M. Porcius Cato

inappropriate? sure. But pederasty? give me a break.

Maybe. I can only think of one flamen Dialis, however, who ever rose as high as the consulship (can anyone name him?). The office is not exactly a normal part of the cursus honorum. If Caesar really had hopes for the office, he must not have considered a military career to be a very promising one.

Well, taking Colleen as an inspiration for new hypotheses, was there any precedent for a mother saving anyone from the prescriptions? On the face of it, the idea strikes me as absurd--why would Sulla listen to Aurelia?

Good one.

Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum! (Lucretius) If Caesar in fact did not serve in this priesthood, as Tacitus and Dio imply, is there any remaining evidence that the college of pontiffs interceded on Caesar's behalf?

What are you talking about? Carthage was IN Africa.

Given the restrictions of the office--not being able to take an oath, not being allowed to spend more than three nights away from the city, nor being allowed to gaze upon a dead body, nor mount a horse, nor even gaze upon an army arrayed for war--it would have been more rational to choose for the office anyone UNFIT for a military career. As far as I can tell, a coward and a liar would have been the ideal candidate for the flamen Dialis because then the reprobate would be kept out of honorable positions like the military tribuneship. In any case, the sources contradict each other on whether Caesar was ever inaugurated into the flamenate. Tacitus and Dio say that Merula was the last flamen dialis before Augustus. Velleius says Caesar was appointed by Marius and Cinna (presumably between the death of Merula in 87 and the death of Marius in Jan 86). Suetonius says only that Caesar was intended for the office. Certainly, Caesar's divorce from the plebian Cossutia and hasty marriage to Cornelia, the patrician daughter of Cinna, makes sense in this light, because the flamen Dialis had to married to a patrician wife who could serve as flaminica. Moreover, Caesar (as usual) did not meet the requirements of the office. For one, the flamen Dialis had to be the son of parents married by confarreatio, and Caesar's mother Aurelia was a plebeian. Normally, Caesar skirted the requirements of office by hiding behind the petticoats of his patrons, but in this case, Cinna and Marius were of absolutely no use: The flamen Dialis was chosen by pontifex maximus, who in 87 was the incorruptible Q. Mucius Scaevola. Cinna's henchmen made an attempt on Scaevola's life at Marius' funeral, but to Caesar's disappointment, Scaevola survived. Later, Scaevola was murdered by the younger Marius on the eve of Sulla's march to Rome, but Sulla had his own general Metellus Pius put in the office to replace Scaevola, so again, there would have been no chance for Caesar to serve in the position. Thus, although Suetonius and Velleius both claim that Sulla deprived Caesar of his priesthood, the most logical interpretation is that Sulla simply prevented Caesar from attaining a priesthood that he had hoped to attain. As is typical with Caesar, he saw no difference between his hopes and his rights, but we needn't succumb to the same megalomania. For more on this matter, I'd recommend Lily Ross Taylor's 1941 article in Classical Philology.

I agree that we shouldn't let political correctness stand in the way of historical correctness, but when the same view is shown to be historically incorrect again and again, it makes you wonder if the attraction to the theory isn't based on some extrinsic desire. Fine, trace populations over time and look at whether these populations change the cultures to which they migrate. Look at the Germans as one example. The Germanic migrations of the late empire often wrought devastation and a massive decline in material comforts. This decline largely occurred because these migrations and settlements were not peaceful: they disrupted trade networks, devastated demand for specialized industries (e.g., pottery, tile roofs, etc), and in their wake lowered productivity to levels that had not been seen in the Roman world for nearly 1000 years. Notice that in this case, racial orgins tells us almost nothing--other groups with different racial origins (e.g., the Huns) had identical effects. Thus, the historically interesting aspect of the Germanic migrations had very little to do with the German 'stock' and very much to do with WHAT THEY DID when they migrated.

A tentative one!

I completely disagree. For one, people vastly over-estimate their own intelligence and also under-estimate the intelligence of those who are more so. Further, the interesting diagnostic data (for example, in distinguishing a mere dyslexic from a kid who's not smart) that comes from IQ tests doesn't come from the total score but the relation among the subcomponents. I doubt common sense (if there is such a thing) has the precision necessary to identify, store, compare, and extrapolate the information needed to make these diagnoses. A number of kids are quite smart, but they have a couple of small problems that are magnified out of proportion to reality by insensitive teachers relying on "common sense". I hasten to add, however, that (as Andrew pointed out) any measure (however valid) can be misapplied. I would also add that IQ tests have a long history, and some of the early ones weren't very reliable. In any case, I opened a can of off-topic worms. Perhaps we can agree that racism pre-dates IQ tests and that if IQ tests were abolished, racism would remain?

