M. Porcius Cato

They were assuredly pagans, and almost all Greeks. Did you really think that Christians invented science? Archimedes would be shocked. And the invention of secularism? As far as we can tell, it's Thales, though secularism spread like wildfire among the philosophers in Athens. Tolerance? Long before Jesus was throwing hissy-fits against money-changers, Stoics taught that reason--the birthright of all humans--was what made men free, happy, and gave them their rights.

That fiction is useful Julio-Claudian propaganda, but it's a fiction just the same. Octavian became an emperor--not by making Romans his clients--but by storming Rome with an illegal army, proscribing his enemies and allies alike, and finally defeating all rivals in war. Even in principle, this mechanism wouldn't work because the patron-client relationship wasn't legally binding. Marius, for example, was a client of the Metelli, yet this was no obstacle to his opposing them at every turn. If, after Mutina, Octavian had not killed his rivals and had simply declared them his clients, nothing would have prevented them from throwing the delusional 19-year-old from the Tarpeian rock.

I agree. Provincial governors could rule like little Tarquins, exploiting their provinces and stirring up war with their neighbors. Still, if Roman voters hadn't been so jacked up about their own maiestas (literally, "betterness"), perhaps they would have begun punishing these little Tarquins when they came home instead of giving them a fine parade and letting them pretend to be god-for-a-day. Is it any wonder these small-minded thugs, puffed up on their own sense of entitlement and temporary power, disdained to follow the rule of law after they'd tasted a triumph?

Researchers at Rockefeller University report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that 16 April 1178 BC is the most likely date of Odysseus' homecoming, given the data of a solar eclipse that appears to be referenced by Homer (who might have been a woman). From MSNBC: The possible solar eclipse comes up in the 20th book of the "Odyssey," as the suitors begin their final lunch. At this point, the goddess of war Athena "confounds their minds," making the suitors laugh uncontrollably and see their food spattered with blood. The seer Theoclymenus then foresees the death of the suitors, ending by saying, "The sun has been obliterated from the sky, and an unlucky darkness invades the world." The Greek historian Plutarch suggested the prophecy of Theoclymenus referred to a solar eclipse. More recently, astronomers Carl Schoch and Paul Neugebauer computed in the 1920s that a total solar eclipse occurred over the Ionian islands

Full story HERE. Interesting explanation, too, about why the Vestals were buried alive.

Since Caesar was a nobile, you're not contradicting either Cato.

I agree with Cato.

Did "luxuries" corrupt the Romans of the late republic? I don't think so. First, what a "luxury" is in one era is considered a bare necessity in a more advanced era. So, for a paragon of rustic severitas like M. Curius Dentatus (an idol for Cato the Elder), regular baths would have been a luxury--as in his time they were. However, thanks to the aqueducts that were constructed (including one by Dentatus himself), bathing was later considered an indispensable element of civilization--not at all a luxury, but a demarcation between Romans and barbarians. (Did bathing 'corrupt' the Romans? Unless you believe in magic, it's hard to see how regular bathing could wash away one's moral character!) Fast forward another few generations and the process repeats itself. For Cato the Elder, the philosophy of the Greeks is a waste of time and a luxury; for Cato the Younger, philosophy is regarded as an indispensable element of civilization--not at all a luxury, but a demarcation between Romans and barbarians. So now there is a paradox: if a luxury (like bathing or Stoicism) corrupts, by what possible causal mechanism would it corrupt in an earlier age, when it is considered a luxury, but not at a later age, when it is not considered a luxury? The idea makes no sense. Second, luxuries can be incentives for good and bad. Maybe it was greed for luxuries that spurred Chrysogonus to unjustly accuse Sextus Roscius of murdering his father. But wasn't it also greed for luxuries that spurred Cicero to leave his father's business washing togas in piss, to try to make a name for himself as a lawyer, and thus to defend Sextus Roscius from people like Chrysogonus? Why luxuries get the bad rap for Chrysogonus and not the good rap for Cicero isn't objective, but only the bias of Romans who love to extol the simple living of their illustrious forefathers (who, we just saw, would have been castigated by their forefathers for luxurious living!). In my view, the idea that luxuries corrupt is just rustic simple-mindedness that fails to pass even the most elementary logical test.

