What do you think?
Rate this book
Cicero and his friends
Cicero and his friends. A study of Roman society in the time of Caesar (1897). This book, "Cicero and his friends," by Gaston Boissier, Adnah David Jones, is a replication of a book originally published before 1897. It has been restored by human beings, page by page, so that you may enjoy it in a form as close to the original as possible.
414 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1897
4 people are currently reading
54 people want to read
About the author
Gaston Boissier
123 books1 followerGaston Boissier, est un historien et philologue français.
Natif de Nîmes où abondent les vestiges de l'Antiquité romaine, il s'intéresse très tôt à l'épigraphie. Normalien, puis professeur de rhétorique à Angoulême et ensuite au lycée Charlemagne de Paris, il devient maître de conférences à l’École normale et professeur au Collège de France, où il est titulaire de la chaire de poésie latine de 1869 à 1885 et de la chaire d'histoire de la littérature latine de 1885 à 1906, et dont il est administrateur de 1892 à 1894. Il collabore à la Revue des deux Mondes où il publie de très nombreux travaux. En 1876, il est élu membre de Académie française, dont il devient le secrétaire perpétuel en 1895. En 1886, il est élu membre de Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Il était également membre de l'Académie royale danoise des sciences et des lettres.
Ses ouvrages d'érudition, dont Cicéron et ses amis, qui est traduit en anglais en 1897, ont connu en leur temps un large succès.
Il est inhumé au cimetière du Père-Lachaise (53e division).
Natif de Nîmes où abondent les vestiges de l'Antiquité romaine, il s'intéresse très tôt à l'épigraphie. Normalien, puis professeur de rhétorique à Angoulême et ensuite au lycée Charlemagne de Paris, il devient maître de conférences à l’École normale et professeur au Collège de France, où il est titulaire de la chaire de poésie latine de 1869 à 1885 et de la chaire d'histoire de la littérature latine de 1885 à 1906, et dont il est administrateur de 1892 à 1894. Il collabore à la Revue des deux Mondes où il publie de très nombreux travaux. En 1876, il est élu membre de Académie française, dont il devient le secrétaire perpétuel en 1895. En 1886, il est élu membre de Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Il était également membre de l'Académie royale danoise des sciences et des lettres.
Ses ouvrages d'érudition, dont Cicéron et ses amis, qui est traduit en anglais en 1897, ont connu en leur temps un large succès.
Il est inhumé au cimetière du Père-Lachaise (53e division).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 1, 2015
Last semester during my research of the late Roman republic, I found a lot of more recent literature that seemed to be ideologically committed to conflating good writing with the mere avoidance of formal grammatical errors, and seemed to depend on the mere accumulation of accurate facts punctuated by the occasional, not-too-bold assertion of an educated opinion for all its ethos. It was refreshing, therefore, to find Cicero and His Friends: a study of Roman Society in the Time of Caesar. (I include the subtitle, because otherwise it sounds like a morning news show.)
The obvious shortcoming of this work is a certain obsolescence. I do not know how far archaeology, paleography, and other sciences have come since he wrote over a hundred years ago, but I am almost certain that they have produced facts which must challenge some of his interpretations. But this obsolescence is natural, and does not affect the inherent virtues of his work: his insight, his ability to narrate a story from which an impression of its actors can fairly be abstracted, and his attention to clear writing.
The second limitation of this work is that it is a translation. Nevertheless, I believe the clarity and beauty of the original is well-preserved, and I would even venture to say that the English here is very French.
I do concede that after a while some of his habits can begin to grate. He tends to make apparently rash generalizations out of his historical observations. For instance, when speaking of the Republican conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar, he abruptly ceases his narration to interpose one of his proverbs: "Nothing is more violent than the anger of moderate men when they are driven to extremities." This would not bother so much, if it were not that every chapter he seems to be entering ten bids like this one for a place on everyone's Facebook wall. Perhaps it's a French thing.
I suppose, also, that his establishment in academia allowed him say things like, "The moderation of Caesar has been justly praised: it is not uncommon with men who possess unlimited authority, and the Romans justly said, that it is seldom a man is contented to write when he can proscribe," with nary an indication of his source. Maybe it is a Roman thing, and maybe he's a time traveler. [I searched and searched for such a saying: nothing so far, but I would love to have it found.]
Despite these defects, I recommend this book for a budding classicist who wants a taste of the tradition he is inheriting, and a vivid and scholarly picture of some of the most important Roman figures at the summit of its development. As an example of what can be gained: while I was reading Cicero in the fall I was impressed with a caricature whose primary characteristic was his arrogance. In reading Boissier I found a much more complete image of the man, who did not seem to have a primary characteristic, but which, if he had one, would be moderation. He treats all of his characters with such fairness, even if at times he can seem too forgiving. I almost thought he was going to absolve Octavius and beatify him, but he stopped short.
A good read, indeed.
The obvious shortcoming of this work is a certain obsolescence. I do not know how far archaeology, paleography, and other sciences have come since he wrote over a hundred years ago, but I am almost certain that they have produced facts which must challenge some of his interpretations. But this obsolescence is natural, and does not affect the inherent virtues of his work: his insight, his ability to narrate a story from which an impression of its actors can fairly be abstracted, and his attention to clear writing.
The second limitation of this work is that it is a translation. Nevertheless, I believe the clarity and beauty of the original is well-preserved, and I would even venture to say that the English here is very French.
I do concede that after a while some of his habits can begin to grate. He tends to make apparently rash generalizations out of his historical observations. For instance, when speaking of the Republican conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar, he abruptly ceases his narration to interpose one of his proverbs: "Nothing is more violent than the anger of moderate men when they are driven to extremities." This would not bother so much, if it were not that every chapter he seems to be entering ten bids like this one for a place on everyone's Facebook wall. Perhaps it's a French thing.
I suppose, also, that his establishment in academia allowed him say things like, "The moderation of Caesar has been justly praised: it is not uncommon with men who possess unlimited authority, and the Romans justly said, that it is seldom a man is contented to write when he can proscribe," with nary an indication of his source. Maybe it is a Roman thing, and maybe he's a time traveler. [I searched and searched for such a saying: nothing so far, but I would love to have it found.]
Despite these defects, I recommend this book for a budding classicist who wants a taste of the tradition he is inheriting, and a vivid and scholarly picture of some of the most important Roman figures at the summit of its development. As an example of what can be gained: while I was reading Cicero in the fall I was impressed with a caricature whose primary characteristic was his arrogance. In reading Boissier I found a much more complete image of the man, who did not seem to have a primary characteristic, but which, if he had one, would be moderation. He treats all of his characters with such fairness, even if at times he can seem too forgiving. I almost thought he was going to absolve Octavius and beatify him, but he stopped short.
A good read, indeed.
Displaying 1 of 1 review