[Primus Pilus]

The story of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus obviously well known, but his fall from grace due to politics is generally just a small caveat in comparison to his noted military career. Cato the Elder on the other hand was known as a steadfast traditionalist politician, was revered for his various written works "De Agri Cultura (on Farming)" and "Origines", is perhaps most notable in history simply for having said "In my opinion, Carthage must be destroyed." 1

What I am looking for here is evidence of the rivalry between Cato the Elder and Scipio Africanus and how factional politics were developed as a result.

The rivalry begins early in the career of Cato and during the height of the Second Punic War. Cato served Fabius Maximus who was a rival of the youthful Scipio. 2 Fabius opposed the victorious young general, who after defeating the Carthaginians in Hispania seemed in line to receive Africa as a new proconsular province without a proper legal vote. 3 It was also his contention that any expedition should be taken directly to Hannibal (who was still in Italy at this time), rather than an attempt to invade Africa. Speeches reported by Livy from both Fabius and Scipio indicate (Livy, 28.40 - 28.44) the nature of this rivalry. Fabius accused Scipio of personal amibition above the interests of Rome, while Scipio responded with accusations of jealousy. Furthermore, it was believed that even if a Senatorial vote should go against Scipio, that he would've taken the matter to the assembly through the Tribunes. 4

As it turned out, compromise in the Senate resulted in Scipio's cause winning the day (continuation of Livy book 28) and Scipio moved to Sicily to prepare for an invasion of Africa. It's at this point that Cato (the afore-mentioned adherent of Fabius) becomes involved. As a quaestor assigned to Scipio he accompanied the general to Sicily where charges of excessiveness were filed with the Senate which could potentially have resulted in Scipio's recall. 5

1. Plutarch, Life of Cato the Elder, 27

2. Pl, Cato, 3 (Of the elder statesmen, he attached himself most closely to Fabius Maximus, who was of the highest reputation and had the greatest influence, but this was more by way of setting before himself the character and life of the man as the fairest examples he could follow. In the same spirit he did not hesitate to oppose the great Scipio, a youthful rival of Fabius)

3. Livy, History of Rome, Book 28. 40 (The next question before the senate concerned the raising of troops and the distribution of the various commands. There was a rumour that Africa was to form a new province and be allotted to Scipio without having recourse to the ballot. Scipio himself, no longer contented with a moderate share of glory, was telling people that he had been returned as consul not simply to carry on the war but to bring it to an end, and the only way of doing that was for him to take an army over to Africa. In the event of the senate's opposition he asserted openly that he would carry his proposal by the authority of the people. )

4. Livy, HR, 28.45 (Scipio was listened to with impatience, for it was generally believed that if he did not succeed in inducing the senate to decree that Africa should be his province, he would at once bring the question before the Assembly...)

5. PL, Cato, 3, 5-8 (Cato therefore left Sicily, and joined Fabius in denouncing before the Senate Scipio's waste of enormous moneys, and his boyish addiction to palaestras and theatres, as though he were not commander of an army, but master of a festival.)

[Andrew Dalby]

When putting together a brief sketch of Cato's life for my translation of his /On Farming/, I got the impression that Cato was likely to be anything but loyal to his former superiors. Not just Scipio, but also M'. Acilius Glabrio, his commander in 191 BC, and M. Fulvius Nobilior, whom he served in 189. He also went for Scipio's brother Lucius.

I noted a quotation that seemed to sum up his enjoyment of Roman political infighting. His censorship in 184 aroused political feuds that "occupied Cato for the rest of his life" (Livy, History of Rome 39.44.9).

[Favonius Cornelius]

The rivalry between Cato and Scipio can be said to be the beginnings of the kind of political instability which led to the fall of the Republic in later years, and both men represent reoccurring and distinct Roman political ideologies.

On the one hand, you have Marcus Porcius Cato, who by backing the powerful Fabius patrician clan is clearly marking his loyalty with the aristocratic core. One can see how a plebian like Cato would wish to do so, for the aristocratic clique in Rome most often dominated by the patrician families made it difficult for any new man to advance his career. Those who generally work through the senate and the great families are known as the optimates.

