The Daily Stoic - Professor Josiah Osgood on Cato, Caesar and the Battle for Rome's Legacy

Episode Date: December 7, 2022

Ryan speaks with historian of Rome Josiah Osgood about his new book Uncommon Wrath: How Caesar and Cato’s Deadly Rivalry Destroyed the Roman Republic, the complicated legacy of Cato, how Caesar and Cato’s relationship can help inform our daily lives, and more.Josiah Osgood is Professor of Classics at Georgetown University. His teaching and research cover many areas of Roman history and Latin literature, with a special focus on the fall of the Roman Republic. Josiah’s interest in the fall of the Roman empire began in high school Latin class, where he read Cicero’s speeches against Catiline. He found Cicero’s rhetoric so powerful that he became enthralled by Roman politics and has been studying the subject compulsively for twenty years since. He is the author of several books, including Caesar's Legacy, Turia: A Roman Woman’s Civil War, and How to be a Bad Emperor.Listen to Josiah and Ryan’s previous conversation from 05/11/22 here: https://dailystoic.com/josiah-osgood/ Check out Rome’s Last Citizen by Rob Goodman and Jimmy Soni.✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail🏛 Check out the Daily Stoic Store for Stoic inspired products, signed books, and more.📱 Follow us: Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, FacebookSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hey, prime members, you can listen to the Daily Stoke podcast early and add free on Amazon music. Download the app today. Welcome to the weekend edition of the Daily Stoke. Each weekday we bring you a meditation inspired by the ancient Stokes. Something to help you live up to those four Stoke virtues of courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom. And then here on the weekend, we take a deeper dive into those same topics. We interview stoic philosophers. We explore at length how these stoic ideas can be applied to our actual lives and the challenging issues of our time. Here on the weekend, when you have. Here on the weekend when you have a

little bit more space when things have slowed down be sure to take some time to think to go for a walk to sit with your journal and most importantly to prepare for what the week ahead may bring. Hi I'm David Brown the host of Wundery's podcast business wars. And in our new season, Walmart must fight off target, the new discounter that's both savvy and fashion forward. Listen to business wars on Amazon music or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Ryan Holiday.

Welcome to another episode of the Daily Stoic podcast. You've probably heard me talk about Kato on the podcast before. He is this fascinating stoke figure because in many ways, he embodies the absolute best of what it means to be stoke. He had this strict moral code. He cared about the little guy. He studied deeply. He was unflinchingly honest. I talk about him a lot in Lives of the Stoke. We have a whole chapter on him. He,

Cicero famously said of Cato that he acted as if he lived in Plato's Republic instead of in the dredges of Romulus, right? That he lived and acted as if decency and goodness was possible. And important as opposed to being this kind of pragmatic Machiavellian self-interested politician that we come to expect from politicians today. But it's funny, the more I read about Kato, the more I admire him and the less I admire him. And that's why I the more I read about Cato, the more I admire in Lycombe, and the less I admire in Lycombe. And that's why I think he is so important to study. Going back to Plutarch,

whose fascinating essay is worth reading, there's also a book called Roam's Last Citizen, which I sell at the Pena Port, which I'll link to in today's show notes. And I reread recently that presents a very interesting and nuanced portrait of Cato. And then there is this new book that I was fascinated by. It's called Uncommon Wrath, how Caesar and Cato's deadly rivalry destroyed the Roman Republic. So it's not just a biography of Cato in isolation, but it's a biography of the two leading figures of the age,

Cato and Caesar. In fact, that's the subtitle of Rome's last citizen. It's mortal enemy of Caesar. It's a fascinating book. Professor Josiah Osgood, a professor of classics at Georgetown who I've had on the podcast before. He's a fascinating guy. I've really enjoyed talking to him here on the podcast. This new book is really good and we had a great conversation about Cato, pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, virtues and advice. And I think there's a lot to learn from here. Cato is a through line in the courage book. He's an exemplar in the discipline book. He's going to be more of a cautionary tale in the justice book. And then

I think I'm going to come back to him in the wisdom because he for better for worse I've used this word Shakespearean in today's episode quite a few times because that's what Kato was He was larger than life in so many ways and in today's episode we're gonna talk about those Shakespearean virtues and vices strengths and weaknesses flaws and strengths and weaknesses, flaws and marvelousness that Cato fully embodies. And I hope you check out the new book, Uncommon Wrath, How Caesar and Cato's Deadly Rivalry, Destroyed the Roman Republic. You can also check out his edition of Sutonius titled, How to Be a Bad Emperor.

And you can check out our other conversation, which I'll also link to. Enjoy. you can check out our other conversation, which I'll also link to. Enjoy. [♪ Music playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background that famous short story, The Sweet Smell of Success. And he's talking about these two brothers in it about how they have this sort of gravitational pull that is simultaneously attracting and repulsing each other and that it leads inevitably to this sort of crash between these two planets.

