M. Porcius Cato

Curiosity is one thing, but the incessant attempt to rehabilitate Caligula shows all the moral clarity of a Carmela Soprano.

Those poor persecuted emperors! What with absolute power and everything, how could anyone expect them not to have "behavioral problems," like suborning spies, confiscating private property, forcing senators' wives into prostitution, having historians murdered, raping dinner guests, and torturing political opponents. I tell you, it wasn't their fault--their victims are to blame!

The efforts of Hugo Chavez to hide Venezuela's continuing slide to dictatorship has become truly absurdist. According to the BBC, Chavez has vowed to expel foreigners who even accuse him of dictatorship, remarking "How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" These comments came on the same weekend that Manuel Espino, president of Mexico's National Action Party, criticised Chavez at a pro-democracy conference in Caracas and characterized a plan by Mr Chavez to end term limits on Venezuela's presidency as a threat to democracy. I really wonder, is this pig-eyed Chavez so stupid that he has absolutely no sense of irony? I guess if you're president-for-life, you don't need a sense of irony.

I agree with Kosmo. Actions speak louder than words, and I don't see any evidence of moving toward Sharia. If this party were really pro-Sharia, they wouldn't be working so hard for inclusion in the EU.

Cato's depiction in films is notoriously unreliable (e.g., they almost invariably portray Cato as much older than Caesar, whereas Cato was in fact about 7 years younger than Caesar), but Cato was certainly a senator. The clearest primary evidence we have for his serving in the senate was the report of his contemporary Gaius Sallustius Crispus (aka, Sallust). In many ways, Sallust is an almost ideal source for those interested in Cato. The reason for this is that much of our source material on Cato comes through Plutarch, who relied very heavily on the favorable treatment of Cato that was provided by post-republican opponents of the principate and by followers of Cato's philosophy of Stoicism. Unlike Cato's post-republican admirers, Sallust had a chance to actually interact with Cato--and always on the other side of the political fence. For example, Sallust was a tribune in the year that Milo killed Sallust's hero Clodius, and--undoubtedly to Sallust's horror--the scrupulously honest Cato had been summoned to testify in Milo's defense. (Three days prior to Clodius' death, Cato and others had been told by Favonius that Clodius was bragging that he intended to kill Milo.) Later, Sallust served with Caesar at the battle of Thapsus, where the last forces of the republic had assembled with Cato to stand against Caesar, and after their defeat, Sallust had been made the governor of Africa, which had its capital at Utica, where Cato had commanded and where he had killed himself in protest of Caesar's victory. Thus, Sallust had a truly unique opportunity to view Cato from the outside. In spite of Sallust's career-long opposition to Cato and his cause, Sallust clearly respected Cato enormously. Sallust's portrayal of Cato in the Conspiracy of Catiline, probably written in 46 when Cato had killed himself, is a particularly vivid and sympathetic portrait of Cato and his ideals. In the same year, Caesar had also penned a pamphlet called the Anti-Cato (in response to two pamphlets written by Cicero and Cato's nephew Brutus), and Sallust later scolded his friend Caesar for the pamphlet. In two letters that we have from Sallust to Caesar (from Latin library), Sallust examined the three men most opposed to Caesar: Cato, Bibulus, and Domitius Ahenobarbus. Of these three, Sallust heaps much abuse on Bibulus and Ahenobarbus, but praises Cato's many virtues and scolds Caesar for his animosity to Cato. (Unfortunately, I can't find an English translation of Sallust's first letter on-line.) Thus, Sallust's reports give much credence to the generally favorable historical treatment given to Cato. I'd also quibble with the portrayal of Cato as the "voice of the conservatives." He was the voice of the constitution and of the republic, and in that capacity, he was as often opposed to the status quo as he was supportive of it. Cato was, for example, an inveterate opponent of the Sullan oligarchy, a proud supporter of tribunician rights and responsibilities, and a tireless critic of corruption--much of it committed by his nominal allies. Indeed, one of the most hurtful opponents that Cato faced was Cicero, who had defended Murena by turning the trial against him into a trial on Cato's devotion to Stoicism. In short, Cato was certainly attempting to conserve the republic from being toppled by the likes of Pompey and Caesar, but when the status quo was the rotten imperialist system that facilitated these types, Cato was more progressive than anyone.

Fair enough. But every candidate gets a little smack-down from the NYT--no one's immune.

The article mentions that Paul has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and is consistently non-interventionist, is "obsessed" with sound monetary policy, votes against farm subsidies (in a district that is heavily agricultural) and bringing home pork, and so forth. I think Paul's message is fairly clear from the article. As I like to sum up his message (with tongue in cheek): Make money, not war.

I agree. Fundamentally, we're all animals that survive and reproduce by maximizing the output of whatever advantages that we have.

