Hi folks! A wide mix of readings this week, ranging from the narrative to the didactic to the philosophical. What are they telling you about the Rome of Octavian and Antony?

Brutus and his fellow conspirators secretly planned Caesar’s assassination, carefully choosing only those they trusted and believed to be brave and willing to face death. Despite being close to Cicero, they excluded him from the plot, fearing his cautious nature would hinder their resolve. The conspirators planned to strike during a Senate meeting on the Ides of March, at a location symbolically fitting—near a statue of Pompey, Caesar’s former rival. On the day, despite ominous signs and Caesar’s initial hesitation, he was persuaded to attend. The conspirators maintained a calm demeanor beforehand, even fulfilling their public duties as magistrates without suspicion.When Caesar arrived, he was surrounded under the pretense of a petition. Tillius Cimber made the first physical move by pulling Caesar’s robe, followed by Casca striking the first blow. Caesar resisted until he saw Brutus among the attackers, at which point he gave up and was stabbed multiple times. The attackers were so frenzied they even wounded each other in the process.After the assassination, Brutus tried to calm the Senate and speak, but panic ensued. Importantly, the conspirators had agreed to kill only Caesar, sparing others like Antony. Although many feared Antony's influence and close ties to Caesar, Brutus opposed killing him, hoping he might support the Republic's restoration after Caesar’s death. Thus, Antony’s life was spared.

Overall I feel like they were tired of Caesar. He was kind of manipulating everything and everyone and people started to see right through him and is antics. The Roman people were used to a certain order and Caesar was essentially putting that at risk and they didn't want that.

I chose the reading "Life in Rome in the Late Republic" by Sallust because after learning about all of the political and governmental chaos that unfolded during this time I was curious to see how this effected Roman society down to the common people. This quote from the passage stood out to me, " But the love of irregular gratification, open debauchery, and all kinds of luxury had spread abroad with no less force. Men and women alike threw off all restraints of modesty". It stood out because it showed the transition in Roman society from once being centered around modesty, humility, and virtue, to now being consumed with the desire of luxury, wealth, and status above all. The author is definitely trying to communicate that Rome had become damaged and had lost what once separated it from the other surrounding nations while also issuing a feeling of doom and despair in Rome. This time saw much Roman success on the outside with the further expansion of Rome into new territories, but was also one of much tension within the city of Rome itself as many of the citizens were unhappy with the growing complexity of life in Roman society and were finding it increasingly harder to obtain things like land and economic prosperity. Other readings described issues of already successful land owners in Rome expanding and swallowing up land illegally while being met with no repercussions it shows the dismissal of honesty within society that this text demonstrates. My question regarding this passage is, did the Romans lose their sense of shame and that led their abandonment of their identity of being virtuous?

I would like to know more about how Cicero uses this dream narrative to convey his philosophical views and the importance of virtue?

For this week, I chose the reading Scipio's dream/ Cicero, it interest me to know about the political struggles and philosophical debates of Cicero's time. In the reading the dream offers insight into Roman views of the afterlife. Scipio's encounter with deceased ancestors and the heavens reflects the Roman belief where individuals are rewarded for their virtuous ways. The dream is a way of showing Cicero political philosophy , he also addresses themes of virtue and the nature of the afterlife. I found it interesting when Africanus foretells Scipio Aemilianu's victories, emphasizing the importance of public service over public gain.

I decided to read the excerpt of Cicero’s letters on the rise of Augustus as I thought it might shed some light on how Octavian was perceived by the Senate before he revealed his true plans. A passage from the letter Cicero sent to Brutus in July, 43 BCE that left an impression on me. After mentioning that he proposed Octavian receive an ovation, he heavily hints at the real reason he did it, saying, “For myself: however – though I am perhaps wrong, and I am not a man who believes his own way necessarily right – I think that in the course of this war I never took a more prudent step”. The implication is clearly that at this point Cicero thinks he can string the young Octavian along and use the loyalty of Ceasars old legions to Octavian to their advantage. It is a reflection of the political instability of the times that the Senate needed to rely on the assistance of a 19-year-old at the head of two legions strictly loyal to him in order to defend Rome itself. How did other Romans outside of the Senatorial class view the young Octavian?

This passage highlights the degeneration of Roman society. After Sulla obtained the government by force people started to practice thievery and began plundering. The people's values had changed. Wealth was the prime desire among the youth. It made them grow up fast and irrational. Wealth was changing people and the world itself. With the huge sizes of villas and seas beingbuilt over by private citizens. People had thrown away their restraint and modesty to satisfy their material needs. There's one person who stands out during this time of the Republic. Catiline kept these kinds of people around him. Anyone who was in a precarious situation could be his associate. Catiline tempted people into associating with him, mainly the young. By providing for their needs that's how he'd get them. At some point Catiline fell for a woman named Aurelia. She didn't want to be in a relationship with him because he had an older son. So Cataline murders his own son in order to win Aurelia. After that he couldn't sleep well feeling that he angered the gods and men.

