and relinquish his conquests in Thrace and Asia Minor. Flamininus' allies in the Aetolian League also made further territorial claims of their own against Philip but Flamininus refused to back them. The treaty was sent to Rome for ratification. The Senate added terms of its own: Philip must pay a war indemnity and surrender his navy (although his army was untouched). In 196, peace was finally agreed and at the Isthmian Games that year Flamininus proclaimed the liberty of the Greeks to general rejoicing of those who were attending the Games. Nevertheless, the Romans kept garrisons in key strategic cities which had belonged to Macedon – Corinth, Chalcis and Demetrias – and the legions were not completely evacuated until 194.
Seleucid War (192 to 188 BC)
- With Egypt and Macedonia now weakened, the Seleucid Empire became increasingly aggressive and successful in its attempts to conquer the entire Greek world.
- When Rome pulled out of Greece at the end of the Second Macedonian War, they (and their allies) thought they had left behind a stable peace. However, by weakening the last remaining check on Seleucid expansion, they left behind the opposite. Now not only did Rome's allies against Philip seek a Roman alliance against the Seleucids, but Philip himself even sought an alliance with Rome.
- The situation was made worse by the fact that Hannibal was now a chief military advisor to the Seleucid emperor, and the two were believed to be planning for an outright conquest not just of Greece, but of Rome also. The Seleucids were much stronger than the Macedonians had ever been, given that they controlled much of the former Persian Empire, and by this point had almost entirely reassembled Alexander the Great's former empire.
- Fearing the worst, the Romans began a major mobilization, all but pulling out of recently pacified Spain and Gaul. They even established a major garrison in Sicily in case the Seleucids ever got to Italy. This fear was shared by Rome's Greek allies, who had largely ignored Rome in the years after the Second Macedonian War, but now followed Rome again for the first time since that war. A major Roman-Greek force was mobilized under the command of the great hero of the Second Punic War, Scipio Africanus, and set out for Greece, beginning the Roman-Syrian War. After initial fighting that revealed serious Seleucid weaknesses, the Seleucids tried to turn the Roman strength against them at the Battle of Thermopylae (as they believed the 300 Spartans had done centuries earlier to the mighty Persian Empire). Like the Spartans, the Seleucids lost the battle, and were forced to evacuate Greece. The Romans pursued the Seleucids by crossing the Hellespont, which marked the first time a Roman army had ever entered Asia. The decisive engagement was fought at the Battle of Magnesia, resulting in a complete Roman victory. The Seleucids sued for peace, and Rome forced them to give up their recent Greek conquests. Though they still controlled a great deal of territory, this defeat marked the beginning of the end of their empire, as they were to begin facing increasingly aggressive subjects in the east (the Parthians) and the west (the Greeks). Their empire disintegrated into a rump over the course of the next century, when it was eclipsed by Pontus. Following Magnesia, Rome pulled out of Greece again, assuming (or hoping) that the lack of a major Greek power would ensure a stable peace, though it did the opposite.
Third Macedonian War (172 to 168 BC)
- Upon Philip's death in Macedon (179 BC), his son, Perseus of Macedon, attempted to restore Macedon's international influence, and moved aggressively against his neighbors.
When Perseus was implicated in an assassination plot against an ally of Rome, the Senate declared the third Macedonian War.
Initially, Rome did not fare well against the Macedonian forces, but in 168 BC, Roman legions smashed the Macedonian phalanx at the Battle of Pydna.
Convinced now that the Greeks (and therefore the rest of the world) would never have peace if Greece was left alone yet again, Rome decided to establish its first permanent foothold in the Greek world. The Kingdom of Macedonia was divided by the Romans into four client republics. Even this proved insufficient to ensure peace, as Macedonian agitation continued
Fourth Macedonian War (150 to 148 BC)
- The Fourth Macedonian War, fought from 150 BC to 148 BC, was fought against a Macedonian pretender to the throne who was again destabilizing Greece by attempting to re-establish the old Kingdom.
- The Romans swiftly defeated the Macedonians at the Second battle of Pydna. In response, the Achaean League in 146 BC mobilized for a new war against Rome.
- This is sometimes referred to as the Achaean War, and was noted for its short duration and its timing right after the fall of Macedonia. Until this time, Rome had only campaigned in Greece in order to fight Macedonian forts, allies or clients. Rome was hopeful as Rome had triumphed against far stronger and larger opponents, the Roman legion having proved its supremacy over the Macedonian phalanx.
Source: Wikipedia
by Duncan Head
by
Victor Davis Hanson
message 10:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 09:32AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Often regarded as one of the greatest military strategists in history, Hannibal would later be considered one of the greatest generals of antiquity, together with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Scipio, and Pyrrhus of Epirus.
Plutarch states that, when questioned by Scipio as to who was the greatest general, Hannibal is said to have replied either Alexander or Pyrrhus, then himself, or, according to another version of the event, Pyrrhus, Scipio, then himself.
Military historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge once famously called Hannibal the "father of strategy", because his greatest enemy, Rome, came to adopt elements of his military tactics in its own strategic arsenal. This praise has earned him a strong reputation in the modern world, and he was regarded as a great strategist by men like Napoleon Bonaparte.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal
This is a novel about Hannibal:
by
David Anthony DurhamOther books:
by
Adrian GoldsworthyGreat Courses: Hannibal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-qY2...
Source: Youtube
message 11:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 09:34AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
The son of Lucius Cornelius Scipio, he was the father of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (the elder), and of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus.
Publius Cornelius Scipio (died 211 BC) was a general and statesman of the Roman Republic.
A member of the Cornelia gens, Scipio served as consul in 218 BC, the first year of the Second Punic War. He sailed with his army from Pisa with the intention of confronting Hannibal in Hispania.[1] Stopping at Massilia (today Marseille) to replenish his supplies, he was shocked to discover that Hannibal's army had moved from Hispania and was crossing the Rhône.[1] Scipio disembarked his army and marched to confront Hannibal, who, by now, had moved on. Returning to the fleet, he entrusted the command of his army to his brother Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus and sent him off to Hispania to carry on with the originally intended mission. Scipio returned to Italy to take command of the troops fighting in Cisalpine Gaul.[2]
On his return to Italy, he advanced at once to meet Hannibal. In a sharp cavalry engagement near the Ticinus, a tributary of the Po river, he was defeated and severely wounded. In December of the same year, he again witnessed the complete defeat of the Roman army at the Trebia, when his fellow consul Tiberius Sempronius Longus allegedly insisted on fighting against his advice. [The earliest historical source was by the Greek historian Polybius, who became an intimate of Scipio's grandson and was seemingly biased in favour of the Scipio family. The other major account was written in the following century by the Roman historian Livy, who also expressed bias in favour of certain aristocratic families.][3]
Despite the military defeats, he still retained the confidence of the Roman people: his term of command was extended and the following year found him in Hispania with his brother Calvus, winning victories over the Carthaginians and strengthening Rome's position in the Iberian peninsula.
He continued the Iberian campaigns until 211, when he was killed during the defeat of his army at the upper Baetis river by the Carthaginians and their iberian allies under Indibilis and Mandonius.