Well, I opened a can of off-topic worms. Perhaps we can agree that racism pre-dates IQ tests and that if IQ tests were abolished, racism would remain?

Everitt's Cicero was generally excellent. I should add that I'm not a huge fan of biography, as I think there is an unavoidable tendency to lionize or to demonize when it's simply not necessary. But I still loved Cicero. One of my favorite scenes from the book concerns the last straw in Clodius' relationship with Cicero (in the chapter "Pretty-Boy's Revenge). Reminds me of Catullus 56 (which also alludes to the gossip about Clodia, who was Catullus' Lesbia).

There's nothing idiotic about testing IQ. IQ tests allow one to diagnose developmental disorders and mental retardation, make predictions about who needs additional instruction in the schools, and evaluate other testing instruments for their discriminative power. If IQ tests did not exist, it would be necessary to invent them. Gould's radical egalitarianism has done more harm to scientific progress than any benefits it provided in fighting racism. As this whole thread make clear, even in the absence of IQ tests, racism would remain and would find new rationalizations to invent.

Rosenstein's argument is that failed commanders weren't invariably punished at the polls because the people had the belief that if the gods were against you, nothing you could do would bring you victory. Of course, since the gods were generally for Rome, the people believed, they would ultimately prevail.

What I love about Rosenstein's books are the appendices, which are typically gold mines. This book is no different. Appendix I lists all 96 magistrates, how they were defeated (and the source material), and what offices they held next. Glancing at the list I didn't see any suicides, but there was the occasional exile (which plenty of Romans suffered for much less than military defeat). Take a look. It's clear that magistrates weren't simply give carte blanche to mess up. Some DID suffer for losing. But very many were cleared of any wrong-doing. My favorite example might be Postumius Albinus, whose troops were forced to walk beneath the yoke at the Caudine Forks. Postumius himself suggested that the senate hand him and his colleague over to the Samnites in an attempt to abrogate the treaty that they had been forced to accept; the Samnites refused them, and though Albinus did not attain further office (having already been consul), he did enjoy great fame thereafter.

Personal honor and political authority drew the aristocrats of the Republic to compete intensely at outdoing one another in service to the res publica. Thus, it seems reasonable to expect that Roman commanders who lost battles would suffer at the polls. But did they? Not according to Imperatores Victi, by Nathan Rosenstein: Much more of this remarkable book is freely available from the University of California Press website.

Again, if Caesar were born in 102, the anecdote would still make sense. Caesar would be 34 and thus have no chance to catch up to Alexander. If Caesar were 32, he'd still have a little time (though even with Caesar's alacritas it would be a stretch).

At the risk of being completely ridiculous, let me follow up about the aedileship. I got my minimum age from the lex Vibia annalis (reported here). However, according to the Smith dictionary: If the age were 36 AND if Caesar were born in 100, Caesar was too young (34) in July 66. Unfortunately, the Smith dictionary isn't clear about whether the age "collected from various passages of Roman writers" corresponds to the age requirement after Sulla or not. On the other hand, if the age were 36 AND if Caesar were born in 102, he would have just turned 36, and thus be fine. So, we needn't assume that Sulla lowered the ages of everything by two years to save the legality of Caesar's aedileship if we instead assume that Caesar was born in 102. Well, aedlies don't make much policy, but you're right that Catulus' remark wasn't about Caesar's age. Catulus was fuming that Caesar had placed gilded statues of Marius in the forum, which drew a surprsing and worrisome number of Marian veterans together. On the legality of Caesar's praetorship: But look at how much we don't know about Caesar's praetorship! For example, what was the court where he was praetor??? Presumably if Caesar DID anything as praetor, they would have to mention something that would allow us to figure out which court he served on. Absolutely. Well, that's one reason I like my story about the connection between Crassus and Caesar going back to Caesar's aedileship. It may be that the opposition to Pompey already knew of this connection (Cicero certainly did), and they counted on Caesar playing Crassus against Pompey to attain Caesar's own ends and to thereby hamstring Pompey on occasion. If so, that gambit backfired extraordinarily, but then that's the kind of Ciceronian screw-up that was par for the course. Yes, but if the idea weren't to draw Caesar from Pompey but to use Caesar's ambition (and alliance with Crassus) to weaken Pompey, they actually succeeded in their ambition (and to their downfall!). Or that the age was really 36 and not 37 and that Caesar was born in 102. An oversight about the law?? Not Cicero! He was the consummate stickler for details when it came to the law. I think the more reasonable hypothesis is that Plutarch is just wrong about Caesar's age. The Varronian calendar adopted by Caesar created all sorts of problems in dating, but they all concerned the dates of events that occurred in the 4th century, so I don't think we can blame Caesar's calendar for Plutarch's confusion. That is, since no intercalary magistracies were invented to occur between 102 and the time of Plutarch, there is no problem from this source. I don't know why, but I've found this simply fascinating. Maybe I'm just ensorcelled by even the whiff of a new charge to level against that darling of Venus... Right. No one doubts that he was old enough for the quaestorship. Yes, I agree. I was advancing the theory that it was collusion with Crassus, which is attested to by many sources (see above). Well, that's interesting. It fits with my theory that the senate had reached some compromise with Caesar's patrons. Right.

