M. Porcius Cato

Fair enough. I guess it's impossible to evaluate Scipio's character from his actions unless one has some prior position on whether opposing Caesar was a good or bad thing. In evaluating Scipio, I made my position on that matter clear. If you think Caesar should have gone unopposed, then Scipio was a very bad man.

Cicero was acclaimed pater patriae after Catiline was defeated, not after successfully prosecuting Verres. Also, obvioulsy Verres wasn't the threat to Cicero--Verres was buddies with nearly the whole Sullan order, and these guys most certainly could affect Cicero's career. That's not the reasoning at all. We needn't even infer that Cicero opposed Antony (let alone from the fact that Antony had Cicero killed). We have Cicero's Phillipics themselves. You should read them GO. Leaving Cato out of this (despite having much to say on the topic--this is a thread on Cicero), Cicero's prosecution of Verres--a man who crucified a Roman citizen without trial--was certainly to the benefit of the populus. I suppose that since he opposed the whole Sullan order in the trial, many would have considered Cicero a potential populare. There is no term 'popularies', and from the context, I'm not sure whether you mean "people" (populus) or "populist" (popularis). They're not synonyms: one can be 100% anti-populist and 100% pro-people. Presumably you're not asking me to provide evidence that Cicero was a populist, are you? Why would I want to insult Cicero as such a crude fool? In any case, it sounds like you need to read (or re-read) the Verrine Orations and the Phillipics. To say that Cicero never took a principled stance against those in power is just wrong. There are also a number of good secondary sources on Cicero, including Everitt's Cicero, and there's a nice fictional account of the events surrounding the prosecution of Verres (Harris' Imperium) if you want something very easily digestible.

All fascinating questions; all off-topic. This is the Rome Television Series subfora. Pose the questions again in the Republic, and I'm sure many will weigh in with their two cents.

Isn't this the same series discussed by our trans-Atlantic friends?

Completely off-topic. Why this thread has wandered so far from the origin of the Roman salute is beyond me. Don't you all have any interest in ancient Rome?

Wasn't the average height of a Roman legionary only about 5 feet tall anyway? A four foot bed doesn't seem like such an obstacle to me. Taller patrons could presumably get a temporary bench to extend the length of the bed if they were so inclined (to recline).

At many universities, candidates lose financial support if they don't defend in 10 terms (5 years). That policy has done much to squelch the navel gazing.

He stood up to the nearly the entire political establishment when opposing Verres and his opposition to Antony cost him his life. If that's never taking a "dangerous principled stance against power", what in Hades is???? Also, can you provide your source that Cicero was a self-proclaimed pater patriae? I've read in at least a half dozen sources that it was Cato who declared him thus.

That's my interpretation. I think Aemilianus was perhaps the finest Cornelian in Roman history.

In your opinion, Milo's violence was not instigated by Pompey? Perhaps, then, you could explain the relationship between Pompey and Milo better. Please do. I'd love to hear how Milo, a creature almost entirely of Pompey's making and protection, went off the reservation without so much as a wink from his political benefactor. Actually, that wasn't the only rule of war--not by a long shot. The ius fetiale specifically proscribed wars of aggression and betraying Roman allies. Moreover, provincial governors were specifically forbidden from running off on their own against whatever neighboring villages caught their fancy. Furthermore, the case of Mancinus provides exactly the legal precedent for handing Caesar over to the Germans that Cato (perhaps jocularly) endorsed. BTW, if I had wanted to be a fanatical supporter of Scipio, I could have easily glossed over Caesar's claims about him. On the contrary, I didn't pull any punches about this ally of Cato's, which is what a true fanatic would have done. Moreover, I provided you with all the major source material I could find on Scipio so you could make up your mind. If there's any fanaticism here, it was a fanatical helpfulness.

Yes, but why do we celebrate those puritanic theocrats instead of the more fun-loving Virginians or the more industrious Dutch settlers of Manhattan? Surely, New Amsterdam was a much more (modern) American city than backward Plymouth!