That same year, Calvus and his army were destroyed at Ilorci near Carthago Nova. The details of these campaigns are not completely known, but it seems that the ultimate defeat and death of the two Scipiones was due to the desertion of the Celtiberians, who were bribed by Hasdrubal Barca, Hannibal's brother.
Source: Wikipedia
Great Courses - Publius Cornelius Scipio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H1FS...
He viewed Rome as "res publica" - or literally "the people's thing.
Res Publia - a balanced constitution - a balance between the essential elements of government.
Democratic element was simply the broad based public support.
He believed that there had to be "an aristocratic element" - Guidance of the commonwealth by a small body of "the best" - (the Senate)
Monarchial Element - strong executive authority - (the Consuls)
Two Consuls - the No vote of one will always override the Yes vote of another
The Consuls were elected annually.
Libertas - liberty was the overriding quality - only means freedom under the law and they did not believe in equality. To be a citizen you must serve in the army - so women were not citizens. Every Roman had to serve in the army up to the age of 46. Every Roman had to serve at least 16 years between the ages of 20 and 46. Every Roman during time of crisis had to serve 20 years. And before he could even hold public office he had to serve a minimum of 10 years in the Roman army.
Sources: Wikipedia and the Great Courses on youtube
by
Susan Wise Bauer
message 12:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 20, 2015 08:44PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Polybius, (Born c. 200 BC, Megalopolis, Arcadia, Greece—died C 118), Greek statesman and historian who wrote of the rise of Rome to world prominence.
http://www.britannica.com/biography/P...
Polybius, Greek historian, Roman Analyst
Polybius lived circa 200-118 B.C. In his work, the Histories, he chronicled Roman history from 220-146 B.C.
His work included an analysis of the three principle forms of government, monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by few) and democracy (rule by many).
He observed that in each of the three, an unavoidable degeneration took place over time.
A monarch would become a tyranny. An aristocracy would become an oligarchy. A democracy ultimately degenerated into mob-rule. In each, this took place by a gradual decline that he calls anacyclosis or “political revolution”.
Hereditary monarchs did not possess the qualities of their predecessors. Aristocrats over time became the idle rich and unconnected to the people. Pure democracy leads to a tyranny of the majority and disenfranchisement of a significant minority.
Polybius believed that Republican Rome avoided this endless cycle by establishing a mixed constitution, a single state with elements of all three forms of government at once: monarchy (in the form of its elected executives, the consuls), aristocracy (as represented by the Senate), and democracy (in the form of the popular assemblies, such as the Comitia Centuriata).
Polybius credited the success of Rome to having mixed these forms of government, and separating power among the various groups of society, giving every group a stake and every individual incentive to contribute.
Polybius’ observations and writings began the evolutionary development of the separation of powers concept.
Source: Separation of Powers in the US Constitution: 1800 Years of Thought - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution...
Other source: Encyclopedia Britannica
Polybius as an Historian
As you read Polybius, you will notice that his historical method involves the following aspects:
• An insistence on a world-view and international perspective
• Interrogating of a wide range of sources, notably public archives and eyewitnesses
• An insistence that history should ‘tell the truth’
• A focus on narrative history which explains how and why
• A focus on individuals and what they achieved – the 'heroes of history'
• His belief in τύχη (divine fate)
• What he calls πραγματικῆς ἱστορίας (history which teaches you 'how-to-live')
• What he calls ‘digressions’ to discuss geography, art, science and moral issues.
1. Strengths of Polybius
• He had lived through many of the events he was writing about
• He made a real effort to work from as many sources as possible
• He interviewed eyewitnesses, including many important people
• He assessed his sources' reliability, and rejected biased sources
• He was an expert on politics and warfare (and interested in technology)
• He took great care to get his geography right, and visited the places he wrote about
• His Histories were a genuine work of synthesis
• He sought the TRUTH.
2. Weaknesses of Polybius
• He had lived through many of the events he was writing about
• He believed his eyewitnesses
• He wrote for Greeks
• He was biased for the Romans, and especially for the Scipios (his patrons)
• He wrote to draw out the 'moral' of the story, and to convey the 'lesson for life'
• Although he criticized made-up speeches, he sometimes made up speeches!
Source: http://www.johndclare.net/AncientHist...
message 13:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 20, 2015 08:57PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
http://www.slideshare.net/dposkerhill...
Source: in Slideshare
Short Video:
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9054...
message 14:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 06:06AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
both by Polybius (no photo)
by Brian C. McGing (no photo)
message 15:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 20, 2015 09:09PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
“There is no witness so dreadful, no accuser so terrible as the conscience that dwells in the heart of every man.”
―Polybius
“Those who know how to win are much more numerous than those who know how to make proper use of their victories.”
―Polybius
Polybius
“All things are subject to decay and change...”
―Polybius
Polybius
“This is a sworn treaty made between us, Hannibal... and Xenophanes the Athenian... in the presence of all the gods who possess Macedonia and the rest of Greece.”
―Polybius
“The government will take the fairest of names, but the worst of realities — mob rule.”
―Polybius
message 16:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 06:08AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africans (236–183 BC), also known as Scipio the African, Scipio Africanus-Major, Scipio Africanus the Elder, and Scipio the Great, is renowned as one of the greatest generals, not only of ancient Rome, but of all time.
His main achievements were during the Second Punic War where he is best known for defeating Hannibal at the final battle at Zama, one of the feats that earned him the agnomen Africans, as well as recognition as one of the finest commanders in military history.
Source: "Isis priest01 pushkin" by user:shakko - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
by
B.H. Liddell Hart
by Richard Miles (no photo)
message 17:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 06:37AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Hamilcar Barca or Barcas was a Carthaginian general and statesman, leader of the Barcid family, and father of Hannibal, Hasdrubal and Mago. He was also father-in-law to Hasdrubal the Fair. The name Hamilcar was a common name for Carthaginian men.
Video:
Source: History.com
Hamilcar Barca and the Punic Wars
Hamilcar Barca, father of the great Carthaginian general Hannibal, meets with disaster during a campaign in the Punic Wars.
His surname meant "lightning".
He was sad to see Corsica and Sardinia after hundreds of years of Carthaginian rule be now in the Roman domain. He went to Spain for a new source of manpower and income and resources to make Carthage great again and break away from domination.
Video: http://www.history.com/topics/ancient...
by Barry Linton (no photo)Source: Wikipedia
message 18:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 06:13AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Philip V (Greek: Φίλιππος Ε΄) (238–179 BC) was King of Macedon from 221 to 179 BC. Philip's reign was principally marked by an unsuccessful struggle with the emerging power of Rome. Philip was attractive and charismatic as a young man. A dashing and courageous warrior, he was inevitably compared to Alexander the Great and was nicknamed the beloved of all Greece (Greek: "ἐρώμενος τῶν Ἑλλήνων") because he became, as Polybius put it, "...the beloved of all Hellenes for his charitable inclination
Philip V of Macedon (179 - 238 BC)
Philip was King of Macedon from 221 to 179 BC, son of King Demetrius II, ascended the throne on the death of his tutor, Antigonus Doson.
Gained fame from a war (220-217 BC) in which, together with the Achaean League, defeated an alliance formed by the Aetolian League, Sparta and Elis; then he allied with Demetrius of Pharos, dangerous Illyrian Prince and, most of all, enemy of Rome.
