M. Porcius Cato

The Roman tragedian Lucius Accius, a municipal freedman and friend of D. Junius Brutus Callaicus (cos 138), has been credited with 40 Latin tragedies. Although many of these were based on Greek originals that were popular in Rome, others were wholly Roman, including Brutus, which dramatized the tyranny of L. Tarquinius Superbus and Aeneadae vel Decius, which centered on the defeat of the Gallo-Etrucso-Samnite alliance at Sentinum. Apparently, some fragments of Accius still exist. Has anyone found them?

According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, a man guilty of parricidium (killing any close relative, as defined by the lex Pompeia de parricidiis) "was drowned in the sea, tied up in a sack (culleus) with a dog, cock, ape, and viper." For me this raises the question: where did they get the ape? Did they have them waiting in a zoo for just that purpose?? Was the accused to be held in the Tullianum until they dragged some poor ape from out of Africa? I find this baffling.

Your answer about Parthia, then, challenges the traditional view you cited earlier: Clearly Parthia was not a decentralized backwater like Germania.

I don't agree that the "aristocrats" monopolized power. All political power in the republic was shared among the various magistracies. If you mean that the magistrates collectively monopolized power, that's true by definition: the only power to be had was had by magistrates that were elected by the people. But if you're following this line, then your definition implies that everyone was an optimate. You're quite right that it would be inconsistent to pose as a champion of the people and oppose their legal rights. However, my counter-examples of Clodius and Gabinius turning on Caesar occurred prior to his revolt. Also, I drew the line at 49 precisely so we didn't have to get into the issue of Caesar's putsch.

In the above formulation, there are at least six different characteristics taken to define populare (populares are followers; populares are followers only of "strong" leaders; populares only follow leaders who want to pass legislation; the leaders of populares want to get popular; the leaders of populares want more power than the senate; the leaders of populares want to feel kings pro tempore). At the outset, it seems to me that the longer your definition, the harder it's going to be to find 12 figures who fit it even on an ad hoc basis. Dropping some of these characteristics would help.

This is a more attractive definition than others, but if it's true, the terms "faction" and "party" don't do the definition any justice. Also, I have no preset conclusion on the matter. I'd be just as happy to find stable, ideological factions as to find none.

Did any of these men call themselves 'populares'? I don't think so. Moreover, we can't read the mind of a common populace that lived over 2000 years ago (or even 2 months ago), so this seems like an inherently controversial standard. That's a good passage to cite. What word did Cicero use for "party"? Factio? Also, what was the issue? And, really, how does Cicero know how anyone voted? Balloting was secret. Given the depiction of the voting scene on coins from the period, secrecy was well-protected by a number of devices. Cicero himself complained about this. Except that Crassus and Caesar turned on Catilina; Clodius and Gabinius turned on Caesar. Vatinius had no popular positions: he was just a political tool. What do these guys have in common other than opposing Caesar? If that's all, I don't see why I couldn't add Clodius and Gabinius to this list too.

What I was suggesting is that you pick out the individuals who weren't constantly shifting their alliances, then they are the ones who you could truly call Optimate or Populare. But alliances to what? to an individual? to a legislative agenda? to a constitutional issue? choose whatever defining characteristic you'd like, and I still think it's impossible to come up with a dozen consistent populares and a dozen consistent optimates.

But if there were no parties, there was nothing for them to stay loyal to!

Right, the reasoning is that if the populares were a faction or party, there had to be enough of them to work together at some particular moment in history. The particular moment is totally arbitrary--I chose the late republic only because that's where we have the most source material. Without the time constraint, the "faction" idea loses all force. You wouldn't say that Cato, William of Orange, and George Washington were all in one faction, even if they all supported similar political ideals, because they couldn't possibly support one another.

Yes, and not just one or two but several. If we're looking at events from the death of Sulla to the passage of the lex Gabinia, it becomes terribly difficult to determine how to categorize Catulus, Pompey, Crassus, Lucullus, Catiline, Murena, Cicero, Caesar, and Cato into any clear factions, let alone the optimate/populare divide. The alliances at this point were constantly shifting and appear almost totally ad hoc.

To me, this list looks like it can be more simply divided into: pro-triumvirate versus anti-triumvirate. Otherwise, support for the status quo doesn't really work very well for the optimates group (I can provide counter-examples if you'd like), and support for cheap grain/agrarian laws doesn't work very well for the populares group (again, counter-examples come to mind). If we really apply the proposed definition, a lot more people will be stuck in the 'independent group'. For example, Cato proposed a bill for free grain and co-operated with Caesar to prosecute the Sullan establishment, whereas Cicero opposed agrarian laws consistently and defended those prosecuted by Cato and Caesar.