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Presumably, what a religion offers is important, but that has to be weighed against what the religion demands. A religion that celebrates chastity, loving your enemies, self-flagellation and offers up a list of prohibitions on everything fun and educational doesn't strike me as such a bargain--even if it does offer lifetime pass through the Pearly Gates and a colorful ceremony. Also, I'd guess that many of the benefits of various religions are firmly terrestrial--good business connections, opportunities for advancement, affiliations with the hoi polloi, etc. As the center of wealth and commerce shifts East, so will the center of religion. Just my two sestercii.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/05/06/1...0-year-old-road

The grass is always greener. And "working in seclusion" is exactly right--I spent almost 2 years working alone in a windowless basement office. I'd have loved to have been getting interrogated or joining in something competitive--which, not having done, is easy to say!

Funny how people cope with writing their dissertations. While writing mine, I kept my sanity by writing reviews for Amazon--it was just the right level of distraction: not too interesting to get caught up in, not as brain numbing as re-re-re-writing the same paragraph again and again. If I had known about UNRV, I'd have finished 1000 posts before my defense!

In my view, Scipio was neither a mere pornographer nor some benevolent counterbalance to Cato. Rather, Scipio appears more ferociously anti-Caesarian than Cato, and (if we are to believe Caesar's accounts) Scipio was less humane than Cato and often quite overwhelmingly petty. As one might guess of a man with four to five names, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica was descended from among the most eminent plebeian families in the republic. Through his mother he was descended from the the Licinian line that established civil rights for plebeians, and through his father he was descended from the Cornelian line that had saved Rome itself from both Hannibal and the rapacious Marian Cinna. Seeming to live up to these illustrious ancestors, it was Scipio (along with Crassus and Marcellus) who brought the letters to Cicero that revealed the Catilinarian plot. Further, having been elected tribune of the plebs, and serving in the college of pontiffs in 59, he heard the case regarding Cicero's house, which had been destroyed by Caesar's creature Clodius. We next hear of Scipio in 53, when--now backed by the Clodian mob--he ran for the consulship against Milo,who was backed by Pompey. The campaigning was marked by rampant bribery and open violence on the streets, mostly at the instigation of Pompey who had hoped to be named dictator to supress the violence that he himself initiated. Indeed, after the murder of Clodius and its aftermath, Pompey acheived his aim in the sense that he was named sole consul in February. However, in a turn of events occurring between February and August, Scipio and Pompey were reconciled, after Scipio offered his daughter Cornelia to Pompey, who then named Scipio as his co-consul. Thus, after a year of civil strife, Scipio had managed to unite the major opposing factions for the consulship, cemented above all by their common opposition to Caesar, who was menacing Rome with his rampant bribery and was conducting a completely unauthorized war against the poor Gauls. As consul, Scipio was energetic in opposing Caesar. He sponsored a law restoring the power of the censors to review ranks of the Senate, presumably as an effort to remove those senators who had been bribed by Caesar, and he also introduced the motion that the Senate should review the Gallic provinces, where Caesar was conducting his illegal war. Finally, in 49, Scipio brought matters to a head by seconding Lentulus' proposal that Caesar lay down his arms or be declared an enemy of Rome. In the ensuing civil war, Scipio was given the province of Syria, where (Caesar claims) Scipio viciously overtaxed the inhabitants both for purposes of opposing Caesar and also for his personal gain. Moving on to Pharsalus, Scipio led the center of Pompey's forces (again Caesar depicts him as a squabbling aristocrat, chiefly concerned with whether he would gain Caesar's office as pontifex maximus once Caesar was defeated). Finally, joining Cato at Utica, Scipio was said to have attempted to put the whole city to the torch, but he was stopped by Cato, who thereafter was much loved by the Uticans. (Indeed, the one surviving statue of Cato was discovered at Utica, and Cato was often known as Cato Uticensis.) Scipio did commit suicide, though not as depicted in the series. Having been defeated by Caesar at Thapsus, Scipio and his troops fled, while others surrendered to Caesar. Those who surrendered were viciously slaughtered by the troops of Caesar the Merciful. Those who fled (including Scipio) were intercepted at sea, and it was at sea that Scipio stabbed himself and lept into the waters. For sources, see: Plut. Cic. 15 ; Dion Cass. xl. 51, xliii. 9; Appian, B. C. ii. 24,25, 60, 76, 87, 95

There is plenty of evidence for Cicero's cowardice and ingratiating behavior, but I'd not include his silence during Caesar's dictatorship, when free speech and free competition for political office had come to an end. Under such conditions of dictatorship, there is no point in speaking out--there is only revolution or submission. The chief reason Cicero did not join the plot to rid the republic of that thug Caesar was that no one trusted Cicero's resolve. However, once the deed was done, Cicero was energetic in attempting to prevent another Caesar from gaining power.