The victories of the Carthaginian General Hannibal in Italy convinced Philip to conclude an alliance with Carthage in 215 BC, hoping, in this way, to secure for himself the Roman possessions in Illyria. The agreement, however, bring on a long conflict with Rome, known as Macedonian war, which eventually imposed Roman rule in Greece.
Philip then devoted himself to the reconstruction of his reign reorganizing finances, opening some mines and improving the defenses of Northern frontiers. But the continuous intervention of Rome against Macedonis, following claims of neighbouring States, convinced Philip that the Romans wanted to annex his realm. So in 184-183 BC, and again in 181 BC, he tried, with no success, to extend its dominance in the Balkans.
by Frank William Walbank (no photo)
message 19:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 20, 2015 10:35PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Polybius blames the demagogues of the cities of the league for inspiring the population into a suicidal war. Nationalist stirrings and the idea of triumphing against superior odds motivated the league into this rash decision. The Achaean League was swiftly defeated, and, as an object lesson, Rome utterly destroyed the city of Corinth in 146 BC, the same year that Carthage was destroyed.
After nearly a century of constant crisis management in Greece, which always led back to internal instability and war when Rome pulled out, Rome decided to divide Macedonia into two new Roman provinces, Achaea and Epirus.
Source: Wiipedia
message 20:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 05:46AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Folks we are open - please feel free to talk about the similarities and differences between modern democracy and the Roman model.
Discuss any of Polybius quotes, life story or beliefs.
What did you think of the founding fathers article and what we have to thank the Romans for?
Also, please feel free to discuss any high points in Chapter Four of Ryan's book that you would like to begin a conversation about.
Are the democracies of the world in a gradual decline that Polybius called anacyclosis or “political revolution”? Why or why not?
message 21:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 10:50AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Here is a good book - audio free: The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell - narrator is pretty good too.
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audi...
LearnOutLoud.com Review
Cozy up by the fireplace with this free version of Bertrand Russell's classic 1945 book The History Of Western Philosophy. It's a book we've always wanted to see on audio and didn't think it was ever recorded.
But it seems someone has uploaded an out-of-print recording of it to YouTube, and has even done the service of dividing it up by chapters which, for the most part, each cover a particular philosopher.
This history of philosophy covers philosophers from the pre-Socratics to the early 20th century including chapters on such philosophical giants as Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Machiavelli, Descartes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, William James, and many more great minds. So you can listen selectively to the philosophers you are interested in, or listen to the entire 22 hour audio book. It is available to stream on a playlist through YouTube.
Description
A History of Western Philosophy is a 1945 book by philosopher Bertrand Russell. A conspectus of Western philosophy from the pre-Socratic philosophers to the early 20th century, it was criticised for its over-generalization and its omissions, particularly from the post-Cartesian period, but nevertheless became a popular and commercial success, and has remained in print from its first publication.
When Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, the book was cited as one of those that won him the award. The book provided Russell with financial security for the last part of his life.
Playlist: (It is already divided up into chapters)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=PL...
by
Bertrand Russell
Bentley wrote: "“All things are subject to decay and change...”―Polybius"
I've only skimmed the information above so far, but this quote stuck out. In our discussion in the last chapter of people wrapped up in frivolous activities rather than caring about politics and the common good, I thought of one of the late scenes of "I Claudius" in which an aged Claudius is in his room in the Empire writing about the Republic. Two teens happen by and roll their eyes. "The Republic" is only something old men worry about.
I'm probably paraphrasing horribly, but that sad scene's stuck with me over the years. I saw it on PBS, but...
by
Robert GravesSo on we go into the Roman world.
message 23:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 21, 2015 05:24PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Bentley wrote: "“Those who know how to win are much more numerous than those who know how to make proper use of their victories.”―Polybius"
This quote seems to capture a lot. I've also heard it as "many people want to be something rather than do something." It seems come down to status and self-interest versus an interest in the public good. Perhaps something like civics classes is a way to nudge people towards the latter.
The notion of different levels of citizenship is interesting [p. 132], if I'm reading that correctly. It's a privilege that can be granted or taken away, or one can be demoted, etc.There's an interesting issue related to this in Canada right now.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto...
I don't believe I've heard of revoking citizenship before, at least in Canada.
"Dual Citizenship" is common here, which in the context of our discussion is interesting in and of itself. One of the main political party leaders in the upcoming election also holds French citizenship, which he says he will renounce if elected.
message 26:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 27, 2015 08:52AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
http://old.jdkatz.com/blog/will-the-i...
Boris Johnson for example has dual citizenship - one for the US and one for Britain.
One of my favorite quotes is from Polybius: "since men have no more ready corrective of conduct than knowledge of the past. But all historians, one may say without exception, and in no half-hearted manner, but making this the beginning and end of their labour,have impressed on us that the soundest education and training for a life of active politics is the study of History, and that surest and indeed the only method of learning how to bear bravely the vicissitudes of fortune, is to recall the calamities of others...For who is so worthless or indolent as not to wish to know by what means and under what system of polity the Romans in less than fifty-three years have succeeded in subjecting nearly the whole inhabited world to their sole government—a thing unique in history?"
Polybius (No Photo), page 5
message 28:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 27, 2015 04:33PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
by Polybius (no photo) Page Citation - 5
Just a little help with the citation but you were pretty close (smile)
message 29:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 28, 2015 06:48AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Greek philosophy and rhetoric moved fully into Latin for the first time in the speeches, letters and dialogues of Cicero (106-43 B.C.), the greatest orator of the late Roman Republic.
A brilliant lawyer and the first of his family to achieve Roman office, Cicero was one of the leading political figures of the era of Julius Caesar, Pompey, Marc Antony and Octavian.
A string of misjudged alliances saw him exiled and eventually murdered, but Cicero’s writings barely waned in influence over the centuries. It was through him that the thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment discovered the riches of Classical rhetoric and philosophy.
CICERO: EARLY LIFE, EDUCATION, ENTRY INTO POLITICS
Marcus Tullius Cicero was born in the hill town of Arpinum, about 60 miles southeast of Rome. His father, a wealthy member of the equestrian order, paid to educate Cicero and his younger brother in philosophy and rhetoric in Rome and Greece. After a brief military service, he studied Roman law under Quintis Mucius Scaevola. Cicero publicly argued his first legal case in 81 B.C., successfully defending a man charged with parricide.
DID YOU KNOW?
Cicero's close associate Marcus Tullius Tiro, the collector of many of his letters, had once been owned by Cicero's family. He was freed in 53 B.C., Cicero declared, "to be our friend instead of our slave."
Cicero was elected quaestor in 75, praetor in 66 and consul in 63—the youngest man ever to attain that rank without coming from a political family. During his term as consul he thwarted the Catilinian conspiracy to overthrow the Republic. In the aftermath, though, he approved the key conspirators’ summary execution, a breach of Roman law that left him vulnerable to prosecution and sent him into exile.
CICERO: ALLIANCES, EXILES AND DEATH
During his exile, Cicero refused overtures from Caesar that might have protected him, preferring political independence to a role in the First Triumvirate. Cicero was away from Rome when civil war between Caesar and Pompey broke out. He aligned himself with Pompey and then faced another exile when Caesar won the war, cautiously returning to Rome to receive the dictator’s pardon.
