C. Cato

[Fulvia]

As I read deeper into the exciting happenings of the 60-40's B.C. there is a new name that has arisen to my attention: Gaius Cato. I read of him in connection with the more dubious dealings of the popularis, in the circles of Clodius and Crassus but it looks like he was not able to strongly establish himself as a Clodius or Curio but was more of a secondary level demagogue.

So I ask who is this C. Cato I read of, who is his family, what happened to him? Was he a demagogue or just another adulescens looking for some political excitement before he settled down?

 

I am really taken with the development and role of demagogues in the Late Republic so I am eager to know about this "new" layer.

[Pompieus]

Sorry ma'am, can't find your man...

 

The only Gaius Porcius Cato I can discover is the consul of 114 BCE who must have been born around 157BCE and thus can't be an associate of Curio and Clodius.

 

This guys career was dolorous enough; he was the grandson of Cato the censor by his first wife Licinia, his father died as praetor designate in 152 BCE. He was also the grandson of Aemilius Paullus as his mother was Paullus' daughter and a sister of Scipio Aemilianus - who was thus his uncle. He was a friend and follower of Tiberius Gracchus but survived the reactions of 132 and 121 BCE, either by withrawing his support in time or thru the efforts of his influential relatives. He was elected consul for 114 BCE and went out to govern Macedonia, but was badly defeated by the celtic tribe of the Scordisci. Upon his return he was prosecuted for repetundae and convicted, but his relatives apparently managed to make sure the fine imposed was so small as to not injure his social or political status. His downfall came in 109 BCE when he was condemned for bribery by the Mamilian Commision, probably for accepting gifts while part of an embassy to Jugurtha in 116 BCE. His relatives couldn't help him in face of the popular outrage and he went into exile, possibly at Tarracco in Spain.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Pompieus

[Ingsoc]

Here is the entry about him from the Brill's New Pauly:

[i 2] P. Cato, C. People's tribune in 56 BC, affiliated with Clodius [i 4]

 

Grandson(?) of C. P. [i 1] Cato; a turbulentus adulescens ('turbulent young man', Non. 385 M.) in the troubles after 60 BC. Affiliated to the triumvir P. Licinius [i 11] Crassus and P. Clodius [i 4] Pulcher (Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 2,1,2) in 56 during his tribunate, P. turned against L. Cornelius [i 54] Lentulus Spinther and Pompey [i 3], who had already been attacked (Cass. Dio 39,15,3 f.; Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 1,2,15; 2,3,1; 3 f.). The defection of his gladiator bodyguard to T. Annius [i 14] Milo was an embarrassing setback for P. (ibid. 2,5,3). Subsequently there was an rapprochement with Pompey, who benefited, together with Crassus, from the delay, caused by P., of the consular elections for 55 (Liv. Per. 105). Reconciliation with his previous adversary saved P. from prosecutions for his conduct as tribune (Cic. Att. 4,15,4; 16,5) and may have won him the praetorship in 55 (Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 3,4,1). MRR 2,209; 3,169 f.

[sylla]

Caius Porcius Cato was an ally of Clodius (the infamous Patrician tribune of the plebs) in his street gang war against Milo; Cato served as plebeian tribune himself in 56 BC, and in his political activities he was usually associated with his colleague Nonius Sufenas.

 

They began as opponents of Pompey, but then changed sides and during their tribunate they delayed the comitia to promote the election of Pompey and Crassus as consuls.

 

The following year they were both accused of procedural violations, but they were eventually acquitted.

 

This Cato

[Pompieus]

Absolutely right! A little better research would have answered!

 

He attacked Pompey in 59 BCE by prosecuting Gabinius for ambitus but was thwarted by a Pompean praetor and was chased from the rostra by an angry crowd. In 57 he spoke against delaying the aedelician elections (Clodius was standing and Milo wanted the delay to allow a prosecution). But he proved amenable to the blandishments of the triumvirs at the conference of Lucca and as tribune in 56 delayed of elections in support of Pompey and Crassus as you say. His prosecutor in the trial after his tribunate was the future historian and consul of 40 BCE Asinius Pollio.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Pompieus

[M. Porcius Cato]

For C. Cato's relationships with all the other Catoni, see my Kinsmen of Cato stemma.

[Fulvia]

Thanks for the info everyone! My driving curiosity won't eat me alive anymore.

 

For C. Cato's relationships with all the other Catoni, see my Kinsmen of Cato stemma.

 

This is a fascinating tree! Visuals are so great to study, thanks for sharing!

[P.Clodius]

..the infamous Patrician tribune of the plebs...

Infamous in what way?

[Ingsoc]

..the infamous Patrician tribune of the plebs...

Infamous in what way?

 

You might remember that he organize gangs that fought in the street and terrorize political enemies and that after his death his supporters burn down the Senate house!

 

In short, in the late Republic, the age anarchy and demagogues, Clodius is the worst example of them both.

[Fulvia]

..the infamous Patrician tribune of the plebs...

Infamous in what way?

 

You might remember that he organize gangs that fought in the street and terrorize political enemies and that after his death his supporters burn down the Senate house!

 

In short, in the late Republic, the age anarchy and demagogues, Clodius is the worst example of them both.

