M. Porcius Cato

In a sense, all government action takes place with an implied threat of force, so one can always make that case for Rome's expansions. The case of Cyprus illustrates this point just fine. Here are the salient facts: According to Tenney Frank in Roman Imperialism: The two Ptolemies, Philometor and Euergetes, nicknamed Physcon, could not agree as co-rulers, and in 164 Physcon, the younger brother, drove the elder out. When the latter appealed to Rome, the senate sent him back with arbitrators, who arranged that Philometor should have Egypt and Cyprus, while Physcon should rule over Cyrene. This seemed to be satisfactory to all parties at the time, but presently Physcon asked the senate for a more even division, in fact, for the addition of Cyprus to his allotment. The senate, seeing the advantage that would accrue to Rome if Egypt were weakened, treacherously suppressed the decision of the envoys and voted in favor of Physcon

Given my thesis, that's a great question! I'll see what Astin has to say.

Rome's peaceful expansion is an interesting topic. Is there a comprehensive list of territories that Rome acquired without invading?

If it's true that there are periods of Greek history as exciting as any Roman period, then it's also true that there's a tremendous opportunity for someone to write a fantastic new book or article. This whole discussion also reminded me of a period in Greek history that I would put next to the late Roman republic in terms of excitement and historical importance--the life and times of Socrates, culminating in his trial and death.

Conflict with the patricians is only a narrow aspect of the broader movement that finally made it normal for plebs to participate fully and equally in Roman government. First, let's recall that the plebeian/patrician distinction was a hereditary distinction, not an economic one. Somewhat like caste, this arbitrary distinction was elaborated and justified on many grounds, including religious ones, and early in Roman history plebs were not held fit to hold religious office and were not even allowed to marry patricians. Moreover, before, during, and after the substantive end of the conflict of the orders, patricians continued to assert their collective dominance over the priesthood and to foster the idea that they were somehow above the ordinary laws that existed for plebs. Indeed, over the broad sweep of Roman history, the most stunning acts of illegal behavior were committed disproportionately by those of patrician houses, such as the Cornelii (Sulla), the Claudii (Clodius), the Julii (Caesar) and so forth. (Indeed, inspect the names of the nobiles who supported Caesar in 49 and those who opposed him, and you'll find more patricians in Caesar's camp than the reverse.) Second, as in caste systems, the conflict is not primarily between groups but between the caste mythology and the individual. Thus, one can have patricians who wholeheartedly support plebeian participation and plebeians who demand that their caste-mates "know their place". Thus, it is sometimes necessary for an opponent of patrician caste mythology both to cooperate with patricians and to oppose fellow plebeians. Given this framework, it is possible to postulate independent causes for each of Cato's plebeian-aligned actions, but it strains credulity to do so. First, it isn't parsimonious. Second, it implies a massive coincidence among behaviors. Third, it fails to provide a coherent framework for understanding Cato at all. Fourth, the independent causes that are proposed are weak on their own merits. For example: .The lex Porcii (from M Porcius Cato, not M Portius Cato) were designed to protect citizens (overwhelmingly plebeian) from the arbitrary actions of magistrates (who were disproportionately patrician). As in any civil rights movement, opposition to group superiority and support for equality before the law can be asserted merely by affirming individual rights. Thus, it should not be surprising that laws promulgated to benefit plebeians need not mention them specifically. As far as we can tell, Cato was far richer than his wife and her family, so this explanation completely breaks down. Even if assume the opposite, however, the general desirability of marrying rich families, still leaves open so many possibilities that one must still explain why--of all the rich families to marry into--one should choose the Licinian instead of more logical choices, like that of a Sabine family? This explanation fails for the same reason as the last--it provides a general principle that is compatible with but does not generate the particular. Why--of all the building projects that Cato could have financed (temples, aqueducts, roads, etc)--did Cato choose a novelty like an official residence for the tribunes? My heavens! The symbolism of Porcia Basilica was enormous! Especially coming from a plebeian, a New Man, the husband of Licinia, the sponsor of the Lex Porcia, and the inveterate opponent of the Cornelii! Coincidence?? I think not.

Certainly there weren't political parties in the modern sense, but there were also conflicting opinions regarding policy, and at least short-term alliances arose to enact the policies.

It's only mentioned once, so it's impossible to say. There is some similarity, but Cato the Elder was still far more of a traditionalist than the Gracchi, whose proposed reforms were a mixed bag at best and destabilizing at worst.