Cicero was not asked to join the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar in 44 B.C., but he was quick to celebrate it after the fact. In the infighting that followed Caesar’s death, Cicero made brief attempts at alliances with key figures, first defending Mark Antony before the Senate and then denouncing him as a public enemy in a series of withering speeches.
For some time he supported the upstart Octavian, but when Antony, Octavian and Lepidus allied in 43 to form the Second Triumvirate, Cicero’s fate was settled. Antony arranged to have him declared a public enemy. Cicero was caught and killed by Antony’s soldiers, who are said to have cut off his head and right hand and brought them for display in Rome—Antony’s revenge for Cicero’s speeches and writings.
CICERO: WRITINGS AND ORATORY
Cicero was one of the most prolific Roman writers, and the number of his speeches, letters and treatises that have survived into the modern era is a testament to his admiration by successive generations. For Cicero, philosophical understanding was an orator’s paramount virtue. He was deeply influenced by his own training in three Greek philosophical schools: the Stoicism of Lucius Aelius Stilo and Didotus, the Epicureanism of Phaedrus and the skeptical approach of Philo of Larissa, head of the New Academy. Cicero usually sided with the Stoics, who valued virtue and service, over the pleasure-loving Epicureans. But his New Academic training equipped him to combine elements of the various philosophical schools to suit a given situation.
Cicero offered little new philosophy of his own but was a matchless translator, rendering Greek ideas into eloquent Latin. His other peerless contribution was his correspondence. More than 900 of his letters survive, including everything from official dispatches to casual notes to friends and family. Much of what is known about politics and society of his era is known because of Cicero’s correspondence. Few of his letters were written for publication, so Cicero gave free reign to his exultations, fears and frustrations.
CICERO’S LEGACY
Cicero’s inventive command of Latin prose provided a model for generations of textbooks and grammars. The Church Fathers explored Greek philosophy through Cicero’s translations, and many historians date the start of the Renaissance to Petrarch’s rediscovery of Cicero’s letters in 1345. Enlightenment thinkers including John Locke, David Hume, Montesquieu and Thomas Jefferson all borrowed thoughts and turns of phrase from Cicero. The first century critic Quintilian said that Cicero was “the name, not of a man, but of eloquence itself.”
Source for all of the above: History.com - http://www.history.com/topics/ancient...
Mod
The Art of Politics, From the Tiber to the Potomac
By Quintus Tullius Cicero and James Carville
From Foreign Affairs:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...
Source: Foreign Affairs
Mod
message 32:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 28, 2015 07:43AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
--Marcus Tullius Cicero
Mod
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoh_V...
Source; Youtube
Mod
Marcus Tullius Cicero, The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero, vol. 1 (Treatise on the Commonwealth) [-54]
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/546
CICERO’S COMMONWEALTH.: BOOK III. - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Treatise on the Commonwealth [54 BC]
Edition used:
The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero: Comprising his Treatise on the Commonwealth; and his Treatise on the Laws. Translated from the original, with Dissertations and Notes in Two Volumes. By Francis Barham, Esq. (London: Edmund Spettigue, 1841-42). Vol. 1.
Author: Marcus Tullius Cicero
Translator: Francis Barham
CICERO’S COMMONWEALTH. BOOK III.
Nature has treated man less like a mother than a step–dame. She has cast him into mortal life with a body naked, fragile, and infirm; and with a mind agitated by troubles, depressed by fears, broken by labours, and exposed to passions. In this mind, however, there lies hid, and as it were buried, a certain divine spark of genius and intellect; and the soul should impute much of its present infirmity to the dulness contracted from its earthly vehicle.
This intelligence, when it had taught men to utter the elementary and confused sounds of unpolished expression, articulated and distinguished them into their proper classes, and, as their appropriate signs, attached certain words to certain things, and thus associated by the beautiful bond of speech, the once divided races of men.
Thanks to this same intelligence, the inflections of the voice, which appeared infinite, by the discovery of a few alphabetic characters, are all designated and expressed. By these we maintain converse with our absent friends, and, using them as symbols of our ideas and monuments of past events. Then came the use of numbers—a thing so necessary to human life, and singularly immutable and eternal. This science first urged us to penetrate into heaven, and not in vain to investigate the motions of the stars, and the distribution of days and nights.
Then appeared the sages of philosophy, whose minds took a higher flight, and conceived and executed designs worthy of the gifts of the gods. Thus those who have left us sublime counsels on the conduct of human life, must be regarded as great men — for indeed they are so. Such were these sages, these masters of verity and virtue.
Among these we should especially honour the chief fathers of political wisdom, and the government of the people, as discovered by men familiar with all the acts of legislation, and as developed by philosophic truth–searchers in literary leisure. This political science often attains a wonderful perfection in first–rate minds, as we have not unfrequently seen, and elicits an incredible and almost divine virtue. And when to these high faculties of soul, received from nature, and expanded by social institutions, a politician adds learning and extensive information concerning things in general, like those illustrious personages who conduct the dialogue in the present treatise, none will refuse to confess the superiority of political sages over all others.
In fact, what can be more admirable than the study and practice of the grand affairs of state, united to a literary taste and a familiarity with the liberal arts! What can we imagine more perfect than a Scipio, a Lælius, or a Philus, who, combining all the glorious qualities of the greatest men, joined to the examples of our ancestors and the traditions of our countrymen, the foreign philosophy of Socrates!
Thus to study and attain these two grand desiderata, learning and experience, so as to build securely on the univeral consent of the philosophers of all nations, and the tried institutions of our native land, appears to me the very highest glory and honour. But if we cannot combine both, and are compelled to select one of these two paths of wisdom, though we may suppose the tranquil life spent in the research of literature and arts the most happy and delectable; yet, doubtless, the science of politics is more laudible and illustrious, for in this political field of exertion our greatest men have reaped their honours, like the invincible Curius—
“Whom neither gold nor iron could subdue.”
There exists this general difference between these two classes of great men, namely philosophers and politicians, that among the former, the development of the principles of nature is the subject of their study and eloquence; and among the latter, national laws and institutions form the principal topics of investigation.
In honour of our country we may assert that she has produced within herself a great number, I will not say, of sages, (since philosophy is so jealous of this name) but of men worthy of the highest celebrity, because by them the precepts and discoveries of the sages have been carried out into actual practice.
If you consider that there have existed and still exist, many great and glorious empires, and if you acknowledge that the noblest master–piece of genius in the world is the establishment of a durable state and commonwealth, reckoning but a single legislator for each empire, the number of these political legislators will appear very numerous. To be convinced of this, we have only to turn our eyes on Italy, Latium, the Sabines, the Volscians, the Samnites, the Etrurians, and then direct our attention to the Greeks, Assyrians, Persians, and Carthaginians.
Scipio and his friends having again assembled, Scipio spoke as follows: — In our last conversation I promised to prove that honesty is the best policy in all states and commonwealths whatsoever. But if I am to plead in favour of strict honesty and justice in all public affairs, no less than in private, I must request Philus, or some one else, to take up the advocacy of the other side; the truth will then become more manifest, from the collision of opposite arguments, as we see every day exemplified at the Bar.