On the other hand you have Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, born into one of the most powerful patrician families. He had no need to prove his right to rule the Roman people. Couple that with youth, energy, brilliance and ambition, and you have a man who's interests may actually conflict with the interests of his peers in the senate. For men such as Scipio who's political platform may put the boni viri at unease, the use of the power of the people is most useful, through the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the assemblies of the people. In these arenas the opinions of the senate and the aristocracy means less, the appeal of a man to the masses more. Men who generally use this route of political influence are termed populares.

1. H.H. Scullard: History of the Roman World

This post has been edited by Favonius Cornelius: 31 August 2006 - 07:13 AM

[Primus Pilus]

Andrew makes an excellent point that Cato himself probably did not care about a specific rivalry with a Scipio in particular, but thrived on all such political challenges. The difficult thing to prove is not so much the rivalry between Cato and Scipio, but how it influenced the political factions to a point of instability. Even more challenging is that later Scipiones, such as Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus and Scipio Nasica Serapio were either indifferent to or directly opposed to Tiberius Gracchus respectively.

For Aemilianus' indifference... Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus 21.4.
For Nasica Serapio involved in the slaying of Tiberius... PL, Gracchus 19

[Pantagathus]

I have a rather difficult time with the absolute veracity of Plutarch’s account of what happened in & right after Sicily.

Though the rivalry between Scipio and Fabius Maximus is clear in Livy 28, Cato however, is glossed over. In fact all we hear of him from Sicily is in 29.25 where Livy says:

”He (Scipio Africanus) further informed them that he and Lucius Scipio would command the right division of twenty ships of war, whilst C. Laelius, prefect of the fleet, in conjunction with M. Porcius Cato, who was quaestor at the time, would be in charge of the left line containing the same number, and would protect the transports”

That’s it! And unfortunately we a bereft of Polybius’ account because there is a gap between Scipio returning to Rome from Spain in 11.33 and his first movements in Africa in Book 14.

Further evidence that Cato was present through this portion of Scipio’s Africa campaign is oddly enough from Pliny the Elder in an anecdote about a book on Military Discipline written by Cato based on what he learned from Scipio (and Hannibal) while serving under him. Though Pliny does remark on the enmity Cato had for Scipio which Pliny may have meant Aemilianus. (I’m having hardest time refinding that exact passage but will edit with citation when found)

This post has been edited by Pantagathus: 31 August 2006 - 11:20 AM

[Gaius Octavius]

"The wars [against Hannibal and Antiochus in Greece] at length were over and new wealth with new ideas of luxury, refinement and culture began to reach Rome. Cato stubbornly opposed the new ways of life to which they led. Tough on the field of battle, he was equally tough in the forum of Rome. He secured many verdicts against his political opponents, for he was no mean orator. He successfully defended himself on over forty occasions. He did not spare the great Scipio Africanus who retired from Rome in disgust after being arraigned by Cato, to whom his [Scipio's] liking for Greek civilization ('that race of of babblers', snorted Cato) was anathema. Cato's oratory was much admired. Except for one or two scraps it has all been lost. For one piece of advice he certainly deserves to be for ever remembered: 'Stick to the point and the words will come' (rem tene, verba sequentur)."
____________
Cicero and the Roman Republic; F.R. Cowell; Penguin Books (A Pelican Book), 1956; page 273.

This post has been edited by Gaius Octavius: 30 August 2006 - 06:17 PM

[Pantagathus]

The episode just mentioned by Gaius which also deals with something Andrew brought up (Cato's attack on Lucius Scipio) is just about the only 'somewhat' concrete occurance of rivalry between Cato and P.C.Scipio Africanus Major (as apposed to Aemilianus of which there is more evidence of rivalry)...

"Africanus returned to Rome with his brother Lucius after the completion of the war (with Antiochus) in B. C. 189, but his remaining years were embittered by the attacks of his old enemies. Shortly after his return, he and his brother Lucius were accused of having received bribes from Antiochus to let the monarch off too leniently, and of having appropriated to their own use part of the money which had been paid by Antiochus to the Roman state.

The glory of his African victory had already grown dim; and his enemies availed themselves of the opportunity to crush their proud antagonist. The accusation was set on foot by M. Porcius Cato, but the details of it are related with such discrepancies by the ancient authorities, that it is impossible to determine with certainty the true history of the affair, or the year in which it occurred.

