M. Porcius Cato

Evidence?

There is no evidence of a 'bump' in energy prices. We don't have comparable data yet, and we agreed beforehand to wait until late November or December to determine whether prices had risen back toward their September levels. Also, I consider any factor that "explains" but does not predict to be intellectually vacuous. AFTER THE FACT, you can "explain" anything. That was the whole point of this bet--we could test a hypothetical explanation by examining its PREDICTIONS. If you can't make accurate predictions, your theory is worthless. If you spout off on energy prices but you're unwilling even to try to make predictions, then you're a bullsh*tter. As for me, I'd rather be wrong than be a windbag.

To those who have fought and defeated the forces of fascism and of communism, and to those who continue to fight the rise of the Islamofascists--my thanks! Governments that have been limited by the rights of the individual and by the consent of the governed have always been rare, and their enemies numerous. Veterans of these struggles against dictatorship deserve higher praise than any soldiers in history--their legacy is the freedom and prosperity of the greatest nations on earth. I'll not add a blanket praise, however, to those who fought on behalf of the fascists, communists, and islamofascists. As far as I'm concerned, this veteran's day is not for them.

Caesar's attempted putsch was one of several that occurred after Sulla, including ones by Lentulus, Brutus, Sertorius, and Catiline--all defeated. In each case, the supporters of the putsch relied on promises of largesse for their supporters, and their defeats were hastened as soon as the prospects of those promises worsened. Due to a string of successes in Gaul, Caesar was undoubtedly the most formidable of all the post-Sullan usurpers, but defeating him most likely would have undermined the credibility of a generation of future traitors. Few could aspire to Caesar's record, so if Caesar could be defeated, what chance would they have? Of course, it's naive to believe that defeating Caesar would have solved all the problems that led to his rise in the first place, but I do think Caesar's defeat would have given the republic the time it needed to solve the problems it faced, most importantly being the problem of checking the power of armed provincial governors, the ability to raise essentially private armies, and the vast loss of confidence in the senate as a fair and just adminstrator of the people's business. These were difficult problems, to be sure, but the republic had previously faced far worse problems, yet shown itself capable of dealing with them, including the belated enfranchisement of the Italian allies and the defeats of Hannibal and Pyrrhus. In each case, the republic appeared at the edge of defeat, yet emerged stronger than ever. In my opinion, the defeat of Caesar would have marked another step in that cycle, and the republic would have been a greater and more secure government for it.

If Romans did not value privacy, then why did rich and upwardly mobile Romans build *private* baths, *private* villas, *private* rooms in their villas, and drape their biers in curtains and thereby achieve *privacy*? The fact that Romans often could not afford such privacy doesn't mean that they didn't want it--and the fact that rich Romans did so much to acheive privacy (once they had the wealth) very much suggests that many ordinary Romans who didn't have privacy were itching for it. Maybe I'm speaking dolphin...

Yes--loved it.

Actually born in Ithaca, NY. To be buried in Utica...that's an interesting idea.

Given that our earliest Latin literature was written by plebs, I doubt the pleb/patrician distinction is very useful. Also, judging by the finds at Vindolanda, it seems that ordinary soldiers could read and write just fine. In a wide-flung commercial civilization such as the Roman one, the motive, means, and opportunity for learning to read should have been widely available.

No--a New Yorker by birth. Sounds like a good thing to me.

Yes, I was thinking of Scotch re: amt of water. Though my father teethed me on Southern Comfort, I'm not much of a bourbon fan. To me, it's just the base for mint juleps (a seasonal treat for when the Kentucky Derby comes around), though I'd be happy to discover its merits.

Seriously, much of what we have from pagan Roman is due to the Christians' appropriation. Of course, had the Christians not spent so much of the empire's wealth supporting the idle hands and empty skulls of the monks and bishops, there might have been sufficient resources for legionaries and officers to have defended the empire...but that's another story.

