Livy, or Titus Livius Patavinus (59 BC-17 AD), was  a Roman historian.  Among his works, he wrote a series of accounts on the history of Rome, which survey a period of about 700 years.  Unfortunately, most of these books did not survive.  Livy acknowledges the weaknesses in historical writing, and explains that it is the work of a poet and not the work of historian.  Without account on ancient events, the historian is required to either leave out detail, or fill in the blanks with what might have happened.  Livy’s writings on the history of early Rome provide us with insight, but we cannot rely on them literally.

Ovid, or Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC-17/18 AD), was a Roman poet who lived during the reign of Augustus.  Ovid was banished to the black sea region by Augustus in 8 AD, around the same time in 8 AD, he wrote the metamorphoses. The metamorphoses tell the story from the creation, through to the death of Julius Caesar (44 BC).  The central  theme of the metamorphoses, is the change of the gods, and thus the world they were worshiped by.  Both of these writers start with the story of creation and provide background, and use this background when they later describe the events that brought  Rome to be an important part of western civilization

Livy and Ovid both provided accounts of the origins of Rome.  These two accounts are distinct, however, similarities are drawn between the two.  It is the same basic story of creation that we are given by the Greek writer Hesiod in Theogony.  They are slightly different, but it’s the same general story line.  Following the story of creation, the stories follow different paths, but they both include the idea of the corruption of mankind.  The metamorphoses and Livy’s series of books, each displayed different ways of dealing with this corruption of mankind, it was not the same series of historical events.  However, they both resulted in establishing hope for the city of Rome.

Livy wrote about the twin brothers Romulus and Remus, Romulus killed Remus, and he reforms and goes on to develop Rome.  He gives the Roman people a set of laws.  He gives the city hope, and he builds it up.  Some of his methods lacked a system of ethical balance, but he was believed to have led the early Romans and build their civilization.  Ovid, in comparison, writes about an event that reflects the story of Noah and the flood.  The corruption of mankind was so vast that Jupiter sent a flood to wipe mankind from the face of the earth.  There were two survivors,  Deuclion and Pyrra, who repopulated the earth, by tossing stones over their shoulders that turned into human beings.

The basis for an optimistic view, in both stories, is hope.  Hope that the corruption will be demolished.  These people had motivation to build a city, and they did.  Hope for relief is a powerful motivation in the mind of man.

Rhetoric was a central aspect of Cicero’s orations.  Without the use of rhetoric, he would not have made the same impact during his era, nor would he have impacted the modern world.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), is considered to be one of the most effective users of rhetoric in history.  He was a Roman politician who served as consul in 63 BC.  This man, was regarded even in his own time for his rhetorical abilities.  The thought of being pursued by this in front of the Roman Senate is daunting for the victim. In each of his speeches he delivered, he had a goal, and he was consistent with that goal throughout the speech.  For this reason, the victim knew they would be defeated if they attempted to deny Cicero’s accusations.

Cicero pursued a man, known in English as Catiline (108-62 BC), he was a member of the Roman senate.  Cicero believed, and argued, that Catiline was conspiring an attempt to overthrow the city.  He verbally addressed him in front of the Roman senate.  He accused Catiline of being the source of evil in the city of Rome.  He delivered four different orations, each with different goals, all of which had a focus on removing Catiline’s conspiracy from the city.

Rhetoric was central to Cicero’s series of orations.  The use of rhetoric, was the heart of his speech.  What exactly is rhetoric? From Wikipedia: “Rhetoric is the art of discourse, wherein a writer or speaker strives to inform, persuade or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.”  In order to make his audience fear Catiline’s conspiracies, Cicero had to use rhetoric to effectively motivate his audience.  He had to persuade and motivate his audience to take action against the conspiracy of Catiline.

The orations he delivered were not in the format of a trial.  They were strictly political speeches.  He did not specify his accusations and he offered no proof of his accusations.  He did not order sanctions against Catiline, he just gave him advisory.  The goal of his first oration was to persuade Catiline to leave the senate, and to ultimately leave the city of Rome.  He accomplished this goal through use of rhetoric.  Cicero was successful in this task, and Catiline departed from the city.  This was done, not through lawful force, but rather by means of effective rhetoric.

If Cicero had not accomplished what he did with his rhetorical techniques, Catiline may have been successful in his attempt to overthrow the city.  If not successful in his attempt, there would have been executions of innocent Roman citizens.  It was not over, however.  When Catiline left the city, his allies were still corrupting Rome, Cicero confronted this in the following orations.  Catiline would later attack the city, but he was no longer inside the walls of the city, and he lost power because of this.  Without the rhetorical context of Cicero’s orations, his audience would not have taken action, and the course of history would be vastly different.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was a Roman politician who served as consul in the year 63 BC.  He is believed by many to be one of the greatest masters of rhetoric in history.  He was persuasive in his arguments and had significant power because of this.  Cicero was also a lawyer as well as a politician, and in a verbal confrontation, he attacks a figure of that time, Cataline.  Cataline (108-62 BC) was a member of the Roman senate, but he had his own organizations by which there were suspicions that he might attempt to overthrow the city.

