Discours. Tome X: Catilinaires

by Marcus Tullius Cicero, Henri Bornecque (Editor), Edouard Bailly (Translator)

Que s'est-il passé à Rome, en 63, sous le consulat de Cicéron ? Une fois n'est pas coutume, nous sommes relativement documentés sur la période. Cependant, si Plutarque, Cicéron, Salluste et Dion Cassius nous ont laissé de nombreux témoignages, le débat est loin d’être tranché. Le personnage de Catilina en effet suscité les passions les plus virulentes et les haines les plus coriaces, à commencer par celle de Cicéron. En effet, lorsque ce dernier prononce, en novembre 63, les quatre Catilinaires, le contentieux entre les deux hommes est à son comble. Par trois fois Catilina s’est présenté aux élections, par trois fois, il a été évincé par Cicéron et ses partisans. Attentats, incendies et levées de troupes se multiplient, tandis que Cicéron échappe de peu à l’assassinat, victime d’un complot dont l’auteur serait Catilina. Si ce dernier parvient à s’enfuir, ses comparses sont condamnés à mort en décembre 63.

Notre édition rassemble en un volume ce chef d’œuvre de la littérature politique que sont les Catilinaires. Même si les discours furent rédigés trois ans après avoir été prononcés, Cicéron a su conserver tout le feu de l’improvisation. La première Catilinaire, tenue devant les Sénateurs, s’adresse directement à Catilina et l’enjoint de partir. Le propos de l’orateur est si convaincant que le soir-même Catilina quittait Rome. Devant le peuple au forum, Cicéron justifie sa conduite. La troisième et la quatrième traitent de la peine à appliquer aux complices de Catilina. Les conjurés sont condamnés à mort et Cicéron est salué « Père de la patrie »: la maîtrise, tant rhétorique que politique du consul triomphe. Après un bref éclairage historique, notre édition présente l’histoire des manuscrits. Chaque discours est précédé d’une notice comprenant le plan du texte. L’ouvrage est en outre assorti de notes qui accompagnent et complètent la lecture.

Genres: Classics, Nonfiction, History, Politics, Philosophy, Classical Studies, Ancient History

170 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 64

About the author

Born 3 January 106 BC, Arpinum, Italy
Died 7 December 43 BC (aged 63), Formia, Italy

Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. Cicero is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.

Alternate profiles:
Cicéron
Marco Tullio Cicerone


Note: All editions should have Marcus Tullius Cicero as primary author. Editions with another name on the cover should have that name added as secondary author.

Reviews

[Mohammad Ali Shamekhi · Rating 2 out of 5]

مضمون هر چهار خطابه توطئه ی کاتیلینا برای به دست گرفتن قدرت در رم است. کاتیلینا در دوران کنسولی کیکرو برای آتش زدن رم و گرفتن قدرت توطئه ای می کند. پس از کشف توطئه به واسطه ی کیکرو از شهر بیرون رانده می شود. کاتیلینا به قوای متحد خود می پیوند اما پس از دستگیری طرفداران و عواملش در رم و اعدام آنها، در جریان نبرد کشته می شود

من با گرایشی به سخن های حکمت آمیز و اندرزگویانه ی کیکرو به سمت این کتاب رفتم اما این کتاب سرتاسر اثری است سیاسی. کیکرو در این خطابه می کوشد مردم و سنا را برای اعمال خود راضی نگه دارد. در ابتدا تلاش می کند دلیل خود برای اعدام نکردن کاتیلینا را مطرح کند ( و آن دلیل این است که کاتیلینا تا زمانی که یک نفر طرفدار در رم دارد نباید کشته شود زیرا این کار آتش درگیری را زنده نگه می دارد؛ باید او و طرفدارانش از رم بیرون بروند تا نبرد داخلی به جنگ بدل شود ). بعدتر می کوشد خود را از اتهام سازشکاری و ناتوانی به دلیل آزاد گذاشتن کاتیلینا از یک طرف و اتهام سختگیری بر کاتیلینا از طرف دیگر رها کند. و سرانجام می کوشد سنا را برای مجازات حداکثری عوامل کاتیلینا اقناع کند