Philus.
—In good truth you have allotted me a marvellous creditable cause. So you wish me to plead for vice, do you?
Lælius.
—Perhaps you are afraid, lest in reproducing the ordinary objections made to justice in politics, you should seem to express your own sentiments. But this caution is ridiculous in you, my Philus; you, who are so universally respected as an almost unique example of the ancient probity and good faith; you, who are so familiar with the legal habit of disputing on both sides of a question, because you think this is the best way of getting at the truth.
Philus.
—Very well; I obey you, and wilfully with my eyes open, I will undertake this dirty business. Since those who seek for gold do not flinch at the sight of the mud, we, who search for justice, which is far more precious than gold, must overcome all dainty scruples. I will therefore, make use of the antagonist arguments of a foreigner, and assume his character in using them. The pleas, therefore, now to be delivered by Philus are those once employed by the Greek Carneades, accustomed to express whatever served his turn. Let it be understood, therefore, that I by no means express my own sentiments, but those of Carneades, in order that you may refute this philosopher, who was wont to turn the best causes into joke, through the mere wantonness of wit.
When Philus had thus spoken, he took a general review of the leading arguments that Carneades had brought forward to prove that justice was neither eternal, immutable, nor universal. Having put these sophistical arguments into their most specious and plausible form, he thus continued his ingenious pleadings.
Aristotle has treated this question concerning justice, and filled four large volumes with it. As to Chrysippus, I expected nothing grand or magnificent in him, for, after his usual fashion, he examines everything rather by the signification of words, than the reality of things. But it was surely worthy of those heroes of philosophy to ennoble by their genius a virtue so eminently beneficent and liberal, which every where exalts the social interests above the selfish, and teaches to love others rather than ourselves. It was worthy of their genius, we say, to elevate this virtue to a divine throne, close to that of Wisdom. Certainly they wanted not the intention to accomplish this. What else could be the cause of their writing on the subject, or what could have been their design? Nor could they have wanted genius, in which they excelled all men. But the weakness of their cause was too great for their intention and their eloquence to make it popular. In fact, this justice on which we reason may be a civil right, but no natural one; for if it were natural and universal, then justice and injustice would be recognized similarly by all men, just as the elements of heat and cold, sweet and bitter.
Now if any one, carried in the chariot of winged serpents, of which the poet Pacuvius makes mention, could take his flight over all nations and cities, and accurately observe their proceedings, he would see that the sense of justice and right varies in different regions. In the first place he would behold among the unchangeable people of Egypt, which preserves in its archives the memory of so many ages and events, a bull adored as a deity, under the name of Apis, and a multitude of other monsters, and all kinds of animals admitted by the natives into the number of the gods.
The Persians, on the other hand, regard all these forms of idolatry as impious, and it is affirmed that the sole motive of Xerxes for commanding the conflagration of the Athenian temples, was the belief that it was a superstitious sacrilege to keep confined within narrow walls the gods, whose proper home was the entire universe. Afterwards Philip, in his hostile projects against the Persians, and Alexander, in his expedition, alleged this plea for war, that it was necessary to avenge the temples of Greece. And the Greeks thought proper never to rebuild these fanes, that this monument of the impiety of the Persians might always remain before the eyes of their posterity.
How many, such as the inhabitants of Taurica along the Euxine Sea—as the King of Egypt Busiris—as the Gauls and the Carthaginians—have thought it exceedingly pious and agreeable to the gods to sacrifice men. Besides these religious discrepancies, the rules of life are so contradictory that the Cretans and Ætolians regard robbery as honourable. And the Lacedæmonians say that their territory extends to all places which they can touch with a lance. The Athenians had a custom of swearing by a public proclamation, that all the lands which produced olives and corn were their own. The Gauls consider it a base employment to raise corn by agricultural labour, and go with arms in their hands, and mow down the harvests of neighbouring peoples. And our Romans, the most equitable of all nations, in order to raise the value of our vines and olives, do not permit the races beyond the Alps to cultivate either vineyards or oliveyards. In this respect, it is said, we act with prudence, but not with justice. You see then that wisdom and policy are not always the same as equity. Lycurgus, the inventor of a most admirable jurisprudence, and most wholesome laws, gave the lands of the rich to be cultivated by the common people, who were reduced to slavery.
If I were to describe the diverse kinds of laws, institutions, manners, and customs, not only as they vary in the numerous nations, but as they vary likewise in single cities, as Rome for example, I should prove that they have had a thousand revolutions.
Mod
CICERO’S COMMONWEALTH.: BOOK III. - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Treatise on the Commonwealth [54 BC]
For instance, that eminent expositor of our laws who sits in the present company, I mean Malilius, if you were to consult him relative to the legacies and inheritances of women, he would tell you that the present law is quite different from that he was accustomed to plead in his youth, before the Voconian enactment came into force—an edict which was passed in favour of the interests of the men, but which is evidently full of injustice with regard to women. For why should a woman be disabled from inheriting property? Why can a vestal virgin become an heir, while her mother cannot? And why, admitting that it is necessary to set some limit to the wealth of women, should Crassus’ daughter, if she be his only child, inherit thousands without offending the law, while my daughter can only receive a small share in a bequest?
If this justice were natural, innate, and universal, all men would admit the same law and right, and the same men would not enact different laws at different times. If a just man and a virtuous man is bound to obey the laws, I ask what laws do you mean? Do you intend all the laws indifferently? Virtue does not permit this inconstancy in moral obligation—such a variation is not compatible with natural conscience. The laws are, therefore, based not on our sense of justice, but on our fear of punishment. There is, therefore, no natural justice, and hence it follows that men cannot be just by nature.
If you were to grant me, that variation indeed exists among the laws, but that men who are virtuous through natural conscience follow that which is really justice, and not a mere semblance and disguise, and that it is the distinguishing characteristic of the truly just and virtuous man to render every one his due rights; I should ask you this question, what then should we render to animals, and what are the rights of animals? For not only men of more moderate abilities, but even first–rate sages and philosophers, as Pythagoras and Empedocles, declare that all kinds of living creatures have a right to the same justice. They declare that inexpiable penalties impend over those who have done violence to any animal whatsoever. It is, therefore, a crime to injure an animal, and the perpetrator of such crime must bear his punishment. (Non enim mediocres viri, sed maximi et docti, Pythagoras et Empedocles, unam omnium animantium conditionem juris esse denuntiant. Clamantque inexpiabiles pœnas impendere iis, a quibus violatum sit animal. Scelus est igiter nocere bestiæ quod scelus qui velit, &c.)
When Alexander inquired of a pirate by what right he dared to infest the sea with his little brigantine: “By the same right (he replied) which is your warrant for conquering the world.” This pirate was, forsooth, something of a philosopher in his way, for worldly wisdom and prudence instructs by all means to increase our power, riches, and estates. This same Alexander, this mighty general, who extended his empire over all Asia, how could he, without violating the property of other men, acquire such universal dominion, enjoy so many pleasures, and reign without bound or limit.