And I thought about that quote a lot when I was thinking about Cato and Caesar. Yeah, Cain and Abel. I mean, I guess rivalries go back to the start. And political rivalries are an interesting category because, you know, they kind of have a positive side, right? Politicians maybe up their game a little bit, sometimes if they have good competition, you know, service and sports, and of course the publicity, right, that a good rival where it can get you,

Right, that a good, a good rivalry can get you. There is something sort of appealing about that to politicians and it can make politics interesting and get people involved. So, yeah, I think that's part of what's going on there is that both of them sort of want this rivalry, but then it reaches a point that leads to outcomes they don't want. Well, it's a political rivalry, but it's also like a sort of fundamentally different approach to being a human being in the world, right? So it's almost like, it strikes me as kind of this, this trope from Westerns,

where it's like the town isn't big enough for the two of them. What, that you have to pick, is it gonna be the sheriff, or is it gonna be the outlaw, or whatever, right? Like at Rome has to choose, there's no world in which it feels. It really is quite literally a Shakespearean tragedy, but it is not possible for the two

of them to peacefully coexist inside the same political system. So divergent are their approaches and their ethics and their views? Yeah, yeah, totally agree with that. And that's where it ends up and that's why it ends up being so epic, and the stuff of later dramas and much. And it starts out as Cato's a bit younger and sort of trying to establish himself, so it goes after Caesar who's already rising, a little bit older. And so it starts out as sort of a more ordinary thing, but I think that's right, fundamentally line beneath this is a clash of two very different visions for Rome's future.

And along with that, just two totally different personality types. You know, Caesar is the great kind of sensualist. He loves pleasure. He'd much rather probably most of us, truthfully, and much rather go to a party at his house than at Kato's, you know, where you'd be served an old turn up if you're lucky. But Kato has, Kato has that commitment to sort of a sense of justice for all that. Well, it does strike me as they're both in their own way the very best of the system and

the time they're coming from. For people who are not familiar, what walk us through the kind of distinction between Kato and Caesar, it's obviously captured quite well, is it Salist who has the sort of the dichotomy of the two of them, but walk us through that. Yeah, so that's sort of the starting point in my book is this amazing passage by the historian Salas who Was an officer of Julius Caesar, so you think he should be team Caesar, but then quite amazingly at the climax of this bookie Road he says, you know actually as I thought about it there's sort of two great Romans in my day

One is Caesar and the other is Cato. Cato is the arch nemesis of Julius Caesar. This is when Salis busts out with that. That's pretty interesting and catches your attention. I think what Salis says is Caesar has some good qualities, he's merciful, writing kind of cares about the little guy he wants to help his friends. And with Kato, on the other hand, you have this kind of unbending commitment to doing what's right.

And he imposes that on himself as much as on everyone else around him. So one of his great crusades was corruption. He saw the Roman Empire around him. We're increasingly politicians felt to get ahead to advance that needed to amass lots of money, to hand out bribes, to build a fancy house for themselves. And Kato wanted to sort of tamp that all down and he really put his finger on something there, but it was the exact opposite

of the kind of Caesarian gladhunter. So behind Kato is obviously stoicism, this ironically this philosophy that like three generations earlier his grandfather had tried to,, his grandfather had tried to ban from Rome, but for Kato, it's sort of very clear what is motivating him. It's stoicism and it's this sense of Rome sort of old ways. He's the traditionalist, the conservative in the sort of nonpartisan sense of like the way that our ancestors have done it for a very long time is the way it should be continued to be done. What's less clear to me is what is behind it for Caesar? So what is the operating principles for the other great man? Yeah, so Caesar has an interesting background.

He came, he was from a great noble family, so, you know, sort of born into politics. But in a way they actually hadn't been doing well for a long time. And they're sort of starting to rebound, a generation or so before Julius Caesar was born. So he has this kind of extraordinary pride, just to understand him personally a little bit. In my reading of it, he knew that his family once had been very powerful and great. They were all petitions, but they had had lapsed and he wanted to bring that back. So kind of restoring his own family's dignity as well as achieving that for himself, I think was very important for him. And so that I think is essential to understanding him.

So that I think is essential to understanding him. But hinting him with that sort of goes some real principles, I think, he wants to rise to the top. There's room, I mean, in a way, right? And there really is room only for Caesar and Rome to go back to your earlier point. He, there's this famous story in Plutarch, right? That they, you know, his friends show up at this sort of Raggedy village in the Alps and they're sort of joking about it. You know, oh, do you think here they're fighting over power

Just the way we do back in Rome and and everyone's laughing and and Caesar says very seriously in response. Well, you know I would rather be first here than second in Rome. So he just has to be supreme. So what he also is committed to, and I think where there are principles, is he really does have a kind of sympathy for the underdog that comes a little bit from this background of his difficult childhood.

He gets dragged into a civil war that was going on. So he sort of has more empathy, I think, for struggling Romans than Kato does. Now, he will try to use his populism to rise to power, but it doesn't mean he's not trying to actually to help people when he can. So is it weird because I think at first glance, there is this sense that Caesar is just entirely self-interested, that it's all about his personal power and a grandisement, the restoration of his family's reputation and all of that. And that does seem to be largely true.

