M. Porcius Cato

One of the arguments made to the Olympic Committee by the Chinese themselves was that the Games would have a positive effect on political reform in China. To now say, "keep politics and sports separate" would be disingenuous.

Isn't this special delegation viewed by many historians as an old wives' tale? Yes, it is a fair enough point to say Livy's early histories are by no means gospel, but this is not a premise for delegation as a complete falsehood. During this early period of her history Rome had had contact with the Greek world: it has been argued that during the time of Coriolanus - i.e. before the Twelve Tables - the Greek tyrant Hiero (I forget which one) sent grain to relieve a famine-stricken Rome. True enough--even if the special delegation were an old wives' tale, the Greeks might have influenced the Twelve Tables somehow. But do we really want to take credit from the Romans for the profound effect of Roman law on Western civilization because "the Greeks might have influenced the Twelve Tables somehow"? To me, that special pleading for the Greeks seems unfair to the Romans.

Isn't this special delegation viewed by many historians as an old wives' tale?

In 493, another L Junius Brutus was a tribune of the plebs (Dion. Hal.6.70.1-89.1; Plut. Cor. 7.1). Maybe the plebeian tyrannicide was actually descended from him? It's interesting that Atticus had another resolution to this.

Despite the fancy downlighting (what--no lens flare?), the script still isn't like that of Roman handwriting. Here is a benchmark of Roman epigraphy for 'Old Roman Cursive', taken from a 1st century business contract.

Thanks Nephele! It's a great episode in a wonderful series. In Cosmos, Carl Sagan communicates the grandeur of science better than anyone. Here's the snippet on Hypatia. Here's .

Good point. But why are you mentioning the exiles of 52 but not the exiles of 88? Since we're comparing Sulla to the triumvirate, you can't subtract only from one side! Right--the exclusion of Cicero's letters mitigates, but doesn't eliminate, the sampling bias for the first century: just because we don't know the names of all the men killed in the Gracchan violence doesn't necessarily mean the period was less bloody. That's probably a good idea. Why don't you give it shot and tell us what you find?

Hmm... wouldn't the correct Latin be Super Homo? That seems more fitting in either case.

Yes, from the earliest account the affair between Servillia and Caesar was in 63 BC a long time after Brutus birth. Plutarchus also mention that Brutus resemble the statue of Lucius Junius Brutus. Whether the affair dates to 63 or 59 doesn't matter much given that Brutus was born in 85ish. I say "85ish" because he was quaestor in 53, when he must have been about 30. Plus, Cicero says that Brutus was born 10 years after Hortensius made his first appearance in the courts, which Cicero places in 95. This ought to put 85 as a firm date for Brutus' birth except that Valleius Paterculus claims that Brutus died at age 37 in 42, which would put his birth at 79 or 78. In any case, Brutus was too old to be Caesar's kid (even if Voltaire did believe the story). BTW, I'm not sure that the affair between Servillia and Caesar can be definitively placed in 63. The source here is the incident in the trial of Rabirius et al, when Cato picked up a letter that Caesar was reading in the Senate. Reading it himself, Cato was disgusted and said "Take it you sod!" What disgusted Cato could have been anything and only Cato and Caesar know for sure what it was, but the story that circulated was that it was a letter from Servillia. Of course, it could have been--or it could have been a letter from some other lover, maybe from the king of Bithynia, maybe a filthy drawing of Cato, a self-portrait of Caesar in tights and a cape with an S on it, etc.

The Praetorian Guards seemed to think so when they found Claudius cleaning the inside of the drapes. They'd just finished murdering off the Imperial family--making the quivering Claudius emperor was a great way to cover their backsides.

Why would a random member of the Venereal family have any greater claim to the throne than a random praetorian or pleb?

Right. That's why the document from "Caesar" (even if an April Fool's gag) looks so modern.

Yes--it is to be dismissed as wild speculation.

While the implication is clearly there that Cato views Caesar's actions as a crime worthy of vengeance from the victims of Caesar's war, I think the latter part is more definitive... From Plutarch Life of Cato Minor ch. 51 "he (Cato) declared that it was not the sons of Germans or Celts whom they must fear, but Caesar himself" This is actually the point that I intended: if Caesar's army could kill so many Germans and Celts, it was powerful and thus a potential threat to Rome itself--even in the shade of Pompey's shield. Moreover, this potential threat became even more grave given Caesar's demonstrated indifference to prior alliances, to the laws of the republic (both as consul and as proconsul) and given his prior murder of envoys. Thus, in 49 BC, Brutus and everyone else could reasonably fear that Caesar was crossing the Rubicon as another Sulla, whereas Pompey (despite his own history as Sulla's 'teenage butcher') showed no inclinations in that direction.