What would be an example of a non-didactic philosophy? All philosophy attempts to inform and to persuade. Maybe you're just against philosophy per se.

I'd agree if the question were, "Do you agree with the phrase 'predatory multinationals'?" But the phrase appears in a context which doesn't require the pejorative. Analogously, it would be like a question, "Do you support the Zionist crusaders in their war on the oppressed Palestinians?" That's a leading question, and those questions have no place in a proper poll. Also, I seriously doubt that most respondents would take the item on "eye for an eye" to be a literal endorsement of the primitive Lex Talionis.

I like the idea of reading Suetonius backwards. That's a clever perspective on the Twelve Caesars.

Pompey's campaign against the pirates was a war on terror. Regardless of Holland's political views, he's made an apt analogy.

Strictly as a poll, the alternative quiz is poor. Assessments of political philosophy shouldn't be filled with biased language like "predator multinationals" or contain questions about hopelessly vague policies like "an eye for eye" or non-political issues like the value of non-representational art. How this last issue puts one in the grid is beyond me. Anyway, my results HERE.

Must it? Couldn't the true figure be more or less than either extreme?

By itself, the ID doesn't deny you your rights--but it is a tool by which the State can deny you your rights. Why make it easier for them?

Where do you find such old reference works, Faustus? In light of recent archaeology, the notion that Rome sprung from the Palatine strikes me as quaint and simple. Part of the problem is that when modern Rome began to develop during the 1870s, massive amounts of ancient material were removed from the Quirinal and Esquiline hills and were not catalogued until much later. Consequently, classic turn-of-the-century reference works on the prehistory of Rome failed to examine important prehistorical sites from the Quirinal and Esquiline, such as the Osteria dell'Osa and Castel di Decima, which date to before the founding of the city. In contrast, the sites near the Palatine were splendidly preserved and continuously researched, leading these sites to be seen as the first and foundational settlements that later spread down into the Forum valley, the epicenter of ancient Rome. In truth, all the major evidence of the importance of the Palatine hill--evidence of settlement, religion, encircling walls, etc--can be found on other hills surrounding the Forum, and these hills--no less than that haunt of the patricii--deserve credit as the mothers of Rome. For a systematic look at the issue (as well as being a fantastic book in itself), see Gary Forsythe's (2005) Critical History of Early Rome.

"We" could also check them at airports--and keep track of who goes where and when. "We" could require them for employment--and know where every drop of a citizen's economic blood comes from (the better to drain it). And "we" could also use them to validate marriages, births, school enrollments, credit ratings, insurance policies, membership in political parties and unions and churches, so that "we" the State can track, monitor, and approve or deny every aspect of our private lives and social intercourse. No thanks. Personally, I agree with Ayn Rand: "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

Nicely said, MPC. But I'm having a tough time seeing how one can even have boring economic freedom without personal freedom. I agree.

100% personal and 100% economic. In my view, economic freedom without personal freedom is a bore; personal freedom without economic freedom is a fantasy.

I don't understand it at all--except as self-righteous self-aggrandizement on the part of Christians. Where is the evidence that the poor and destitute were given more by Christians than by pagans. Did the Christians provide them with more food than the Imperial dole? More entertainment than the Imperial circuses? Christianity was a religion that celebrated poverty more than it did anything to actually relieve it.

Again, this strikes me as wishful thinking about early Christianity. Paul's injunctions--"wives submit to your husbands" (Eph.5:22) and "slaves obey your masters" (Eph. 6:5-6) --is hardly seditious, let alone counter-cultural, or even mildly egalitarian.

The Middle Ages produced more accurate histories than those of the Victorian era? Can you give an example?

I know modern Christians like to believe this of their forebears, but outside the worship service, where is the evidence that Christians were known to Roman for these characteristics?

Medical diagnosis via aerial photography is probably not very accurate. Based on the statistics I've seen Hobbes was closer to the truth than Rousseau. Far from living in an idyllic Eden, hunter-gatherers suffer from high rates of infant mortality, adult mortality, homicide, sepsis, and the like. Yes, they needn't work as hard as on a farm or in a factory, but it's a "nasty, brutish, and short" life.

Yes, and it's not unique to Suetonius. Didn't Cicero claim that Catiline intended to set fire to the city? Come to think of it, the admirers of Clodius and Caesar actually DID set fire to the city--making them worse than even Nero!