Symptoms Of The Triumvirate Not The Republic

[M. Porcius Cato]

Let's take your question. Cato reached accomodation with nearly everyone but Caesar. Okay, we'll take that as read. So why did he not seek a peaceful resolution with Caesar?

Because there was a principle at stake--as long as the rule of law could be flouted by generals, there would never be a lasting peace nor a lasting republic. As you yourself said:

It is niaf[sic] in the extreme to expect ambitious men, who have examples of previous illegal actions being unpunished and no real constitutional safeguards that can be brought against them, not to exploit the system to their own advantage

 

Why do you so stubbornly refuse to believe that Cato was as short sighted and stubborn as Caesar was ambitious and unscrupulous?

Because the record of Cato's principled behavior and his reputation among even his enemies provides a better explanation for his 'stubborness' than the silly idea that Cato's sole motivation was to get even with Caesar over Servilia's love letter.

 

After all, had the faction of Cato not opposed all attempts at settling Pompey's veterans on Italian soil then the whole triumvirate might have never come about. His later alliance with Pompey merely shows the levels of hypocrisy to which he would stoop in pursuit of his feud with Caesar.

First off, I don't think that the ad hoc settling Pompey's veterans (or Marius' or Caesar's) was good public policy. Do you? If so, explain how you think it could be done while undermining the system of client armies. I don't see it, and I suspect this was the principle behind the opposition to it.

 

Second, Cato never made an 'alliance' with Pompey. He apparently convinced Pompey to uphold the law, and Cato joined the ROMAN army against an enemy of Rome, but Cato reportedly claimed that he would probably have to go into exile if Pompey won. Some alliance! Sounds to me like Cato was willing to make a deal with a lesser evil to prevent a greater one. Further support for the idea that Cato was an unenthusiastic supporter of Pompey's is provided by his conversation with Cicero upon the latter's joining Pompey's camp: Cato told Cicero that he would be doing the republic a greater service by staying out of the civil war so that he could act as a reconciliator after it was all over. Hardly the speech of someone with a vendetta.

[Furius Venator]

To clarify, I don't for a moment believe that the 'love letter' was the root of Cato's hatred (though I doubt it helped). Cato's faction was very 'vested interest', anti-equestrian, anti-land reform, naturally opposed to Caesar and he had opposed Caesar well before the Catiline conspiracy came to light.

 

But why on earth would you dismiss a personal hatred based on Caesar's notorious dalliance with Servilia? It seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that personal grudge and political emnity should feed off one another, preventing any consideration of reconciliation.

 

Cato defending a principle of law? How noble from the man who collected a 'slush fund' to secure the election of Bibulus.

 

What explains Cato's actions best is his seeking advantage for his faction, whether by hiding behind a respect for the law, by bribing the poor through an extension of the corn dole, by supporting Lucullus' attack on Pompeius' eastern stettlement, by attacking the equestrian tax farmers (these last two propelling Pompey and Crassus into political accord that became the triumvirate), etc.

 

Settling Pompey's veterans might not have solved the 'client army' problem but of course it would hardly have made it any worse.

 

You really think Cato convinced Pompey to uphold the law? I think you mean that Cato convinced Pompey that his ambitions wopuld be served best by siding with Cato and his faction against Caesar. What on earth would Pompey care about the law? He had no qualms about flouting it when it suited him. And of course he exacted a heavy price from the Catonians for his support.

 

Look at the events.

 

The consuls for 54 are impeached for bribery (Ahenobarbus, a prominent member of the Cato faction being one of them).

 

The scandal is revealed, Pompey's faction propose him as dictator, he declines.

 

we then have public business suspended , and the death of Crassus ends the triumvirate. Rioting is widespread, Milo prominent for the 'optimates', Clodius for 'the people'

 

After the death of Clodius, the Cationian faction come to an arrangement with Pompey. Pompey becvomes sole consul. To the grief of the Catonians, Milo is impeached, despite their efforts to save him.

 

Pompey then allies with the Metelli.

 

Cato is defeated for the consulship.

 

 

So at first, Cato's faction make an attempt to bring Pompey on their side (whilst answering the violence of Clodis with violence from their own creature, very in the spirit of the law, I'm sure). Pompey appears to agree, but when he becomes sole consul, uses his powers to secure his own position, gain new allies, undermine the strength of the 'optimates' and unsucessfully undermine Caesar too.

 

So really it was only the decision not to reach accomodation with Caesar, rather to provoke civil war, that at last propelled Pompey and Cato together. Of course alliance does not presuppose liking or friendship, merely expediency.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cato's faction was very 'vested interest', anti-equestrian, anti-land reform, naturally opposed to Caesar and he had opposed Caesar well before the Catiline conspiracy came to light.