Or maybe the best example. Despite the...burst of life...he inserted into politics during the Late Republic, much of what he did, played to the common person's pleasure of immediate gratification and belief that there was someone in the senate who made their life more interesting and granted them a place to use their collective influence. The commoner was an untapped source of power and that is what made him both infamous, to some, and a hero, or at least a tool to be tamed- if that were ever possible, for others.

 

I think we tend to remember Clodius as infamous thanks to Cicero's opinion of the man.

[sylla]

..the infamous Patrician tribune of the plebs...

Infamous in what way?

 

You might remember that he organize gangs that fought in the street and terrorize political enemies and that after his death his supporters burn down the Senate house!

 

In short, in the late Republic, the age anarchy and demagogues, Clodius is the worst example of them both.

Or maybe the best example. Despite the...burst of life...he inserted into politics during the Late Republic, much of what he did, played to the common person's pleasure of immediate gratification and belief that there was someone in the senate who made their life more interesting and granted them a place to use their collective influence. The commoner was an untapped source of power and that is what made him both infamous, to some, and a hero, or at least a tool to be tamed- if that were ever possible, for others.

 

I think we tend to remember Clodius as infamous thanks to Cicero's opinion of the man.

As the happenings of the 60-40's B.C. are exciting for me too, I'm really sorry for having diverted your analysis by my careless use of the word "infamous"; believe me, I never pretended to add any value judgment for or against Clodius, Cicero or anyone else.

 

Please change that word for an ethically neuter "famous" in my previous statement and let the life go on.

[consulscipio236]

..the infamous Patrician tribune of the plebs...

Infamous in what way?

 

What has been said of Clodius here is true. Also note that his being a 'patrician tribune' is an obvious contridiction, and part of the reason he was so infamous. He was a patrician, and thus ineligable for the tribunate. He had himself adopted by a (younger) plebeian relative, thus making himself a plebeian. However, since this was always a farse, he completely disregarded the ordinary adoption process, which was very serious and involved clan rights and rituals. There was a specific naming convention that should have given him a different name, but instead he simply changed the spelling of his clan name (Claudius) to a plebeian sounding name (Clodius).

 

It is true that he was largely responisble for the erruption of gang warfare that was not put down once and for all until the principate. People forget, however, that it was Caesar who made him. Caesar needed an able demogague to make sure that, after he left for Gaul, the senate's two most able leaders (Cato and Cicero) were out of the picture and unable to led opposition. Cato annexed Cypress to Rome (due to a personal insult at the hands of a former ruler of Cypress) and sent Cato on a mission to lead the annexation efforts. This mission would not only keep Cato away from Rome but could have ruined his reputation. He also exiled Cicero, who he had hated ever since Cicero accused Clodius of helping Catline during his conspiracy. The erruption of open gang warfare between Clodius and Milo kept Pompey and the senate preoccupied while Caesar was causing trouble in Gaul.

[P.Clodius]

What has been said of Clodius here is true.

That's a bold statement. True according to whom? Probably his mortal inimicus Cicero, and if so does that make it true? Perhaps its time to dedicate a thread to Clodius, his history, character, and acts. This may take time for me to compose so bare with me.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato annexed Cypress to Rome (due to a personal insult at the hands of a former ruler of Cypress)

 

Just to clarify--M. Porcius Cato didn't annex Cyprus due to some insult to Cato. Cato was sent to Cyprus due to a law passed by an assembly (probably under the eyes of Clodius' goons). Clodius had every reason in the world to nominate Cato for the task. The standard rationale attributed to Clodius is that the nomination was "to get Cato out of the way", but that seems radically unnecessary -- the goons of Clodius and Milo had already put Cato and the remnants of the anti-Triumvirate very far "out of way".

 

The more plausible motivation for appointing Cato was economic. First, the republic had been deprived of nearly 1/4 of its income by settling Pompey's vets in Campania, and Clodius' lex frumentaria was bleeding the state of its remaining cash. Obviously, stealing 7000 talents from some Hellenistic potentate isn't a problem -- as Pompey and his kind well knew from their own experience. The problem is finding someone who will turn the loot over to the state. For this task, Cato was the *perfect* choice -- he was devoted to the claims of Roman law over the claims of some king (*cough* Caesar! *cough*) and he was scrupulously honest. Plus, the other choice would have been Gabinius, who almost certainly would have kept a large share of the gold for himself. Thus, by choosing Cato, Clodius managed to bankroll his corn dole, co-opt an opponent of both Clodius and Cato (i.e., Gabinius), and thereby forestall criticism that he and his patrons had bankrupted the state -- and, frankly, nothing in any of this could have been opposed by Cato on any principled grounds. The only risk that Clodius ran was that Cato would keep the money for himself -- but that was hardly a risk: Had Cato kept the money, he would have done far more to cripple the optimates than any good that would have come from the money itself. Plus, what would Cato (who was already rich) going to do with 7000 talents? Buy himself a tunic and some shoes??

[Kosmo]

Plus, what would Cato (who was already rich) going to do with 7000 talents? Buy himself a tunic and some shoes??

 

How much was an army? How much was Crassus goal? After all he had to settle with a public army...

 

Unfortunately this is a very serious problem when the rewards of playing against the rules are much better then when playing by them. A step forward towards a failed state? I always wondered if Caesar/Octavian coup, the so called empire, was only the best privatization in history turning a res publica in a private property or even worse a famiglia property.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Kosmo