I agree with you Moonlapse. Regarding the last bit of the article, though, Ron Paul really does attract a broad swath of non-conformists, and in my limited experience with his supporters, I've encountered both incredibly intelligent and earnest patriots as well as loony, conspiracy-theorist types (e.g., the 9/11 "truthers"). Ron Paul has a history of welcoming support from anyone, and in an article of this length, no responsible journalist could ignore the potential consequences of this fact.

Without any surviving records of what Lepidus and Brutus were thinking, it's impossible to know whether they were motivated by any long-term policies and ideological issues. Venturing a guess, however, I think it likely that they would have been. Sulla had failed to provide the best possible resolution to the Marian crises, and his constitution was reactionary. In the wake of Sulla's removal from the political scene, restoring power to the tribunate was undoubtedly wise, and the cause of restoring tribunician power provides a nice example of where "populare" politics and traditionalist politics were united. Thus, it's easy to see why a broad spectrum of Sullans--Lepidus, Brutus, Pompey, Crassus, and even Catulus--were eager for a constitution that was more balanced than Sulla's. Reform was needed; voters and candidates demanded it; voters and candidates supplied it. (In fact, cleaning up the Sullan mess was also a project on which Cato and Caesar cooperated and were jointly committed.) Against the backdrop of these constitutional issues, however, there are hints of a foreign policy issue that would have demanded revolution--the status of Gaul. Lepidus and Brutus, and later Caesar, seem to have been convinced that Gaul deserved wider political participation. Expansion of the franchise would have been political suicide--the urban plebs in Rome jealously guarded their civic privileges and had opposed expansion of these priviiliges ever since the Gracchi and Livius Drusus had proposed them. Viewed in this light, Lepidus' rebellion can be explained as a continuation of the Marsic War, whose cause held no clear electoral advantage in Rome but which had tremendous merit nevertheless. I'd note that this is exactly the sort of issue that an ideologue would fall in love with.

[Edit: for some reason, I've lost the ability to post competently. Ignore this message.]

Saturninus was no ordinary populare, was he?

Today's New York Times Magazine takes a long look at somewhat Catonian U.S. Presidential candidate, Ron Paul.

Given an interest in the late Roman republic, your best bet would be U Cal Berkeley, where you could work with Gruen. Gruen's students have been very successful in landing top academic jobs after finishing their graduate work, and of the top 10 leading scholars on the Roman republic, at least 3 are former students of Gruen.

It is fascinating. We touched on it briefly in this thread on the Sullans.

So what? Even if you're right and the Gauls were weaker in contrast to every neighbor they had in the 1st century BC, they were still no weaker than they had been in the 3rd century. If you want to make that argument--that the Gauls of the 4th century were stronger than the Gauls of the 1st century--you absolutely cannot bring in evidence of how well Gaul did against her adversaries. The strength of her adversaries was obviously not fixed over time and thus does not provide a standard of measurement. If the armies of Brennus were stronger than the armies of Vercingetorix, the evidence should be apparent in their respective armies alone. Did Brennus raise a greater host than Vercingetorix? Or have better weapons than V-? Or better supply trains than V-? Or better tactics than V-? Or more money ("the sinews of war") than V-? Healthier troops than V-? Any of this would be evidence for your thesis, but I don't think you'll be able to provide it because your thesis is wrong, and the evidence doesn't exist.

Some similarities between the Roman and Carthaginian constitutions--an assembly of elders (a 'senate' or house of nobles) and an executive body (a king, consul, wanax, whatever)--are nearly universal features of governments. The "king and elder council" model could be found among Celts, the Roman monarchy and principate, the Spartans, American natives, and so forth. No mutual influence is needed to explain these similarities. Other similarities are more distinctive to Rome and Carthage, especially the fact that the Senate brought bills before the people. This democratic element of the constitution may have influenced Rome, but it seems more likely to me that Rome's democratic assemblies originated in Greek practice and the same Greek practice influenced the Carthaginians. One clue that this is the case is that the Punic assembly was incompletely integrated into government, with plebiscites only being taken in times of deadlock in the higher bodies.