Cicero uses his rhetorical tactics to dramatically addresses Cataline in front of the senate.  This was not a trial however, this was a political oration delivered by Cicero.  Cicero, even in his own time, was regarded as a master of rhetoric.  Being verbally pursued by this man raises a level of fear in the victim. Cicero had goals in his speech, but he did not make these obvious.  Among other goals, the main goal of Cicero in his oration was to persuade Cataline to leave the city of Rome.  The entire oration was centered around this goal.  Had I been in the place of Cataline, I would have made an effort to react differently to Cicero’s accusations.

Cicero made several vague accusations towards Cataline, and basically portrayed him as a monstrous threat toward the Roman Republic.  While the accusations may have been true, they were neither specific or direct.  He did not refer to specific events in which Cataline conspired in wrongdoings.

I do not know if, in this confrontation, Cataline had the opportunity to speak, but if I were in his place, I would have made an effort to intervene.  I would have requested Cicero to specify his accusations, and provide relevant proof for them.  And if he was unable to speak during the oration, I would have confronted it when Cicero had finished speaking.

Perhaps Cataline did not make an effort to deny these accusations of being a danger to the Roman Republic, because perhaps they were true.  Perhaps he really was conspiring against the city, and perhaps he knew that it was true that he deserved death.  It is not apparent that he made any effort whatsoever to defend himself.  He could have demanded evidence that what Cicero said was true, but if Cicero was able to provide it, Cataline could face death charges rather than simply charges to leave the city.  It could have been that the reason he didn’t deny it was to avoid the possibility of the Senate uncovering some of his monstrous deeds.  Perhaps he saw it as a safer option to remain silent, and be sentenced to leave the city with his army.  Then he could later attack Rome through warfare (which is what he did).

The reasons for his silence in the process is unknown to the text.  If I were in his place, I would have confronted Cicero in a similar way that he was confronting Cataline, using logic and a means of rhetoric.  I would have asked the senate how they accepted these accusations against him when there was no specified proof that they actually happened.

(to see the first part of this assignment click here, this will provide a background for this article)

“How does the view of ethical cause and effect in history in Works and Days compare with the furies’ view in The Eumenides?”

In these two pieces of Greek literature, there are two substantially different views on ethical cause and effect in history.  In Greek civilization, it is noticeable that there was some confusion; there is no ultimate sovereignty.  Zeus is supreme over the other gods, however he does not have ultimate sovereignty.  This raises the issue of which gods’ laws should be followed, because they each had a different system of laws.  This creates confusion in the society, because there is no obvious ultimate good or evil, it is up to the individual to determine which god to obey.  However, we begin to see in these two pieces of literature, foundations of a system of ethical cause and effect.  While these are two separate systems, they share some essential similarities.

In Works and Days, Hesiod lays out to his brother Perses how to live a good life.  He writes about a lifestyle that possesses a system of ethical cause and effect.  He describes what his brother must do to please the gods and tells him how to live his life, he actually goes into impressive detail.  Unlike in The Eumenides, Hesiod explains to his brother that he should not listen to the decisions of the courts, but rather the omens sent directly by the gods.  He attempts to persuade his brother that the decision of the court is not necessarily something he should abide by.  However, in The Eumenides, we see the goddess Athena convince the furies to submit power to the courts of men.  The gods are perceived as above men, but they give men the power of judgment in jury.  This is a contrasting situation.

In The Eumenides, when the furies submit to the court of men by the persuasion of Athena, we see a tremendous transfer of power in history.  The furies had a reputation for being relentless in pursuing their victim.  In the end, the court decision, was against the furies and they were bribed by Athena and for love of fame, accepted her offer to live in Athens.  In lust for fame, the furies submitted their positions as huntresses for violators of the laws against family murder, and changed to a different life, out of the under-ground.

There are two systems here, Hesiod is telling his brother not to trust the decision of the courts, but in The Eumenides, the furies submit to the idea of the courts, and the gods transfer substantial power to men.  Hesiod, in Works and Days is saying to obey to the gods directly (he gives account on which gods to obey and pray to), while Aeschylus, in The Eumenides, is demonstrating that the gods transferred this power to the hands of men.  It is a confusing situation.  If one believes in the Greek religion, how would that individual know which of these accounts is accurate?  It is inconsistent.