Funny. Thirty years ago, white trash hated snooty/elitist/country-club Republicans; now, it's the Democrats who are viewed as snooty and elitist. How quickly stereotypes can change!

Are you sure Sulla overturned the entire lex Vibia annalis? That's an understatement! Let's review Caesar's career to see where it does and doesn't jibe with the law. In 69/68, Caesar was elected quaestor (under Sulla, min. age = 30 for plebs, 28 for patricians). If patrician Caesar were born in 100, he would have been 31/32 when elected. So, he's fine here, and actually a bit of a late bloomer. In 66, Caesar and Bibulus were elected as aediles (min. age = 37) by the comitia tributa. If Caesar were born in 100, he'd be only 34, and even if Caesar were born in 102, he'd still be too young. How the heck did that happen??? Even if we grant that he would not take office until Jan 65, he'd again be too young--and even with the earlier birth date. All I can guess is that Crassus intervened somehow. According to numerous sources (Dio, Suetonius, Cicero, Geminus, and Curio), Caesar was already in a conspiracy with Crassus to profit from a coup d'etat led by the deposed consuls of that year (Sulla and Paetus), so it's possible that Crassus was able to weasel Caesar in. The senate did appear to take notice. In that year, Catulus remarked, "No longer with mines, but with battering-rams and catapults and ballists is Caesar grasping the government." In 63, Caesar was elected (for life) as pontifex maximus by the comitia tributa. I don't think there was an age requirement for this office, so again I think Caesar is kosher here. In 62, Caesar was elected praetor (min. age = 40, lex Vibia) by the comitia centuriata. If Caesar were born in 100, he would not have been 40 until 60. So, his election would have been illegal by the lex Vibia. Perhaps, Sulla also allowed patricians to take the office at 38? Otherwise, all I can guess is that this illegality was accomplished somehow by Pompey, which would explain two favors Caesar performed for Pompey. First, Caesar's first act as praetor was to propose that Catulus be removed as the Capitoline curator in favor of Pompey, whose name would then appear on the new temple of the Capitoline Father of Light (Dio, 37, 44). Second, Caesar supported a bill put forward by Pompey's creature Caecilius Metellus, which would have recalled Pompey to deal with Catiline. It's not clear that either of these overtures turned out well for Caesar. The more dangerous measure proposed by Metellus (which could have turned Pompey into a Sulla) was blocked by a young Cato, at some risk to his own life (Plut., Cato Min, 27). Caesar also appears to have withdrawn his bill to humiliate Catulus. Finally, the senate passed a resolution forbidding Caesar and Metellus from exercising their magistracies for the time being. Again, this resolution might have been passed more smoothly if we accept the assumption that Caesar was too young to legally hold the post of praetor. In 60, Caesar was elected consul (min. age = 43, lex Vibia) by the comitia centuriata. Again, Caesar would have been too young. His election, of course, was opposed on legal grounds (by Cato, whom Caesar must have really hated by now!), but only that Caesar had to enter the city as a private citizen to stand for election. According to Dio, the triumviral pact preceded this election, which would make sense if we assume that Caesar managed to hold nearly all his offices through the intervention of Crassus and Pompey anyway. So, a couple of points emerge. First, whether Caesar were born in 100 or 102, there are still some illegal elections to explain. Second, Caesar had powerful patrons that could have helped him all along, and this patronage is very much in keeping with the triumvirate that eventually followed. Third, although Caesar was opposed vigorously as early as he held his aedileship, it's not clear that he was ever opposed on grounds of his age. Of course, a vacuum of evidence is not evidence of a vacuum, so it's possible that he WAS opposed on grounds of his age and that some compromise with his patrons prevailed. If this interpretation is correct, the road to triumvirate was paved with compromise.

The lex Vibia annalis (180) set down that one had to be 43 to hold the consulship. Perhaps one had to be at least 42 to establish one's candidacy?

Good points, guys. The list is padded--with synonyms AND antonyms!

Thanks for the links Virgil. Here's a relevant quote from the interview: This helps to clarify Gallinsky's perspective, but not to clarify why the list is so padded with synonyms.

Any idea where Plutarch or Suetonius got their information on Caesar's birthday? Did they deduce his birthdate from his age at assassination, or was his birth reported in some source as occurring during the consulships of so-and-so and they depended on a list of consuls to determine the year of birth?