I mean, he'll conquer this country or obliterate this tribe if it'll win him a little bit, more reputation to do what he's doing. But is he just like a psychopath or a sociopath or is there some, is he like the embodiment of the worst of what we see in politicians or is there some you know actual policy and positive you know principles in there too. Yeah, so I mean, I'll give you what I think is one example. So in the year 59 BC, he was elected to the top office in Rome, the consulship. And he sort of has cut a deal with a very powerful politician, Pompey, who wanted to get farms for his veterans. They'd fought this big war in the east

with kind of Rome's greatest enemy. Soldiers come back, Pompey wants to get them land. Cato and his friends, Cato sort of dominated the Senate very cleverly there for a couple of years. So they managed to work Pompey. So Caesar comes into power and he says we are going to get this land bill through and There probably was overwhelming popular support for it The Romans had had you know, it is an empire so they're raking in profits through it and the question is who should get them and Caesar says, well, you know, these veterans who've actually done the heavy lifting should get a cut in this

and he insists that they get land and then to the bell he adds a provision that there also will be some land available for the struggling poor in Rome And he pushes this through in the face of massive delaying tactics from Cato that fundamentally are quite undemocratic, really a small group in the Senate, concerned about the rise of the strong man towarding this instead of trying to find a way to compromise on it. So I think that if you're a veteran who's

then given a farm, that means honor in the Roman world, a better future for your children. Really a complete change in your fortunes. So that's kind of what I think is instrumental for Caesar and you can be hard on him for it, but at the same time, it is helping people advance their lives. You could think a little bit of somebody like LBJ as depicted in Robert Carrows' great books, certainly not short on ambition. But in the process, he actually did do some things that really helped. Well, no, this is American. This is what's so interesting about it. And again, I'm saying that

it's literally a Shakespearean because this is obviously the subject of one of Shakespeare's great plays, which he's borrowing from Plutarch, who you obviously lean on quite a bit in this book. But it's like, it seems like this simple morality play of the good guy versus the bad guy. And then you dig in a little bit over here and the good guy doesn't seem so good. And then you dig in over here and the bad guy doesn't seem so bad. And the more you do it, it just becomes this sort of endlessly complex and fascinating thing. Like, you're right, Kato has this sort of admiral stand against corruption, he's preserving

the old ways, which in a sense means the sort of republic or the democratic essence of the Roman system. And then Caesar, by opposing some of those things obviously means some bad things. But I think what's so fascinating is the more you study Kato, there, as you try to get underneath, well, why, or what, that he stands for remarkably little. Like, there's almost nothing in the way of positive policy that he is for. He reminds me of that line. I think it's, who is it? The famous conservative writer who defines, you know, his ethos as standing a thwart history and yelling stop. There seems to be in Cato, you know, this sense that change is bad, even when that change is good, and

not much sense of what is actually good about what is old. There's just this kind of perpetual resistance to even the idea of changing things. Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, when you're mad about the way something is going, you just sort of channel your inner K-Doh and you'll stop the face of history. I get that, but I think he is a bit... I would say he is a reformer too. K-Doh. Yeah, K-Doh.

And let me give you one. And a bit more flexible sometimes than first meets the eye. So, in terms of flexibility, one example is, you know, grain prices fluctuated wildly in, especially in the city of Rome. And, you know, there could be a bad harvest or that year and people would really just potentially go hungry. So this was a real problem and you weren't just going to fix it purely through through the private market. So there had been a long tradition of subsidizing grain laws and quite interestingly even though Kato sort of normally would be

opposed to that kind of stuff, he did get the Senate collectively to authorize new legislation that would distribute at a subsidized price grain. So the point there is no one politician would win power from it, but the sort of recognition would be shared. So that's an example of how he is actually willing to be a little bit flexible and do something that helps. As far as reform, I think where he really shines is in saying that the Roman Empire has to clean itself up. And that's where I think his stoicism, you know, actually is a real influence on his life.

He's a practical politician he has to be. But he has an idealism to coming from stoicism about the Roman Empire that, you know, we don't have to, we don't have to provoke unnecessary wars where tens of thousands of people potentially could be killed as happened in Caesar's Gallic War. And there are practical ways, besides sermonizing, that he tries to make that happen. So one thing he does is he helps persuade Pompey, this great politician, we've been talking about, to push through a law that would essentially require politicians to run for office, but then have five years off before they can go

govern a province. And the idea there would be sort of to cut the link between uh... bribing for elections and then having to run off and and pay off all your campaign debts through precipitated more so so he had he has kind of uh... reformers uh... mind in in places so i i think that's where he shines

yeah it's uh... he has this very admirable sense and it's quite radical, you know, when he, when he takes over Rome's treasury, he's, you know, cleaning up the books, he seems to be very, very emphatic that the system needs to be run honestly and cleanly and effectively and efficiently. This sort of idea that they're the stewards of the people's money and to be run honestly and cleanly, and effectively and efficiently, this sort of idea that they're the stewards of the people's money and the tradition and all of that. And yet it does feel like his, he's interested in reform essentially only at the margins, right?

