Plutarch's Cato The Elder

[Urbs Aedificator]

Ave. Just finished reading Plutarch's life of Cato the Elder, and find myself rethinking my admiration of the life of Cato. While he seems on so many occasions to exemplify a 'true' Roman of the day, is quite stoic on his outlook and conduct of his life, there are some nagging issues that seem to distract from his elevation to the status of an icon to be looked up to.

His niggardly treatment of his older slaves in particular is troublesome for one who is purported to have been so noteworthy. In this aspect, I understand I'm viewing things from a 21st century perspective, and that in general Romans of that day viewed slaves in a much different light, but to cast them aside when they were 'worn out' appears to show a lack of compassion.

His draconian edicts when he was Censor, although likely a reflection of his stoic ideals, shows a lack of understanding of his fellow citizens.

I find I admire many of his attributes that Plutarch points out. Cato appeared to be a man of conviction, who lived his life as he felt a Roman of the day should. I also find though that he was in my eyes, a man who lacked any great vision.

So any thoughts? Just thought we could discuss this fascinating man.

Cheers.

Alex

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm happy to discuss the great-grandfather of my namesake (Cato the Younger)!

 

Like you, I don't think that Cato the Elder's life is worthy of wholesale emulation. His recommended treatment of old slaves, his anti-philhellenism, and his support of the Oppian laws reflect an adherence to agrarian values that is out of place for a rich, cosmopolitan city like Rome. Like his Sabine countrymen, Cato was hard-headed, pragmatic, and authoritarian.

 

Cato the Elder, by the way, was NOT a Stoic. Stoicism was a Greek school of philosophy that was at odds with many of Cato's attitudes. Stoics delighted in paradoxa; Cato the Elder ridiculed them. Stoics believed in mildness and justice to slaves, typically freeing them on their deaths; Cato the Elder regarded them as living tools, bereft of any rightful claims on the conduct of free men. Stoicism was one of the very first cosmopolitan philosophies, holding that the citizen/slave and rational/irrational contrast transcended borders and created an international community of peers; Cato sincerely believed in Roman maiestas (literally, betterness). Cato the Elder put these attitudes into action: when a conference of philosophers from Greece actually did come to Rome, Cato supported their expulsion back to Greece.

 

Did Cato the Elder have a vision? I think he certainly did.

 

First, Cato the Elder believed passionately in plebeian rights and in the importance of the tribunate. He was, after all, not only a pleb, but a New Man. This led Cato to finance (at his own expense) the Porcia Basilica, which was the first official building erected for the tribunes and was placed immediately next to the senate house. His laws, too, were promulgated in this spirit. His lex Porcia, for example, made it crime for a magistrate to scourge a citizen without allowing the citizen to appeal first for intervention. His fellow Porcii, P. Porcius Laeca and L. Porcius Licinus, extended the same right of citizens to appeal all capital offenses and to protect them from summary execution while in military service. This was far-sighted legislation because they dealt with some of the serious grievances that plebs had at the hands of their haughty patrician country-men, who always believed in their innate superiority. Finally, Cato did everything he could to align himself with the Licinia, who were the original champions of plebeian rights.

 

Second, Cato the Elder believed in protecting the provinces from rapacious Roman magistrates. This was most evident in his own proconsulship, but it was also the cause of his conflicts with the Scipiones, who seemed to treat the Greek east as their own ATM. (This conflict with the patrician Cornelii probably attracted Cato on many levels.) Again, protecting the provinces and Roman allies from extortion and abuse was as far-sighted as his attempts to integrate plebs into the ruling class. As future decades would show, the abuse of the provinces and allies led to the rise of political-generals like Pompey and Caesar, who could use their conquest abroad to destabilize the republic at home.

 

Third, Cato the Elder had a unique cultural vision for Rome. Unlike his predecessors, he wrote his histories and treatises in Latin rather than Greek. He sought to create a unique educational program for Romans, based on Roman values. He applied this system not only to the education of his own sons, but he expanded it to create an experimental school for the children of others. In truth, some of his anti-philhellenism was a bit of a pose: the fact is that in decrying them, he could quote the Greeks even better than those who upheld Greek culture.

 

In sum, though I personally admire Cato the Younger more than his great-grandfather, I think the old man really was the archetypal Roman of the old republic.

[M. Porcius Cato]

BTW, this thread belongs in the Res Publica subforum.

[Urbs Aedificator]

M.P. Cato, thanks for the response. Poor choice of words on my part when I mentioned 'stoic'. Although I thought I read that Cato was exposed to the writing of a Greek stoic(name escapes me) and was influenced by said philosopher. Could be wrong.

I was aware of his outstanding education of his son, but was unaware of an experimental school for other children. Did it flourish?

Still, it is a shame his influence on Romans of the day was not more pronounced or long lasting. In many ways his attemps at championing the cause of the Plebs, reminds me of Tiberius Gracchus' attempts, who I am reading right now in Plutarchs 'Lives'.

Cheers.