And what do you have as supporting evidence for this claim? What evidence supports another explanation for Cato's Lex Porcii? Or his marriages to the great plebeian house of Licinia? Or his buiilding of the tribune house, the Basilica Porcia? Or his opposition to patrician families? Or his professed admiration for the plebeian hero M. Curius Dentatus? It's one thing to show that Cato (when he was not yet 20) was supported by the Valerian clan, but there's still the matter of his next 60 years to explain! By your reasoning, Marius wouldn't count as a champion of the plebs either since he also had the support of a patrician family.

BTW, this thread belongs in the Res Publica subforum.

I'm happy to discuss the great-grandfather of my namesake (Cato the Younger)! Like you, I don't think that Cato the Elder's life is worthy of wholesale emulation. His recommended treatment of old slaves, his anti-philhellenism, and his support of the Oppian laws reflect an adherence to agrarian values that is out of place for a rich, cosmopolitan city like Rome. Like his Sabine countrymen, Cato was hard-headed, pragmatic, and authoritarian. Cato the Elder, by the way, was NOT a Stoic. Stoicism was a Greek school of philosophy that was at odds with many of Cato's attitudes. Stoics delighted in paradoxa; Cato the Elder ridiculed them. Stoics believed in mildness and justice to slaves, typically freeing them on their deaths; Cato the Elder regarded them as living tools, bereft of any rightful claims on the conduct of free men. Stoicism was one of the very first cosmopolitan philosophies, holding that the citizen/slave and rational/irrational contrast transcended borders and created an international community of peers; Cato sincerely believed in Roman maiestas (literally, betterness). Cato the Elder put these attitudes into action: when a conference of philosophers from Greece actually did come to Rome, Cato supported their expulsion back to Greece. Did Cato the Elder have a vision? I think he certainly did. First, Cato the Elder believed passionately in plebeian rights and in the importance of the tribunate. He was, after all, not only a pleb, but a New Man. This led Cato to finance (at his own expense) the Porcia Basilica, which was the first official building erected for the tribunes and was placed immediately next to the senate house. His laws, too, were promulgated in this spirit. His lex Porcia, for example, made it crime for a magistrate to scourge a citizen without allowing the citizen to appeal first for intervention. His fellow Porcii, P. Porcius Laeca and L. Porcius Licinus, extended the same right of citizens to appeal all capital offenses and to protect them from summary execution while in military service. This was far-sighted legislation because they dealt with some of the serious grievances that plebs had at the hands of their haughty patrician country-men, who always believed in their innate superiority. Finally, Cato did everything he could to align himself with the Licinia, who were the original champions of plebeian rights. Second, Cato the Elder believed in protecting the provinces from rapacious Roman magistrates. This was most evident in his own proconsulship, but it was also the cause of his conflicts with the Scipiones, who seemed to treat the Greek east as their own ATM. (This conflict with the patrician Cornelii probably attracted Cato on many levels.) Again, protecting the provinces and Roman allies from extortion and abuse was as far-sighted as his attempts to integrate plebs into the ruling class. As future decades would show, the abuse of the provinces and allies led to the rise of political-generals like Pompey and Caesar, who could use their conquest abroad to destabilize the republic at home. Third, Cato the Elder had a unique cultural vision for Rome. Unlike his predecessors, he wrote his histories and treatises in Latin rather than Greek. He sought to create a unique educational program for Romans, based on Roman values. He applied this system not only to the education of his own sons, but he expanded it to create an experimental school for the children of others. In truth, some of his anti-philhellenism was a bit of a pose: the fact is that in decrying them, he could quote the Greeks even better than those who upheld Greek culture. In sum, though I personally admire Cato the Younger more than his great-grandfather, I think the old man really was the archetypal Roman of the old republic.

