Friday, February 1, 2013

Who was Cato anyway?

The Dish highlights a review of a new book on the Roman Senator Cato - who we discussed in the opening lectures in class. Cato was an opponent of Julius Caesar and promoted individual liberty, in addition to the need to maintain the Roman Republic as it had existed for centuries.

References to Cato played a role in the expansion of liberty in Britain, as well as the American Revolution. But the authors attempt to sort out the realities about Cato from the stories, which may been embelished so he could be used for political purposes during the revolution. This is an effort to figure out who the real Cato was and what actual role he played during this critical period of Roman history. I'll probably pick up a copy. Here's a chunk from the review: 
Ancient Rome was a republic: a mixed government combining popular assemblies, powerful magistrates who operated as virtual kings for their year in office, and an aristocratic senate. The Roman republic indirectly inspired America’s constitutional separation of powers. By Cato’s day, though, Rome’s government was out of joint, bitterly divided between populists and oligarchs. Cato emerged as a leader of the second faction. He championed a tiny senate elite’s traditional role of guiding the destiny of the empire and its tens of millions of inhabitants. Yet Cato also defended freedom of speech, constitutional procedure, civic duty and service, honest administration, and the enlightened pursuit of the public interest.

More than anyone else, Cato saw clearly the threat that Julius Caesar posed to the old order. A brilliant and ambitious populist, Caesar wanted to dominate Rome. Unfortunately, Cato made things worse. He turned Caesar into a bigger enemy of the senate than he already was, unintentionally making Caesar stronger. Finally, he drove Caesar into civil war by refusing any compromise. Caesar prevailed, and Cato took his own life rather than admit defeat. His death capped a career of standing up for the republic as he saw it. If there was something blind and wrongheaded about him, there was also something magnificent.