It appears, however, that there were two distinct prosecutions, and the following is perhaps the most probable history of the transaction. In B. C. 187, two tribunes of the people of the name of Petillii, instigated by Cato and the other enemies of the Scipios, required L. Scipio to render an account of all the sums of money which he had received from Antiochus. L. Scipio accordingly prepared his accounts, but as he was in the act of delivering them up, the proud conqueror of Hannibal indignantly snatched them out of his hands, and tore them up in pieces before the senate.

But this haughty conduct appears to have produced an unfavourable impression, and his brother, when brought to trial in the course of the same year, was declared guilty, and sentenced to pay a heavy fine. The tribune C. Minucius Augurinus ordered him to be dragged to prison and there detained till the money was paid; whereupon Africanus, still more enraged at this fresh insult to his family, and setting himself above the laws, rescued his brother from the hands of the tribune's officer. The contest would probably have been attended with fatal results had not Tib. Gracchus, the father of the celebrated tribune, and then tribune himself, had the prudence, although he disapproved of the violent conduct of Africanus, to release his brother Lucius from the sentence of imprisonment.

The property however, of Lucius was confiscated; and, as it was not sufficient to pay the fine, his clients and friends generously contributed not only a sufficient amount to supply the deficiency, but so large a sum that he would have been richer even than before; but he would only receive sufficient to defray his most pressing wants. The successful issue of the prosecution of Lucius, emboldened his enemies to bring the great Africanus himself before the people. His accuser was M. Naevius, the tribune of the people, and if the date of his tribunate is correctly stated by Livy (xxxix. 52) the accusation was not brought till the end of B. C. 185." - SCIPIO #12 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology - John Murray - 1873

This post has been edited by Pantagathus: 30 August 2006 - 06:31 PM

[Primus Pilus]

Pantagathus, on Aug 30 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

I have a rather difficult time with the absolute veracity of Plutarch’s account of what happened in Sicily.

Though the rivalry is set between Scipio and Fabius Maximus is clear in Livy 28, Cato however, is glossed over. In fact all we hear of him from Sicily is in 29.25 where he says:

”He further informed them that he and Lucius Scipio would command the right division of twenty ships of war, whilst C. Laelius, prefect of the fleet, in conjunction with M. Porcius Cato, who was quaestor at the time, would be in charge of the left line containing the same number, and would protect the transports”

That’s it! And unfortunately we a bereft of Polybius’ account because there is a gap between Scipio retto Rome from Spain in 11.33 and his first movements in Africa in Book 14.

Agreed the absence of Polybius' account is disappointing.
However, Livy does mention the charge (though not specifically coming from Cato, Plutarch seems to have deduced this on his own.) 1 Although Plutarch clearly used Livy as a source for writing "Life of Cato" as evidenced in chapter 17. 2.

As for continuing evidence of the rivalry between Cato and Scipio (I'll be doing this piece by piece simply because there is so much text to review (Livy in particular)... Just some pieces with no comment for the time being (I don't feel like looking them up again and at least they will be recorded here if needed later)

Plutarch Life of Cato, 15 minimally describes the charges against Lucius Scipio/

Plutarch Life of Cato, 27. Repeat of the Carthago Delende Est concept but indicates that Publius Scipio Nasica was openly opposed to Cato.

Cassius Dio Book 19, 65 Simply acknowledges a long standing enmity between Cato and the Scipio's (also inlcuded is the account of Zonaras which preserved some of Dio's lost work)


1. Livy History of Rome, Book 38.51

2. Plutarch says "But Livy says the victim was a Gallic deserter, and that Lucius did not have the man slain by a lictor, but smote him with his own hand, and that this is the version of the story in a speech of Cato's."

[Gaius Octavius]

"Although Xenophon was widely respected after his death, he received little recognition during Hellenistic times. Scipio Africanus always kept a copy of [Xenophom's] the Education of Cyrus, the narratives in Cato's Origins and ...."

N.B.: I really am not sure of the meaning of the last sentence.
______________

The Ancient Historians; Michael Grant; Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y., 1970; page 391.