80,000 is for a top university--not the norm by any stretch of the imagination. Even still, I'm happy to concede that all colleges are expensive, with one year in school being about the price of a new automobile (and yes--some schools are Hummers, some are Fiats). But is this price too high? I don't think so. A college education may cost as much as 4 cars, but it's VASTLY more valuable than 4 cars. Looking only at the cost makes no sense--you have to look at the cost relative to the value compared to the cost/benefit ratio of other goods. From a rational perspective, college is the most valuable purchase most people make in their entire lives. In my view, tuition should be RAISED very considerably so that the money can be invested to expand access to more top students from around the world. With respect to Viggen's look at the top 10 Nobel schools--the six American universities produced 412 Nobel laureates, the four European universities produced 240. Thus, my original claim that American universities produce more Nobel laureates than any other nation remains valid. For those who don't see the relevance here, the issue is whether the higher cost of universities in the US vs Europe is justified. My claim is that the opportunity to work in a Nobel-laureate lab is utterly priceless, and even more of a bargain given the relatively small price difference for studying abroad at tax-supported universities. Of course, the real proof that American universities are worth the cost is that there is absolutely no shortage of applicants. Harvard turns away so many applicants that if they wanted to declare 2008 the Year of the Tuba Player, they could fill all the spots with nothing but tuba players and still have a freshman class with perfect SATs!

Well, I, for one, am laughing. Not about Bibulus, but over the fact that you apparently read Harry Potter. Proudly I read Harry Potter! It's fun, and they're better written than any of the drivel by 'literary fiction' writers like Joyce Carol Oates (let alone trashy 'adult' fiction like 'The Thorn Birds').

That's an intriguing little tidbit there MPC. May I ask where I could access that info? Grrr...I just finished a nice long reply with lots of references and <poof> it vanished. From memory, Peter Green in the The Daily Mail reported some statistics from sources in Pompeii that led to a figure of 16.66%. Another scholarly article I found on JSTOR repeated the 1 in 10 figure. Another one pointed out that the figure depends on whether the contests were being held in Rome, where they could afford to have more professional gladiators killed. Another important statistic derived from Roman price-controls on gladiators: a top-class gladiator cost 15,000 sesterces, which was about 15x the average Roman wage. Clearly, these guys weren't someone you wanted to slaughter wholesale. Also, I looked up statistics on death in childbirth (see Wikipedia on 'maternal mortality,' which death of a mother within 42 days of giving birth). In Africa today, it's 1 in 16. Also, Jo Ann Shelton reports a surprising number of deaths from childbirth in the family of Pliny, who had access to the best health care in the ancient world. Given this, it's probably a fair guess that a mother was as likely to die in childbirth as was a gladiator in his next bout.

No. Not even close. Here's a ranking with explicit methodology (from a Chinese university website). Of the top 20 universities in the world, 17 are in the US and 2 are in Europe. Of the top 50, 37 are in the US and 9 are in Europe. Maybe the Chinese are too pro-American? (hehe--that would be a first) Try a UK ranking (Times Higher Education Supplement). Of the top 20, 11 are in the US and 5 are in Europe. Of the top 50, 22 are in the US and 11 are in Europe. Is there another list you'd like to nominate?

Don't laugh, but I've always wanted to read a biography of that tragi-comic figure Bibulus. Aside from bearing an uncanny resemblance to the character Butters on South Park (or perhaps Neville in the Harry Potter novels), Bibulus seems to have shown either a heroic courage at the end of his life or the signs of a history-changing mental breakdown. In any case, after reading apologies for such monsters as Caligula, it would be nice to read something sympathetic about this poor guy.

Fair point. Do recall, however, that the mortality rate of the gladiatorial combats was roughly 10%, making it roughly safer than childbirth.

I agree with you Moonlapse. Many Republicans are simply conservatives because they worship power and authority as much as so-called liberals lust for power and authority. Small-l libertarians like me are sickened by both of them, and I'm afraid authoritarian conservatives and power-lusting 'liberals' are not only very much in the majority (which is no big deal), they're also convinced that they're morally right in their kinks (which is a very big deal). For this reason, I'm not hopeful that Paul stands a very good chance of arousing deep support in either the race for the Republican nomination or the general election, but I am hopeful that he'll have enough support that he'll remain on the ballot long enough that I can cast my vote for him. I haven't had a chance yet to vote for a candidate.