Right--plus, you can download map pins for ancient sites. I have them for Rome.

I hope to have something in a couple of hours...be back soon! Here are a few to get you started: M. Licinius Crassus Dives (cos. 70, 55) triumvir; client of Sulla; defeated Spartacus; patron of tax-farmers; led army to annihilation in Parthia Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. 70, 55, 52) triumvir; client of Sulla; voted unlimited imperium to defeat Cilician pirates; resotred Ptolemy Auletes; led republican army at Pharsalus Q. Hortensius Hortalus (cos. 69) renowned orator and "king of the courts" before Cicero; clients included Pompey, Nicomedes, Dolabella, Verres, Murena; opposed Gabinian and Manilian laws L. Sergius Catilina (pr. 68) client of Sulla; leader of failed putsch; advocated universal cancellation of debts M. Tullius Cicero (cos. 63) renowned orator and philosophe; served under Sulla; accused Sullan favorite of murder in his defense of Sextus Roscius; left for Greece and Rhodes, met with republican idealists, Rufus and Posidonius; studied rhetoric with Molon; quaestor in Sicily, discovered tomb of Archimedes; successfully prosecuted Verres for extortion; as consul, defeated conspiracy of Catiline, declared Pater Patriae by Cato; refused to join triumvirate, persecuted by Clodius; governor of Cilicia; during Caesar's dictaorship, devoted himself to writing; led opposition to Antony, proscribed by the second triumvirate C. Julius Caesar (cos. 59, 48; dict. 46, 45, 44) triumvir, pontifex maximus; campaigned in Spain; proconsul of Illyricum and both Gallic provinces; conquered all Gaul, killing and enslaving unprecedented numbers; marched on Rome, defeated several armies of the republic in civil war; annexed Egypt; held lifetime dictatorship and was acclaimed a king outside Italy; assassinated in senate meeting; deified by political supporters M. Calpurnius Bibulus (cos. 59) follower of Cato; relentlessly attacked by Caesarians; nervous breakdown as admiral in Dyrrachium Cn Cornelius Lentulus Spinther Clodianus (pr. 59) C. Alfius Flavus (tr pl 59) A. Gabinius (cos. 58) client of Pompey; proposed lex Gabinia; defended by Torquatus M. Porcius Cato Uticensis (pr. 54; propr. 57, 56) renowned Stoic, ardent constiutionalist, leader of opposition to triumvirate; reformed treasury and prosecuted Sullans; advocated capital penalty for Catilinarians; annexed Cyprus; in Utica, committed suicide in protest of Caesar's victory over last republican forces; later celebrated as fallen hero of the republican cause M. Terentius Varro (pr ?; sp cm 59) Historian, philosopher, naturalist, grammarian, poet, "most learned of all Romans", responsible for Varronian chronology, author of over 600 books; joined Pompey in civil war, twice surrendered to Caesar; withdrew entirely from public life, but proscribed by Antony anyway L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (cos. 58) Proconsul in Macedonia, defeated Bessi C. Memmius (pr. 58) patron of Lucretius; opposed Caesar's acta P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (cos. 57) carried bill to recall Cicero; opponent of triumvirate Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (cos. 57) Proconsul in Nearer Spain; defeated Vaccaei; enemy of Cato yet abandoned Pompey to oppose triumvirate P. Vatinius (cos. 47, pr. 55) client of Caesar; organized soldiers in Forum to push through the land grant to Pompey's veterans; suborned Vetteius' charges of 'conspiracy' against Pompey; legate under Caesar in Gaul; expelled from Macedonia by Brutus in 44 P. Clodius Pulcher (aed cr 56) led mutiny against Lucullus; caused Bona Dea scandal; client of Caesar; exiled Cicero and destroyed his house and villas; organized street gangs to pass triumviral legislation T. Annius Milo (pr. 54) client of Pompey; organized gangs to fight Clodius'; worked for Cicero's recall; led unsuccessful revolt against Caesar in 48 L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 54) follower of Cato; recalled Cicero from exile; opponent of triumvirate, threatened Caesar with prosecution Cn. Domitus Calvinus (cos. 53, 40) Head of election laws court L. Manlius Torquatus (pr 49) patron of Catullus, Epicurean philosophe and orator; prosecuted Sullans; fought Caesar at Oricum, Dyrrhachium Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (cos. 52) follower of Cato; commanded army at Thapsus

Bill Thayer's Roman Atlas contains latitudes and longitudes.

But in all fairness I think you should note that he had a distinct advantage we he fought Hannibal at Zama OK--Scipio had a distinct advantage when he fought Hannibal at Zama.