Crucial information about the constitution of Carthage was provided by Aristotle, whose students were busy studying the constitutions of all the major city-states in the ancient world. From: The Politics of Aristotle, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Colonial Press, 1900), pp. 49-51: The Carthaginians are also considered to have an excellent form of government, which differs from that of any other state in several respects, though it is in some very like the Spartan. Indeed, all three states---the Spartan, the Cretan, and the Carthaginian---nearly resemble one another, and are very different from any others. Many of the Carthaginian institutions are excellent. The superiority of their constitution is proved by the fact that the common people remain loyal to the constitution. The Carthaginians have never had any rebellion worth speaking of, and have never been under the rule of a tyrant. Among the points in which the Carthaginian constitution resembles the Spartan are the following: The common tables of the clubs answer to the Spartan phiditia, and their magistracy of the Hundred-Four to the Ephors; but, whereas the Ephors are any chance persons, the magistrates of the Carthaginians are elected according to merit---this is an improvement. They have also their kings and their Gerousia, or council of elders, who correspond to the kings and elders of Sparta. Their kings, unlike the Spartan, are not always of the same family, nor that an ordinary one, but if there is some distinguished family they are selected out of it and not appointed by seniority---this is far better. Such officers have great power, and therefore, if they are persons of little worth, do a great deal of harm, and they have already done harm at Sparta. Most of the defects or deviations from the perfect state, for which the Carthaginian constitution would be censured, apply equally to all the forms of government which we have mentioned. But of the deflections from aristocracy and constitutional government, some incline more to democracy and some to oligarchy. The kings and elders, if unanimous, may determine whether they will or will not bring a matter before the people, but when they are not unanimous, the people decide on such matters as well. And whatever the kings and elders bring before the people is not only heard but also determined by them, and any one who likes may oppose it; now this is not permitted in Sparta and Crete. That the magistrates of five who have under them many important matters should be co-opted, that they should choose the supreme council of One Hundred, and should hold office longer than other magistrates (for they are virtually rulers both before and after they hold office)---these are oligarchical features; their being without salary and not elected by lot, and any similar points, such as the practice of having all suits tried by the magistrates, and not some by one class of judges or jurors and some by another, as at Sparta, are characteristic of aristocracy. The Carthaginian constitution deviates from aristocracy and inclines to oligarchy, chiefly on a point where popular opinion is on their side. For men in general think that magistrates should be chosen not only for their merit, but for their wealth: a man, they say, who is poor cannot rule well---he has not the leisure. If, then, election of magistrates for their wealth be characteristic of oligarchy, and election for merit of aristocracy, there will be a third form under which the constitution of Carthage is comprehended; for the Carthaginians choose their magistrates, and particularly the highest of them---their kings and generals---with an eye both to merit and to wealth. But we must acknowledge that, in thus deviating from aristocracy, the legislator has committed an error. Nothing is more absolutely necessary than to provide that the highest class, not only when in office, but when out of office, should have leisure and not disgrace themselves in any way; and to this his attention should be first directed. Even if you must have regard to wealth, in order to secure leisure, yet it is surely a bad thing that the greatest offices, such as those of kings and generals, should be bought. The law which allows this abuse makes wealth of more account than virtue, and the whole state becomes avaricious. For, whenever the chiefs of the state deem anything honorable, the other citizens are sure to follow their example; and, where virtue has not the first place, their aristocracy cannot be firmly established. Those who have been at the expense of purchasing their places will be in the habit of repaying themselves; and it is absurd to suppose that a poor and honest man will be wanting to make gains, and that a lower stamp of man who has incurred a great expense will not. Wherefore they should rule who are able to rule best. And even if the legislator does not care to protect the good from poverty, he should at any rate secure leisure for them when in office. It would seem also to be a bad principle that the same person should hold many offices, which is a favorite practice among the Carthaginians, for one business is better done by one man. The government of the Carthaginians is oligarchical, but they successfully escape the evils of oligarchy by enriching one portion of the people after another by sending them to their colonies. This is their panacea and the means by which they give stability to the state. Accident favors them, but the legislator should be able to provide against revolution without trusting to accidents. As things are, if any misfortune occurred, and the bulk of the subjects revolted, there would be no way of restoring peace by legal methods.

Unanswerable.

OK, you've gone from "there are zero qualitative differences" to "there are some qualitative differences, but overall the difference is merely one of degree." I still don't agree with you, but your new claim is too vague to prove wrong. In my opinion, if we consider the "overall" differences--climbing trees versus traveling to the moon, picking nits versus nearly wiping out polio, using a stick to get termites versus building robots and supercomputers--these are so vast that it's wrong to say that there are "merely" difference in degree: when we talk about cognition and behavior, there are not only differences in kind, there are also VAST differences in degree. And, really, what is the point of denying this?

Thanks for the comments. You'd think saving a BILLION lives from starvation would be worth a little recognition, yet when you think "world hunger", whose name pops up in your mind first? In any case, there's another nice interview with Borlaug over at reason.com. The basic biology research underlying Borlaug's work was done by Borlaug and his mentor Elvin Stakman at the University of Minnesota (non-MN resident tuition, $21k/year). His work in Mexico was funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations.

Aha! Just as I thought. Aside from there being more women in the unexposed group, the exposed group was at no higher risk of premature mortality than anyone else. No need for the mold theory, or the curse theory, or whatever nefarious vector you'd like to imagine--if the exposed group didn't die early, there's nothing to be explained.

Were there more women in the unexposed group than the exposed group? I'm guessing that the nominal difference b/w groups is attributable to the fact that the women (who typically live longer) who were joining the expedition were less likely to be exposed to the tomb interior.

I don't think that would help. One of the reasons for not being the right thing to do is that it would probably only rise the price unscrupulous collectors would have to pay, making the trade even more lucrative. Exactly right.

I think it's only a matter of time. It's a terrible idea nonetheless. Of all the ways to protect ancient sites, this is the clumsiest and least effective.