Corporate-based labs are best at what they do, which differs from what university-based labs do. The basic difference is that corporate-based labs typically prioritize patentable research over non-patentable research, whereas university-based labs typically prioritize basic research over non-basic research. Both are important, and they overlap in some areas, but each are associated with different skill sets, motivations, and outcomes. For example, after working for three years on a project, a university-based researcher would be shamed for not publishing any results (and he probably wouldn't get his contract renewed), whereas a corporate-based researcher could suffer similar penalties for publishing his results--since the results of his work belong to his employer as proprietary information. Notice that Crichton's examples--"The laser, the transistor, the polio vaccine, the microchip, the hologram, the personal computer, magnetic resonance imaging, CAT scans"--are all applications of basic research that were published for the education of all by university-based researchers. For example, the laser was an application of basic research in quantum electrodynamics (QED) done by Richard Feynman at Cal Tech (tuition: over $20,000/year), a job Feynman took over Einstein's home at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton (because he'd have no chance to teach at Princeton, but he could at Cal Tech). Feynman later received the Nobel Prize for this work (in 1965), but since it was basic research, it was not patentable. In fact, Feynman didn't even hold a copyright to his articles on QED! I certainly don't want to give the impression that corporate-based research is unimportant, but it is important for very different reasons, and it can be (and should be!) supported by private investors hoping to maximize their profits. University-based research tends to be very risky, and it is almost never interested in narrow applications. (I say "almost never" because DoD-funded research is done by both university and non-university based labs, and the DoD has an amazing ability to find and fund promising basic research with clear applications. Corporate foundations--like Intel--play a similar role in promoting basic research at the university level.)

This is an enlightening discussion. Not having Rediscovering Homer at hand, forgive me if I'm going over old ground. That's a good observation--the lack of direct overlap rules out the competing poets explanation, but it doesn't quite support an identity between the authors of the two works. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the Book of Joshua doesn't overlap with its prequel (Deuteronomy), but I'm not convinced they were written by a single author either (that, at least, is the traditional view: Moses as author of the Pentateuch, Joshua as author of the book bearing his name). Moreover, Joshua works as a pretty good sequel to Deuteronomy too. Why not view the Iliad and Odyssey as being similar to Deuteronomy and Joshua? Another fascinating observation. What's interesting about your Single Author explanation, however, is how it assumes (and provides an additional explanation for) the Single Author having two states of mind when composing the two different works. Again, the evidence seems equally consistent with the Two Authors explanation. Wow! That really makes a difference! I was relying on the old Butler translation, but your version implies no contradiction between the two books. While we're on the topic, I did have another reason to suspect Two Authors, and that's the factor of time. It seems like the events of the Iliad could take place without implying weird ages for the participants. But if we take them together (I've heard), the events of the two books suggest that Helen returned to Greece at age 70 or something. Maybe I'm mangling this, but if we assume that the author of the Odyssey were attempting to AVOID contradiction with the Iliad (for whatever reason), mightn't the author be more likely to catch overt contradictions than implied contradictions? Moreover, it seems like a second author would be more likely to commit implicit contradictions than would a single author. If this is right, then couldn't we use the prevalence of implicit contradictions as a way of inferring whether there were one or two authors?

It's important to point out that the university model in continental Europe differs somewhat from the US model. The most important difference is that top US universities derive their income largely from research, tuition, and investments of their endowment. Consequently, American universities not only have "shiny new buildings" (this is trivial), they have state-of-the-art RESEARCH FACILITIES, and as a result, US university-based research generates more scientific publications and garners more Nobel prizes than any other nation by a very large margin. To talk about Harvard, UCLA, or Michigan only from the perspective of their side-business in teaching undergraduates makes absolutely no sense. Moreover, the research and educational mission of a university are naturally linked: undergraduates benefit enormously from participating in the university research mission. In fact, I'd argue that what happens in classrooms provides only a fraction of the real education that happens at university, which is the sum of classroom education, guided laboratory (or equivalent) work, and independent research. There are US colleges that are relatively inexpensive and apply European priorities to an even greater extent. The reputation of these schools, however, is relatively poor because they fail to attract top scholars who want access to state-of-the-art research facilities, high incomes, and low teaching responsibilities. Believe it or not, teaching 19-year-olds isn't the most gratifying intellectual experience. In my judgment, schools that cater to teaching 19-year-olds are just high schools with ashtrays.

