The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of April 20th – April 26th, we are reading Chapter Five, p. 117 - 132
Man Is by Nature a Political Creature of the book Cleopatra: A Life by Stacy Schiff.

The sixth week's reading assignment is:

Week Six - April 20th – April 26th
Chapter Five, p. 117 – 132
V: Man Is by Nature a Political Creature

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. 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.

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.

This weekly thread will be opened up on April 20th.

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.

Vicki will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Jose.
Welcome,

~Bentley

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Stacy Schiff

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. Since we are discussing the same time period and the same people will be discussed in this book as in the Liberation Trilogy - please utilize those three glossary parts. They will be very helpful to you and will provide a wealth of knowledge.

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/...--

by Stacy Schiff

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/...

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.

However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion.

Everyone, for the week of April 20th – April 26th , we are reading Chapter Five - Man Is by Nature a Political Creature, p. 117 - 132.

The sixth week’s reading assignment is:

Week Six - April 20th – April 26th, 2015
Chapter Five: Man Is by Nature a Political Creature - p. 117 - 132
Note: This week's reading ends with the sentence "Cleopatra was 26 years old."

Chapter Overview and Summary

Chapter Five: Man Is by Nature a Political Creature

Cleopatra was quite the sensation when she arrived in Rome. She held court for many of the “best” people. Lavish banquets and entertainments were the norm, and she could hold her own with the best conversationalists. Cicero visited often, and was both attracted and repelled by her. Unfortunately, she fell afoul of him when she promised him a manuscript of some sort, but then never delivered. His dignity was offended and he bad-mouthed her to anyone who would listen.

Meanwhile Caesar was given more and more honors by the Senate and seemed to think they were his due. He was overwhelmed by work, but started to neglect things in Rome for his plan to finally defeat the Parthians and open the path to India, a feat even Alexander the Great never finished. Some of the men who had fought for Pompey, and whom Caesar had pardoned, decided the Republic could only be saved if Caesar were dead. On the Ides of March, they struck Caesar down at a Senate meeting in the Theater of Pompey; he sustained twenty-three knife wounds. Rome was in an uproar for days, and Cleopatra, who had already been planning to leave Rome, hastened her departure. When Caesar’s will was read, there was no mention of Egypt or Caesarion. He named his grand-nephew Octavian his heir and posthumously adopted him as his son.

Folks, we are kicking off the sixth week of the Cleopatra discussion - we welcome you to this discussion which will last for a few months. There is no rush and we are happy to have all of you with us. I look forward to reading your posts in the months ahead.

I really liked the parts about Cicero. He was such an interesting character. We know a lot about life in Rome during his lifetime because of the many letters to his friends that have survived.

I have one small complaint against Schiff - sometimes she refers to a person without naming him. For instance, she mentions Cleopatra sending someone to Cicero's home in order to fetch Cicero's "highly learned best friend," and not Cicero. I assume the friend was Atticus, to whom Cicero wrote many letters, but there's nothing in the endnotes. If this was taken from a letter to Atticus, it would be nice to know which one so we could read it. Also, in chapter 3, she mentions a poet "who demonized Caesar" and there is no mention of a name. Later in the chapter, she quotes Lucan, so I'm guessing that's the mystery poet. Perhaps she doesn't want to bog down her narrative with what she thinks are extraneous details, but at least she could put refences in the endnotes.

I'm a big fan of Caesar, but I'm disappointed by the way he handled himself during his last couple of years. He should have diplomatically refused the multiple honors the Senate kept giving him and looked a lot less like he wanted to be king. And he never should have planned to conquer Parthia. That's what got Crassus killed and (spoiler alert) what gave Mark Antony so much trouble in the years ahead. Perhaps if he hadn't been planning to go East a day or so after the Ides of March, the "liberators" might have held off on killing him and something could have been worked out.

I don't know if that would be enough. Whether Caesar wanted or not to conquer Parthia, the facts he was the dictator for life and that he had many powerful enemies like Brutus and his fellow conspirators in the Senate meant Julius would have either to deal with them or be murdered by them (like he did) sooner or later.

