M. Porcius Cato

But the average person isn't an engineer, and even brilliant engineers often fail to foresee the potential of their products. For example, when Wosniak released the Apple I, his mother asked him how an ordinary person could possibly use this "personal computer". What was the killer app he foresaw? "Organizing recipes"! It strikes me that fundamental advances in science and engineering are best disseminated, applied, and sustained by well-financed, visionary entrepreneurs, ones who dedicate themselves full-time to finding a way to profit from these arcane advances. Obviously, this isn't the only route--the military serves a similar function--and one can look to Archimedes as the supreme example of this in the ancient world.

I'm a huge fan of capitalism, but I'm not seeing how it's a Roman invention. What's your reasoning?

I agree. Is it just me, or does Cassius look better in HBO Rome than he did in Shakespeare?

I wonder how much more courageous it is to attack an undefended and peaceful city by surprise, as Caesar did when he marched on Rome. Or to use those armed men to threaten an unarmed tribune of the plebs with murder, as Caesar did when he raided the treasury. Or to used armed thugs to threaten unarmed senators, as Caesar did when he ruled Rome as a dictator for life. Yes, Brutus murdered an unarmed man, but that man was a tyrant had been doing far worse for far longer and far from asking the gods for forgiveness, he thought himself a god who was beyond good and evil. I don't want to turn this into the perennial Caesar debate, but I don't think the idea that Brutus was a coward should be taken as given. Perhaps we can agree on that?

That old saw: 'Any American kid can become president.' Right--the word 'can' only refers to the legal possibility, not the statistical likelihood. The probability of any American kid (rich or poor) becoming president is infinitesimal: even in a super-biased system, where a rich kid has a 100-fold advantage, we're talking about "nearly zero" rising to "nearly zero". For that reason, I think it's more telling to look at all levels of government, not just the nearly impossible ones. Plenty of your 'dirt farmers' and 'city ruffians' have been elected to state and city government.

I think you underestimate the human capacity to be objective (or hate one's job!). At present, there are 9 votes for law and 9 for architecture. I doubt that that's due to there being 9 architects and 9 lawyers on the board. I'm neither an architect nor a lawyer (and I'd prefer to be an architect), yet I voted for the laws.

Also, from Nicholas of Damascus, who actually had a chance to speak with those who were present:

If you looked carefully at next week's preview after the show, it doesn't look like Atia actually died from the poisoning. Yes, they left that impression. Still, the historical Atia died in 43, so it should be coming soon.

Not all plebs were 'dirt farmers'. Pompey, Crassus, and Lucullus were plebs--all obviously rich. Pleb is a hereditary category, not an economic one. As far as a 'dirt farmer' consul goes, I guess Dentatus was pretty close to a dirt farmer (but that's just off the top of my head). Maybe Cincinnatus and Regulus too? I'm just guessing. BTW, why the fixation on consuls?

I was left with the impression he was jewish, when he demands coinage he asks for "Shekels" to which Servillia doesn't comprehend. A tie in to Timon's brother perhaps? I thought Duro was just being fanciful when he asked for shekels. The name Duro--unlike the Hellenized Timon--is Latin, isn't it? Hard.

In addition, having suffered multiple chest wounds and likely a punctured lung, how likely is it that Caesar said anything to Brutus? I thought the portrayal in Rome was spectacular: Caesar just looks like he's thinking "You too?"

Good question! BTW, as a further note of historical accuracy, Brutus was not at this time attempting to recruit support from Bithynia. Quite the contrary, he had decided that he was finished with politics, and he went to Athens to study philosophy at the Academy.

The controversy arises from the use of the term "comitia tributa" for a purely plebeian assembly (e.g., Livy, 2. 56. 2) combined with the fact that "concilium plebis" is a modern term. See also: Develin, R. (1975). Comitia Tributa Plebis, Athaeneum, 55, 302-327, for a full discussion. That said, I think everyone can agree that there were meetings of the comitia tributa where patricians could not vote; indeed, it would have been considered offensive if they had attempted to vote in these assemblies: their laws were inscribed with the customary "X...plebem rogavit plebesque iure scivit". It's not quite true that the Lex Hortensia (287) forbade patricians from attending meetings of the plebs, though. Patricians were admitted into the meetings (indeed a patrician spoke at one to decide on a triumph of L. Aemilius Paulus in 167), but they weren't allowed to vote there. In defense of the chart provided by Drs. Shaw and Kondratieff, there is an argument that there was no other kind of comitia tributa but purely plebeian assemblies. In this view, when we see praetors or even consuls at tribal assemblies, their presence merely indicates that they are putting their support behind an action that is technically made by tribunes of the plebs. I'm not entirely persuaded by this argument, but I can see why the chart was drawn up as it was.

