Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

Posted by unbrand on 7 March 2003 | 9 Comments

“And therefore I believe that Carthage must be destroyed.”

This sentence, studied in Latin class ca. 1983 for its various examples of grammar usage (the details of which I have mostly forgotten), has been popping up in my mind a lot recently. This is the story.

The quote is by Marcus Porcius Cato who lived 234-149 BC, during a glorious, powerful time in the Roman Empire. Rome’s military dominance was overwhelming. The empire had expanded across the entire Mediterranean region – from Syria to Greece to southern France, and its army kept on conquering with no end in sight. Rome was a real super power, and Cato, a poor farm boy turned career politician, was its chief ideologist.

Carthage, an ancient city near what today is Tunis, had been controlling most of the western Mediterranean since around 300 BC, but soon had been challenged by Rome, which was expanding west and didn’t want another strong power in the area. Rome launched two wars, in which Carthage lost its possessions outside of Africa as well as its war ships, but despite that and the sanctions and conditions imposed by Rome, the city quickly recovered and regained prosperity and thus continued to play an important role in the region. In particular, it owned a lot of fertile land and successfully grew olives, grapes, grain, and other agricultural products. Carthage’s economic recovery put it in direct competition with Rome and interfered with the latter’s mercantile interests.

The Romans didn’t like that a bit, and no one liked it less than Cato. His conviction that Carthage still posed a military threat to Rome quickly became an obsession. The reason why his line about destroying Carthage became so famous is because he just kept hammering it into the minds of the people, true to the motto, if something gets said often enough, it just has to be true. No matter whether Cato was talking about tax policies, agriculture, trade issues, or expanding the sewer system of Rome – he always ended his speeches (and he is said to have been a very powerful orator) with the same sentence: “And therefore I believe that Carthage must be destroyed”.

It would go something like this: Why are so many reluctant to think the threat by Carthage is so real and imminent that we need war? Carthage is a threat to Rome. It must be destroyed.

A lot of people think Rome is the bigger threat to peace – why? Carthage is a threat to Rome. It must be destroyed.

How would you answer your critics who think this is a personal fixation, that this is about Scipio? Carthage is a threat to Rome. It must be destroyed.

Why do so many not only disagree with you very strongly, but see Rome as an arrogant power? Carthage is a threat to Rome. It must be destroyed.

Do you ever worry that this could lead to more violence, more anti-Roman sentiment, more instability in the Mediterranean region? Carthage is a threat to Rome. It must be destroyed.

It’s easy to see why this technique of repeating something ad nauseam until everybody takes it for a fact has remained ever-popular. It’s simple, and it doesn’t even take a speaker of Cato’s caliber to use it effectively.

For Cato, it definitely worked. At his urging, the government eventually imposed an impossible ultimatum upon Carthage, and the Senate decreed that Carthage had violated a treaty, which in 146 led to the 3rd Punic War and the destruction of the city. After three years of brutal fighting against fierce resistance, Rome emerged victorious, burning and razing the city and taking the few remaining survivors to Rome as slaves.

It would be another few centuries before the Roman Empire begun to crumble, and eventually fall.

Post your comment

Comments

  • <p>Thanks for the comments, appreciate it! I studied Latin in Germany way back when and was translating from 20-year old memory Latin-to-German-to-English. Now that I think of it again, we were taught that &ldquo;ceterum&rdquo; means &ldquo;im uebrigen&rdquo;, which best translates to &ldquo;incidentally&rdquo; or &ldquo;by the way&rdquo;. Don&rsquo;t know how accurate that is&mdash;your versions may very well be closer to the original.</p>


    <p>I don&rsquo;t think though that the question of the exact translation really changes the main point: that Cato was obsessed with the perceived threat of Carthage and brought up the subject all the time, often completely out of context, for his own political purpose. Interesting to re-read this entry, almost a year and a war after I posted it first, especially in the light of Paul O&rsquo;Neill&rsquo;s recent revelations.</p>

    Posted by sibylle, 01/07/2007 11:39am (1 year ago)

  • <p>[...] re Rome, turning from a republic into an empire, began to crumble, and eventually fell. (<a href='http://unbounded.org/archive/2003/03/07/ceterum-censeo-carthaginem-esse-delendam/' rel='nofollow' target='_blank' rel="nofollow">originally posted on unbounded</a> 03/07/2003; repost [...]</p>