Alex

[ASCLEPIADES]

M.P. Cato, thanks for the response. Poor choice of words on my part when I mentioned 'stoic'. Although I thought I read that Cato was exposed to the writing of a Greek stoic(name escapes me) and was influenced by said philosopher. Could be wrong.

I was aware of his outstanding education of his son, but was unaware of an experimental school for other children. Did it flourish?

Still, it is a shame his influence on Romans of the day was not more pronounced or long lasting. In many ways his attemps at championing the cause of the Plebs, reminds me of Tiberius Gracchus' attempts, who I am reading right now in Plutarchs 'Lives'.

Cheers.

Alex

I don't think Cato championed the cause of the Plebs. As a pragmatic new man from the province, his tactic for thriving in late republican politics, besides the support of the Valeria Gens, was probably something like that of Ghandi, turning poverty into civic virtue, and also claiming to be more genuinely roman and chauvinistic even than the Patricii. This strategy was extremely successful and gives to his writings some similarities to the stoic thought, but as MPC was telling, he was intensely hellenophobic. When the historians say that the late Republic tried to run its empire like it used to run a mere city, they are clearly thinking in people like him. "Carthaginem esse delendam" was good personal promotion but bad politics; that's why the roman had to rebuilt that city later.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't think Cato championed the cause of the Plebs.

 

And what do you have as supporting evidence for this claim? What evidence supports another explanation for Cato's Lex Porcii? Or his marriages to the great plebeian house of Licinia? Or his buiilding of the tribune house, the Basilica Porcia? Or his opposition to patrician families? Or his professed admiration for the plebeian hero M. Curius Dentatus?

 

It's one thing to show that Cato (when he was not yet 20) was supported by the Valerian clan, but there's still the matter of his next 60 years to explain! By your reasoning, Marius wouldn't count as a champion of the plebs either since he also had the support of a patrician family.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I was aware of his outstanding education of his son, but was unaware of an experimental school for other children. Did it flourish?

It's only mentioned once, so it's impossible to say.

 

Still, it is a shame his influence on Romans of the day was not more pronounced or long lasting. In many ways his attemps at championing the cause of the Plebs, reminds me of Tiberius Gracchus' attempts, who I am reading right now in Plutarchs 'Lives'.

There is some similarity, but Cato the Elder was still far more of a traditionalist than the Gracchi, whose proposed reforms were a mixed bag at best and destabilizing at worst.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I don't think Cato championed the cause of the Plebs.

 

And what do you have as supporting evidence for this claim? What evidence supports another explanation for Cato's Lex Porcii? Or his marriages to the great plebeian house of Licinia? Or his buiilding of the tribune house, the Basilica Porcia? Or his opposition to patrician families? Or his professed admiration for the plebeian hero M. Curius Dentatus?

 

It's one thing to show that Cato (when he was not yet 20) was supported by the Valerian clan, but there's still the matter of his next 60 years to explain! By your reasoning, Marius wouldn't count as a champion of the plebs either since he also had the support of a patrician family.

The "cause of the plebs" implies to me a conflict between this class and another group, which in the roman republic could be no other than the patrician. Assuming that during Cato's lifetime we can identify a significant ongoing conflict between patrician and plebs (which is not the same as between rich and poor, as long as there were substantial plebeian nobility and even some impoverished patricians), I cannot see that any of these arguments support that Cato had any established position in such a conflict:

- Lex Portia (if we are talking about the same), as far as I know, forbade any citizen flagellation, not specifically that of the plebs and/or the poor.

-The great plebeian house of Licina was great because it had been noble and rich for a long time and the marriage of Cato would be a great advance in his political career and social status.

-Big and notorious works during a politician's tenure had always been (and continue to be) bonuses for the advance of his career.

-I understand that as any noted politician, Cato opposed to a lot of people, among them (inevitably) some members of important patrician families, and not to those families per se. The Scipio brothers were probably the most notorious case. Cato's elder son married a member of the Aemilia Gens, cr

[M. Porcius Cato]

The "cause of the plebs" implies to me a conflict between this class and another group, which in the roman republic could be no other than the patrician.

Conflict with the patricians is only a narrow aspect of the broader movement that finally made it normal for plebs to participate fully and equally in Roman government.

 

First, let's recall that the plebeian/patrician distinction was a hereditary distinction, not an economic one. Somewhat like caste, this arbitrary distinction was elaborated and justified on many grounds, including religious ones, and early in Roman history plebs were not held fit to hold religious office and were not even allowed to marry patricians. Moreover, before, during, and after the substantive end of the conflict of the orders, patricians continued to assert their collective dominance over the priesthood and to foster the idea that they were somehow above the ordinary laws that existed for plebs. Indeed, over the broad sweep of Roman history, the most stunning acts of illegal behavior were committed disproportionately by those of patrician houses, such as the Cornelii (Sulla), the Claudii (Clodius), the Julii (Caesar) and so forth. (Indeed, inspect the names of the nobiles who supported Caesar in 49 and those who opposed him, and you'll find more patricians in Caesar's camp than the reverse.)

