M. Porcius Cato

The classical era and antiquity are not really the same, in my opinion. OK...what's the difference in your view, and when did the two periods elapse?

Although you wouldn't know it from certain hiking tours, Hannibal's route across the alps has been the source of enduring controversy. At least six different routes have been proposed: Col du Petit Saint Bernard (Niebuhr, Mommsen, Lehmann, Viedebrandt, Kiepert and de Conninck) Mont Cenis (Napoleon Bonaparte and Nissen) Col du Clapier (Perrin, Azan, Collins, Wilkinson, and Lancel) Col du Montgen

No argument here. I'm a big fan of the common-core, and the study of the ancient mediterranean should be a part of that. For someone to graduate from college without reading Perikles' funeral oration...well, I just shudder. I guess I was more reacting to the Allen Bloom/Mortimer J. Adler-types who seem to think that knowledge came to a halt in the 19th century and that an intellectual can thrive while being completely ignorant of disciplines that were virtually non-existent in the 19th century (e.g., statistics, economics, modern biology, cognitive science, etc). These bright and idealistic students who end up in so-called "Great Books" colleges are really missing out on a lot.

They did. In Asia Minor.

It's hard to say when the classical era ended unless you first establish some standard about when it began. If you take the beginning to be 5th century Athens--with its philosophy, mathematics, theatre, literature, urbanization, democracy, international trade, and abundance of material comforts--then it seems like the hallmarks of the classical era had been sliding for some time prior to 476, but--at different times and places--they really took a nose-dive after 476.

Bettany Hughes is probably the re-incarnation of Helen of Troy. :wub:

Ah, yes, Allan Bloom...In my opinion, the decline of the liberal arts in favor of math, science, and engineering has paradoxically helped the liberal arts, including the classics. Clearly the classics are not as popular (proportionately) as they once were, but the quality of the work today is just amazing. So, while it's true that kids today haven't the same background in the classics as the kids did back when Shakespeare was in school, no one in Shakespeare's day had the training in archaeology, linguistics, papyrology, genetics, prosopography, and other methods that would have allowed them to go beyond the surviving written words that were left to them. Also, the fact that fewer uninterested people are forced to waste time on the classics is a good thing. I'd rather that people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had the freedom to focus on personal computers than that they had spent the same time puzzling out whether Caesar was born in 102 or 100. Thanks in part to their DISINTEREST in Rome, mere mortals like us have got the computer and the internet, which makes all kinds of classical education possible that would otherwise be impossible, including this very forum. Thanks to the much lamented decline in classical education in favor of science and engineering, Romanophiles like me can find three scholarly articles on the lex Gabinia in less than 3 minutes. And examples like that aren't difficult to find.

"A couple of levels above hogwash"

But the imperia extra ordinem had been applied successfully in at least a half dozen previous cases. So what made the lex Gabinia special wasn't that it had been successful for the first time but that it was used as a launch pad for a string of unauthorized 'settlements' in the East.

That's a good argument Horatius. Essentially, you're not disputing whether the imperia extra ordinem was harmful per se, but you are arguing that the lex Gabinia was too open-ended in the powers it gave Pompey, thereby allowing him to engorge himself on the wealth of the east and thereby disrupt internal Roman politics in a way that previous extraordinary powers had not enabled. Is that a fair summary?

Except Suetonius didn't claim to be an eyewitness to the horse. We don't know where he got his information, do we? Yet another reason why it's important to check your sources--it's unchecked sources that really should be discounted (it's the source of urban legends).

Yes, it's true that Plutarch contradicts Paterculus' account (I'm very glad you brought that up), but I think it's easier to understand the resolution of the conflict between Pompey and Marcellus if we assume that Paterculus (who was closer to events anyway, wasn't he?) was correct and Plutarch incorrect. Also, I agree whole-heartedly with Harris' bottom-line: that the lex Gabinia demonstrates the law of unintended consequences. I'd just like to nail down what those consequences were.

No one is arguing that the ancients should be taken at face value. The argument is that common sense is not sufficient--not that it's not necessary.

If the Persians were no match for the Greeks, how did the Persians manage to overrun the Greeks in Asia Minor?

Common sense is a very low standard. In my view, far too low of a standard for the academia subforum.

Wait a second, what makes you think that the lex Gabinia gave Pompey unlimited power in the Mediterranean? That's not what the ancient sources claim, and it's not suggested by the evidence in toto. According to Velleius Paterculus, Pompey's power was only equal to that of the provincial governors--not greater than theirs. Second, when Metellus resisted Pompey's interference, Pompey desisted. Third, when Pompey later obtained control over the grain supply in 57, he required a second law, suggesting that his imperium here wasn't covered by the lex Gabinia itself. If Pompey had had unlimited power indefinitely, then he wouldn't have needed a second law. There's some room for debate about the scope of Pompey's authority under the lex Gabinia, but I don't think the ancient sources support the interpretation that Pompey was some sort of Neptune in perpetuity.