[M. Porcius Cato]

My thesis is that Cato's opposition to Scipio was not the beginning of "factionalism" in Rome nor was it borne of a mere jealousy of Scipio. The rivalry between Cato and the Scipiones was instead part of a longer running ideological conflict between patricians and plebs and between Hellenization and the agrarian values of traditional societies. In this conflict, the specific rivalry of Cato and the Scipiones may have been emblematic of future conflicts, but as the case of Dentatus and Appius Claudus demonstrates, it was not formative.

First, political rivalries and factions long predated the conflict between Cato and Scipio. Even the Fabii, who later produced Cato's mentor Fabius Maximus, were no strangers to political suspicions. When Q. Fabius Vibulanus (cos. 485) met success in the war with the Volsci and Aequi, he sold the booty and deposited the money in the treasury instead of sharing it among the soldiers, leading to his immense unpopularity with the plebs (1). When the patricians installed K. Fabius Vibulanus in the following year (484), Kaeso and his colleague opposed agrarian laws brought forward by tribunes, which he did also (against the tribune Sp. Icilius Licinius) in his successive consulship of 483, leading his troops to abandon him in the field, much to the astonishment of the opposing Veientes. These political rivalries, it should be added, were short-lived because the Fabii apparently took the plebeian opposition to heart, and later became their greatest allies--bringing wounded soldiers to their own houses for care and securing for them the rights they had long resisted (3).

This precedent foreshadows a second important point: that the political rivalries were ideological and not simply personal. The overthrow of the decemvirs and the secession of the plebs in the years to come were not simply personal affairs, having occurred over several generations and over many different families, some in rivalry with one another. Nor were these political movements unproductive: with no inconsiderable opposition, the tribunes Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius (376 367) produced the Lex Licinia Sextia, which first opened the consulships to plebs (4), including many who later save Rome from her worst enemies.

This raises the third point, which is that the agents in these political rivalries, though they did not share a personal connection, shared political goals, with patricians often seeking to reduce the rights of plebs. For example, almost immediately after the Lex Licinia Sextia, the candidacies of plebs were abrogated by the patrician consul Appius Claudius Caecus, who ironically gained power by filling up vacancies in the senate with a large number of the still lower popular party (5), until it was restored by Cato's hero and Sabine neighbor, Manius Curius Dentatus.(6)

Dentatus, like Cato, was a homo novus (7), and he made a name for himself in another "factional" rivalry, specifically as a tribune opposing Appius Claudius, whose exclusion of plebs was rescinded by Dentatus compelling the senate to sanction any legal election before the outcome was announced (8). This "factional" conflict immediately yielded two dividends for Rome. First, after Dentatus won the consulship that he opened to his class, he defeated the Sabines, to whom he immediately reconciled Rome by granting them Roman citizenship without suffrage. Second, Dentatus further distinguished himself by expelling the Greek tyrant Pyrrhus from Italy after defeating him near Beneventum, for which Dentatus received a magnificent triumph, though Dentatus himself took none of the booty except a wooden vessel used for making sacerdotal offerings.(10)

Dentatus' display of the agrarian virtues of thrift, self-discipline, and a suspicion of Hellenism were much admired by Cato, who often visited the small farm and poor dwelling to which Dentatus retired after celebrating three triumphs. (11) According to Plutarch, it was in this house "that the ambassadors of the Samnites once found him seated at his hearth cooking turnips, and offered him much gold; but he dismissed them, saying that a man whom such a meal satisfied had no need of gold, and for his part he thought that a more honourable thing than the possession of gold was the conquest of its possessors. Cato would go away with his mind full of these things, and on viewing again his own house and lands and servants and mode of life, would increase the labours of his hands and lop off his extravagancies." (12)

In my view, these precedents to the rivalry between Cato and Scipio highlight two points that may serve as a future thesis. The first is that political rivalries were often far broader and deeper than mere personal difference: for many years, there was something of a "culture war" in Italy, represented by Hellenicized patricians on the one side and the traditional plebs on the other. Cato's Lex Porcia, which observed plebs' rights to appeal magisterial acts, and his opposition to the repeal of the Oppian laws, may be seen as emblematic of both trends. (13) Second, these rivalries had beneficial consequences: they led to political settlements (such as the Lex Licinia Sextia) that benefitted Rome and led to the advancement of many (Dentatus) who would defeat Rome's enemies, much as Cato himself did as hero at Metaurus and as a commander in Hispania Citerior. (13)