Now if Justice, as you assert, commands us to have mercy upon all; to exercise universal philanthropy; to consult the interests of the whole human race; to give every one his due, and to injure no sacred, public, or foreign rights—how shall we reconcile this vast and all–embracing justice with worldly wisdom and policy, which teach us how to gain wealth, power, riches, honours provinces, and kingdoms from all classes, peoples, and nations?
However, as we are discussing the interests of the state, let us notice a few illustrious examples of justice and policy, presented by the history of our own Commonwealth. And since the question between justice and policy applies equally to private and public affairs, I will speak of the policy of the more public kind. I will not, however, mention other nations, but come at once to our own Roman people, whom Scipio in his discourse yesterday traced from the cradle, and whose empire now embraces the whole world. And concerning these Romans, I frankly enquire whether it was most by justice or policy that they have attained such unbounded domination?
Now we think that policy will be found to have been our leading principle, though our political characters have always endeavoured to dignify it by the name of justice. Thus all those who have usurped the right of life and death over the people are in fact tyrants; but they prefer being called by the title of king, which best belongs to Jupiter the Beneficent. When certain men, by favour of wealth, birth, or any other means, get possession of the entire government, it is a faction; but they choose to denominate themselves an aristocracy. If the people get the upper–hand, and rule every thing after its capricious will, they call it liberty, but it is in fact licence. And when every man is a guard upon his neighbour, and every class is a guard upon every other class, then because each demands the aid of the rest, a kind of compact is formed between the great folk and the little folk, from whence arises that mixed kind of government which Scipio has been commending. Thus Justice, according to these facts, is not the daughter of Nature or Conscience, but of Human Imbecility. When it becomes necessary to choose between these three predicaments, either to do wrong without retribution, or to do wrong with retribution, or to do no wrong at all, it is best to do wrong with impunity; next, neither to do wrong, nor to suffer for it; but nothing is more wretched than to struggle incessantly between the wrong we inflict and that we receive.
If we were to examine the conduct of states by the test of justice, as you propose, we should probably make this astounding discovery, that very few nations, if they restored what they have usurped, would possess any country at all,—with the exception, perhaps, of the Arcadians and Athenians, who, I presume, dreading that this great act of retribution might one day arrive, pretend that they were sprung from the earth like so many of our field mice.
Scipio.
—These arguments we may refute by the experience of those who are least sophistical in their discourse, and in this question have, therefore, the greater weight of authority. For when we enquire who is best entitled to the character of a good, simple, and open–hearted man, we have little need of captious casuists, quibblers, and slanderers. Your philosophers, then, assert that the wise man does not seek virtue because of the personal gratification which the practice of justice and beneficence procures him, but rather because the life of the good man is free from fear, care, solicitude, and peril; while on the other hand, the wicked always feel in their souls a certain suspicion, and always behold before their eyes images of judgment and punishment. They suppose, therefore, that no benefit can be gained by injustice, precious enough to counterbalance the constant pressure of remorse, and the haunting consciousness that retribution awaits the sinner and hangs over his devoted head.
Our philosophers, therefore, put a case which is worth reporting. Suppose, say they, two men,—the first is an excellent and admirable person, of high honour and remarkable integrity; the latter is distinguished by nothing but his vice and audacity. Suppose that their city has so mistaken their characters, as to imagine the good man a scandalous and impious imposter, and to esteem the wicked man, on the contrary, as a pattern of probity and fidelity. On account of this error of their fellow–citizens, the good man is arrested and tormented,—his hands are cut off, his eyes are plucked out,—he is condemned, bound, burnt, and exterminated, and to the last appears, in the best judgment of the people, the most miserable of men. On the other hand, the flagitious wretch is exalted, worshipped, loved by all, and honours, offices, riches, and emoluments, are all conferred on him, and he shall be reckoned by his fellow–citizens the best and worthiest of mortals, and in the highest degree worthy of all manner of prosperity. Yet for all this, who is so mad, as to doubt which of these two men he would rather be?
Philus.
— I allow that you have quoted a strong case in your own favour, but still I assert that policy receives greater confirmation by the actual conduct and practice of men than your justice can boast of. It is so, both among individuals and among nations. What state is so absurd and ridiculous, as not to prefer unjust dominion to just subordination? I need not go far for examples. During my own consulship, when you were my fellow–counsellers, we consulted respecting the treaty of Numantia. No one was ignorant that Pompey had signed this treaty, and that Mancinus had done the same. Mancinus, a virtuous man, supported the proposition which I laid before the people, after the decree of the senate. Pompey, on the other side, opposed it vehemently. If modesty, probity, or faith had been regarded, Mancinus would have carried his point; but in reason, counsel and prudence, Pompey surpast him.
If a gentleman should have a faithless slave, or an unwholesome house, with whose defect he alone was acquainted, and he advertised them for sale, would he state the fact that his servant was infected with knavery, and his house with malaria, or would he conceal these objections from the buyer? If he stated those facts, he would be honest, no doubt, because he would deceive nobody; but still he would be thought a fool, because he would get either little or nothing for his property. By concealing these defects, on the other hand, he will be called a shrewd and discreet man; but he will be a rogue notwithstanding, because he deceives his neighbours. Again, let us suppose that a man meets another, who sells gold and silver, conceiving them to be copper or lead: shall he hold his peace, that he may make a capital bargain or correct the mistake, and purchase at a fair rate. He would evidently be a fool in the world’s opinion if he preferred the latter.
It is justice, beyond all question, neither to commit murder nor robbery. What then would your just man do, if in a case of shipwreck he saw a weaker man than himself get possession of a plank? Would he thrust him off, get hold of the timber himself, and escape by his exertions, especially as no human witness could be present in the mid–sea. If he acted like a wise man of the world, he would certainly do so; for to act in any other way would cost him his life. If on the other hand he prefers death to inflicting unjustifiable injury on his neighbour, he will be an eminently honourable and just man, but not the less a fool, because he saved another’s life at the expense of his own. Again, if in case of a defeat and rout, when the enemy were pressing in the rear, this just man should find a wounded comrade mounted on a horse, shall he respect his right, at the chance of being killed himself, or shall be fling him from the horse in order to preserve his own life from the pursuers? If he does so, he is a worldly wiseman, but not the less a scoundrel; if he does not, he is admirably just, but a great blockhead.
Scipio.
—I might reply at great length to these sophistical objections of Philus, if it were not, my Lælius, that all our friends are no less anxious than myself to hear you take a leading part in the present debate. You promised yesterday that you would plead at large on my side of the argument. If you cannot spare time for this, at any rate do not desert us,—we all ask it of you.
Mod
CICERO’S COMMONWEALTH.: BOOK III. - Marcus Tullius Cicero, Treatise on the Commonwealth [54 BC]
Edition used:
The Political Works of Marcus Tullius Cicero: Comprising his Treatise on the Commonwealth; and his Treatise on the Laws. Translated from the original, with Dissertations and Notes in Two Volumes. By Francis Barham, Esq. (London: Edmund Spettigue, 1841-42). Vol. 1.
Author: Marcus Tullius Cicero
Translator: Francis Barham
Lœlius.
—This Carneades ought not to be even listened to by our young men. I think all the while I hear him, that he must be a very impure person; if he be not, as I would fain believe, his discourse is not less pernicious.