In this passage, Sallust’s account of Catiline’s conspiracy offers a critical view of the moral decay within Roman society during the late Republic. His depiction paints a picture of a corrupt environment where desperation and depravity thrived. He expresses how bad things got in Roman society, especially after Sulla took control. He highlights how individuals became more focused on getting rich and living luxuriously instead of being honest and good. This move made it easy for someone like Catiline to gather a group of followers who were unhappy and desperate and offered them gifts to make them loyal to him.

One detail that particularly stood up for me was the description of Catiline's descent into moral depravity, especially the moment when he is said to have murdered his son out of a twisted desire for a relationship with Aurelia. I believe this act portrays Catiline's extreme moral corruption and underscores the desperation and chaos that characterized the society of the time.

I believe Sallust was trying to emphasize the moral decay and corruption that had taken hold of Roman society during the late Republic. Through his detailed account of Catiline's conspiracy, he highlights how a culture of greed, luxury, and lawlessness emerged, leading to a loss of virtue and ethical standards.

Similarly, I believe this document comes from a period that was marked by significant political turmoil and moral decline. It also reflects on a time when traditional values and social structures were being undermined by the excesses of wealth and power, leading to widespread corruption.

Finally, I would like to find out more about the specific events leading up to Catiline's conspiracy.

The reading I decided to choose was “The Assassination of Julius Caesar / Plutarch” because I find the assassination of Julius Caesar interesting. A part of the reading that stood out was “ struck by a great many hands, and looking around about him to see if he could force his way out, when he saw Brutus with his dagger drawn against him, he let go Casca’s hand, that he had hold of and covering his head with his robe, gave up his body to their blows.” This is interesting because of how Caesar immediately gave up once he saw Brutus involved in the killing, accepting his fate. This raised my eyebrows. I was like, “Why?” The author was probably trying to portray Brutus as someone who truly shocked Caesar, either someone important to him or someone he never expected out of everyone to be a part of his murder. This text supports the other sources we have read, as we know Caesar was disliked by the senators, who feared his great powers; something like this helps support their overall dislike towards Caesar getting rid of someone they feared and disliked.

My question would be if Caesar knew he could find a way to escape, wouldn't it be better for him to try, as he could scream out to the people and expose the senate’s actions?

This week I read about The Assassination of Julius Caesar from Plutarch because I found it important to read about the assassination from the conspirator's perspective since that is usually a perspective that is simplified. The passage gives us the point of view of M.Junius Brutus one of the assassins, the most well known assassin. The passage that stood out to me is "Caesar being thus slain, Brutus, stepping forth into the midst, intended to have made a speech, and called back and encouraged the senators to stay; but they all affrighted ran away in great disorder, and there was a great confusion and press at the door, though none pursued or followed. For they had come to an express resolution to kill nobody beside Caesar, but to call and invite all the rest to liberty". The author is already trying to show with this quote that even though everything went right for the assassination to go through in the moments after that some of assassins' might have started to become aware of what they've done and how this will not be taken well. Some stayed and wanted to give a speech but others wished to kill Caesar and run, showing that they all weren't fully aligned to each other. This idea is supported by the reaction to the death of Caesar from the public, that the Senators had forgotten how beloved he was, even if he was hated by the nobility. My only question is ow long did it take for word of Caesar's death to reach the entire territory of Rome, did it take a year or years for it to reach Britain and the other frontier regions?

For my weekly reading, I chose Plutarch's account of "The Assassination of Julius Caesar." This account interests me greatly due to the figure Julius Caesar was, and I was curious to hear the perspective and how the plot to take him out came about from one of the conspirators' points of view. A detail that popped out to me was when Plutarch said, "But a slight wound, about the shoulder. Caesar snatching hold of the handle of the dagger, and crying out aloud in Latin, "Villain Casca, what do you?" he, calling in Greek to his brother, bade him come and help. And by this time, finding himself struck by a great many hands, and looking around about him to see if he could force his way out, when he saw Brutus with his dagger drawn against him, he let go Casca's hand, that he had hold of and covering his head with his robe, gave up his body to their blows." what shocked me was Caesar initial thought to fight back but giving up once he saw Brutus with his dagger in hand. Plutarch intended to bring the reader into the shoes of the people who killed Caesar, providing perspective. And with detail, the conspirators had a great hate for Caesar, stabbing him with such ferocity many injured themselves, including Brutus. But they also knew this was their doom with how they all fleed with such panic. This time reflected the Populares vs. Optimates Era in the Republic; these people thought they were liberating the Republic from Caesar's Tyranny, which backfired immensely. Their biggest mistake, in my opinion, was not killing Antony.