(1) Liv. ii 41-43, 46; Dionys. viii. 77, 82, 90, ix. 11
(2) Liv. ii. 43 ; Dionys. ix. 1, foil. ; Zonar. vii. 17 ; Val. Max. ix. 3. § 5
(3) Liv. ii. 46, 47 ; Dionys. ix. 11, 13.
(4) Liv. vi 31, 39; Diod. xv 57
(5) Liv., ix. 29, 30, 33, 34, 46, x. 7, 8, 11; Cic. Brut. 14; Suet. Claud. 24; cf. Reggia Bithynia
(6) Plut., Cato Maj., 2. 1-4
(7) Cic., pro Sulla, 7; Schol. Bob. p. 364 ed Orelli
(8) Cic. Brut. 14; Aurel. Vict. de Vir. Illust. 33
(9) Vell. Pat. i, 14
(10) Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, iii
(11) Plut., Cato Maj. 2. 1-4
(12) Plut. Cato Maj. 2.2
(13) Plu. Cato. Maj.

[Favonius Cornelius]

In response to Cato's thesis, I believe that it is correct to point out the prevailing themes which mark the political jockeying of the time. Those of the phil-Hellenic group, and those conservatives which chose to reach back to the agrarian values of the past, which can be seen as the son of the political battles between plebeians and patricians in the early days of the republic. In practically all time periods however, one can boil away the fatty rhetoric of posturing statesmen to witness the realpolitik of all political climes, this Scipio-Cato loggerhead being no exception. Politicians take on ideology in part because they believe in it, but you can witness the most remarkable flexibility in these stances when it comes to push and shove, when the gloves come off and you see both sides have the same bare knuckles.

It seems questionable the extent of opposition Scipio received from the anti-Hellenic group, seeing as how their unity was varied. Further you can see the flexibility of Scipio's own positions depending on the situation. At first Scipio supported Flamininus in his pro-Hellenic policies, then later his attitude changed when his political opponents drove Hannibal to the court of Antiochus. Scipio's eyes were to the east because to the east lay the prime military dangers to Rome after the fall of Carthrage. A sensible military mind would see how open to influence the lands of Greece were with despots like Philip of Macedon and Antiochus of the Seleucids, constantly looking for an exploitable opening. If either were given the chance to exploit, it could cause a situation for Rome from which it could not recover so soon after the devastating war with Hannibal. It was a matter of military policy, creating a buffer state out of Greece, and it was necessary to understand the Greeks to do that.

While Cato probably had real convictions about his ideology, Scipio never really had any exceedingly pro-Hellenic attitude until an anti-Hellene caused him political woe. Scipio probably found an easy opposite polarity by aligning himself with Hellenists which suited his geopolitical goals, thus gathering them around him to the end result of greater political support, enough to make himself larger than life in the Roman conscience, creating an irony out of Cato's strident conservative efforts. Indeed everything about Scipio's actions in his political life leads one to conclude he was a realist. Only a realist could affect the unorthodox maneuvers in Africa, or form his geopolitical realization that Rome must control and come to terms with the lands around it to survive. The anti-Hellenists wished for a more limited role of Roman policy: force Hannibal out of Italia, force all nations out and leave them to their lands. Fabius the 'Cunctator' and his support of this policy comes under suspicion of being guilty of his own past than a true believer of the conservative outlook. He knew he could not win against Hannibal in the field, therefore his policy was one of a siege and not ideology. If Cato was so politically inclined with his ideology, then he must have allowed himself to be very distracted with his focus on pointless social themes such as the Oppian law and his censorial activities. Cato too opposed the idea of a Scipio marching in decedent Africa, but then later found it suitable to monotone 'delenda est Carthago' in years later.

In the end, the positions of each man and the shifting factions which formed around them was a blend of realities; geopolitical, ideological, and personal, with an overarching theme of that which is expedient.



1. H.H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World.
2. Friedrich Munzer, Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families.
3. Richard E. Mitchell, Patricians and Plebians.

This post has been edited by Favonius Cornelius: 31 August 2006 - 07:22 AM

[Primus Pilus]

Ok FC, I don't mean to single you out here... but I'm going to do it anyway to really help develop the exercise.