خطابه از یک جهت آزاردهنده است و آن تأکید مدام بر تضاد حق و باطل است. کیکرو دائم رم - و خود به مثابه کنسول - را حق مطلق و کاتیلینا را باطل مطلق می شمارد. اشاراتی هست که تردید در این حرف را جایز می کند مثلا حمله های مدام به قوانین مربوط به اصلاحات ارضی در دوران قبل، حمله به سوء استفاده از برخی غلامان و مسکینان و وعده های کاتیلینا مبنی بر تقسیم ثروت میان قشر ضعیف. سوای اینکه آیا کاتیلینا در پی فریب مردم بوده یا نه، صرف وجود این دعاوی نشان از نارضایتی درونی طبقات پایین رم دارد و اینکه عده ای مستعد شورش علیه اشراف و طبقات بالا بوده اند. حضور گل ها به مثابه قومی بیرونی که رمی نیستند و کاتیلینا - هر چند بی نتیجه - از آنها کمک می خواهد، نشان از نارضایتی های اقلیت ها - یا شاید بهتر باشد بگوییم حاشیه ای ها - دارد

دیگر عنصر جالب تأکید دائم کیکرو - خصوصا بعد از دستگیری ها - بر حمایت الهی است. او دائم تأکید می کند که خود این کارها را انجام نداده بلکه فلان و بهمان اتفاق به ما نشان می دهد خدایان از رم حمایت می کنند. اینها حرف هایی است که برای ما در ایران خیلی آشنا هستند

همچینن خصلت جمهوریت و نفس تلاش سیاستمداران برای اقناع مردم سویه ی منفی خود را نیز در این خطابه ها آشکار می کند. تلاش برای ساده کردن مسائل و بیرون راندن افراد با برچسب های شرورانه و ناجی خواندن خود

[Chiara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Io odio, detesto e aborro Cicerone… Un riccone di provincia (si direbbe oggi, ai tempi un eques originario di Arpino, un conservatore quasi anacronistico, un maneggione , quasi onesto, ma “alla bisogna” capace di difendere l’indifendibile.
Io amo, adoro, idolatro Cicerone. Ebbene sì, lo ammetto: quell’ometto tanto fastidioso riesce a sedurmi con le sue parole… Anzi, no. Non con le sue parole, ma con la sua lingua, con l’uso che fa di questa lingua, delle sue costruzioni, della sua armonia; come riesce a plasmarla e a piegarla alle necessità del pensiero, il quale, a sua volta, trova maggiore forza e significato grazie alla lingua. Il latino, nella penna di Cicerone, diventa così bello, che il fatto che Le catilinarie siano, in sostanza, quattro orazioni politiche pronunciate in Senato e al popolo, passa in secondo piano. Anche se… Sì, in alcuni passaggi il libro diventa interessante proprio per la prospettiva narrativa: la soggettività del punto di vista dell’oratore ci immerge nella vicenda, ne accentua i toni cupi, sembra quasi un romanzo.
Il problema, forse, è che Cicerone fa in modo che si rimanga affascinati da Catilina, e che, contemporaneamente, lo si detesti…

[Alex Pler · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Con vuestros recuerdos se alimentarán nuestras hazañas".

Cuatro discursos con los que Cicerón puso al descubierto el golpe de estado que se cernía sobre Roma. La cadencia de las frases del orador te arrastra con él. Bofetadas verbales que nunca pierden la elegancia.

[Sofia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?
Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus eludet?
Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?
Nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palatii,
nihil urbis vigiliae,
nihil timor populi,
nihil concursus bonorum omnium,
nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus,
nihil horum ora vultusque moverunt?

Patere tua consilia non sentis?
Constrictam omnium horum scientia teneri coniurationem tuam non vides?
Quid proxima, quid superiore nocte egeris, ubi fueris, quos convocaveris, quid consilii ceperis, quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris?
O tempora, o mores!

As Catilinárias (63 a.C.) fazem parte do currículo académico de muitos cursos superiores e são, ainda hoje, modelos de oratória persuasiva, usados por políticos bastante famosos.
Não vou tecer grandes comentários sobre as questões políticas que estão na base do confronto entre Cícero e Catilina porque - muito honestamente - não tenho sabedoria e conhecimento para tal.
Contudo, achei algumas partes muitíssimo curiosas, como a comparação que Cícero faz entre si e Rómulo, equiparando-se: se prestaram honras a quem criou esta cidade, deverão prestá-las a quem a conservou (creio que a presunção fosse uma qualidade naquele tempo).
É um texto muito valioso, que merece alguma atenção.