There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing to–day and another to–morrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must for ever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author,—its promulgator,—its enforcer. He who obeys it not, flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man. For his crime he must endure the severest penalties hereafter, even if he avoid the usual misfortunes of the present life.
The virtue which obeys this law, nobly aspires to glory, which is virtue’s sure and appropriate reward,—a prize she can accept without insolence, or forego without repining. When a man is inspired by virtue such as this, what bribes can you offer him, — what treasures, — what thrones, — what empires? He considers these but mortal goods, and esteems his own, divine. And if the ingratitude of the people, and the envy of his competitors, or the violence of powerful enemies, despoil his virtue of its earthly recompense, he still enjoys a thousand consolations in the approbation of conscience, and sustains himself by contemplating the beauty of moral rectitude.
This virtue, in order to be true, must be universal. Tiberius Gracchus continued faithful to his fellow–citizens, but he violated the rights and treaties guaranteed to our allies and the Latin peoples. If this habit of arbitrary violence extends and associates our authority, not with equity, but force, so that those who had voluntarily obeyed us, are only restrained by fear; then, although we, during our days, may escape the peril, yet am I solicitous respecting the safety of our posterity, and the immortality of the Commonwealth itself, which, doubtless, might become perpetual and invincible, if our people would maintain their ancient institutions and manners.—(Quæ si consuetudo ac licentia manare cæperit latius, imperiumque nostrum ad vim a jure traduxerit, ut qui adhuc voluntate nobis obediunt, terrore teneantur. Etsi nobis qui id ætatis sumus, evilgilatum fere est, tamen de posteris nostris, et de illa immortalitate Republicæ sollicitor, quæ poterat esse perpetua si patriis viveretur institutis et moribus).
When Lælius had ceased to speak, all those that were present expressed the extreme pleasure they found in his discourse. But Scipio, more affected than the rest, and ravished with the delight of sympathy, exclaimed:—You have pleaded, my Lælius, many causes with an eloquence superior to that of Servius Galba, our colleague, whom you used, during his life, to prefer to all others, even the Attic orators; and never did I hear you speak with more energy than to–day, while pleading the cause of justice.
This justice (continued Scipio) is the very foundation of lawful government in political constitutions. Can we call the state of Agrigentum a Commonwealth, where all men are oppressed by the cruelty of a single tyrant?—where there is no universal bond of right, nor social consent and fellowship, which should belong to every people, properly so named. It is the same in Syracuse,—that illustrious city which Timæus calls the greatest of the Grecian towns. It was indeed a most beautiful city; and its admirable citadel, its canals distributed through all its districts, its broad streets, its porticoes, its temples, and its walls, gave Syracuse the appearance of a most flourishing state. But while Dionysus its tyrant reigned there, nothing of all its wealth belonged to the people, and the people were nothing better than the slaves of an impious despot. Thus wherever I behold a tyrant, I know that the social constitution must be, not merely vicious and corrupt, as I stated yesterday, but in strict truth, no social constitution at all.
Lœlius.
—You have spoken admirably, my Scipio, and I see the point of your observations.
Scipio.
—You grant, then, that a state which is entirely in the power of a faction, cannot justly be entitled a political community.
Lœlius.
—That is evident to us all.
Scipio.
—You judge most correctly. For what was the state of Athens, when during the great Peloponessian war, she fell under the unjust domination of the thirty tyrants? The antique glory of that city, the imposing aspect of its edifices, its theatre, its gymnasium, its porticos, its temples, its citadel, the admirable sculptures of Phidias, and the magnificent harbour of Piræus, did they constitute it a commonwealth?
Lœlius.
—Certainly not; because these did not constitute the real welfare of the community.
Scipio.
—And at Rome, when the decemviri ruled without appeal from their decisions in the third year of their power, had not liberty lost all its securities and all its blessings?
Lælius.
—Yes, the welfare of the community was no longer consulted, and the people soon roused themselves, and recovered their appropriate rights.
Scipio.
—I now come to the democratical form of government, in which a considerable difficulty presents itself, because all things are there said to lie at the disposition of the people, and are carried into execution just as they please. Here the populace inflict punishments at their pleasure, and act, and seize, and keep possession, and distribute property, without let or hindrance, Can you deny, my Lælius, that this is a fair definition of a democracy, where the people are all in all, and where the people constitute the state?
Lœlius.
—There is no political constitution to which I more absolutely deny the name of a Commonwealth, than that in which all things lie in the power of the multitude (nullam quidem citius negaverim esse Rempublicam, quam quæ tota sit in multitudinis protestate). If a Commonwealth, which implies the welfare of the entire community, could not exist in Agrigentum, Syracuse, or Athens, when tyrants reigned over them,—if it could not exist in Rome, when under the oligarchy of the decemvirs,—neither do I see how this sacred name of Commonwealth can be applied to a democracy, and the sway of the mob.
In this statement, my Scipio, I build on your own admirable definition, that there can be no community, properly so called, unless it be regulated by a combination of rights. And by this definition it appears that a multitude of men may be just as tyrannical as a single despot; and indeed this is the most odious of all tyrannies, since no monster can be more barbarous than the mob, which assumes the name and mask of the people. Nor is it at all reasonable, since the laws place the property of madmen in the hands of their sane relations, that we should do the very reverse in politics, and throw the property of the sane into the hands of the mad multitude.
It is far more rational to assert that a wise and virtuous aristocratical government deserves the title of a Commonwealth, as it approaches to the nature of a kingdom.
Mummius.
—In my opinion, an aristocratical government, properly so called, is entitled to our just esteem. The unity of power often exposes a king to become a despot; but when an aristocracy, consisting of many virtuous men, exercise power, it is a most fortunate circumstance for any state. However this be, I much prefer royalty to democracy; and I think, my Scipio, you have something more to add with respect to this most vicious of all political governments.
Scipio.
—I am well acquainted, my Mummius, with your decided antipathy to the democratical system. And, although we may speak of it with rather more indulgence than you are accustomed to accord it, I must certainly agree with you, that of all the three particular forms of government, none is less commendable than democracy.
I do not agree with you, however, when you would imply that aristocracy is preferable to royalty. If you suppose that wisdom governs the state, is it not as well that this wisdom should reside in one monarch, as in many nobles?
But a sophistication of words and terms is apt to abuse our understanding in a discussion like the present. When we pronounce the word “aristocracy,” which, in Greek, signifies the government of the best men, imagination, leaning rather to philology than fact, can hardly conceive any thing more excellent—for what can be thought better than the best? When, on the other hand, the title, king, is mentioned, owing to the hallucination of our fancies, we Romans begin to imagine a tyrant, as if a king must be necessarily unjust. For my part, I always think of a just king, and not a shameless despot, when I examine the true nature of royal authority. To this name of king, do but attach the idea of a Romulus, a Numa, a Tullus, and perhaps you will be less severe to the monarchical form of constitution.
Mummius.
—Have you then no commendation at all for any kind of democratical government?
Scipio.
—Why, I think some democratical forms less objectionable than others; and by way of illustration, I will ask you what you thought of the government in the Isle of Rhodes, where we were lately together; did it appear to you a legitimate and rational constitution?
