Marius, Cato, and Roman Class Conflict

6 February 2012

In the second century BC, the Roman aristocracy promoted a value system that emphasised the customs, traditions and reverence of ancestors. The military and political achievements of a man’s lineage permitted entry into a ruling elite that valued name over virtue.

In exceptional circumstances, these credentials could be acquired through patronage, adoption or marriage, albeit with the stigma of a novus homo or ‘new man’ attached to their authority.

Gaius Marius, an ambitious novus homo criticised the aristocracy for the advantages inherited by birth, the political system that supported it and the general avarice of their character. These protestations found a receptive audience among the people, proclaiming the ruling elites unworthy of the professed virtues of their noble lineage.

The Roman Aristocratic Ethos

The Roman aristocratic ethos placed eminence on service to the state decorated by military, political and religious achievement.

The Scipio funeral epitaphs that testify to the ‘worthiness’ of a life spent obtaining military victories, public office and religious devotion:

Cornelius Lucius Scipio Barbatus, sprung from Gnaeus his father, a man strong and wise, whose appearance was most in keeping with his virtue, who was consul, censor, and aedile among you – He captured Taurasia, Cisauna, Samnium – he subdued all Lucania and led off hostages (source) (see our post on other Roman epitaphs)

The power of these achievements not only illuminated the individual, but reflected glory upon descendants, challenging them to eclipse ancestral accomplishments, only then, would they be worthy of their name.

The “Novus Homo” among the ruling elite

For Gaius Marius, a citizen of equestrian rank, this meant patronage by the Metelli and marriage into the ailing Julii to bolster his political aspirations.

For Cato the Elder, this meant patronage by the Valerii whom coerced and cultivated their client into Roman public life.

Therefore, the ascent to power for these two individuals occurred at the behest of the aristocracy, as they both lacked ancestors whom held senior magistracies, they were novus homo, a ‘new man’ among the ruling elite.

Austerity, Toil, and Leadership by Example

For these two individuals whom lacked the wealth and eloquence to compete as equals, an ideology of novitas emerged that offset the inherited advantages of the aristocracy.

Frugality became a virtue in both public and private life, for Cato it meant consuming similar meals to slaves and adopting a lean fiscal policy through his governance of Sardinia.

In a similar vein, Marius earned influence with the people through his ‘plain and simple way of living’, and vied with soldiers in frugality and endurance.

To soldiers, equestrians and the people, both Cato and Marius were willing to exert on themselves anything expected of others, an equal partner in their labours. Whether they were visible in the front rank of the army, leading a raid at Thermopylae or training with regular soldiers, each man politicised himself as an example to all Romans, an equal among them whom commanded honour and authority on account of his own achievements.

Against the Aristocracy

It is natural that an ideology that facilitates the strengths of the novus homo challenges aristocratic values, in essence, the eminence of merit over name.

At first, it was Cato that antagonised rivals in the Senate, proclaiming that Rome would be at her greatest ‘when her men of high birth refused to yield the palm of virtue to men of lower rank’.

But it was Marius, a political opportunist, that criticised the aristocracy on account of their professed virtue. These will now be explained in turn, on Merit, on True Character, and on Politics.

Note: The source for these protestations, Sallust, contains a level of bias and like Marius, can be viewed as openly hostile to the aristocracy.

Marius on Merit

The first among Marius’ protestations relates to the ancestral system that bequeathed the aristocrats their power and restricted membership through a process of ‘carefully controlled inclusion’.

Marius argued that it was ‘reversing the natural order’ by allowing candidates without the ‘necessary practical experience’ to gain command on account of birth alone, the dangerous reality of this practice being delegation of command or only a scholar’s experience of warfare.

Furthermore, Marius targets the linear nature of ancestral lines, comparing himself to the ancestors as men who relied on their merit alone.

It is with these protests that Marius replaces ancestral ‘portraits, triumphs, or consulships’ with ‘spears, a banner, medals and other military honours’, disenfranchising the aristocracy from a significant element of their power.

Marius on True Character

The second among Marius’ protestations relates to the collective characteristics of the aristocracy, whom he defames as ‘arrogant’, ‘slothful’ and a disgrace to the memory of their ancestors. Marius implied the aristocrats not only hid behind masks of their ancestors, but also a ‘mask of virtue’, a façade used to deceive the people of their true nature.

True nobility should come from the pursuits of manly virtue, not Greek literature or oratory. The avarice nature of the aristocracy labelled them as tyrants for subjecting armies to rigorous discipline while enjoying the luxuries afforded by their position.

It is these protestations that attack the character of the aristocrats, whom Marius compares with his own virtue, a partner in the labours of the people and an example of the ‘proper way’ to lead his fellow citizens.

Marius on Politics

The final among Marius’ protestations relates to the political system that supported the elevation of the aristocracy. Marius, who by his own admission lacked the eloquence and cunning for the political process, attacked his opponents for the obstruction, jealousy and intrigue that disrupted his own political agenda, the proclaimed will of the people.

Furthermore, Marius argues that ‘in defiance of all justice’, the aristocracy ‘steal the rewards of honest men’ referring to both the spoils of military victories and the rapacious style of administration.

It is these protestations that Marius uses to argue against the abuse of public administration perpetuated by the aristocracy, whom he argues are corrupt and require the political skills of oratory to conceal their guilt.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Roman aristocratic ethos was a conservative mix of ancestral reverence, obsessive achievement and the traditions of forefathers. The achievements of ancestors brought distinction not only upon the individual, but their descendants who were afforded membership into the ruling elite.

For those citizens without the ‘blue blood’ of ancestral nobility, prominence was given to their own merit and achievement, politicising themselves as an example to other Romans.

The protestations of Marius attacked the aristocracy upon the advantages they held over him, a political agenda that attacked pedigree, character and the political system.The devaluing of these attributes allowed Marius to compete with the aristocracy on merit alone and strengthened his candidature for higher public office supported by his own clients, the Roman people.