The idea, like I think Kato is trapped in something that I think the Stokes can quite easily get trapped in, which is that the system works quite well for the Catoes of the world, right? He's born to this rich family, the political system is inclusive to people like him, etc. He has the best education all of this. So he only sees that there's problems, but they're these minor problems. And you could argue that Caesar, although perhaps Caesar's only play acting with them or exploiting them

in the mold of like an American populist that understands the anger and rides it to power, even if they don't care or not, care that much about it or not. But what Kato seems to be blind to is the fundamental problem of the Roman system that, you know, as we're seeing in America today, like, you have these people who are like, these norms are important. We have to protect this system. And then they wonder why, you know, 20, 30% of the population isn't that worked up about

it. It's because they're like, what system? The whole thing is broken. Yeah. Yeah, for sure. it, it's because they're like, what system? The whole thing is broken. Yeah, yeah, for sure. I'm sympathetic to that. I, I think, Kato, I mean, he, he is definitely a, a product of, of his time, you know, the, I mean, this is part of what makes this history so interesting is, you know, a moment that seems very modern. But then at other moments, you know, you say, well, wait a minute, how does this republic actually work? You know, the one of the things I talk about in the book is if you reach high office in Rome, you get to make a wax mask of your face.

And this would be displayed in the family house. And at the funeral, they would have these great funerals in Rome, where actors would come out and portray the ancestors. So if you have 40 people in your family tree, if you're incredibly successful family, you know, parading around in these maps, that's going to contribute to your power hugely. And, you know, Kato comes from one of these noble families, not one of the greatest ones, but definitely has that advantage. And that is his worldview to some degree, for sure. He's sort of things that these nobles should continue to rule Rome,

but they just need to kind of clean up their act and sort of make it a nobility of virtue, not just a nobility of birth. So he can see some of the problems, even if he doesn't have the most, the most radical solutions. Celebrity feuds are high stakes. You never know if you're just gonna end up on Page Six or Du Moir or in court. I'm Matt Bellesai.

And I'm Sydney Battle, and we're the host of Wonder E's new podcast, Dis and Tell, where each episode we unpack a different iconic celebrity feud from the buildup, why it happened, and the repercussions. What does our obsession with these feuds say about us? The first season is packed with some pretty messy pop culture drama, but none is drawn out in personal as Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears. When Britney's fans form the free Britney movement dedicated to fraying her from the infamous conservatorship, Jamie Lins lack of

public support. It angered some fans. A lot of them. It's a story of two young women who had their choices taken away from them by their controlling parents, but took their anger out on each other. And it's about a movement to save a superstar, which set its sights upon anyone who failed to fight for Britney. Follow dis and tell wherever you get your podcast. You can listen ad-free on Amazon Music or the Wondering app. Yeah, that's an interesting way to put it. It's just this fascinating sort of rivalry where they're both tragically imperfect figures, and both partially right, and end up locked in this sort of mortal combat

that neither of them can detangle from, and the result is that pretty much everyone else bears the majority of the consequences. Yeah, yeah. And the story ends badly, definitely. But as I try to sort of suggest at the end of the book, right? You know, certainly later, republics can learn from this. And I do think the creators of the American Republic

did a better job, frankly, than the Romans in designing their system. We see the strains today, of course. But fundamentally, the American system does respect popular sovereignty, a little more fully, I think, than the Roman system. So, yeah, go ahead. Isn't it so interesting, you know, the Stokes talk about how history is like the same thing happening over and over and over again, right? And so, you have in this conflict, which you talk about really fascinatingly in the book, you know, Caesars trying to pass all this legislation, all these ideas, some of which very self-serving, some of which desperately need to happen.

And then you have Cato inventing, you have Cato, a senator on Capitol Line Hill, right? Inventing the filibuster to prevent these things from happening. Then you flash forward 2,000 years at the Capitol in America, a republic. Senators are debating whether the filibuster should be allowed to stymie debate or the passage of laws, some of which are self-serving, some of which desperately need to happen.

And here we are, basically right back in the same spot, talking about the same things, there is a symmetry and a circularness to it that I think the Stoics would have appreciated. Yeah, yeah, now you're going full on Marcus here. Yeah, it's all just smoke and mirrors or yes, Marcus would have put it better than that. But yeah, I mean to me, you know, you can get very sort of somber about it. Also sometimes frankly, I just kind of have to laugh

a little bit. I've had exactly the same thought you just expressed. We have this Senate that's clearly the Senate are a Senate in particular. If people want to understand sort of Roman politics and conversely you want to understand American politics, studying these two Senates together is interesting because they really do sort of operate in in similar ways as this relatively small group.

Even think about the way the US Senate works, right? It never really ends a session because of the staggered terms, right? So there's sort of this, it's very hard to move the Senate, right? Comparatively in the US system. And I think that comes out of the founder's study of Rome. I mean, they want something like that in the system. Yeah. So they borrow it from Rome.

Well, yeah, you mentioned Carol earlier, and he talks about that. He's like, it's technically the same Senate as the one that existed in George Washington's time because it's always in session. Some of the, it's never fully turns over. Some of the members are rotating in and out. Some serve for 80 years, some serve for six years or whatever it is.

