M. Porcius Cato

For the record, I've never condemned Caesar or Octavian for their sexual tastes; I condemn them for initiating the civil wars that destroyed the republic. However, I gleefully taunt Caesar for his tastes, as I taunt him for baldness and delusions of deity. There's certainly nothing morally repugnant about baldness, but for someone as vain as Caesar, it's an embarrassment worth emphasizing to highlight that the guy was engaging in compensatory behavior.

I'm typing this on a Mac with a ZERO button mouse that allows right clicking, left clicking, scrolling, and more. It also plays avi and wav files just beautifully. In customer satisfaction, Apple leads over HP, Dell, and all the rest, year after year.

Right--why would he? What would be point of spreading gossip that he would be anxious to contain? Also, there's no reason to assume that Cicero would even know about an affair had one existed. It's not as though Cicero had that many common friends with these people.

Clearly, Cicero had a negative view of homosexual behavior: just look at the abuse he hurled at Antony for his affair with Curio in the Second Phillipic. Given this stance and given Cicero's efforts to promote Octavian, one wouldn't expect Cicero to talk about an affair between Octavian and Caesar even if one existed.

Get a Mac. According to c|net, they run Windows faster than PCs. And, yes, when running Windows on your Mac, you can still play Rome: Total War (sadly, I know this first hand). Even better, you'll learn to ditch Windows, the blue screen of death, viruses, and all the sundry hardware failures that plague PC systems (i.e., software + hardware) because they were never built to work together in the first place.

What is the evidence that Caesar ever slept with Calpurnia? What is the evidence that Octavian ever slept with Livia? In both cases, it's exactly the same as the evidence that Caesar slept with Octavian. Now, why should one be incredulous about the coupling of Caesar/Octavian but not Caesar/Calpurnia or Octavian/Livia? Please, let's not pretend that the distinguishing factor in credibility is evidence--because it's not. In fact, at least Suetonius testifies to reports of Caesar and Octavian sleeping together, whereas no source mentions reports of Caesar and Calpurnia sleeping together. Why not make a stink about that? What could be resounding confirmation? Octavian bearing Caesar's child??

It's interesting that several of you mentioned Lares as a possibility. My first thought was Penates. According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the Lares were the household spirits associated with the floor, whereas the Penates were the spirits associated with the interior of the house. To the Romans, I hope this difference made some sense: it seems like an arbitrary distinction to me. Also, it's entirely possible that the little figurines were images of gods. I've seen tiny figurines of Venus, Jupiter, etc from Pompeii. They looked just like the lares/penates/whatever from Gladiator.

The lapdogs of kings are not fit to judge the men of republics.

Since this is pure speculation, I'll toss in my guess. Without Octavian (sine Octavian, not ex Octavian), Antony still would have been defeated at Mutina, and thus sent packing to lick his wounds. In Rome, Cicero would have continued the process of reconciliating the Caesarian party with the necessities of normalization. Brutus would have attempted to take his province in Macedonia from Antony's brother (successfully). Cassius would have controlled Asia. The lack of enmity (indeed respect) between Brutus and Antony--combined with Cassius' connections among the former of legates of Caesar and with the desire of Cicero to broker peace--would have allowed for a peace in their time. In terms of vision, Cicero certainly had one. If you haven't read his political writings, you should. It lays out a complete and comprehensive blueprint for a secure and stable republic.

This does not take account of the accidents that affected his policy. His intentions were very clear on the 'succession' - Gaius and Lucius as 'Princeps Iuventutis' etc. were the designated and recognised heirs to the Principate. Augustus can hardly be held responsible for the intervention of fate in this. I agree with caldrail and think Augustus is very much responsible for failing to establish a constitutional mechanism of succession. Fate was not the problem. No responsible leader would set up a situation where the entire government--and only protection against civil war and anarchy--depends entirely on the health and fitness of two young men, let alone two who are frequently exposed to danger. Augustus' policy put an insane hope over reason, and Augustus has rightly been called to task for this utterly irresponsible behavior. Moreover, the insanity of it all generalizes to the whole system of monarchy, where the demise of short-lived royal houses (and they are ALL short-lived) inevitably leads to crisis, often civil war and anarchy. The only sane alternative is one where succession is determined by a mechanism that is independent, legal, open to newcomers, and responsive in some manner to the aspirants' record of successful magistracy.