Tradução portuguesa, retirada da wikipédia, do excerto acima:

Até quando, Catilina, abusarás da nossa paciência?
Por quanto tempo a tua loucura há de zombar de nós?
A que extremos se há de precipitar a tua desenfreada audácia?
Nem a guarda do Palatino,
nem a ronda noturna da cidade,
nem o temor do povo,
nem a afluência de todos os homens de bem,
nem este local tão bem protegido para a reunião do Senado,
nem a expressão do voto destas pessoas, nada disto conseguiu perturbar-te?
Não te dás conta que os teus planos foram descobertos?
Não vês que a tua conspiração a têm já dominada todos estes que a conhecem?
Quem, dentre nós, pensas tu que ignora o que fizeste na noite passada e na precedente, onde estiveste, com quem te encontraste, que decisão tomaste?
Oh tempos, oh costumes!

[iva° · Rating 5 out of 5]

izvrsno dvojezično izdanje (latinski/hrvatski) ciceronovih govora protiv katiline popraćeno kronologijama ciceronovog i katilininog života, objašnjenjem o jeziku, stilu i kompoziciji govora, stilskim figurama i tropima izvučenim iz govora. ne znam kako bih ovome mogla dati ocjenu manju od izvrsne... jedan od najvećih govornika svih vremena ovdje se pojavljuje u punoj raskoši. knjiga sama po sebi pruža dostatne informacije koje su ti potrebne za razumjeti tko su bili ciceron i katilina, zašto prvi upućuje govore protiv drugoga i kakav stav prvi ima prema drugome ("koji se trovatelj u čitavoj italiji može pronaći, koji gladijator, koji razbojnik, koji ubojica iz potaje, koji prevarant, koji razuzdanik, koji rasipnik, koji preljubnik, koja ozloglašena žena, koji kvaritelj mladeži, koji pokvarenjak, koji propalica - a da ne prizna kako je s katilinom bio u vrlo prisnim odnosima?").

kao što u predgovoru piše, ciceronovi govori u punoj snazi mogli su se doživjeti samo uživo, uz njegove gestikulacije, intonaciju i cjelokupni (može se reći: scenski) nastup, ali već čitajući taj tekst možeš dobiti osjećaj o veličanstvenosti retorike, koju bi, btw, bilo pametno vratiti u škole, kao dio opće kulture.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Catilinarians are probably Cicero's most famous speeches, e.g. "o tempora, o mores", and should definitely be high on one's list of Cicero to read. Cicero's invective against Catiline is at times so brilliantly phrased in the Latin. The Cambridge edition is on the whole very good but has a few faults, namely, the binding on the book itself breaks down pretty easily and the editorial notes are usually better at providing historical context than grammatical assistance.

[e ☆]

Cicerone capostipite dei rompicazzo ci credo che l'hanno ammazzato

[ludo ౨ৎ · Rating 4 out of 5]

slay!! (i congiurati)

[Maria Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Até quando, Catilina, abusarás
da nossa paciência?
Por quanto tempo a tua loucura há de zombar de nós?
A que extremos se há de precipitar a tua desenfreada audácia?
Nem a guarda do Palatino,
nem a ronda noturna da cidade,
nem o temor do povo,
nem a afluência de todos os homens de bem,
nem este local tão bem protegido para a reunião do Senado,
nem a expressão do voto destas pessoas, nada disto conseguiu perturbar-te?
Não te dás conta que os teus planos foram descobertos?
Não vês que a tua conspiração a têm já dominada todos estes que a conhecem?
Quem, dentre nós, pensas tu que ignora o que fizeste na noite passada e na precedente, onde estiveste, com quem te encontraste, que decisão tomaste?
Oh tempos, oh costumes!”