Yeah, it's fascinating also because, like it was in Rome's time and now, it's sort of designed not to work on purpose, right, which is both extremely aggravating and a check against, you know, precisely the kinds of excesses that begin to happen, you know, like, right now we're having this debate over, you know, do you get rid of the filibuster? Because hey, we have 51 votes. We should be able to codify women's ability to control their own reproductive rights. That by the way, the significant majority

of the American population supports. And you have a handful of people who are able to prevent that from happening. So it seems quite straightforward. You should get rid of something like that. But that's precisely the mechanism that someone like Kato, heroically trying to stop excess and corruption is able to leverage single-handedly to stop those excesses. Yeah, and I think this is where Prudence comes in, you know, the virtue of Prudence. The American system is borrowing from classical models and classical thought is pretty well designed in my view to

tamp down the threat of a demagogue. We've been testing it recently as we all know, but you actually, I think a lot of us have been first-hand new appreciation of some of the features of our Constitution. The problem, though, is, as you say, if certain parts of it can afford popular wealth, and that takes us back to the Roman comparison, where we were earlier, if you ignore what the great majority want, long enough, that steam is going to burst the whole system potentially. And that's where that's the tragedy of the Brown Republic is. And where Caesar had it more right that you've got to pay some attention to what the majority wants, where that pressure is going to build and explode somewhere.

And it might lead to reform, it might lead to a new part, political party, their happier outcomes, their less happy outcomes. Yeah, and it's again, it's like you hear these arguments and you go, oh, they make a great point and then you look at something else they did and you go, you, but you couldn't have possibly been sincere about that point. It's like Caesar has the sense that he cares, there is this sense that Caesar cares more about

the little guy than Kato does. And yet it is Kato who's correctly accusing Caesar of committing war crimes, all across the frontiers of the empire. And you realize, oh, this guy's like a mass murderer. Like he's effectively committing genocide out in these Roman colonies for almost no reason, but his own political advancement and financial advancement. Yeah, yeah, and that is,

I definitely, you know, Caesar was a brilliant writer and I'll be the first to say actually, I enjoy reading his lot and I enjoy reading the Gallic War. It has to be actually, I enjoy reading his lot, and I enjoy reading the Gallic War. It has to be said. It's sort of an exciting story and he tells it well. But yeah, it is what nowadays we would call genocide. And that's not just our sort of being anachronistically judgmental, because as you said, you know, Kade will kind of call some out on it.

And it's pushing this idea that the Roman Empire, you know, it's one thing to be attacked, to fight a war of defense, but these needless wars, right? Not only are, of course, horrific for the populations that bear the brunt of them, but actually, you know, one of Kato's points is that they will come back and potentially ruin us too, right?

Whether it's through, you know through retaliation by subjugated populations or the rise of the all-powerful general. He is also just spending the people's money and sacrificing the people's troops primarily for his own ends. Yeah, yeah, so I mean part of I mean part of why these two are so interesting is they they acquire power in different ways and and ultimately of course these are powers far greater and that's part of why he's gonna win this showdown Kato sort of works through family alliances, control of the Senate, moral authority. He sort of has a fascinating way of kind of making himself a martyr sometimes in situations that reminds me a little bit, say, of somebody like Gondin. So that's quite interesting. But Caesar, even though he fights these tough wars, he really wins the love of his men who are fighting for him.

And I think, you know, part of that is his leadership talent. He asked them to do nothing that he wouldn't do himself. And, you know, if the battle line is wavering, he asked them to do nothing that he wouldn't do himself. And, you know, if the battle line is wavering, he's there at the front of it with his sword in shield, standing by the ordinary soldier. So he, you know, it's part of the complexity of it all, is that you sort of have to admire his bravery on some level and see what an excellent

leader is. You can learn about leadership from him. I really do think that, but at the same time, you know, to what end is he ultimately putting this towards? I was thinking as I was reading the book that if these are, if Kato and Cesar, these two opposite ends of the spectrum, kind of your Aristotelian mean, if you will, Pompey's right there in the middle, not actually in the center, but he's pinning back and forth between these two poles, right? Sometimes he's attracted to Kato, sometimes he's attracted to Cesar. He allies with with Caesar because Cato's purity drives him away, which I've talked about before in the podcast. Cato's principles, and Plutarch says this quite brilliantly, that Cato's principles prevents him from making a pragmatic compromise with Pompey,

which in turn drives him to Caesar, which is brings about all of the things that Kato was trying to not bring about by not allying with Pompey. But anyway, he goes back and forth, and then in the end, Pompey and Kato are on the right side of history, we might say, trying to restore the, or prevent the final overthrow of the Roman Republic. Talk to me about Pompey

and his relations between these two polar characters. Yeah, so this is a really interesting point, right? If you do have this sort of fatal showdown between these two very talented politicians and their supporters. Right? It takes more than just those two. You do have this interesting category of kind of people in the middle. I'll get to Pompeo in one moment, but one other name to throw there too is interesting is Cicero who doesn't command the power that Pompeo does, but but pretty shrewdly can sort of see the limitations of Kato's tactics all throughout Kato's career. And desperately tries on the eve of the Civil War to achieve

a reconciliation he failed. And there are other interesting senators doing that as well, especially lawyers, for instance, who, you know, sort of can actually see this is going to be a disaster. So, Pompey's the one who actually has the power, right, because of his great military successes. And I think that's right. He starts out kind of creating this model of sort of the new military straw men are perfecting it. And, you know, after all this is the guy who comes back to Rome and triumph and claims he's wearing the cloak of Alexander the Great. So he, and this is where, you know, Caesar gets some of his ideas and kind of wants to nudge Pompey aside and seize the crown as the first man.

