How do Roman writers reveal what they believe about themselves as a people (and sometimes as individuals) through their relationship with their own ideals or history, both past (e.g., Sallust, Livy, Tacitus) and contemporary (e.g., Cicero, Pliny, Ammianus)? What qualities do they regard as especially good or bad? How do they reveal their beliefs? Your answer must include details from the works of Cicero and Livy and at least two others chosen from the selections in Kaegi-White or from the links on the syllabus. The two others should be adequately different from each other (e.g., not both Cato and Columella). Some of these readings are governmental documents; you may or may not find that these differ in outlook from works written by private individuals. Although Polybius is a Greek he counts as Roman for this exercise, as he said he was explaining Romans to the rest of the world. Remember that no one writes in an historical vacuum and that societies and the people in them change over time. The works you have read represent nearly a millennium of Roman history.
In addition to this essay, there will be gobbets. Here are two samples, neither taken from your actual readings:
(1) Do you not realize that their only objective is to eliminate the sons of proscribed citizens by hook or by crook, starting with Sextus Roscius, and with yourselves, a sworn jury, as executioners.
Background: This is from Cicero's oration defending Sextus Roscius on the charge of murdering his own father during the time of Sulla's dictatorship and proscriptions. The trial was in 80 BCE. Cicero argued that the victim's cousins killed him in order to seize his property, then accused the son of the murder when he stood in their way.
Answer: Cicero, in defense of Roscius. The trial came soon after Sulla's proscriptions, and Cicero's defense refers frequently to that terrible time, both to show how the crime really took place and to influence the judges by eliciting sympathy. Here Cicero threatens the judges (all senators) with the idea that they will be perpetrating violent and illegal behavior if they do not acquit his client. This can be an effective form of emotional blackmail.
(2) However, the meeting of the Senate produced no solution because the rich were able to dominate the proceedings, and so Tiberius, since he could find no other way of putting his law to the vote, resorted to a measure which was neither constitutional nor just: he had Octavius deprived of his tribuneship.
Background: From Plutarch's Life of Tiberius Gracchus, the ill-fated reformer. Tiberius Gracchus was tribune of the people when he tried to present a land-distribution bill. The senators opposed to him had persuaded one of the ten other tribunes, Octavius, to veto the proposal.
Answer: Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus. 133 BCE (when Tiberius was tribune of the people) During Tiberius Gracchus' attempt to restore integrity to Roman society (and a firm basis for army recruitment) by distributing public lands to Roman families for farms, his opponents in the senate got one of the other tribunes of the people, Octavius, to veto all his actions. Tiberius then impeached his fellow tribune, Octavius, before the people and had him removed from office. Although in this way he succeeded in having his land law passed, he created a bad precedent for the Romans by depriving an elected official of his office and supporting the notion that politicians must always follow the will (or whim) of the people at every point, rather than their own understanding and principles.