Cato the younger

[qselby]

was Cato the Younger a member of the Senate? You see him as such in movies but I find no mention of it. How could he not be if he was the voice of trhe conservatives? wasn't he of plebeian rank? Was Cato the Elder ever a member of the Senate?

[Primus Pilus]

was Cato the Younger a member of the Senate? You see him as such in movies but I find no mention of it. How could he not be if he was the voice of trhe conservatives? wasn't he of plebeian rank? Was Cato the Elder ever a member of the Senate?

 

Both Cato's were Plebs and both were Senators. The ancient sources don't necessarily indicate the exact moment when various Romans became Senators, but there are many indications that someone had in fact been enrolled in the Senate. In Plutarch's Life of Cato Minor, for example, there are instances such as Cato's election as Quaestor (at the proper age of 30 years - 65 BC) that provide evidence as to his inclusion in the Senate. After Sulla's constitutional reforms some 15 years earlier, an elected Quaestor was immediately entered into the Senate after his year in office.

 

As for Cato the Elder, without a more thorough investigation, I'm not entirely sure of the exact moment in which he was enrolled in the Senate, but you can be sure he was at some point. More than likely, it was immediately after he served as Quaestor (also at age 30, 204 BC). He was also elected as Aedile, Praetor, Consul and even Censor throughout his career.

 

Plutarch's Cato Major

[M. Porcius Cato]

was Cato the Younger a member of the Senate? You see him as such in movies but I find no mention of it. How could he not be if he was the voice of trhe conservatives?

 

Cato's depiction in films is notoriously unreliable (e.g., they almost invariably portray Cato as much older than Caesar, whereas Cato was in fact about 7 years younger than Caesar), but Cato was certainly a senator. The clearest primary evidence we have for his serving in the senate was the report of his contemporary Gaius Sallustius Crispus (aka, Sallust).

 

In many ways, Sallust is an almost ideal source for those interested in Cato. The reason for this is that much of our source material on Cato comes through Plutarch, who relied very heavily on the favorable treatment of Cato that was provided by post-republican opponents of the principate and by followers of Cato's philosophy of Stoicism. Unlike Cato's post-republican admirers, Sallust had a chance to actually interact with Cato--and always on the other side of the political fence.

 

For example, Sallust was a tribune in the year that Milo killed Sallust's hero Clodius, and--undoubtedly to Sallust's horror--the scrupulously honest Cato had been summoned to testify in Milo's defense. (Three days prior to Clodius' death, Cato and others had been told by Favonius that Clodius was bragging that he intended to kill Milo.) Later, Sallust served with Caesar at the battle of Thapsus, where the last forces of the republic had assembled with Cato to stand against Caesar, and after their defeat, Sallust had been made the governor of Africa, which had its capital at Utica, where Cato had commanded and where he had killed himself in protest of Caesar's victory. Thus, Sallust had a truly unique opportunity to view Cato from the outside.

 

In spite of Sallust's career-long opposition to Cato and his cause, Sallust clearly respected Cato enormously. Sallust's portrayal of Cato in the Conspiracy of Catiline, probably written in 46 when Cato had killed himself, is a particularly vivid and sympathetic portrait of Cato and his ideals. In the same year, Caesar had also penned a pamphlet called the Anti-Cato (in response to two pamphlets written by Cicero and Cato's nephew Brutus), and Sallust later scolded his friend Caesar for the pamphlet. In two letters that we have from Sallust to Caesar (from Latin library), Sallust examined the three men most opposed to Caesar: Cato, Bibulus, and Domitius Ahenobarbus. Of these three, Sallust heaps much abuse on Bibulus and Ahenobarbus, but praises Cato's many virtues and scolds Caesar for his animosity to Cato. (Unfortunately, I can't find an English translation of Sallust's first letter on-line.) Thus, Sallust's reports give much credence to the generally favorable historical treatment given to Cato.

 

I'd also quibble with the portrayal of Cato as the "voice of the conservatives." He was the voice of the constitution and of the republic, and in that capacity, he was as often opposed to the status quo as he was supportive of it. Cato was, for example, an inveterate opponent of the Sullan oligarchy, a proud supporter of tribunician rights and responsibilities, and a tireless critic of corruption--much of it committed by his nominal allies. Indeed, one of the most hurtful opponents that Cato faced was Cicero, who had defended Murena by turning the trial against him into a trial on Cato's devotion to Stoicism. In short, Cato was certainly attempting to conserve the republic from being toppled by the likes of Pompey and Caesar, but when the status quo was the rotten imperialist system that facilitated these types, Cato was more progressive than anyone.

[qselby]

Thanks so much both for this detailed input. I find the entire period with Cato and Cicero and Caesar really confusing. But then again the Republic was in its death throes and the period wasn't very clear cut in its historic thread. at least not until Caesar crossed the Rubicon and the swords started to cross. I do know that our own Founding Fathers highly respected Cato. I don't think he's always portrayed in a sympathetic light.

 

When exactly did plebeians start becoming eligible for the Senate?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, MPC!

 

Being Cato a stoic, did he leave any philosophical works? I haven't been able to find them in the Web.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Being Cato a stoic, did he leave any philosophical works? I haven't been able to find them in the Web.

Cato left no philosophical works, but he was well-known for his spirited defense of the classical Stoic paradoxa. Indeed, the night of his death at Utica, Cato assembled his constant philosophical companions (an Aristotelian and a Skeptic, best I recall) to return to the familiar topics that gave him so much joy to argue. In particular, he wanted to argue the Stoic paradox, "Only the wise man is free". (Nice poetic ending, huh?)