Phil's question is an intriguing one: Why Rome? Why not Alexandria? Or Byzantium? Or Ravenna? I guess the answer depends on your assumptions about what made Rome great. If you believe it came from the republican values of the Roman people and its leading families, then it's hard to imagine how those values could be found in a culture of tyrant-worship and mysticism, such as would be found in the eastern territories. On the other hand, if you think Rome attained its power merely from having strong leaders, Alexandria would be a most fitting capital, as would Babylon or Sardis. My own view is that the Roman empire owed much to the institutions it preserved from the old republic and much to the culture that created and sustained those institutions. For this reason, the city of Rome itself was an important ingredient in Roman power. As those institutions began to fall away, the marginal utility of Rome itself diminished, and it was thus an impediment to those leaders who wished to rule as Eastern-style potentates. Thus, that Antony wished to rule from Egypt was no small matter. He wanted to cut the heart out of the Roman empire--which were the traditions of Rome itself.

Reconstructing the events of 753-509 will be a work of tremendous historical imagination, but I agree that it's better to critically evaluate alternative reconstructions than to throw up one's hands. What secondary sources would you recommend as providing the best reconstructions of the regal period?

To me, the funeral oration by Perikles is the best statement of those Hellenic values--rationality, individualism, and political freedom--that make the world a place fit for human life. All the humanities are just a footnote to Perikles' oration.

Oh do you? Yet you would give two limbs to see poor Cicero's head and hands hanging from the Rostrum?? I confess Augusta that it's you who terrify ME! Now how do you reconcile this? On the one hand, you would exult in seeing a patriot like Cicero dismembered in the Forum itself. On the other, you claim to believe that murder is wrong in all cases. What a tangled web of desires! Do you also hope to see babies' corpses while condemning infanticide? Or have an eagerness to watch puppies tortured, while condemning cruelty to animals? I must say your protest against murder rings quite hollow when you state that you'd give two limbs to have seen poor Cicero's remains. And what of mass murderers themselves? What are we to make of Octavian in Perugia, if not mass murder? Or Antony's proscriptions? You would, I am sure, not sanction their murder--so what, in the ancient context, would you have done with these political mass murderers like Antony and Octavian? Put them in a box for "safekeeping"? Like Jefferson, I believe that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants. And Cicero was no tyrant--he was one of the few voices that were raised in opposition to them. If you want to see that voice silenced in such a gruesome manner as it was, please don't claim to oppose murder.

Then why the popularity of the story of Pyramus and Thisbe, the original "star-crossed lovers"? Surely the tale of a love that transcends social barriers is as old as dirt.

Porcia was Cato's daughter by his first wife. Also, she presumably didn't actually EAT hot coals to kill herself. Rather, she inhaled their fumes, which was a fairly common method of suicide. I also agree that the real relationships were far more interesting that the lesbian sex. Not that there's anything wrong with lesbian sex.

Yes, to my bitter ire! What, do the producers not know that young men too can rage? Have they forgotten all those young idealists, with such a radiant sense of right and wrong that even old Moses himself would have felt himself a soft touch next to them? The stereotype of the old moralist is backwards--men typically grow more cynical and forgiving with age, not more idealistic and judgmental. Let anyone with a teenage daughter disagree now or forever hold his peace! IMO, Harris' depiction of Cato in Imperium is much closer to the sources than Johnson's depiction of Cato in HBO's Rome.

OK, great, so persecutions are points off. I'd assume that includes proscriptions, kangaroo courts, secret police, etc. What about wars in violation of the ius fetiale? Checklist, schmecklist. A checklist loses information. For example, do you really want to maintain that someone who presided over 50 years of external peace is equal to someone who maintained only 5 years of external peace before being overthrown by an internal force? Or that someone who persecuted a handful of Christians is equal to someone who persecuted 100,000? Also, when does the tally start? As soon as the person assumes imperium? But with no regard to how it was gained??? Surely an usurper should lose points, no?