So Pompey has those tendencies, but he also does have more of a respect for institutions. And one prime example is actually when he does come back to Rome after this great series of victories, there's a lot of fear. Will he, as others had previously in Rome's civil wars, will he march on the city with his army to get his way? And he very pointedly, as soon as he lands in Italy, dismisses the guys and the army says, I'll see you in Rome for our parade. And, and Jaws kind of dropped a little and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and and, and, and, and, and, and, and and, and, and, and and, and and, and, and, and, and, and and, and and, and and, and and and and, and, and and, and and and and and, and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and tries then in the Civil War, you know, sort of to be on the institutional side. That's why he takes on Caesar. The problem is militarily though he would not for some reason fully commit, I think, to to defeating Julius Caesar in that Civil War.

Yeah, to me, one of the haunting things about the whole book is once the Civil War starts, you have Caesar is just on the offensive, and Cato goes into a complete slump and is pretty useless, frankly, in an actual military situation. He's always sent to run the grain supply and man the depots, and he does well with that for sure. But Pompey doesn't quite have the killer instinct as a general, which you need to take down season. And don't you think it's kind of again, if we're looking at the lessons here, Pompey is a reminder that in some ways the enablers or the people who were blind to the obvious you know end goal or you know excesses of the person they're willing to work with in

the interim are perhaps the most either complicit or responsible for this. It's like Caesar was always Caesar, right? It was people's willingness or susceptibility to thinking, well, I don't agree with him with all these things, but he's better for my career or my prospects. I'm gonna work with him, this sort of like, all be the adults in the room kind of mentality that we're

against seeing even to this day. There's, I think something like Caesar, or a Pompey's last words or something that quote from Sophocles about how when a free man goes to a tyrant's court, he leaves a slave. And Pompey only sort of bel belatedly after losing a lifetime of gains in this single battle with Caesar realizes that this was all self-inflicted. Yeah, yeah. And another Plutarch line that I really like is from the life of Caesar. In this case, not Pompey, but actually Cicero. Cicero is sort of presented as other than Cato, kind of this Cassandra figure, who sort of

starts warning, as Plutarch tells it about Caesar. And he has this line Cicero does in Plutarch that that Caesar's like the smiling sea, you know sort of all calm on the surface But underneath you know are these currents and they will just suck you in and drown here and I think that It's sort of one of the great things to take away from Plutarch on this whole period is the danger as you put it up, of kind of enabling the tyrant on the rise up. Yeah, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's just, there's no one that the story ends well for. Not Caesar, not Kato, not Pompey, not Rome. It doesn't go well for anyone.

Which in a way, it sort of goes, it's like, well, if that's true, what of the strategies is intrinsically the right one, right? It's probably Kato, being a good person because it's the right thing. You may not come out victorious in the end, but at least you know you did what was right. Maybe that's the sort of the ultimate stoic argument there, that the right cause may ultimately be defeated, but that's not,

there's still nothing better than that. Yeah, right. I mean, there does come a point where this sort of your integrity is what you have left. And it's so easy for us in hindsight to see all the mistakes that were made. And, you know, just lament the blindness. But at the end, right, Kato decides, I can't live, you know, there is room only for Caesar or Kato and with Caesar, Victoria, Caesar, the dictator, it's not going to be a world for me. And very powerfully, he took the decision to leave the world to take his own life. Well, I want to talk. I want to set an example for later dissidents in the Roman Empire and even got Cicero to make a similar heroic stance

at the end of his life. So those things are inspiring, which isn't to say there weren't all the mistakes leading up to to that point. In lives of the Stoics, obviously I do Kato's bio. And I found this quote actually right towards the end as I was writing it. I sort of, I had my sense of who Kato was and like you I always kind of thought that that final moment was this sort of great selfless sacrifice that goes on to inspire, you know, generations. But I found this quote from Napoleon who says, the conduct of Kato was applauded by his contemporaries and has been admired by history, but who benefited from his death? Caesar, who was pleased by it? Caesar, and to whom was it a tragedy to roam and to his party?

No, he killed himself out of spleen and despair. His death was the weakness of a great soul, the error of a stoic, a blot on his life. What do you think of the argument that actually Kato takes the easy way out by dissim—literally, the hardest way you could possibly go out if we're looking at the ways that one might kill himself for people who don't know. He guts himself with a sword, and then when he passes out and a doctor tries to stitch him back up, Kato rips it out with his bare hands, like literally the most

gruesome painful death you could imagine. But Napoleon is arguing that this was the easy way out that he should have stood and fought, gone off to the provinces, tried to raise an army, kept going. Obviously Caesar getting assassinated not long after would have created an opportunity for someone like Cato to come back, where do you come down on the verdict on Cato's final decision? Yeah, so I do think it's fascinating. And anybody sort of reading about it and thinking about it's going to grapple with those different questions, right? You know, you wouldn't the more patriotic thing to have done, you know, be to sort of go back to Brown, try to work with Caesar, wait for the right opportunity, you know, build something that at least would be better than the alternative, right? Even if not, you're ideal.

Sure. And, you know, I'm a little bit sympathetic to that, but that's, of course, what most of those fighting Caesar did, right? They did. They did go back and try to make things work. Cicero being one example. Brutus being another example. Kato's nephew.

But then part of me thinks, Kato just really, he could work with Pompey and he could try to make things perform and sometimes show flexibility. But it's hard to imagine exactly how he would have done anything constructive, right? Yeah. In that situation. And so it's, you know, it's sort of is a moment of self-awareness, I think, to sort of

conclude that this is the end of the line. This is the end of the line for me. But you can also then sort of read the whole thing as his final, you know, throwing the whole game board over, right? Kind of his, his act of obstruction. I disagree with, I love you're Napoleon Cote, though, I disagree slightly with, with Napoleon in the sense that I think Cato's death actually was a little bit of a problem for Caesar in the way that, you know, Kato finally achieved what it sort of wanted all along was the complete martyrdom. And this sort of pricked the consciences a little bit of the survivors.

And Caesar was angry. I mean, he wrote a two volume book called anti-Cato where he tried to drag out every insult he could think of about his old foe. And it shows the depth of hatred, but also kind of that the Cato had sort of needle-tum. And if you're a bit of a coutonian, as I'm afraid I am, you do kind of have to give Kato the points there

for managing to. Well, it's hard to take moral arguments from Napoleon too seriously. You know what I mean? If there was, if there's ever someone who should have killed themselves in shame and saved the world, the trouble, it was Napoleon after the first defeat,

but that's a different discussion. But I think you're right. If you see it as Cato giving up, you're probably missing the point. If you see it more in line with, you know, the monk in Vietnam lighting themselves on fire, you know, they didn't have the concept of passive resistance to not exist then. But if we can imagine a hunger strike unto death or something like that, what Kato is effectively doing there is presenting Caesar with a moral quandary or dilemma for which there is no good solution. Kato can use or he's someone that Kato, he's someone that Caesar can be merciful towards

and undermine the fundamentally cruel and violent act that he has just done. Kato is refusing to be a tool or a pawn in the chess game that Caesar is playing, I would argue. Yeah, that's a great way of putting it. It actually goes back to the point about the sort of enabling, right? And would Cato, any kind of cooperation from his point of view, would have risked that? Yes. from his point of view would have risked that. And therefore it is the, you know, it's his,

it's his solving his pride, but it is also a political, a political statement, I think that's very powerful, right? I'm at the time, but then, you know, the other thing I'd say about it is, is awful as it is, right? It is sort of a, setting up an icon for posterity. Yeah, perhaps America would not be here if Kato had not done that. And yeah, it's an interesting argument.

I think also, you know, if Pompey is sort of the pole between the two, or the bouncing between the two, Cicero is a little like this, right? Cicero sort of doesn't pick a side, tries to, you know, Cicero does what Napoleon is saying that Kato should have done. And it doesn't make a difference you know it's it's it's it's it's largely to Cicero's shame that he kind of sticks around tries to you know see who's the winner and then side with them and I just don't think that was possible for someone like Kato. Yeah yeah it is really interesting to sort of read Cicero's letters

through this whole period and and sort of see the anguish that he put himself through as he's trying to figure out what to do and then of course he gets involved in this kind of interesting sort of pamphlet war, memory war after Cato died, because he's actually sort of writing the first blast of it when he produces a very praiseworthy biography of Kato. He was much nicer about Kato and death. He'd ever been about Kato and life.

So, yes, Sistaro, I like Sistaro's even though he's not really heroic. I think he's probably the way a lot of us would have been confronted by some of these horrible situations in Dalai Lama's, a little bit in a model and not sure exactly what to do. What do you think of the legacy that Kato leaves behind what right what comes next is his son-in-law and his daughter do stick around and fight and ultimately land the sort of final blow against Caesar. Brutus gets most of the credit, although when you read Plutarch, you get a sense of just how involved the legacy of Cato is there and his daughter following him to the grave not not long after. Yeah, so right, so I think Cato is definitely sort of weighing on their minds.

It takes a bit more than just that though. It is kind of also the decision Caesar was sort of making. And one of the arguments I try to make in the book is there's been a lot of debate over what were Caesar's final plans. Plutarch claims he wanted to be made king. Most people don't really actually believe that now. That sort of Plutarch zone interpretation. I think what Caesar really wanted to do was go off to the east and fight another one

of his wars. He wanted to go fight the Parthians, were basically the heirs of the Persians. So he would truly become the new Alexander at that point. And I think that the, the, there were two issues with that. One was sort of a fear that, you know, the power, the glory, you know, he would be more supreme than ever and that was just insufferable.

But then also kind of that he would, you know, he was an outdictator for life. He'd leave his minions in charge and realm. This was just important too for people like Brutus and and and Portia. Women are an important part of this story. They share some of the virtues and the faults of the Roman nobility, their use to a world and works they're very powerful. So they sort of lose out under dictatorship potentially too.