Not quite Roman cursive, is it? From Vindolanda:

Other ancient sources include Livy (e.g., HERE), and the minor historians (Flor, Val Max, etc.).

Somewhat along the lines of Maty's argument, I'd say that the Romans' greatest lasting contribution was the spread of Hellenization. Far from being inevitable, the survival and evolution of Greek culture--including secular theatre, literature, philosophy, government, education and the visual arts--seems to have depended on the Romans. The only other possible conduit for Hellenization would have been the successors to Alexander, who were far more like Xerxes than Demosthenes. Moreover, looking beyond Europe, it was the Roman--and not the Greek--model of government (as well as the Roman spirit of republicanism) that inspired the American constitution. EDIT: In terms of technology, we also owe the Romans the coin-operated vending machine.

A rapacious general--who had shown no respect for the law, who had broken treaties with Roman allies, murdered envoys in cold blood, and had been bragging about butchering a million Gallic men, women, and children--just invaded Italy and was marching on Rome. You think it's surprising Brutus hadn't welcomed him with open arms? I think you need to check your premises. In any case, Brutus' father was M. Junius Brutus (tribune 83). But Brutus' father was only one family influence on Brutus. More remarkable was his descent on his father's side from Lucius Brutus--who had ejected the kings from Rome and killed his own sons when they attempted to restore the monarchy--and on his mother's side from Servilius Ahala, who had killed the aspiring tyrant Spurius Maelius. These relationships were clearly important to Brutus: when he served as one of the tresviri monetales in 54, he issued a coin with L. Brutus on side of the coin and Ahala on the other. According to Cicero, portrait busts of these two heroes of the republic could be found in his house, and Brutus had also commissioned Atticus to draw up a family tree to establish his precise relationships with the two men. Finally, Brutus was the nephew of M. Porcius Cato, whom Brutus admired ferociously and who had unmasked Caesar before anyone else. Thus, against a father he barely knew, Brutus' family tree was nearly bushy with the branches of republican heroes.

I'm not sure about the demographics of patricians, but Sulla enlarged the senate with an unprecedented number of new men.

Another year, another book about Caesar. Here's the description from the author's web site: Julius Caesar was one of the greatest heroes of human history-or one of its most pernicious villains, depending on who you believe. Many of the American Founding Fathers despised Caesar as the evil genius who overthrew their beloved Roman Republic. The medieval poet Dante assigned him a blessed afterlife among the most virtuous pagans while sentencing his two leading murderers, Brutus and Cassius, to the lowest levels of Hell. Shakespeare tried to have it both ways, praising both Caesar and the conspirators who slew him. Modern scholars have been equally divided concerning Caesar's legacy. Some have seen him as a paradigm of the just ruler, but in the wake of twentieth-century dictators and devastating wars, other historians have turned a cold eye on a man who caused the death of so many and established the rule of emperors over elected magistrates. In my biography, however, I strive not to praise Caesar overmuch or bury him among the tyrants of history. Caesar was a complex man of incredible courage, ambition, honor, and vanity, as well as one of the greatest generals the world has ever known. But he was also a masterful politician, priest, lawyer, and writer, who among his many lesser-known accomplishments gave us the calendar we still use today. Julius Caesar follows the Roman leader from his childhood in the slums of Rome to his military victories throughout the Roman world and murder on the Ides of March. We meet a host of characters who shaped his life, from his mother Aurelia to Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Cicero, and Cleopatra. Along the way I explore the life and times of the late Roman Republic, from the slave rebellion of Spartacus and the luxurious world of Ptolemaic Egypt to Roman gladiators and chariot races.

I don't think that Drusus' proposal regarding the Italians passed. According to Livy: Marcus Livius Drusus, a tribune of the plebs who wanted to reinforce the powers of the Senate, appealed to the allies and Italian nations and made them hope for the Roman citizenship; with their help, he carried by force laws on the distribution of land and grain, and also carried a law on jurisdiction to the effect that the juries would be made up from one half of senators and one half of knights. When he could not keep his promise to give citizenship to his allies, the angry Italians started to think about defection.

Depends on the who, what, where, when. Post AD 212 all were citizens. In the Republican period, likely not... as Ingsoc mentions, even the arrangement between Antonius and Cleopatra was an issue in the waning days of the Republic. What about children of Roman males and non-Roman females from the provinces and allies of Rome? Do you think that the child of a Roman citizen and a Sabine woman would not be a Roman citizen?

Great set of questions. Perhaps marriages between Roman and provincial families were more common?

Here are Cato the Elder's descendants:

Or Smith's library has a good entry on Cato the Elder HERE. Too bad you don't have a chance to do a report on Cato the Younger--he's much more interesting.