Yes, but just a little water--like 20 drops of water for a double.

People often comment how much like my namesake I appear, but my first attempt at a screen name was actually Decimus Brutus. The reason is that I'd simply assumed that Cato had already been taken, so I chose the name of the pirate who offered a counter-ransom to save those on Octavian and Antony's list of the proscribed. For that, Decimus Brutus was like a Roman Scarlet Pimpernel, who was (and still is) one of my favorite literary characters. Having found that my second choice was already taken, I tried my first choice on a lark--and it worked. My interest in and admiration for M. Porcius Cato have their origins in two works--Sallust (a partisan of Caesar and Clodius, thus a natural enemy of Cato) and Lily Ross Taylor's "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar." The Sallust passage (Cat. 54) that initially caught my interest was the famous one that contrasted Caesar and Cato: In birth, age and eloquence, they were well matched. They had the same nobility of soul, and equal, though quite different, reputations. Caesar was esteemed for the many kind services he rendered and for his lavish generosity; Cato, for the consistent uprightness of his life. The former was renowned for his humanity and mercy; the latter had earned respect by his strict austerity. Caesar won fame by his readiness to give, to relieve, to pardon; Cato, by never offering presents. The one was a refuge for the unfortunate, and was praised for his good nature; the other was a scourge for the wicked, admired for his firmness. Finally, Caesar had made it a rule to work hard and sleep little; to devote himself to the interests of his friends and to neglect his own; to be ready to give people anything that was worth the giving. For himself he wanted a high command, an army, and a war in some new field where his gifts could shine in all their brightness. Cato's taste was for restraint, propriety, and, above all, austerity. He did not compete in wealth with the wealthy or in party quarrels with the politicans, but with the man of action in deserving, with the virtuous in self-restraint, and with the righteous in strict honesty. He was more concerned to be a good man than to be thought one; and so the less he courted fame, the more did it attend his steps unsought.

It's impossible to determine whether capital punishment has a deterrent effect from a few negative cases (like Bundy). After all, an advocate of the deterrent hypothesis could reply that 100s more DIDN'T engage in mass murder due to the existence of capital punishment. (Not that I buy that argument, but as a logical matter...) Best I can tell, the deterrent effect is very small, suggesting either that capital punishment has no such effect or that the way it's administered (e.g., with a long appeals process) undercuts it. In any case, I agree with Germanicus that the deterrent effect isn't the best argument for capital punishment in ordinary criminal cases. But I'd still like to see tyrants like Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, and their apparatchiks (like Eichmann and Beria) swiftly and lawfully executed as a social statement that the reign of the dictator is definitely finished and his partisans should just give up. In these cases, the trials and executions might go a long way toward awakening society from their slumber of obedience and servility. I'd note that after the Catiline conspirators were executed, vast numbers of Catiline's supporters immediately deserted him, thereby saving thousands of Roman lives. To me, that's a classic case of executions doing the job they were intended to do.

From today's NYT: In ancient Rome, patients with unbearable head pain were sometimes treated with jolts from the electricity-producing black torpedo fish, or electric ray. Scribonius Largus, physician to Emperor Claudius, was a staunch advocate of the remedy.

***Election Day Update*** Updated data from EIA: 9/11 - US Avg (All Grades): $ 2.670 9/18 - US Avg (All Grades): $ 2.549 9/25 - US Avg (All Grades): $ 2.429 10/2 - US Avg (All Grades): $ 2.360 10/9 - US Avg (All Grades): $ 2.310 10/16-US Avg (All Grades): $ 2.274 10/23-US Avg (All Grades): $ 2.255 10/30-US Avg (All Grades): $ 2.264 11/6 - US Avg (All Grades): $ 2.246 Data still consistent with two opposing hypotheses: (1) oil company/GOP price manipulation in anticipation of early November elections, (2) the seasonal fall in prices that occurs every year. The real test will come between early November and December. The first hypothesis sees a gradual return to pre-election prices (when oil companies would feel free to 'gouge' consumers); the second hypothesis sees continuing declines until demand picks up again in the spring. Only time will tell...