As Catilinárias são um conjunto de quatro discursos proferidos pelo cônsul Marco Túlio Cícero em 63 a.C ao senado em Roma.
O conteúdo destes discursos foca-se em denunciar diretamente Lúcio Sérgio Catilina. Conhecido pelo seu modo de vida (corrupção, escândalos, brutalidade) tenta reunir uma milícia com o objetivo de atacar Roma, matar Cícero e impor uma ditadura no território. Cícero procura avisar o Senado e descobrir os planos de Catilina, assim sendo profere os seus quatro discursos.
A primeira catilinária é sem dúvida a minha preferida. Deixei-me levar pelo seu discurso, as suas palavras entusiásticas e provocadoras. A ira era palpável e a forma como desarmou Catilina foi brilhante. Penso que em todas as catilinárias é possível observar o discurso coerente, coeso e bem formulado de Cícero, sem margem para duvidas, capaz de convencer tudo e todos.
Uma bela peça de oratória e determinação. Recomendo a todos que gostem.

[Reginald · Rating 3 out of 5]

Excellent rhetoric from Cicero. Unfortunately, this publisher gave little regard to the aesthetic experience of Cicero’s orations—the book is little more than a pdf scan marred by corrections via pen. I highly recommend reading Cicero’s Orations against Catiline, just not from this source.

[Bautista · Rating 4 out of 5]

Catilinarias 3/5
Conjuración de Catilina 4/5

[David Barrera Fuentes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Espero algún día entenderme a mí mismo sobre el porqué me gustan este tipo de libros. Aunque, en este caso, puede ser que el infinito ego de Cicerón me resulta simpático.

[María García · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5
Me sirvió para entender mejor el contexto de otra novela que leí (Catilina's Riddle, de Steven Saylor).

Mis conclusiones generales fueron:

Cicerón: subidísimo a un poni. Me, myself and I. Defendía a los conservadores tradicionales oligarcas. Realmente odiaba (y temía, me atrevo a decir) a Catilina. Interesante elocuencia, pero muy arrogante. Exageró hechos en beneficio propio. No me pareció tan clasista, a pesar de estar con los de alta alcurnia: siempre trató a los «campesinos endeudados» con respeto y comprensión.

Salustio: un tanto clasista (como todos en esa época al parecer) pero no tan odiador de Catilina. Fan del César. Me pareció que le dio menos importancia a la conjuración que Cicerón, más que nada porque ese golpe de estado «no llegó a darse», lo cual, eh, es cierto.

¿Catilina? Me gustaría ver su versión de la historia. Solo tenemos unos pocos discursos que enunció en donde se entiende por qué la gente lo apoyaba. Pero también parece que muchos hechos se exageraron o se inventaron en su contra. Estaría bueno ver qué tenía para decir... Aunque es imposible. Hay pocos registros de las conjuras y casi todo proviene de Cicerón, su némesis.

La traducción me gustó mucho. Solo noté un error: la palabra «proteger» estaba escrita con J en una conjugación en la que iba con G.

[Phantoomer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Adoro quando Cicerone insulta le persone. Non è per niente raffinato, ma mi fa ridere

[Pavel Skigin · Rating 5 out of 5]

liber latinus primus meus

[Isaac Chan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was not even the first speech of Cicero’s that I’ve read – it is the first primary work of Cicero’s that I read. Hence, my reflection on ‘In Catilinam’ will naturally focus less on a deep analysis of the speech itself, the political context and stakes of the Catilinarian conspiracy, of Cicero’s rhetoric itself; but rather it will reflect my first venture into Cicero and familiarizing myself with his thought.

Way before this, I had 2 ‘big conceptions’ of Cicero – that he was an academic sceptic, and that he is now considered a proto-liberal. Both dimensions of Cicero’s thought are primary intellectual interests of mine. Furthermore, both dimensions concern Cicero the homo contemplativus, not Cicero the homo faber. Somewhat annoyingly, in my preliminary research, there seemed to be few ‘convenient’ primary works by Cicero that I could get into before I invested the time and effort into taking on his heavyweight works. What I mean is that the essay format had not been popularized in Cicero’s time, so most of his corpus occupy the 2 ends of the extreme in terms of length: from lots of piecemeal correspondence (which make it tricky for my auto-didactic mind to curate for myself, and more importantly, to journal on), to hefty philosophical works like ‘De Natura Deorum’, ‘De Officiis’, or ‘Academica Priora’ that seemed unwise for me to invest in without any background knowledge on Cicero or a taster of his style. For this ludicrous reason, I put off reading Cicero for a period of time.