First, stick to the facts of what Cato did and did not do, and leave out the guilt-by-association nonsense. Second, what evidence is there that Cato opposed Caesar before the conspiracy? As far as I can tell, they got along fine--Cato supported Caesar's early legislation and they cooperated in prosecuting Sullans.

 

But why on earth would you dismiss a personal hatred based on Caesar's notorious dalliance with Servilia? It seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that personal grudge and political emnity should feed off one another, preventing any consideration of reconciliation.

I've already told you why--Cato did not hold grudges against the many magistrates he opposed from time to time, including even those (like Scipio) to whom he had lost a love interest. When there is evidence AGAINST a thesis, the thesis should be abandoned.

 

Cato defending a principle of law? How noble from the man who collected a 'slush fund' to secure the election of Bibulus.

Maybe you don't know what a slush fund is, but raising money for electioneering was a necessary part of campaigning after the Social Wars--the expenses of securing Italian support were considerable, and the Italians were the deciding factor in several elections. Read Cicero's letters for details.

 

What explains Cato's actions best is his seeking advantage for his faction, whether by hiding behind a respect for the law, by bribing the poor through an extension of the corn dole, by supporting Lucullus' attack on Pompeius' eastern stettlement, by attacking the equestrian tax farmers (these last two propelling Pompey and Crassus into political accord that became the triumvirate), etc.

If insisting that the law be upheld is "hiding behind a respect for the law", then count me in! I can see nothing particularly partisan about that--unless, that is, if the opposing faction is a bunch of criminals (which they were). The rest of Cato's positions also derive from basic principles, which as often cut against his faction as for it. They were all designed to prevent monarchical consolidation of power in any one group: the corn dole was a response to the Catlinarian threat; the eastern settlement was purely a power grab by Pompey at the expense of a truly competent governor who managed to win Rome the trust of a new province; the tax farmers were rapacious bastards who were undermining Roman relations with the provinces and were in cahoots with the civil servants who were siphoning money out of the treasury.

 

Settling Pompey's veterans might not have solved the 'client army' problem but of course it would hardly have made it any worse.

If Pompey Magnus were unable to settle HIS veterans, no general would be able to. Thus, fighting Pompey on this was absolutely necessary to wrest control of the legions from the general and transfer it back to the state.

 

You really think Cato convinced Pompey to uphold the law?

To uphold ONE law, yes--to become a constitutionalist, of course not. As I've said before, Cato's co-operation with Pompey was purely an expedient to ensure that Caesar did not march on Rome like Sulla. Your narration of events simply underscores my point.

[Furius Venator]

Well let's take it that their feud started at the time of Cataline and that Cato was unmoved by Caesar's dalliance with Servilia, merely following a course of moral rectitude and high mindedness, opposing all those who sought to undermine the constitution by 'gansterism'.

 

So the first time Cato thwarts Caesar is when he launches his speech that incites the senate to the judicial murder of the conspirators associated with Cataline. Here Cato is exploiting the unwritten constitution, clearly the execution of citizens without trial was not strictly constitutional, but 'expediency' appears to have ruled Cato here rather than concern for precedent. Caesar may have been suspended from office as praetor at this time also (but was quickly reinstated if so).

 

He then uses violence against a tribune, Nepos (Pompey's creature). This of course defended the rights of the senate but had the consequence of bringing them into conflict with Pompey.

 

Then Caesar seeks to stand for consul in absentia to allow him to triumph also. Cato filibusters (the only way of preventing senatorial acceptance). Hardly the action of a man pursuing anything but vendetta, the filibuster clearly thwarted the wishes of the senate.

 

Caesar gives up his triumph and enters the race for consul. He and Lucceius indulge in the traditional heavy bribery of electors. Bibulus (the crony of Cato) does likewise. Cato once again displays a lack of moral principle in pursuit of political ends. To be fair to him of course, the sources indicate that he only stooped to this because he felt the republic was at stake. I would suggest that perhaps you don't know what a slush fund is if you think that money accrued to spend on buying votes is not a slush fund.

 

Caesar becomes consul and submits a land bill to the senate. Now the bill would have increased Pompey's influence as it would have settled large numbers of his veterans in Italy but Cato's only solution is to filibuster once more. Caesar then made a dreadful misjudgement and had Cato removed by force but quickly changed his tune when the majority of senators would not stand for it. He then took the legislation to the people and used Pompey's veterans to push it through by force.

 

Now to my mind the above suggests that Cato must simply be opposed to any notion of land reform if he is unmoved by any personal prejudice against Caesar. But of course the land bill was ratified in the end anyway. So what had his posturings achieved?

