Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

More clues in this one: "Cicero's Testimony at the Bona Dea Trial".

The Bona Dea trial marked a decisive turning point in Cicero's career. Because
of his testimony against Clodius, a feud arose between the two men which led
directly to Cicero's exile in 58 and temporarily destroyed his political influence
at a crucial period in the Republic's history.' Why did Cicero court Clodius'
hostility both before and during the trial, and risk the consequences that inevitably
followed from the animosity of the powerful in Rome?

Like I said, there is something VERY strange about all this.
 

Attachments

Very interesting in view of Carotta's idea that Fulvia was the "mother of Christianity" because of her actions at the funeral of Clodius which influenced the behavior of the masses at the funeral of Caesar.
 

Attachments

"Three Ciceronian Problems"


Time and again Cicero abused Clodius for having, in his tribunate, both rescinded
the lex Aelia Fufia of 153 B.C.2 and also destroyed the censorship.3 The ' destruction of
the censorship ' was, in fact, a seemingly just and reasonable bill to the effect that for
the future no senator might be expelled from the Senate unless, after he had been given
the opportunity of answering the charges against him, both censors were in agreement
over his expulsion.4 It would, therefore, be reasonable to suppose that the ' rescinding
of the lex Aelia Fufia ', too, was far less drastic a measure than Cicero's vituperative
language implies, even if there was not, as there is, abundant evidence in the years.
following Clodius' tribunate that the lex Aelia Fufia remained on the statute book.
 

Attachments

"Roman Omens, Roman Audiences, and Roman History"

The role divination played in allocating, maintaining, and justifying
the authority of the senatorial elite in the Republic has been well
established.1 Attention has also been paid to the use made of unofficial
forms of divination by ambitious members of the ruling elite in
the later Republic, who sought (often successfully) to make themselves
pre-eminent before their peers by claiming personal divine
attention.2 What has received less attention in discussions of prophecy
and authority is the role the general population of non-elites played in
this ideological system which served the interests of the powerful rich,
either collectively or individually, at the expense of the less powerful
poor.
 

Attachments

This one is MOST interesting considering the slanderous attacks Cicero made on Clodius.

The Early Career of P. Clodius Pulcher: A Re-Examination of the Charges of Mutiny and Sacrilege

In a 1979 essay, Rundell set out to revise our picture of Publius Clodius Pulcher.1 He noted that the traditional view of Clodius was based in part on Cicero's invectives, which scholars were beginning to treat with justified skepticism. "It is time," he wrote, "that a few words were spoken in Clodius' defense." I have written this,essay to complement Rundell's. Whereas Rundell presented a sympathetic look at Clodius' tribunician legislation, I have tried to see his side of the story in connection with two events from his earlier career: his supposedly mutinous behavior in Lucullus' army in 69-68 and his violation of the rites of the Bona Dea in 62. Most recent treatments of Clodius' early career focus on the political aspects of the Bona Dea trial. All accept Plutarch's accounts of Clodius' alleged mutiny and sacrilege and are thus based on unfavorable assumptions about his character. 2 I begin my defense by stressing the fact that Plutarch and the other historians from whom the charges against Clodius derive routinely included fictional incidents in their histories. I then suggest criteria for identifying likely fictions. Using these criteria, I conclude that Plutarch's two accounts contain much that is probably fiction. When that is removed, Clodius' character appears in a much better light.
 

Attachments

An answer to Pocock's reinterpretation of the relations between Clodius and Caesar.

THE motive of Clodius in attacking the validity of Caesar's laws in the
latter part of 58 B.c. has been the subject of many conjectures on the part of
modern historians. In a recent article1 Pocock has propounded a new theory
as to the position and policy of the turbulent tribune, which is highly
suggestive and deserving of a careful consideration. In the first place Pocock,
in opposition to all previous historians, flatly denies that Clodius made any
such attack at all, and offers a new explanation of the passage in Cicero's
speech for his house where this is asserted.
 

Attachments

Since Clodius' sister was brought into the discussion as being the possible reason for the animosity of Terentia, a bit about the sisters of Clodius.

THE CHILDREN of Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 79) gained fame beyond that of their father. Their aptitudes and accomplishments were quite varied; of the sons, Appius was staid and old-fashioned, consul, censor, and an augur who believed in the augural lore; Gaius was a shadow of his brother; Publius was a demagogue, fantastic even for those days. Three daughters were consulares, if one may use that adjective in the feminine as Cicero did in a unique passage (Att. 2.1.5: sed ego illam odi male consularem). The Clodia who married Celer gained immortality for her immorality from Cicero-and Catullus; for it seems reasonable to con- clude that the Medea of the Palatine was Lesbia. The Clodia who married L. Lucullus was just as infamous, but less famous. The oldest Clodia, wife of Marcius Rex, was surely of a character more like that of her brother Appius, as I shall attempt to demonstrate below.
 

Attachments

The Vettius affair - remember the guy who claimed that there was a plot against Pompey and the big drama Caesar created over that. AND we learned that Vettius had formerly been one of the agents of Cicero as admitted in his own correspondence. All very strange.
 

Attachments

Another on Vettius. This is actually the paper referenced in the previous one about Vettius, so this should be read first.

Lucius Vettius, a Roman knight of disreputable character, appeared on the Roman political scene three times in the years 63 to 59.1 The evidence for his first two appearances is scanty, that for his third appearance is much fuller, but confusing. In 63 Vettius was a member of the Catilinarian conspiracy (Dio, 37.41.2), and gave information to Cicero. The latter fact is not explicitly stated in the sources, but it is implicit in Cicero's phrase describing him to Atticus in the year 59 (Att. 2.24.2), since ille noster index probably refers to the year of Cicero's consulship rather than to the year 62.
 

Attachments

Another good one by Pocock.

What Made Pompeius Fight in 49 B. C.?

THE Civil War of 49 B.C. is one of the most important wars of Euro- pean history, if only for the fact that it ended an old world order and paved the way for a new one which was to endure in Europe for nearly two thousand years. It is also one of the most dramatic wars of history, perhaps the most truly 'tragic', in the Greek sense of the word, of them all-so 'tragic' that it has never found a poet to do it justice, or to bring its leading characters fairly upon the stage. It was certainly the most unnecessary of wars. It involved the whole of Western civili- zation, and yet no really deep-seated emotions or animosities, racial, national, social, or even individual, caused the conflagration. It was, in fact, nothing but a trial of strength, with no constructive objective in view, between two men, highly educated, humane, related by marriage, not unfriendly to one another, members of the same society and the same clubs, as it were, whose interests, even, need not have been incompatible. It is generally agreed that the great majority of the senatorial aristocracy very definitely did not want the war; and it seems quite clear that the small minority, of some twenty-two, who did were powerless to com- mence it or wage it without the will and leadership of Pompeius. It is also agreed that Caesar, while prepared to fight for his skin and his dignitas, and to that extent responsible, did not want war and made sincere efforts both to avoid it and to stop it. It cannot be shown that the optimate minority, though they might certainly bring influence to bear upon Pompeius, were ever in a position to force his hand. They were to blame, of course, and so was Caesar; but above everything else it was Pompeius' private war. He alone without grave detriment could have averted it, postponed it, or stopped it. It is therefore in his cir- cumstances and his 'psychology' that the cause of it is to be found. To our eyes, when we consider his political career and this its final act, he does not come very well out of the examination.
 

Attachments

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom