rewind.
The Roman Late Republic is a period of classical antiquity that has massively influenced modern-day academia and scholarly discourse. Whilst most people recall Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, and Mark Antony, Cato the Younger’s life cannot be ignored. Taking influence from his great-grandfather, Cato the Elder, he became the moral standpoint by which everyone else compared themselves.
Overview
It is 46 BC, and Caesar has just won the Battle of Thapsus, securing victory in the civil war against Pompey. Since Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon in January 49 BC, fighting between the Caesarians and Pompeians ravaged the Roman Republic. It is against this backdrop that Cato the Younger chose to end his life. In the Stoic’s eyes, compromising his values and accepting Caesar’s clemency was a fate worse than death, having spent most of his career making himself Caesar’s archnemesis.
Cato made a name for himself by taking black-and-white positions on matters and refusing to budge, making him both admired for his ethics and resented for the nuisance they ultimately were (filibustering for entire days certainly would be annoying). Cato’s decision to stab himself, rip out the stitches that were intended to save his life, and then tear out his own entrails handed him the ultimate victory over Caesar; Caesar would have relished the chance to force the unmovable Stoic to bend to his will as victor.
The nature of Cato’s suicide immortalised his legacy and became a ‘pattern-book’ death for Stoics during the Roman Empire. In the era after Caesar’s assassination and Augustus’ founding of the Principate in 27 BC, Cato’s death increasingly gained fame. However, the nature of Cato’s violent death – something the Stoics would call a ‘brief fit of madness’ – demands that the authenticity of this Stoicism be called into question. Did he truly believe in the importance of the mos maiorum (‘custom of the ancestors’), or was it merely his own USP in a competitive political arena?
As a non-patrician, Cato needed to stand out against those who were too frequently gaining imperium, raising private armies, and marching on Rome. It is no coincidence that Cato’s personal take on Stoicism was a direct attack on Caesar; he believed that for an individual to make the ‘right’ and ‘virtuous’ choice, they had to be free to do so. Therefore, the political goldmine Cato opened for himself is abundantly clear when one recognises the implications of Cato labelling Caesar a tyrant – no one could begrudge him for opposing Caesar on such grounds.
Background
When considering ancient Roman philosophy, it is vital to consider the context in which it was practised. Since the removal of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus in 509 BCE, an aversion to monarchy was woven into the fabric of Republican society. The Republic and the SPQR (the Senate and the People of Rome) were intended to prevent one individual from gaining too much power. A ‘mixed constitution’ was created as a mode of combining elements of monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy; all political decisions and processes were meant to protect Rome and its citizens.
The founding of the Republic subsequently worked to stratify society: patricians could trace their ancestors back to the original founders of the small city-state, making them elites, whilst ordinary plebeians, or ‘plebs’, could not. Whilst there were no official political parties, the Senate of 600 men (originally 300) was divided into the Optimates and Populares factions. Traditionally, the Optimates were the nobiles, the ‘good men’, and more conservative elites, whilst the Populares acted more overtly for the people and were seen as a destabilising force for the Republic. It is into the former category that Cato ultimately fell, progressing into the de facto leader of the Optimates and their crusade against Caesar.
Career
There was nothing inherently unique about Cato’s career progression. What is unusual, however, is the imbalance between his prestige and the official positions on the cursus honorum (the ‘ladder of offices’) that he held. Most of the big names in Roman history became consul – Cato did not, despite trying once in 52 BC. It is often argued that Cato’s campaign against bribery in elections hindered his political prospects; however, Cato’s distribution of terracotta cups engraved with his name during his election for tribune in 63 BC complicates this view. Whilst this can hardly compare to the bribery of Crassus and Clodius, it does call into question the point at which Cato was willing to twist his ethics in the name of political ambition, especially since tribune of the plebs was conventionally a popularis position.
However, Cato did not gain his reputation out of nowhere. His infamy began with the Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BC, where he argued that the conspirators should be executed without trial – directly opposing and defeating Caesar’s call for imprisonment. Fast-forward to 61 BC: the equestrians in Rome demanded a rebate, a highly contentious request. Taxes in Rome were collected by equestrians, who would pay the Senate upfront and then venture into the provinces to collect the taxes themselves. Unfortunately for them, instability within the Republic meant that the money obtained was far lower than expected. Cicero, ever the Republic’s protector, begrudgingly supported the rebate for the sake of stability. Unsurprisingly, Cato refused.
A testament to Cato’s nature is his behaviour during the Floralia festival to the goddess Flora. In keeping with Roman tastes, a striptease would take place during the festival. Whilst most stayed to watch, Cato chose to leave, an action for which he was applauded. In the words of Bryan-Paul Frost, Cato ‘established his own standard of appropriate behaviour’ that ‘neither depended upon nor sought approval from others’. Even when it would have been socially acceptable for him to stay, Cato refused to tolerate such an extravagant display of sexuality.
Given that only one letter from Cato survives, the source base is dubious, to say the least. As with much of our knowledge of the period, Cicero’s speeches and letters dominate, with Cicero famously stating in 60 BC that Cato ‘seems to be someone who thinks he is living in Plato’s Republic rather than the cesspool of Romulus’. Plutarch provides the most detailed account of Cato’s death, describing how Cato stated ‘I am my own master’ before stabbing himself, ‘pushed the doctor away’ when this failed, and ‘tore his entrails with his own hands’ – actions that can hardly be described as controlling one’s emotions. This display marks a significant shift away from the ‘calm, grave, and reasoned’ man Sallust described in 42 BC.
This leads us to the question: Cato – Stoic or fake? Were Cato’s actions in his final moments justifiable anger towards his body for refusing to obey him and die, or do they provide an insight into his true nature?
Bibliography
Bispham, E., Politics of the Late Republic, online video recording, Massolit, 15th August 2018, https://massolit.io/courses/politics-of-the-late-republic-133-43-bc/cato-the-younger.
Burden-Strevens, C. W., ‘Acting Up: The Post of Master of the Mint as an Early-Career Move in the Late Republic’, in Leadership and Initiative in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome, ed. by Roman M. Frolov and Christopher Burden-Strevens (2022), p. 103.
Frost, Bryan-Paul, ‘An Interpretation of Plutarch’s “Cato the Younger”’, History of Political Thought, vol. 18, no. 1 (1997), pp. 1–23.
Van der Blom, Henriette, ‘Cato and the People’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, vol. 55, no. 2 (2012), pp. 39–56.
Zadorojnyi, Alexei V., ‘Cato’s Suicide in Plutarch’, The Classical Quarterly, vol. 57, no. 1 (2007), pp. 216–230.