But I just think that's interesting, the gender roles, like so, Kato clearly raises a very empowered brave, courageous, stoic daughter. And then even Shakespeare sort of makes it much more about Brutus. But she's like in some ways, I think the driving force behind, in one clear way, she has a stronger argument for a stronger motivation for assassinating Caesar than Brutus does,

and into up sort of ultimately, they are much more collaborators in the assassination, I guess, than history likes to credit them for. Yeah. Yeah. And of course, another interesting character here is Kato's sister, his half-sister, Vilea, who was Julia Caesar's lover for many years. And this takes us back a little bit earlier, but she literally was writing the middle of the rivalry of these two people. And there hints in Plutarch's lives, especially the life of Cato, that she actually tried to be sort of an intermediary at one or two points. And sort of knew that

this rivalry would be very destructive. She tried to intervene in the Pompey Cato rivalry destructive, she tried to intervene in the Pompey Cato rivalry when that was related at its worst. So, yeah, women in this period definitely are fully involved in politics and they, you know, one of the things they do is they sort of have these debates in their households and clearly women are giving speeches, sort of long the lines that men would give in the Senate, they're just giving them at home at these family councils. So I think, yeah, it's completely right

to sort of restore Porsche into the councils that sort of lead to the odds of March. Do you think ultimately, Cato would have approved of the assassination, or would this have been a violation of his, you know, code? Yeah, so I have struggled with that question and there is kind of an interesting hint. Kato has one of my favorite Kato things is that he has this guy named Pavonius, who's sort of the mini me of Kato. And he's a senator, but he kind of always follows Kato around. And if Kato says we're not going to swear the oath,

we're being required to, if Vonius says we're not going to swear the oath, and if Kato insults Pompey, Vonius comes up with an even nastier insult to Pompey. So he's always there. And after Kato's death, as the I'dza march is approaching, and the plot is heating up, they approach him, the conspirators. And Favonius says, no, I'm not going to get involved in this. He does subsequently actually enlist in the army against the Avengers of Caesar. So he thinks eventually he has to get back and fought. And I have wondered if that is slightly a sort of Cotonian stance, right? In the sense that

that one reading of the situation in 44 is you can kill Caesar, but what will the outcome be? It could just very possibly be much more civil war, with potentially a new tyrant emerging. And basically that is kind of what happens. So that once Favonius made his peace with Caesar, I think if you imagine that Kato did something like that, you could see him saying, this particular assassination is just going to lead to more violence without

any positive outcome. And then I get the sense that's what the subsequent Stoics, your, you know, Athena Doris's and Arias Dittimus and Seneca, etc. In contrast to some of the, there's this split later in the Stoics, do you, when Nero is the Emperor or some other tyrant is the Emperor? You know, is the role of the Stoic to resist unto death or is it to find some kind of accommodation with this? The specter of what happened last time we did this, always looming over them as a, you know, what the CIA today calls blowback, that there's always blowback, that it doesn't always go the way that you think it's going to go, even if you are morally correct in the act, you also have to own the consequences of the act.

Yeah, yeah, I think it's not something where there's an easy answer, and that's kind of what's so haunting about later Roman imperial history. And that's kind of what's so haunting about later Roman imperial history is. And presumably, why stoicism is so much the philosophy of the awful Roman senators who are dealing with this question of, you know, what do you do if you live under a tyrant? Yes, there's no easy, there are no easy answers to these questions. And perhaps that's ultimately, you know, the tragedy of both Caesar and Kato is that they sometimes made very clear black and white

statements or judgments about political and personal matters to which they're infinite shades of gray. Yeah. Yeah. And they have integrity. They both have a kind of integrity that makes them, you know, as Salis suggested, very great man of their era. They define that age.

But then as we've been suggesting, pay attention to some of these less titanic figures, like Pompey or a Cicero who are kind of thoughtfully dealing with the problems too. Yeah, you're right. The integrity has a majesty to it, but also a tragic element to it. And in that, we ultimately sort of learn from them. Yeah, and we, you know, we don't want a world without any majesty. Yeah. So I sort of leave with leave the tale horrified but also not completely low thing.

Either film, you know, I am more team Kato for sure, but and I do think, you know, at some point under a tyrant, just to go back to that dilemma, you know, at some point, you do have to make an effort to get rid of the dots. Yes, yes, yes. Well, I thought the book was fascinating, and I do think it's one of the most fascinating relationships in all of history. and I've loved your stuff and then thanks so much for coming on. Thank you, Ryan. Thanks for listening to the Daily Stoke Podcast. Just a reminder we've got signed copies of all my books in the Daily Stoke Store.

You can get them personalized, you can get them sent to a friend. The app goes away. You go as the enemy, still in this is the key, the leather bound edition of the Daily Stoke. We have them all in the Daily Stoke Store, which you can check out at store.dailystoke.com. Hey, prime members, you can listen to the daily Stoic early and ad free on Amazon music. Download the Amazon music app today, or you can listen to the Daily Stoic early and add free on Amazon music, download the Amazon music app today, or you can listen early and add free with Wondery Plus in Apple podcasts.