It was not until a bit later that I even realized that Cicero is considered 1 of the greatest orators of the ancient world and he was primarily remembered in his own time as a statesman and lawyer. Cicero himself likely valued his political career over his other pursuits. I serendipitously stumbled on a copy of Cicero’s ‘Political speeches’ translated and edited by D.H. Berry in the Kinokuniya store opposite my office. It was a godsend in terms of my demands for a primary work by Cicero.

To go on a bizarre tangent now, Joe Folley of ‘Unsolicited advice’ mentioned about a year ago in 1 of his videos that his earliest philosophical interest was in formal logic, or, more broadly, how can we make better arguments? Since then, I’ve been gripped by the idea and have turned it around in my mind. I decided to study formal logic but because life is busy, I have taken a series of rainchecks on that pursuit. The root of my interest in formal logic and rhetoric, however, differs from Joe’s – I am semi-obsessed with the ‘philosophy of logic and argumentation’ from i) a grueling education in economics, ii) reading Borges’s ‘The library of Babel’ over Christmas last year which has stuck in my mind ever since. I want to know the METAPHYSICS of why economic analysis and argumentation can range so widely: from the lengthy verbal arguments of the classical economists and the Austrians; to the algebraic arguments of David Ricardo; to the dense mathematical theories of modern economists; to innovations in experimental design that strongly follow the data over theory; to the light yet incisive arguments of analysts outside the traditional econ academy like Noah Smith, Andy Constan and Bob Elliott; to the folksy, qualitative and practical yet undeniably profound statements by operators of markets like Buffett and Munger. I want to know why it's metaphysically possible to reach economic conclusions in such wildly different ways. I continuously stress-test my curiosity into the metaphysics of making economic arguments, especially those that hinge on general equilibrium, with intuition alone vs with math alone. I now also have a professional incentive to improve in rhetoric, as a commercial banking RM whose main tool in selling a deal to the bank’s credit department and the management credit committee is the written word. Thus, Cicero’s reputation as one of the greatest rhetoricians in history intrigues me.

It was clear, however, upon reading the introduction to Cicero’s rhetoric, and ‘In Catilinam’ itself, that his style may not be immediately applicable for my professional purposes. I sense that a big part of his rhetoric lies in building sentences with dramatic cadence, gradually enrapturing the audience and leading them to a crescendo of wordplay with a satisfying payoff. This can hardly work for my environment, for at least 2 reasons: i) This style is not professional in the slightest in a traditional corporate setting, ii) In an organization where 90% of people speak painfully broken English and have expressed explicitly anti-intellectual leanings, the Cicero-wannabe approach backfires. Nevertheless, I remain committed to reading all of Cicero’s 58 speeches over the course of my life and I will await whatever unexpected dividends they may pay.

I wondered about how Cicero managed to retain the attention of his audience. Although today’s politicians still give speeches of course, the length of their speeches seem to shy in comparison to Cicero’s. There’s also evidence that political speeches and debates are getting shorter over time: a reflection of the populace’s attention span. And even if their length matches those of Cicero’s, they hardly engage in dramatic ‘periodic’ style, for pragmatic reasons. Now I know that if I had the ability to visit a historical period, then I would travel to the late Roman Republic to listen to a speech by Cicero live.

Cicero’s reputation for vanity also turned out to be true, right in the 1st speech of his that I’ve read. He certainly does not shy away from lavish self-praise. Whether he was indeed vain, or whether this was possibly part of a quirky ancient Roman culture which does not hold modern standards of modesty, or whether he was just a master careerist who was exceptional at making his populace know his achievements exactly (+ a healthy dose of exaggeration), is up to my further interpretation. I’m cognizant of the fact that his speeches reflect the public Cicero (who had to sell his achievements to the people, i.e. his ultimate bosses); it’s possible that the private Cicero was a modest man. But this is proven wrong by the fact that in his private letters, Cicero regularly boasted as well.