But many of the optimates had popular sentiment on their side. When Caesar, for example, displayed a placard depicting the deaths of Scipio and Cato at his triumph, the crowds groaned and booed him. Likewise, when Caesar and Pompey shared power in the triumvirate, they were openly booed, hissed, and yelled at in the theater. Moreover, had they had popular support, why would it have been necessary for them to use violence in the forum for them to pass their legislation?? I don't think the "popular sentiment" standard is defining even of the few names you list as populare. Three of your seven populares were not even contemporaries of the other four. Hardly a meaningful faction if they couldn't even work together since nearly half the faction was dead. Also, why would Milo make your list of populares? What is the evidence of popular support for him? Moreover, the tribune Octavius was not a contemporary of Cato, Scipio, and the Metelli. Nor, for that matter, is there any evidence that the Metelli derived their authority from tradition. This list simply won't do. I hope this is a meaningful exercise. Personally, I strongly suspect that the labels 'populare' and 'optimate' mark utterly incoherent groups, and they merely serve as fictional devices for simple-minded undergraduates.

That's a better generalization. Looking just as the Romans in Plutarch's Lives: Consuls: P. Valerius Publicola (cos. 509, 508, 507) M. Furius Camillus (dict. 396, 390, 389, 368, 367) Q. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 237, 224, 212, 209) C. Flaminius (cos 223, 217) M. Claudius Marcellus (cos 222, 215, 214, 210, 208) Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus 'Cunctator' (cos 233, 228, 215, 214, 209) P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Major (cos. 205, 194) M. Porcius Cato (cos 195; censor 184) L. Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus (cos 182, 168) C. Marius (cos. 107, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 86) L. Cornelius Sulla Felix (cos. 88, 80; dict 82, 81, 80) L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74) M. Licinius Crassus Dives (cos. 70, 55) Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. 70, 55, 52) M. Tullius Cicero (cos. 63) C. Julius Caesar (cos. 59, 48; dict. 46, 45, 44) M. Antonius (cos. 44, 34, 31) Non-consuls: Cn Marcius Coriolanus (pr? 508) T. Gracchus (tr. 133) G. Gracchus (tr. 123, 122) L. Quintus Sertorius (pr. 85) M. Porcius Cato Uticensis (pr. 54; propr. 57, 56) M. Junius Brutus (pr. 44)

Very nice work, Ilian. Thanks so much for those excerpts. The first one, however, seems to talk about the loss of the republic merely as a hypothetical: that is, the fish-ponders (Cicero's favorite term of abuse for rich sinecures) care about nothing but their own garden. Which probably wasn't far off for many Epicureans--Lucretius had advised as much--but the idea would have been anathema to the Stoic that Cicero praised. The second letter supports your idea much more. Though look at how disappointed Cicero is in the triumvirs--as if he really had expected normalcy! "For my part, I was in hopes, as I often used actually to say to you, that the wheel of the state chariot had made its revolution with scarcely any noise and leaving scarcely any visible rut". Cicero could be a damned fool--he should have listened to Cato earlier. In any case, by 54, the worst effects of the triumivrate were laid bare for everyone to see.

The original topic was the period immediately after the fall of Rome (or immediately after the Romans left Britain,etc). In my opinion, the term invented for this period, "late antiquity", is a complete white-wash for the Hobbesian horror that was the Dark Ages.

But I don't see how this could explain the Parthian frontier.

As much as I agree that the Principate was the result of a naked power struggle (or, rather, the exhaustion of the people and senate with those struggles), I don't recall Cicero ever complaining about the Republic "dying"--or any other words to that effect--especially as early as the first triumvirate. Since you've been doing such a great job compiling Cicero's letters, can you find where Cicero lodged this complaint? I'm somewhat skeptical because I thought the first written acknowledgment that the republic was finished came from Tacitus. Otherwise, the only one who really recognized the mortal danger posed by the triumvirate in 59 was Cato. Even Varro's famous quip that it was a "three-headed monster" came later. Moreover, the most widespread view at the time was that the danger to the republic came from the enmity between Pompey and Caesar, not their friendship.

If there were a good descriptive list of Roman magistrates, it might help.

Who's an "ordinary" Brit? Fact is when Caesar arrived in Britain, there no tiled roofs, the animals were scrawny and mangy, food was served on wooden boards, and they beat the ground with sticks for entertainment (or was that their religion?). When Romans ruled Britain, tiled roofs appeared all over, animals grew fat and healthy, food was served on fine pottery, and theaters and baths were erected--all while resisting native rebellion. When the Romans left and the natives were left to their own devices, civilization (i.e., city life) collapsed, animals starved, and material comforts plummeted. The Romans could be a cruel and nasty bunch, mind you, and they didn't spread their wealth among the barbarians equally of course, but let's not pretend that the collapse of Roman civilization was a seamless transition to an equally comfortable age. It was a Hobbesian horror.