There are instances where the tribes were assembled by tribunes of the plebs, aediles of the plebs, even by consuls, praetors, and curule aediles. For example, the lex Gabinia Calpurnia de Delo (58) was presided over by a consul; the lex provinciis praetoris (100) was presided over by a praetor (Marcus Porcius). Is this your complaint? Or is your point that the concilium plebis was a third, distinct legislative body rather than a subset of the comitia tributa? This is a controversial matter, according to Lintott.

I'd call these growing pains. By fits and starts, the republic was becoming more inclusive of plebs and Italians, more alert to the costs of rapine in the provinces, and more conscious of her own history and its laws. If Caesar were really a populare as he liked to believe, then the man jumped on a galloping horse, ran into the ground, and shot it in the head. But that's just my opinion.

BTW, what exactly were "the words of Marcus Tullius Cicero"? In the show, they were: When I was a young man, I defended our state; as an old man, I shall not abandon it. I give sincere thanks to Mark Antony, who has generously presented me with the most promising theme imaginable. I address you directly Antony. Please listen, as if you sober and intelligent, and not a drink-sodden, sex-addled wreck. You are certainly not without accomplishments. It is a rare man who can boast of becoming a bankrupt before even coming of age. You have brought upon us war, pestilence, and destruction. You are Rome's Helen of Troy; but then, a woman's role has always suited you best. Best I can tell, this is Cicero's Second Philippic, which was a scathing response to a previous attack by Antony, and was published sometime after 25 October 44BC. If you look around, you can find that the writers have used most of Cicero's own words, "I defended the republic as a young man, I will not abandon it now that I am old.... For just consider a little; and for a moment think of the business like a sober man.... Do you recollect that, while you were still clad in the praetexta, you became a bankrupt? ... As Helen was to the Trojans, so has that man been to this republic,--the cause of war, the cause of mischief, the cause of ruin."

But is the whole globe warming? Or are we seeing climatic changes, with some regions warming and others cooling? Doesn't the evidence from Antarctica, for example, support the 'climate change' view more than the 'global warming' view? EDIT: Here is a Nature paper that presents evidence on the cooling of Antarctica.

I agree that it's impossible to pick out just one event as the cause of the fall of the state (whether the republic or the whole Roman empire). But surely everyone agrees that some of the 'straws' on the proverbial camel's back were just straw-sized (like harbor silt) whereas others were more the size of logs (e.g., the invasion of the Germanic tribes). Moreover, Pertinax, I think, has made a convincing argument that lead poisoning isn't even straw-sized.

I thought the following figure (from Shaw & Kondratieff) might be helpful to reproduce:

Do we know with certainty that Duro is a slave? On the one hand, free citizens often worked beside slaves for temporary work (like harvesting). Even Cato the Elder talks about working beside his slaves in the fields, and he's not exactly one to boast an egalitarian attitude either. (Perhaps Andrew Dalby has looked into this further.) On the other hand, Servilia's threat to have his tongue nailed to a wagon wheel only makes sense if Duro is a slave. And that Servilia so quickly acquiesced to Duro's impudent demand for a kiss--precisely because it was so impudent and inconceivable--shows how desperate Servilia is to have her revenge on Caesar and Atia at all costs. Regarding Atia, isn't it odd that she has so little knowledge of Macedonia? I'm not talking about the quality of hemp that could be purchased there, but even her knowledge of its social life or climate. Wasn't Atia's first husband a governor in Macedonia?

This episode appears to dramatize some of the events of 43 BCE: Cicero delivered his last Phillipics; Antony attacked the assassin Decimus Brutus at Mutina, which prompted a counter-attack by the consuls Hirtius and Pansa, with Octavian's army also participating against Antony; Decimus Brutus and Cicero are murdered; and Atia died. So far as I know, there is no hint in the sources that Atia's death was caused by poisoning.

In this episode, the civil wars appear to begin. First, Cicero throws down the gauntlet (finally!), as Antony gives new meaning to the plea "Don't kill the messenger". Then, too, our Dioscurii Vorenus and Pullo come to fisticuffs, with Pullo returning to find Vorenus dispatched to join Antony's army. Finally, Servilia makes her boldest move yet to have her revenge--with a fantastic cliff hanger for next week. And if all that weren't exciting enough, Brutus baptizes himself a born-again Janusian (at least he didn't see Baldie's ghost).

What can I say? The Roman voters wanted Big Names at the top of the ticket. Further down the ticket, things were pretty wide open, with more New Men than Big Names. All in all, it's certainly a biased system, but it's not a legal oligarchy.

Don't even threaten me--as Censor, I can have you thrown out of the senate and barred from office. The great-grandfather of my namesake had a man tossed out of the senate just for kissing his wife in public (the cad).

It's certainly winter in Ohio: -11 C and snow on the ground.