I think this ultimately served as a vital character flaw. Cicero was a novus homo; I thus now engage in the unserious pastime of psychologically diagnosing historical figures, by determining Cicero to suffer from a deep-seated inferiority complex, where he needed to try extra hard to prove his worth to his contemporaries. This, of course, reminds me of Bryant. The spectacular failure of Joanne Kua ingrained in my consciousness how fatal vanity and an inferiority complex can be …

Finally, it was intriguing how one bad decision in a critical historical juncture compounded quickly to eventually get Catiline killed, and, worse, immortalized him as one of history’s great villains. If chance had tipped more towards Catiline’s favour in the elections, perhaps if there was just 1 less contender, then there would be no Catilinarian conspiracy, Catiline would be forgotten by history (for the better or worse), Cicero would have had 1 less extraordinary accomplishment, and world literature would have a taken a very different turn – indeed, I did not know that Virgil featured Catiline in the Aeneid, for the Catilinarian orations had already become classic literature in Virgil’s time, just a generation after Cicero.

[Dylan · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is little more obvious in these speeches than Cicero's ego, so when, finally, the reader has braved his way through hundreds of lines of self-congratulation--at times disguised as praise of the gods or those who assisted his exploits, at others unabashedly undisguised--and sentences not unlike the present one, the reader will be gratified by the irony of a claim in the middle of the fourth oration like, "Who is more meek than I (quis enim est me mitior)?"

The supplemental commentary is very helpful and never seems to under- or over-estimate its readers' common sense and ability. I found that there was little I had to look up in a reference grammar to make an accurate reading. The historical essays in the back are a good gloss on Republican history, with a little insight you might not glean from a web search. The binding (though glue) is excellent.

Ciceronian Latin is supposed to be the epitome of classical style. Perhaps, but I don't particularly care for it. (I look forward to reading his letters, which are supposed to be less pretentious and more confessional.) The course I'm in has us reading Sallust's account, Bellum Catilinae, whose style and genre is drastically and purposely very different; it seems an advisable plan for anyone if he wants a more balanced historical and stylistic view of this crisis in Republican Rome.

[Aaron Crofut · Rating 3 out of 5]

The man sure did like to talk. His declamations against Catiline and Antony (the Philippics) are certainly worth reading and I would recommend picking a couple of his court cases and speeches before the Senate and People. Cicero had his flaws, to be sure, but was an ardent supporter of the Roman Republic which he damn near saved, if it could have been saved at all. One wonders what would have happened had the Consuls not died at Mutina. It is hard to imagine the rump of Rome's leadership being able to contain Octavian within the legal system for long.

[Friki Girl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un clásico por excelencia de uno de los escritores más benerados de la Antigüedad. Cuatro discursos memorables de un excelente orador como era Cicerón que destapó la famosa "Conjuración de Catilina", era un maestro de las palabras y se nota perfectamente en este pequeño pero intenso libro. Todo aquel que sea amante de la Historia y de Roma podrá disfrutar de este fantástico clásico.

Puntuación: 5/5

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

If politicians nowadays had any of Cicero's rethoric skills, we would be lost I tell you! This kind of rhetoric I can only compare to the imperius curse. One is under a spell when Cicero speaks, what an orator! If only I lived in Rome in that time I would be sure to make my way in to the senate and hear him speak...

[Madcrit · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's realy boring to read and at several points quite confusing because you never get to know what Catilina is actually plotting. Only read it if you are already familiar with history. Don’t read it if you want to know more about ancient rome. In this case read Tacitus' Germania instead.

[benedetta · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book due to an assignment for school so I can’t say I picked it myself.
Cicero’s style is eloquent and his rhetoric is majestic. However, I feel like this book could sound redundant in a lot of ways (mainly because nowadays we can only read it while back in the days it was usually told out loud) He cited many historical figures and it was hard not to skip those parts.

[Maria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Da leggere insieme alla Congiura di Catilina di Sallustio, per avere le due "versioni" della medesima vicenda storica.

[Moureco · Rating 5 out of 5]

onde já vão as aulas de latim do 11.º ano do Seminário de Angra!

[Birch · Rating 4 out of 5]

OK.

[Albus Eugene Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore · Rating 4 out of 5]

O tempora, o mores!