    Posted by heimatseeker : Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse del, 01/07/2007 11:39am (1 year ago)

  • <p>I just stumbled upon this entry through an <a href='http://everything2.net' rel='nofollow' rel="nofollow">E2</a> write-up referencing it&hellip;
    Great sum-up, too bad it did not come up when I did my own research a while back.
    Funny thing is that I also wrote <a href='http://unknowngenius.com/blog/archives/2003/05/16/delenda-est-carthago/' rel='nofollow' rel="nofollow">an entry on this topic</a> (pointing the similarities with contemporary politics of the time) roughly a year ago&hellip;
    <span class='caps'>BTW</span>, berry2k is right: &ldquo;ceterum&rdquo; indeed means &ldquo;and moreover&rdquo;, &ldquo;furthermore&rdquo;... (&ldquo;therefore&rdquo; is a common but erroneous translation). I only realized this today myself.
    keep up the good work</p>

    Posted by dr Dave, 01/07/2007 11:39am (1 year ago)

  • <p>From what I&rsquo;ve read Carthage never really was half as much of a threat as Cato would have the Romans think. An &lsquo;ally&rsquo; of Rome kept bugging the Carthagians, who were really just plodding along trying to make a bit of money (which they did). Frustrated they declared war without permission of the Romans (them having become a vassal state, they required permission). The only reason it took some time to destroy the city is that it wasn&rsquo;t too easy to get an army near and the Romans didn&rsquo;t really hurry up. So most of the actual war was between said ally (forgot who they were) of Rome and Carthage. When the Romans got there, it was all over for Carthage.</p>


    <p>Furthermore I feel the closest translation of &lsquo;ceterum&rsquo; would be &lsquo;futhermore&rsquo;.</p>

    Posted by Berry2K, 01/07/2007 11:39am (1 year ago)

  • <p>Very Interesting. However, I believe the translation of the quote is a bit unprecise, it should rather be:
    &ldquo;In addition, I believe that Carthage must be destroyed&rdquo; or perhaps &ldquo;should be&rdquo;. My latin is becoming rusty. But ceterum means something like In addition. It is because Cato often made speaches about something completely different, and in the end he just added this sentence</p>

    Posted by Lars Thygesen, 01/07/2007 11:39am (1 year ago)

  • <p>I was looking up the comment because and found this site.
    I was about to leave the same comment as Lars did as well as the note that I learned it as
    &ldquo;Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse&rdquo;
    which is a relatively small change as it has no effect on the meaning but does make the rhythm of the sentence work better in my opninion, very significant as latin to Cato was a spoken language more than a written one, but maybe this only seems to me because it is the way I remember.</p>

    Posted by LaLa, 01/07/2007 11:39am (1 year ago)

  • <p>Nicely done. My only comment is this, and it is one for which Cato and others in the Roman Senate might have taken you to task. Rome in Cato&rsquo;s time was still a republic, not an empire. In fact, Cato and his colleagues identified strongly with a Rome that had cast off its monarchy centuries before. Rome did not become an empire until the end of the second civil war and the rise of Octavian. This is a point Plutarch made abundantly clear in his Fall of the Roman Republic.</p>


    <p>Cheers</p>

    Posted by Jerry Nagle, 01/07/2007 11:39am (1 year ago)

  • <p>btw-<del>[sound of crickets chirping]</del>-I see a couple of years have passed since the last post.</p>


    <p>Hello future web archaeologists! censeo Sullivanem Cromwellemque delandem esse.</p>

    Posted by Boom Town, 01/07/2007 11:39am (1 year ago)

  • <p>We still use ceterum (well, cetera) in modern English, after et, to mean &ldquo;and so on&rdquo;. I think that gives one a pretty close idea of the Latin.</p>


    <p>Also, I believe LaLa is right-<del>the verb generally goes at the end of the sentence. (being a highly inflected language, of course it can go anywhere, but the approved style</del>-in the absence of any reason, like emphasis, to put it elsewhere&mdash;is to leave the verb at the end.</p>

    Posted by Boom Town, 01/07/2007 11:39am (1 year ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page