![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
artyartieI've been meaning to write this post for a while now, but a question of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ainsley's inspired me to finally put pen to paper, metaphorically. Besides, I need a little bit of distraction from the Paper of Doom!
After reading one of the drabbles, A asked me if I wrote the historical Cicero or rather the one from Rome. (My apologies if I paraphrased you incorrectly!) The trust of the matter is I write Cicero on a spectrum, A kinsey scale, if you will, of my own historical accuracy.
If a one would be a 'pure' historical Cicero and a six would be entirely the Cicero of Rome, most of my stories probably range between a 2.5 and a 3. 'A Fate Suitable to His Deserts,', my Cicero/Antony story, is probably between a 4 and a 5 - needless to say, it's hard for me to contemplate the historical Cicero even thinking about Antony in that way. Though sometimes it's enjoyable just to play about and have my biggest worry be, say, which text of Plato Cicero would use to seduce Brutus. The drabbles range widely, depending on my mood when I write them. Two of them have, at least, have been a 1 - chances are, if it has Terentia, Tullia, or any other of his family/friends besides the characters of Rome, it's conveniently ignoring the Rome canon.
I think one of the main goals in many of my Rome stories and drabbles is to give the Cicero of Rome much needed context. Rome!Cicero, to me, has almost no context whatsoever. In a supreme bit of irony, on the 'All Roads Lead to Rome' informational supplement, it mentions Cicero's fame as one of the finest orators, and yet we never see proof of this in the series. Rome!Cicero says he is opposed to tyranny, whereas Historical!Cicero took action against one when he denounced Cataline. Rome!Cicero says he was no friend of Ceasar, whereas the Historical!Cicero was bound to Caesar through political obligation and personal connections. Historical!Cicero was often rumored to be a coward, which would have made his scenes in Pompey's camp even more powerful. And in a show where family was so important, the omission of Cicero's family, especially his daughter (whose death three years before his threw him into inconsolable grief), is an incredible loss. The historical Cicero had his faults - he was pompous and vain, and his forays into politics often resulted in disaster. He turned minor achievements into major accomplishments and was upset when other people did not conflate the two. But Rome seemed only to concentrate on those faults, and ignore any positive traits. I think his genuine love for his friends came across in his relationship with Brutus, and in the last few episodes, I think they portrayed his acute weariness and sorrow as the Republic crumbled to pieces around him.
In a comment on a recent drabble,schadenkatze said my Cicero was always so heartbreaking, and given his context, it's hard not to write him as such. By the time Rome begins, he had lost much of his political power, and was forced to chose between two demagogues who were all but jockeying to be king. theilian has selected some wonderful letters of/to Cicero from key periods in his life and that of the Late Republic. There is so much more reading I need to do, to become a solid Cicero scholar and a better writer. There are aspects of his life on which I'm very shaky and speaking of that all important context, I certainly need (and want) a deeper knowledge of the fall of the Republic. But as I discovered when I first read Cicero eight years ago, the more I know about Cicero, the more I want to learn - and now, the more I want to write.
So for everyone who enjoys writing my Cicero offerings, thank you for your comments, your encouragement, and your questions. I hope this post explains, a little bit, how I write Cicero, and I why I enjoy it so very much.
ainsley's inspired me to finally put pen to paper, metaphorically. Besides, I need a little bit of distraction from the Paper of Doom!After reading one of the drabbles, A asked me if I wrote the historical Cicero or rather the one from Rome. (My apologies if I paraphrased you incorrectly!) The trust of the matter is I write Cicero on a spectrum, A kinsey scale, if you will, of my own historical accuracy.
If a one would be a 'pure' historical Cicero and a six would be entirely the Cicero of Rome, most of my stories probably range between a 2.5 and a 3. 'A Fate Suitable to His Deserts,', my Cicero/Antony story, is probably between a 4 and a 5 - needless to say, it's hard for me to contemplate the historical Cicero even thinking about Antony in that way. Though sometimes it's enjoyable just to play about and have my biggest worry be, say, which text of Plato Cicero would use to seduce Brutus. The drabbles range widely, depending on my mood when I write them. Two of them have, at least, have been a 1 - chances are, if it has Terentia, Tullia, or any other of his family/friends besides the characters of Rome, it's conveniently ignoring the Rome canon.
I think one of the main goals in many of my Rome stories and drabbles is to give the Cicero of Rome much needed context. Rome!Cicero, to me, has almost no context whatsoever. In a supreme bit of irony, on the 'All Roads Lead to Rome' informational supplement, it mentions Cicero's fame as one of the finest orators, and yet we never see proof of this in the series. Rome!Cicero says he is opposed to tyranny, whereas Historical!Cicero took action against one when he denounced Cataline. Rome!Cicero says he was no friend of Ceasar, whereas the Historical!Cicero was bound to Caesar through political obligation and personal connections. Historical!Cicero was often rumored to be a coward, which would have made his scenes in Pompey's camp even more powerful. And in a show where family was so important, the omission of Cicero's family, especially his daughter (whose death three years before his threw him into inconsolable grief), is an incredible loss. The historical Cicero had his faults - he was pompous and vain, and his forays into politics often resulted in disaster. He turned minor achievements into major accomplishments and was upset when other people did not conflate the two. But Rome seemed only to concentrate on those faults, and ignore any positive traits. I think his genuine love for his friends came across in his relationship with Brutus, and in the last few episodes, I think they portrayed his acute weariness and sorrow as the Republic crumbled to pieces around him.
In a comment on a recent drabble,
schadenkatze said my Cicero was always so heartbreaking, and given his context, it's hard not to write him as such. By the time Rome begins, he had lost much of his political power, and was forced to chose between two demagogues who were all but jockeying to be king. theilian has selected some wonderful letters of/to Cicero from key periods in his life and that of the Late Republic. There is so much more reading I need to do, to become a solid Cicero scholar and a better writer. There are aspects of his life on which I'm very shaky and speaking of that all important context, I certainly need (and want) a deeper knowledge of the fall of the Republic. But as I discovered when I first read Cicero eight years ago, the more I know about Cicero, the more I want to learn - and now, the more I want to write. So for everyone who enjoys writing my Cicero offerings, thank you for your comments, your encouragement, and your questions. I hope this post explains, a little bit, how I write Cicero, and I why I enjoy it so very much.