Adding to Asclepiades' post, the borders of the imperial Africa Proconsularis reflected the integration of several republican territories, including "Africa Vetus" (old Africa) and "Africa Nova" (new Africa). In 146 BCE, Africa Vetus (see map here) was restricted to about 5,000 sq mi of north and central Tunisia, lying north east of Scipio's fossa regia ('royal ditch') that stretched from Thabraca to Hadrumetum. This territory comprised the most fertile lands of the old Carthaginian empire, with the remainder being given to the descendants of the Numidian king Masinissa. The province was governed by a praetor from Utica. Including Utica, the lands and property of seven Punic cities that had supported Rome in the war with Carthage remained in private hands, with the remaining land confiscated as ager publica. The Roman organization led to a large number of Roman and Italian farmers and traders settling in the region, with many of Marius' veterans given land west of the fossa regia. Further, the original republican territory of Africa Vetus thrived in later centuries. According to Kaplan (in his fascinating Atlantic article), Archaeologists have uncovered 200 Roman cities in the fertile farmlands of northern Tunisia, where the vast majority of the population lives. North Africa was the granary of the Roman Empire and produced more olive oil than Italy. The Romans built thousands of miles of roads there, and also bridges, dams, aqueducts, and irrigation systems; one aqueduct alone, still partially visible near the town of Zaghouan, carried 8.5 million gallons of water daily to Carthage, fifty-five miles to the north. Fifteen percent of Rome's senators came from Tunisia. Not only the Romans but also the fifth-century Vandals and every conqueror since, including the French in the nineteenth century, made the fertile north of Tunisia their base in North Africa. In 46 BCE, after the battle of Thapsus, the Numidian territory of Juba I was seized by the Queen of Bithynia and added to the province. This territory of Africa Nova included the colonies of Clupea, Curubis, and Neapolis, as well a territory around Cirta that was given to new Caesarian oligarch, P. Sittius. Compared to that of Africa Vetus, Africa Nova has had a somewhat indifferent history. Under Octavian, the boundaries were redrawn several times, until finally the united Africa Proconsularis came to extend from Arae Philaenorum to the river Ampsagas in eastern Algeria. The capital of Africa Proconsularis was moved from loyal and wealthy Utica to the greatly revived Carthage and was administered by a hen-pecked proconsul, instead of an elected praetor, who was given command of the Legio III Augusta. In many ways, Roman Africa presents an almost perfect contrast to Roman Britain. Unlike Britain, Africa (especially Africa Vetus) urbanized rapidly and was thoroughly Romanized. In consequence, in over 300 years, the whole area from Cyrenaica to the Atlantic was protected by only a single legion and auxiliaries.

College tuition is a bargain. According to this report by the US census, the lifetime earnings of a high school graduate in the US is $ 1.2 million; of a college graduate, $ 2.1 million; with a master's degree, $ 2.5 million; with a professional degree, $ 4.4 million. To be blunt, if you think $ 80,000 is too much to spend to get an extra $ 900,000, you don't belong in college. In addition to the financial gains of college, I'd also point out that there are important non-financial gains as well. According to this article originally reported in the NYT, men without a college education are 3 times more likely to have never married by age 40 than their college educated peers. Moreover, as women make up a larger part of the student population than ever before, the marriage prospects for men with no college education have plummeted. Between 1980 and 2004, the number of never-married men has tripled, with even greater declines for those who dropped out of college or never attended. In my view, universities charge far too little and depend far too much on the generosity of their alumni and alumnae. If I were a university president, I'd increase tuition until I saw a measurable decline in applicants, which I would recover by means of generous merit-based aid. The rest of the money would go to professor salaries. Are US schools more expensive than the heavily-subsidized schools of Britain? Yes--but not for long. British schools are finally beginning to wake up to their market value and the requirements to compete globally and they're finally charging accordingly. Moreover, US employer recruitment at international schools tends to be much, much lower than recruitment at US schools, largely because talented international students come to the US to study because American schools are more competitive in medical research, engineering, and all of the sciences. In any case, if you think US tuition is a bad deal, no will force you to go to school here.

Again, let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater here. Sokrates had a fascinating life story--a war hero, a philosopher, a political figure, and ultimately a martyr. Themistokles, Nikias, Alkibiades, Perikles--all great figures. The story about the courtesan Phryne was priceless. Nothing about the Greeks really leaves me "cold"; there's just not enough there there. And I'll reiterate that I think that the Perikles funeral oration is the greatest speech of antiquity, perhaps the greatest speech in world history. Basically, I'm enough of a Roman to love the Greeks, but just so much of a Roman that I love Romans most.

Right, they're two different quarrels. It seems like the author of the Iliad had one quarrel in mind as the source of the war, and the author of the Odyssey had another quarrel in mind as the source of the war.

Ron Paul, the libertarian presidential candidate who bears some resemblance to the historical Cato, has apparently eclipsed John McCain in the fundraising effort, according to this ABC news story. I'm wondering who a good Roman analog for John McCain might be. Regulus, perhaps, the war hero tortured by the Carthaginians? Nominations welcome.