I also enjoyed the author's comments about Cicero, and laughed when she called him "the Roman John Adams." They both seemed to know, or assumed, that they were witnesses to great periods in the history of their respective countries.

Heather wrote: "I also enjoyed the author's comments about Cicero, and laughed when she called him "the Roman John Adams." They both seemed to know, or assumed, that they were witnesses to great periods in the his..."

In Cicero's case, I think he felt he was partly the cause of Roman greatness. He had a big ego.

Vicki wrote: "Heather wrote: "I also enjoyed the author's comments about Cicero, and laughed when she called him "the Roman John Adams." They both seemed to know, or assumed, that they were witnesses to great pe..."

I was actually offended by the comparison. I admire John Adams greatly. He was one of the few American founding fathers who opposed slavery.

I think that John Adams was certainly one of the greatest founding fathers and our country owes him a lot. If Cicero likewise did as much for Rome and the Romans and I doubt that very much then it is a complement to Cicero but not to John Adams whatsoever. I see your point Kressel on many levels.

Heather maybe I have misread what you meant - but are you saying that John Adams was NOT a witness to a great period in the history of the Unites States because frankly he was. Or are you intimating that statement about Cicero. I guess I am confused about the author's intent as well. Was she praising Cicero when she mentioned John Adams because he was one of our country's greatest men and founders or was she castigating John Adams with that comment. Hard to tell.

Any suggestions on interpretation?

I admire John Adams greatly, too. In fact, I have many books about him and his wife Abigail. One of the things I enjoy about Adams is that he didn't censor, or ask his wife to censor, his correspondence. Thus, we get to see him as a great man who also had flaws. Even he admitted he had quite an ego. I prefer this more honest interpretation of a founding father than what we sometimes get from others. We can thank Martha Washington for destroying many of her husband's letters in the name of privacy, but I'm betting that those letters would have made him considerably more relatable to people.

I read the author's comment as a comparison of two witnesses to history who happened to have large egos. Of course, I don't know for certain what the author's intent was; that's just how I interpreted it.

I wish I knew more about Adams. Sadly, my main interest in history pretty much stops at 476 AD.

Well, Vicki, you could certainly teach this US history buff to broaden her horizons!

When Ms. Schiff called Cicero "the greatest of Roman killjoys", I honestly laughed out loud. I do not know why she compared him to your John Adams because I do not know anything about him (I made a mental note to rectify that mistake) but I know that the way she portrayed him, I didn't like Cicero that much.

I have a lot of affection for Cicero, maybe because of the way he's been portrayed in fiction. He was too full of himself and at the same time, had an inferiority complex because of his humble origins. But I believe he had the survival of the Republic as his main goal.

Samanta wrote: "I do not know why she compared him to your John Adams because I do not know anything about him (I made a mental note to rectify that mistake)"

Samanta, if you want to take the "easy" route to learning about John Adams, watch the TV movie series made about him. It is based on David McCullough's bio, produced by Tom Hanks, and stars Paul Giamatti as John and Laura Linney as Abigail. Abigail is awesome!

John Adams by David McCullough

Thank you, Kressel! :)

She probably used Adams because of her interest in the founding of the US. She did write a book about the period, A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America.

by Stacy Schiff

In thinking more about it, I've become a little more sympathetic to Cicero, and therefore, less annoyed by the comparison. If you're truly loyal to republican ideals, Cleopatra was dangerous, and Julius Caesar was wrong for consorting with her. But in this book, Cicero does come across as a hypocrite, and that's one thing I don't think John Adams ever was.

So I am only three months behind - and reading on a Kindle without page numbers so I must read the next week before commenting but would make two comments.

Kathy's comments, msg 21, is valid I think as I am assuming that most non-Americans (and maybe most Americans?) don't know much about John Adams.

Regarding Kressel's comment about having a higher regard for Adams due to his opposition to slavery I would only comment that we all live in our time. Would we using that point put Adams above Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln even (who only came to the point of emancipating with the Civil war as a justification and then just in the rebelling states).

I am sympathetic to Cicero and others but also quite disappointed at the respect for power and fighting for it that we see

I'm glad you're staying with it, Vincent, and appreciate your comments.

Good point Kressel.

Vincent you are never behind here - you can always keep up at your own pace.