 

The basic paradoxes were these:

(1) What is morally right is the only good;

(2) Virtue is sufficient for happiness;

(3) All virtues are equally meritorious, and all vices equally grave;

(4) All fools are mad;

(5) Only the wise man is free;

(6) Only the wise man is rich.

 

Cato's specific argument in favor of the paradoxa may be preserved by Cicero in his work Paradoxa, which was written in 46, the year of Cato's death. That these arguments were Cato's is circumstantial but likely. The basic reasoning being (1) that Cicero had famously mocked Cato's defense of the paradoxa in Cicero's defense of Murena (whom Cato was prosecuting for bribery) and this mockery left a lasting mark on Cato's reputation, which Cicero was hoping to restore after Cato's suicide; and (2) Cicero was not actually convinced of these arguments himself, a point that he was quite clear to make in his own philosophical treatises.

 

A very good introduction to Stoicism can be found in A.A.Long's Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. Cicero's work Paradoxa Stoicorum can be found through Google Books. Also, Cicero's speech in defense of Murena contrasts Cato's Stoicism with that of Panaetius, the Stoic who most influenced the Scipionic circle.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks so much both for this detailed input. I find the entire period with Cato and Cicero and Caesar really confusing.

To clear things up enormously, I'd highly recommend Rubicon by Tom Holland. He's a superb writer, and he'll sort things out very nicely for you.

 

I do know that our own Founding Fathers highly respected Cato. I don't think he's always portrayed in a sympathetic light.

Right on both counts. George Washington in particular was a huge fan of Cato, largely due a popular play by Joseph Addison, who was an 18th century British Whig (the party that most consistently opposed autocracy in Britain). A very nice edition of Addison's play was published not so long ago, with a decent biography of Cato and an informative introduction. As you point out, not everyone has had a positive opinion of Cato. For example, the Marxist political activist Michael Parenti has nothing positive to say about Cato in his (I think incompetent) work, The Assassination of Julius Caesar.

 

When exactly did plebeians start becoming eligible for the Senate?

At least as early as the lex Licinia Sextia in 376. (PP--this fact really should be added to our index of Roman laws.) Lintott implies that the lex Ovinia was also important in opening the doors to plebs (or at least in preventing patricians from getting into the senate automatically).

[ASCLEPIADES]

Gratiam habeo, MPC.

 

I would like to ask you:

 

-Why and for whom was the Paradoxa written?

 

-How much of this stoic stuff in the Paradoxa can be attributed to Cato himself and how much to previous authors like Zeno or Chryssipus?

 

-What did Cicero himself think of these 6 Paradoxa and of the stoic stuff in general?

 

-Not being a stoic himself, why did Cicero wrote so much about them?

 

Thanks in advance.

[M. Porcius Cato]

-Why and for whom was the Paradoxa written?

At one level, Cicero's Paradoxa Stoicorum was written to explain the Stoic paradoxes to the intelligent laymen of Rome, the same audience as any of Cicero's writings. Of course, the obvious question then is WHY--of all the things that Cicero might choose to explain to the intelligent laymen of Rome--would Cicero choose the Stoic paradoxes to explain in 46 BC? Again, the best explanation is probably that he wanted to defend Cato's reputation. Cato had just died in 46, and Caesar had the gall to celebrate Cato's death in his triumph in April 46 (in a particularly tacky way: showing placards of Cato tearing himself apart like a wild beast). By defending the very thing for which he had himself criticized Cato--Cato's defense of the Stoic paradoxes, Cicero was making amends and making a defiant statement for the "conquered cause" ("Victrix causa placuit diis, sed victa Catoni"--Lucan).

 

How much of this stoic stuff in the Paradoxa can be attributed to Cato himself and how much to previous authors like Zeno or Chryssipus?

None of the Stoic paradoxes can be attirbuted to Cato. The paradoxes were the essence of orthodox Stoicism, which Cato defended against the innovations of later Stoics such as Panaetius, who was popularizing a watered-down version of Stoicism for a Roman audience.

 

What did Cicero himself think of these 6 Paradoxa and of the stoic stuff in general?

One argument is that Cicero's own opinion of the paradoxes was that they were good for oratory, but that they weren't really true. This argument is based on the opinion of Cicero's alter ego in the Tusculan Disputations. I think the argument is pretty sound.

 

Not being a stoic himself, why did Cicero wrote so much about them?

Cato--who enjoyed a high moral reputation--was very successful in popularizing Stoicism in Rome. In many ways, Stoicism was the most congenial of the Greek philosophies to the Roman intellectual tradition. However, it should be noted that in the same period , there were many important followers of Epicurus (especially thanks to Lucretius), including Lucretius' patron Memmius, Caesar's father-in-law L. Calpurnius Piso, and Caesar's assassin Gaius Cassius Longinus. Thus, if Cicero had any claim to fame as a philosopher, he had to deal with the Stoic arguments, the Epicurean, as well as the Aristotelian, Platonic, and Sceptical arguments. Cicero's own philosophical views were somewhat of a mishmash of all these (in my opinion), although some philosophers would say that Cicero was just a sui generis Stoic.

[M. Porcius Cato]

That precious clip of Cato denouncing Caesar in HBO's Rome can be found at YouTube here.