Thank you. Actually, I've been to Utica. I wanted to rip my guts out.

So what? During the republic, the doors of the Senate opened up to the steps of the Rostra, where senators were called by tribunes to account for their positions in front of the people, where senators attempted to persuade the people to enact the legislations recommended by the people, and where senators could be heckled, cajoled, stoned, and praised by the people as well. There was a damned good reason that mass oratory (esp. in contiones) was considered the royal road to imperium: the people had to be persuaded to give their sanctions. If you miss this fact, you miss the essence of the republican system, and you miss why it was so dreadful that the number of contiones plummeted during the triumvirate and the royal rule of Caesar and his kin.

Thanks to all of you for your best wishes and for your many references to that odious darling of Venus, whom the Liberators returned to her on this glorious day. (BTW, Augusta has no need to eat her hat, but she should perhaps gnaw on one, as my birthday falls squarely within the Festival of Mars.)

From a letter to the emperor Gratian: "For my part, as consul by your gift, Imperator Augustus, I have not had to endure the Saepta [the wooden ramps where voters lined up to vote] or the Campus [where voting took place], or the voting, or the points [recording the votes], or the ballot boxes. I have not had to press people's hands, nor, confused by the rush of persons greeting me, have I failed to reply with their right names to my friends or given them the wrong ones. I have not gone round the tribus, or flattered the centuriae or had to tremble when the classes were called [to vote]. I have not made any deposit with a trustee or agreed anything with a diribitor. The populus Romanus, the Martius Campus, the equestor ordo, the Rostra, the "sheepfold" [the Saepta], the Senate, the Curia - for me, Gratian alone, was all these things." I agree that the provincial civic government requires some investigation (it's a really fascinating question, btw), but at least in Rome, the higher magistracies came to be Imperial favors rather than hard-earned popular victories.

In case you'd like to sing your praises to spring, enjoy the Vulgar Latin from Orff's Carmina Burana: Ecce Gratum.

I have to say that I wasn't blown away. While I liked about a nanosecond of the actual phalanx fighting and there were some comely actors, the overall movie was pretty dumb: the characters were two-dimensional, the conflicts were canned, and the anachronisms probably outnumbered the authentic historical references by about two to one. There was a theme of 'freedom vs not' buried in there someplace, but why we should have heard the loudest yelps of liberty from the drivers of helots is beyond me. On the other hand, if you want a fun popcorn movie and have a healthy ability to project values where none exist, you'll have a grand time.

It's a typo: it should have been "Pater Emoticonae".

And yet you punched poor Cicero in the nose.... [shakes head]

There's much to reply to in your post, Schabbes. Perhaps you could start a thread in the Republic sub-forum on Millar's thesis.

Reminds me of Livy's tale about Scaevola. Which brings up an interesting question: What kind of people were the Romans that they nicknamed a valiant hero, who gave up his right hand for his country, "Lefty"?

Cicero's letter to Lucceius has always been one of my favorites. Thanks for this Ilian.

I finally got around to watching Episode 20. It wasn't that bad; it just wasn't that good either. I really don't know how they managed to blunder the drama associated with Antony's exodus from Rome, which is just about the only historically important event that occurred. Oh, and Livia was introduced. Given how non-plussed she seemed to be at the moralistic ravings of her sadistic betrothed, I'm sure she'll be the Livia we all fear and dread know and love.

Happy birthday, PP.

Optimates represented the need to do your own homework, whereas populares represented the right to steal the optimates' homework for you.