 

Second, as in caste systems, the conflict is not primarily between groups but between the caste mythology and the individual. Thus, one can have patricians who wholeheartedly support plebeian participation and plebeians who demand that their caste-mates "know their place". Thus, it is sometimes necessary for an opponent of patrician caste mythology both to cooperate with patricians and to oppose fellow plebeians.

 

Given this framework, it is possible to postulate independent causes for each of Cato's plebeian-aligned actions, but it strains credulity to do so. First, it isn't parsimonious. Second, it implies a massive coincidence among behaviors. Third, it fails to provide a coherent framework for understanding Cato at all. Fourth, the independent causes that are proposed are weak on their own merits.

 

For example:

- Lex Portia (if we are talking about the same), as far as I know, forbade any citizen flagellation, not specifically that of the plebs and/or the poor

.

The lex Porcii (from M Porcius Cato, not M Portius Cato) were designed to protect citizens (overwhelmingly plebeian) from the arbitrary actions of magistrates (who were disproportionately patrician). As in any civil rights movement, opposition to group superiority and support for equality before the law can be asserted merely by affirming individual rights. Thus, it should not be surprising that laws promulgated to benefit plebeians need not mention them specifically.

 

The great plebeian house of Licina was great because it had been noble and rich for a long time and the marriage of Cato would be a great advance in his political career and social status.

As far as we can tell, Cato was far richer than his wife and her family, so this explanation completely breaks down. Even if assume the opposite, however, the general desirability of marrying rich families, still leaves open so many possibilities that one must still explain why--of all the rich families to marry into--one should choose the Licinian instead of more logical choices, like that of a Sabine family?

 

-Big and notorious works during a politician's tenure had always been (and continue to be) bonuses for the advance of his career.

This explanation fails for the same reason as the last--it provides a general principle that is compatible with but does not generate the particular. Why--of all the building projects that Cato could have financed (temples, aqueducts, roads, etc)--did Cato choose a novelty like an official residence for the tribunes? My heavens! The symbolism of Porcia Basilica was enormous! Especially coming from a plebeian, a New Man, the husband of Licinia, the sponsor of the Lex Porcia, and the inveterate opponent of the Cornelii! Coincidence?? I think not.

 

Cato's elder son married a member of the Aemilia Gens, cr

[ASCLEPIADES]

Thank you, MPC. That was enlightening.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, MPC. Why do you think Cato was never a Tribune of the Plebs? I would like to know your opinion.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Salve, MPC. Why do you think Cato was never a Tribune of the Plebs? I would like to know your opinion.

 

Given my thesis, that's a great question! I'll see what Astin has to say.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Salve, MPC. Why do you think Cato was never a Tribune of the Plebs? I would like to know your opinion.

 

Let me say again that this is a really good question--Why would the fellow who erected an official residence for the tribunes not be a former tribune himself? Strangely, no one has addressed this question before (at least not that I can find).

 

Best I can tell, after his quaestorship, Cato had one of two offices for which he could run: the tribuneship and the plebeian aedileship. I know of no evidence suggesting that either route was a shorter path to a praetorship, but at least in Cato's case, his aedileship was extraordinarily successful, so much so that he was permitted to run for a praetorship immediately (i.e., without the customary delay between offices). This dispensation appears to rest on the two main achievements of his aedileship: the restoration of the Plebeian Games (again, supporting the idea that he was proud of his plebeian status) and his vigorous re-organization of what passed for a police force in Rome. One is tempted to infer that Cato chose the plebeian aedileship in order to restore the Plebeian Games, but of course that's impossible to know.

 

I'll keep an eye out for a better answer, but that's the best I've got for now. (BTW, in researching the answer to this question, I was surprised by how sympathetic Mommsen was to this Cato.)

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, MPC. Why do you think Cato was never a Tribune of the Plebs? I would like to know your opinion.

 

Let me say again that this is a really good question--Why would the fellow who erected an official residence for the tribunes not be a former tribune himself? Strangely, no one has addressed this question before (at least not that I can find).

 

Best I can tell, after his quaestorship, Cato had one of two offices for which he could run: the tribuneship and the plebeian aedileship. I know of no evidence suggesting that either route was a shorter path to a praetorship, but at least in Cato's case, his aedileship was extraordinarily successful, so much so that he was permitted to run for a praetorship immediately (i.e., without the customary delay between offices). This dispensation appears to rest on the two main achievements of his aedileship: the restoration of the Plebeian Games (again, supporting the idea that he was proud of his plebeian status) and his vigorous re-organization of what passed for a police force in Rome. One is tempted to infer that Cato chose the plebeian aedileship in order to restore the Plebeian Games, but of course that's impossible to know.

 

I'll keep an eye out for a better answer, but that's the best I've got for now. (BTW, in researching the answer to this question, I was surprised by how sympathetic Mommsen was to this Cato.)

Thank you, MPC. This is something more to think about.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Cato's elder son was not Cato. Moreover, the Ameliae tended not to include the sort of entitled brats that were nurtured by the Cornelii, the Claudii, and the Julii.

 

Were you thinking in the Scipio brothers (Africanus and Asiaticus)?