Dall’interessante introduzione:

La confusa situazione morale che fa da sfondo all’aspra lotta politica documentata dalla Catilinarie è elequentemente riassunta da Catone in un passo del De coniuratione Catilinae di Sallustio: «È da tempo che abbiamo perduto il vero significato delle parole: poiché profondere i beni altrui lo chiamano liberalità; l’audacia nel male è detta forza d’animo, e per questo lo Stato è allo sfascio. (...) Noi possediamo fasto e avidità; le finanze pubbliche sono in rovina, ma siamo opulenti nella vita privata; esaltiamo le ricchezze ma aspiriamo all’ozio; nessuno fa più distinzione tra onesti e disonesti; le ricompense della virtù sono tutte concentrate nelle mani di intriganti. C’è da stupirsi? Poiché ciascuno di voi pensa solo al suo particolare, poiché in casa siete schiavi dei piaceri, qui del denaro o dei favori, è inevitabile che si dia l’assalto a uno Stato indifeso.» (52.11, 22-3)

Illuminante...

Non ho studiato il greco (mannaggia!), conosco e frequento pochissimo la letteratura greca e latina e mi sembra di essere ormi fuori tempo massimo. Amen.
Come diceva quel tale... “... Mi è più facile descrivere la sapienza contenuta nel palmo della mia mano, che narrare l'abisso della mia ignoranza."...

[Anderson Paz · Rating 4 out of 5]

O livro é composto por discursos de Cícero em 63a.C. contra o senador Catilina que atentara contra o Senado. Cícero acusa Catilina de conspiração contra Roma e consegue que ele seja preso até ser julgado. Catilina tramara com outros senadores derrubar a República e tomar o poder, tentando inclusive matar Cícero. Cícero pede que Catilina vá embora de Roma, para não ter que pedir sua expulsão. Cícero prefere a expulsão ao invés da execução de Catilina para não ser tido como tirano e fazer de Catilina mártir.
Catilina vai embora, mas seus aliados permanecem. Para Cícero, os inimigos devem sair ou se aquietar, ou serão expulsos. Cícero se dispõe a sofrer pela República. Os seguidores de Catilina são encontrados conspirando e são presos. Cartas e depoimentos comprovaram a conspiração. Acusados confessam. O Senado agradece a Cícero e prende os conspiradores para julgá-los. Cícero pede para ser lembrado. Duas opiniões no Senado: matar ou prender perpetuamente os conspiradores. Cícero, apesar de querer a pena de morte, posiciona-se em apoiar o que o Senado decidir.

[Roberto D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book 55 out of 200 books
"Catiline Orations" by Cicero

A collection of 4 speeches against his rival in the Roman Senate, Cicero criticizes, lashes out against, and ridicules senator Catiline, one of the said conspirators on overthrowing the Roman government in favor for a dictatorship.

MY THOUGHTS:
So I've read this book half a year ago and let me remark how polished this speeches are. The total number of this speeches are just around 80-160 pages but still are all important. If I remember correctly, the second and third speeches are for Catiline himself, the first and fourth are for the people. I was tempted to read these speeches because I was researching about the life of Thomas Jefferson at that time, so yes, I admire both Jefferson and Cicero for their oratory skills and other rhetoric.

[Harris Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

“For which things so great, Romans, I demand from you no reward of merit, no mark of honour, no monument of praise, otherwise than the lasting memory of this day.”

I did not realise this had the Latin interwoven. Very wordy at times but understandable given it’s a speech and he’s driving his point home - successfully. Well worth slugging through some of the muddier parts for the occasionally brilliant passage of rhetoric eons ahead of its time.

“The other understands that death was not designed by the immortal gods for the sake of punishment but is either a necessity of nature or a cessation of toils and miseries.”

[Ayanna Tafe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cicero's speech against Catiline is extremely long and didactic. This text offers a lot of new Latin vocabulary which I had never seen before. I only read part 1, so I haven't read the second speech. Nevertheless, Cicero's hatred and long elaborated explanations are so overdone/ didactic that they become humorous. Certain passages are harder than others. For example, those where the verb is located at the end of a long passage can be more difficult to translate. However, I would definitely recommend this text to other intermediary Latin students.