Mummius.
—It did, and not much liable to abuse.
Scipio.
—You say truly. But if you recollect, it was a very extraordinary experiment. All the inhabitants were alternately senators and citizens. Some months they spent in their senatorial functions, and some months they spent in their civil employments. In both they exercised judicial powers; and in the theatre and the court, the same men judged all causes, capital and not capital. So much for democracies.
Text compiled from: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/546
Mod
If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.
He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason.
The life of the dead is placed in the memory of the living.
To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.
A man of courage is also full of faith.
When you are aspiring to the highest place, it is honorable to reach the second or even the third rank.
True nobility is exempt from fear.
The wise are instructed by reason; ordinary minds by experience; the stupid, by necessity; and brutes by instinct.
If we are not ashamed to think it, we should not be ashamed to say it.
message 39:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 28, 2015 12:00PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
You are going to love this one folks (lol)
Topics for Discussion:
a) Read the article below by David Carlin.
b) Do you think that Dick Cheney is anything like Cicero in the examples presented? - Why or why not?
c) What are your thoughts on the arguments presented? Do they hold water?
Thinking of Dick Cheney as Cicero
by David R. Carlin on May 20, 2009 • 4:57 pm
Everybody agrees that some prisoners held at Guantanamo received a certain amount of rough treatment. Those on the American political left call this treatment “torture.” They say it was criminal conduct, and they want somebody held accountable for this wrongdoing. Above all, they’d love to see former Vice President Dick Cheney branded a criminal.
Those on the right, by contrast, call the rough treatment at Guantanamo “enhanced interrogation,” and they hold that valuable national security information was obtained as a result of these not-very-gentle sessions.
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the left is correct when they say that it was in fact torture, a violation of U.S. and/or international law. And let’s make the further assumption that the right is correct when they say that this “torture” elicited information helpful to national security. In that case, what do we do with Cheney? Should he be stigmatized as a criminal, either formally by a court or informally by a non-judicial “truth commission”? Or should he be applauded as a patriot?
Look at an analogous case, that of Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great orator, politician and philosopher of ancient Rome. It was the year 63 B.C. and Cicero was Roman consul. In that office he had to deal with Catiline — a talented, ruthless and ambitious Roman senator from an old patrician family, who was plotting to seize power.
Catiline hoped to do what Sulla had done before him and Caesar would do after, that is, make himself sole ruler of the city and the Roman Republic. Catiline had confederates at key places throughout Italy, including Rome itself. One of his men headed an army assembling near what is now the city of Florence. In Rome the plan was to throw the city into a state of panic by means of widespread arson and assassination, including the murder of Cicero. With the city in chaos, the army from Florence would attack, power would be seized and Catiline would become dictator.
Cicero, however, foiled the plot. By adroit detective work he learned what was happening, arrested a number of key conspirators and revealed the plot to the Senate. The Senate, convinced that strong measures were urgently needed, passed what is known as “the Ultimate Decree” — that is, a resolution that urged the consul to take whatever steps might be needed “for the safety of the republic.” That was a euphemistic way of saying: “Put the conspirators to death — without trial.” To the mind of the Senate, the need for Roman security did not leave room for the niceties of due process (an attitude similar to Cheney’s).
So Cicero, following the Senate’s advice, put the prisoners to death. Strictly speaking, the executions were illegal (as we are supposing Cheney’s actions to have been), since Roman law did not permit the execution of a citizen without trial. And the fact that the Senate had authorized the executions didn’t make them legal, for the Senate was neither a legislative nor a judicial body. It was simply an extraordinarily influential advisory body.
Cicero (like Cheney) was faced with a choice: Do I break the law, or do I let Catiline and his friends carry out a coup d’etat? When Cicero saved the republic by breaking the law, he had every reason to believe that he would never face prosecution for his deed. The traditional Roman attitude had been to look the other way when some savior of the city cut legal corners. It was a sign that traditional Roman politics was coming to an end when, a few years after the execution of the Catilinians, a left-wing political enemy of Cicero — a reprobate named Publius Clodius — indicted the ex-consul for the illegal executions and briefly exiled him.
There was a time when Americans were politically savvy enough, like traditional Romans, to look the other way when the nation’s leaders cut legal corners for the good of the republic (think of Lincoln and his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus in 1861). But this wisdom has now deserted many of us, in particular those on the American left. Imitating Publius Clodius, they want to prosecute Cheney for protecting America by illegal means.
The ancient Roman left should not have attempted to punish Cicero for his patriotic illegalities, and neither, I submit, should the present-day American left attempt to punish Dick Cheney for his patriotic illegalities.
Source: History News Service - http://historynewsservice.org/2009/05...
Bentley wrote: "Here are some other quotes of Cicero (and there are many) which are worth discussing:If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need."
Thanks for these great quotes Bentley! Cicero's another person who astounds me with respect to how many remarkable insights can come from one mind.
Regarding "He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason", it makes me wonder which carries the day in modern democratic politics -- at least the exploitation of passion rather than reason. Which is more likely to win the hearts and minds of the voting public?
Another case for a strong education system, I suppose.
Bentley wrote: "You are going to love this one folks (lol)..."they want to prosecute Cheney for protecting America by illegal means
Protect America or sell its soul? What value is rule of law if we drop it every time we're scared? Surely we can live by the values we claim to espouse and be defending.
I guess most of us have strong feelings on these sorts of dilemmas. I think we can do better than descend into cruelty.
Jim wrote: "He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason...Another case for a strong education system, I suppose. "On the other hand, there's a lot of truth to this quote I just came across: "The most useful asset of a person is not a head full of knowledge, but a heart full of love, with ears open to listen, and hands willing to help."
No author included, and yes it's one those earnest Facebook quotes...still...
Mod
If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need."
Thanks for these great quo...”
I agree Jim - I feel like Cicero sometimes is talking directly to us right now from the ancient past and we had better listen.
Mod
On the other hand, there’s a lot of truth to this quote I just ..."
Jim - it has a lot of truth in it doesn’t it.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Histories of Polybius (other topics)The Histories (other topics)
I, Claudius/Claudius the God (other topics)
The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (other topics)
A History of Western Philosophy (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Polybius (other topics)Polybius (other topics)
Robert Graves (other topics)
Victor Davis Hanson (other topics)
Bertrand Russell (other topics)
More...
Welcome to our relaxed discussion and read of Alan Ryan's book - On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present.
For the weeks of September 21st through October 4, 2015, we are reading Chapter 4: Roman Insights: Polybius and Cicero - On Politics: A History of Political Thought from Herodotus to the Present by Alan Ryan.
The eighth and ninth week's reading assignment is:
WEEK EIGHT AND WEEK NINE: September 21st, 2015 through October 4th, 2015
Chapter 4: Roman Insights: Polybius and Cicero - pages 111 - 148
We will open up a thread for each bi-monthly assignment.. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books. We are updating the schedule and syllabus
This book was kicked off on March 16th
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Bentley will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Assisting Moderators in Training Teri and Jose.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Introduction Thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Directions on how to participate in book discussions and how to follow the t's and c's - look at directives given for the discussion Landslide - What Do I Do Next?
I will modify these directives as we go along but for now utilize the information here.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...