Sir Peter Stothard bridges ancient history and modern politics through a unique journalistic lens honed over 50 years at The Times, TLS, and The Spectator. His work dissects power dynamics from Caesar’s Rome to contemporary Westminster, favoring primary source analysis and interdisciplinary research methods.
This 5,000-word examination of Cicero's forensic techniques draws direct parallels to modern political discourse, particularly the weaponization of legal language in contemporary populism. Stothard employs comparative textual analysis of Cicero's In Verrem speeches and 21st-century parliamentary debates, revealing how ancient strategies of character assassination persist in today's "post-truth" environment. His access to unpublished Oxford papyri adds new dimensions to understanding Cicero's influence on Western legal theatrics.
Through military campaign maps and economic data visualization, this piece deconstructs Hadrian's consolidation strategies as metaphors for modern nation-building. Stothard contrasts the empire's "soft power" cultural assimilation with its brutal suppression of dissent—a duality he links to contemporary debates about globalization. The article’s novel use of lead pollution studies to track imperial trade routes demonstrates his interdisciplinary approach to historical storytelling.
Blending memoir with Cleopatra scholarship, this experimental narrative uses the 2010 Arab Spring as a lens to examine ancient power transitions. Stothard’s ground-level reporting from Tahrir Square intersects with archival research into Ptolemaic bureaucracy, creating a multivalent portrait of revolution’s cyclical nature. The work’s non-linear structure, shifting between 48 BC and 2011 AD, has influenced contemporary historical journalism’s temporal experimentation.
Stothard’s TLS essays on lesser-known Stoic philosophers[4] and Spectator pieces rehabilitating figures like Crassus[1] reveal appetite for re-examinating "villains" of antiquity. Pitches should identify modern parallels—e.g., a proposal comparing Seneca’s exile to contemporary whistleblower protections, supported by newly translated Epictetus fragments.
His analysis of Roman siege engineering in Palatine[1] provides template for examining AI governance through historical lenses. Successful angles might explore Hadrian’s Wall as metaphor for cyber borders, or grain supply algorithms in imperial Rome versus modern blockchain systems.
The Cicero article’s use of unpublished manuscripts[6] demonstrates Stothard’s preference for original documents. Effective pitches might propose examining newly digitized Vatican scrolls or private correspondence from 19th-century classicists to reframe familiar historical narratives.
While open to modern parallels, his critique of "Gladiator" revisionism in a 2022 TLS column[8] shows disdain for forced contemporary analogies. Pitches must demonstrate nuanced understanding of historical context before drawing modern connections.
His synthesis of archaeological chemistry data in the Hadrian article[6] illustrates preferred integration of STEM fields. Competitive pitches might combine literary analysis with climate science (e.g., volcanic eruptions shaping Augustan poetry) or medical anthropology studies of ancient pandemics.