Yes, but the key is to cite sources so that interested parties can follow up and verify your claims for themselves. For example, according to your post, the Romans ate lots of cabbage and cabbage prevents lead poisoning, therefore lead pipes posed no hazard. BUT, how do we know how much cabbage ordinary Romans ate? Cato the Elder recommends eating lots (you could cite that), but there were nearly a million people living in Rome--could they all really get enough cabbage? Here, too, citing something about the acreage required to support a million cabbage consumers would be relevant. (Personally, I have my doubts--it took massive barges and tremendous infrastructure simply to provide Romans with their grain, which is much less perishable than cabbage and also much less voluminous. Without refrigeration, how could a city of a million obtain sufficient produce on a daily basis to ward off lead poisoning?) There is a reason people do ancient history professionally--it's hard work to substantiate claims with evidence. But, as Spinoza says, all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.

Updated data from EIA: 9/11 - US Avg (Regular Grade): $ 2.618 9/18 - US Avg (Regular Grade): $ 2.497 9/25 - US Avg (Regular Grade): $ 2.378 10/2 - US Avg (Regular Grade): $ 2.310 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 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...

Roman Days looks like it could be quite fun. In one previous event, they had a very nice demonstration of a falx cutting through a scutum like nobody's business. On other hand, I'm not too interested in running out to purchase a toga or lorica hamata, so I hope we don't have to dress in period merely to attend the event.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with PP's assessment. The lex Gabinia was one of many imperia extra ordinem, including: Pompey's imperium in 82, his command of the armies in Italy and Spain in the 70s, Crassus' command against Spartacus in 72, Pompey's control of the grain supply in 57 (cura annonae), the quinquennial terms in Spain and Syria for Pompey and Crassus starting in 55 (the lex Trebonia), and obviously it was an imperia extra ordinem (the lex Vatinia) that made it possible for Caesar to conduct his Gallic adventures. Nor were these special commands completely unprecedented. Privati--non-magistrates with imperium--had long served Rome. In the dark days of the Third Samnite War (in 295), four ex-consuls were granted imperia; proconsular imperium was granted to Scipio Africanus and M. Marcellus (neither being proper magistrates), and it was also as a private citizen that Marius obtained the Mithridatic command in 88. While they were not privati, Sp. Lucretius held special imperium in Liguria from 205-202, and Cn. Octavius commanded a fleet in the western Mediterranean from 205-201. In addition to the extraordinary commands, there were also many lesser special commissions, some of which included imperia. Indeed, my own namesake Cato was forced to accept (with much protest) a special commission to secure the financial resources of Cyprus for the Roman treasury (Cic., De Domo, 22). As far as I can tell, there are two ways of interpreting these extraordinary powers. The first view is the one that Harris proposes, and it one that has a long history--viz., that the extraordinary commands cleared the path to the principate by means of a successive weakening of the constitution. I don't think this view withstands scrutiny, either with respect to the lex Gabinia nor to its many precedents in the early and middle Republic. The second view is that the long history of extraordinary commands shows just how flexible and adaptive the Roman constitution really was when faced with emergencies. This was exactly what Cicero had argued on behalf of the Manilian law, and it was consistent as well with Cato's argument in favor of the capital punishment for the Catiline conspirators--that is, if the very existence of the republic is in danger, then there is no sense in worrying about minor laws--ALL laws will be nullified in the event that the republic is destroyed. Cato's argument, I think, provides a principled means for distinguishing between mere power grabs and true expediencies, and it is one that will also find some imperia extra ordinem wanting (especially the lex Vatinia). Thus, I think the lex Gabinia was not the "beginning of the end" merely because it involved an assembly voting for special powers. In this, the Roman constitution was not being violated, the mos maiorum were not being tossed out; indeed, quite the opposite case can be made even from a strictly Catonian perspective. That said, I continue to have several reservations about the lex Gabinia--it was passed over a tribune's veto; it simply provided Pompey with a blank check rather than giving him any guidance about what he couldn't do; and it obviously bank-rolled any number of rotten legates who would later go on to commit much mischief (such as Metellus Nepos). In these ways, I think Harris may be onto something, but not because of any constitutional issues with the imperia extra ordinem per se.

Leaving aside any reference to the modern world (please), what exactly was the status of the lex Gabinia? In an excellent article that should be of much interest in modern Romanophiles, Robert Harris has recently argued that the law contributed to the fall of the republic:

FWIW, I took a class on ancient Greek culture when I was in grad school at U Michigan, and an expert on ancient magic told us that written curses were stuck under floorboards, in wells, and in places that would be likely to reach the underworld.

Harris is the anti-McCollough? Well, why didn't you say that in your review? Now I'm going to order Imperium right away! BTW, I loved Pompeii.

That's good news. I'd hate to think that Colleen McCullough will have the last fictional word on this period.

Phil's argument that Romans had some radically different psychology appears to rest on a notion about human nature that I hotly contest--namely, that human psychology is some cultural construction rather than a fact of nature. In my view, social conflict and intimacy are as natural to the human condition as singing and flying are to the canary condition. Moreover, I've already listed a number of textual sources in support of my claim. Where is this evidence that slavery and infanticide changed Roman psychology? I don't see any at all. In fact, if you look at Terence or Plautus, it's quite clear that the Roman mind was not so warped by the holding of slaves or infanticide that they failed to appreciate love, intimacy, conflict, and all the other emotions that can be found in every culture on earth.