My favorite whisky comes from Islay, an island that produces particularly smokey and peaty spirits. Top two faves are Lagavulin and Ardbeg Uigeadail, but in a pinch any Islay will do. Pertinax?

A recent posting by Pertinax contained a link to Roman graffiti. It's interesting how much of it revolves around the topic of love, including this one regarding a weaver's love of a slave girl:

It would be nice if a real Romanophile would do one of these specials. What I wouldn't pay to see a proper treatment of the Punic Wars!

My sentiments exactly. This is why I'd much prefer Saddam to be hung than to spend the rest of his days 'exiled' at a posh Swiss resort. Hopefully (and at this point it's pure hope), there's some way to dissuade future world leaders from behaving like Saddam.

Except that there's no evidence for such a Roman system of patronage. It's a Mommsenian reconstruction that could be totally false. We do have evidence that religious colleges provided some support for the poor (e.g., in providing for funeral arrangements), but there's nothing in the literature indicating that politicians had some moral duty to care for the poor--which isn't to say that they never did so. BTW, I'm glad Julius Ratus mentioned Labienus. The portrayal of Pharsalus was better than average. However, they missed that Labienus' retreating cavalry stampeded over Pompey's slingers and archers thereby effectively wiping out Pompey's advantage in missle troops (suggesting that the loss of Labienus might not have been such a bad thing for Caesar!) and costing Pompey the battle. Instead, all the blame for the loss at Pharsalus is put on Marcellus and Cato, and Cato wasn't even present at Pharsalus! Again, these fictions are introduced to cement the cartoonish narrative--Caesar good, Senate bad. Anyway, I hate to complain about this series because I'd really like there to be more of them, and I hope they inspire people to buy books on ancient Rome--but it would be nice if some more of those books were read by the film producers themselves.

Wasn't the worship of Herakles a warrior cult? If not, what is meant by the term?

I saw "Tiberius", "Caesar", and "Nero" last night. All had very good production values (cinematography, etc), and they all went a little deeper into their respective subjects than the standard History Channel special. Unfortunately, the historical narrative itself was a tad cartoonish. For example, Tiberius Gracchus is portrayed as a Christ-like figure (complete with long hair!), who loves the poor but is martyred for it by the mean old rich Romans. (The one exception was Pulcher, who tells Gracchus that the rich have a moral duty to help the poor--a notion straight out of Christianity but absolutely NOT part of Greco-Roman ethics.) Like the explanation of some religious dogma, one never gets the sense that there could have been ANY legitimate grounds for opposing Gracchus' proposals. This is a shame because the land proposals in "Tiberius" were far more radical than the ones the real Tiberius Gracchus proposed. Of course, everyone who opposes Gracchus is portrayed as an evil snob, and everyone who supports Gracchus is portrayed as a benevolent idealist. If you loved "Titanic", you'd probably love this too--though this disaster didn't even have a soundtrack. "Caesar" and "Nero" were fairly similar for oversimplifying the basic narrative. Strangely, Caesar was portrayed as a highly unsympathetic character, which is a nice twist I guess, but I'd like to think that there were better reasons to oppose Caesar than the fact that he was a melodramatic drama-queen. (At least they got Cato's age right, unnerving though it was to see Karl Johnson talking to Cato rather than for Cato.) I thought "Nero" was the most enjoyable of the three, but that's because I'm prepared to believe most anything about that nutball. It's only too bad they didn't bring in Petronius, the most interesting character of the period and the perfect foil to Tigellinus.

Historically, Europeans haven't been always been soft on dictators. Mussolini was strung up by his heels so the Italians could visit their rage on his corpse. Ceaucescu was shot only a few days after fleeing the capital. Compared to these villiains, Saddam has been treated like a prince.