Your reply is good in that you clearly put some effort into it, but how am I supposed to verify the claims on your sources? There is no documentation in support of your claims. Yes, you provide sources as an overall concept to support the idea, but nothing individual to help me understand some of your conclusions (even though I may or may not agree with some points based simply on knowledge of the sources material in question).

As a couple of examples.

Quote

Scipio's eyes were to the east because to the east lay the prime military dangers to Rome after the fall of Carthage.

Maybe they were, and maybe the statement is logical, but where is this supported in the source material?

Quote

The anti-Hellenists wished for a more limited role of Roman policy: force Hannibal out of Italia, force all nations out and leave them to their lands. Fabius the 'Cunctator' and his support of this policy comes under suspicion of being guilty of his own past than a true believer of the conservative outlook.

In this quote first it must be proven that indeed the opposition to Scipio was actually Anti-Hellene. There is source material to support it, so I am not suggesting you are necessarily wrong, but only that I can't tell from this statement how you know this. I also agree Fabius Maximus clearly supported a "remove Hannibal from Italy first" policy over the invasion of Africa, but the documentation must be provided. For this one you could have provided "Livy, History of Rome, Book 28.41"

Anyway, this is a good exercise. We are making some headway into providing a nice example of the type of discussion this forum will be about.

(by the by, I haven't conceded the topic yet, and I'm still working on a reply to MPC, but I'm terribly pre-occupied and its going to take me a bit to work up a reply)

[Primus Pilus]

Primus Pilus, on Aug 31 2006, 09:06 AM, said:

(by the by, I haven't conceded the topic yet, and I'm still working on a reply to MPC, but I'm terribly pre-occupied and its going to take me a bit to work up a reply)

On second thought, after attempting to prepare a lengthy document for my original theory in this thread, the evidence for an independent rivalry as a cause of the 'Fall of the Republic' just isn't supportable. There, of course, is plenty of evidence to support many factional political rivalries, including between Cato, Scipio and other players of the era, but the Cato/Scipio rivalry doesn't even seem to have any lasting effect on later Catones, Scipiones, Cornelii or Porcii.

[Gaius Octavius]

"The Romans were a nation of farmers and soldiers. They left manufacture, commerce, and banking largely to foreigners. Cato said: 'In preference to farming one might seek gain by commerce on the seas, were it not so perilous, and in money lending, if it were honorable.... How much worse the money lender was considered by our forefathers than the thief....' Nevertheless, Plutarch says that Cato himself invested in mercantile loans, probably secretly."

N.B. A point of hypocrisy?
_____________________

A History of Interest Rates (2,000 B.C. to the Present); Sidney Homer; Rutgers Univ. Press, 1963; page 44.

This post has been edited by Gaius Octavius: 11 September 2006 - 11:02 PM

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato the Elder, like many Romans, was proud of making money, which he did by improving land, by investing in shipping (though illegal for a senator), and by teaching uneducated slave boys .

From Plutarch (Cato Major, 21):

Quote

However, as he applied himself more strenuously to money-getting, he came to regard agriculture as more entertaining than profitable, and invested his capital in business that was safe and sure. He bought ponds, hot springs, districts given over to fullers, all of which brought him in large profits, and "could not," to use his own phrase, "be ruined by Jupiter." He used to loan money also in the most disreputable of all ways, namely, on ships, and his method was as follows. He required his borrowers to form a large company, and when there were fifty partners and as many ships for his security, he took one share in the company himself, and was represented by Quintio, a freedman of his, who accompanied his clients in all their ventures. In this way his entire security was not imperilled, but only a small part of it, and his profits were large. He used to lend money also to those of his slaves who wished it, and they would buy boys with it, and after training and teaching them for a year, at Cato's expense, would sell them again. Many of these boys Cato would retain for himself, reckoning to the credit of the slave the highest price bid for his boy. He tried to incite his son also to such economies, by saying that it was not the part of a man, but of a widow woman, to lessen his substance. But that surely was too vehement a speech of Cato's, when he went so far as to say that a man was to be admired and glorified like a god if the final inventory of his property showed that he had added to it more than he had inherited. [emphasis added]

With Romans like this, is it a wonder that Italy came to rule the Mediterranean in unprecedented prosperity?