 

 

Why would the optimates not propose legislation settling Pompey's veteran's themselves. It was inevitable that something would have to be done for them surely? They opposed land reform precisely because it was not in their vested interests.

 

But what evidence do you have that Pompey became a ' constitutionalist'? as far as I can see he continues with his old policy of doing what was best for Pompey.

 

Now clearly you believe that Cato was honest, noble and upright, a fearsome defender of the constitution (or at least his preferred version of the constitution) against the power hungry populares. And there is some truth in that, he consistently opposed all such. But the methods he used to do so were often unconstitutional themselves (or against the spirit of the constitution at least). You seem to believe though that he was the only man in Rome who was unmotivated by personal gain or gain for his faction.

 

Caesar was unscrupulous to say the least but Cato did little to effectively thwart him and in fact most of his actions, or those of his cronies seem to have made things worse for his faction (or senatrorial government if you prefer).

[M. Porcius Cato]

Well let's take it that their feud started at the time of Cataline and that Cato was unmoved by Caesar's dalliance with Servilia, merely following a course of moral rectitude and high mindedness, opposing all those who sought to undermine the constitution by 'gansterism'.

I take it then you were unable to find that mysterious evidence of a feud between Cato and Caesar pre-Catiline?

 

So the first time Cato thwarts Caesar is when he launches his speech that incites the senate to the judicial murder of the conspirators associated with Cataline. Here Cato is exploiting the unwritten constitution, clearly the execution of citizens without trial was not strictly constitutional, but 'expediency' appears to have ruled Cato here rather than concern for precedent. Caesar may have been suspended from office as praetor at this time also (but was quickly reinstated if so).

It wasn't Cato who argued against there being a trial, but Caesar! Re-read their speeches. Cato's argument is only about what the penalty should be, which is what his role as quaestor was.

 

He then uses violence against a tribune, Nepos (Pompey's creature).

I'm assuming this comes from the same reliable source that puts the source of the conflict between Cato and Caesar pre-Catiline! I'd like to see your source on Cato's "violence" against Nepos. What a joke--it was Nepos who had his armed thugs preventing the intervention of a tribune of the plebs.

 

Then Caesar seeks to stand for consul in absentia to allow him to triumph also. Cato filibusters (the only way of preventing senatorial acceptance). Hardly the action of a man pursuing anything but vendetta, the filibuster clearly thwarted the wishes of the senate.

Fillibuster is a non-violent and purely constitutional practice that continues to this day. Given that standing for consul in absentia is unconstitional, I really wonder what your point is.

 

I would suggest that perhaps you don't know what a slush fund is if you think that money accrued to spend on buying votes is not a slush fund.

There is no evidence that Cato had anything to do with this bribery except disdain from prosecuting all of the candidates during this election (which at this point was no longer in Cato's job description).

 

Now to my mind the above suggests that Cato must simply be opposed to any notion of land reform if he is unmoved by any personal prejudice against Caesar. But of course the land bill was ratified in the end anyway. So what had his posturings achieved?

Given that he was defeated by the use of force, nothing. And is that what your criticism of Cato comes down to??? That he was opposed to "land reform"?? Heck, the evidence doesn't even support that much--he opposed the settlement of Pompey's troops, not any and all land reform measures.

 

Why would the optimates not propose legislation settling Pompey's veteran's themselves.

Well, we'll never know since the debate on the topic was broken up by armed thugs. A compromise might have been reached. An alternative bill might have been proposed. Pompey's cronies might have convinced the voters to approve the ratification or to convince the tribunes that the bill wasn't just another political pay-off. We'll never know which of these might have come to pass had the law been followed because thugs like Pompey and Caesar weren't interested in rational persuasion but blind and stupid force.

 

But what evidence do you have that Pompey became a ' constitutionalist'? as far as I can see he continues with his old policy of doing what was best for Pompey.

Re-read my post.

[Furius Venator]

I take it then you were unable to find that mysterious evidence of a feud between Cato and Caesar pre-Catiline?

 

Cato, my lovely, that is correct. Other than the rattling of Servilia there would appear to be none. I'm quite convinced that Cato wasn't bothered one whit by that.

 

I don't have Sallust to hand so I'll take your word for that. Did Cato in fact argue for a trial by jury? But you concur that the killing of the conspirators was against Roman law? Though IIRC Caesar said that it would be better to follow the law and not put citizens to death without trial.

 

I'm well aware that Nepos had armed thugs guarding him. Nonethless Cato used violence against him, though I grant you he had a tame tribune in tow when he did so. Why was Cato present at all? Why could the silencing of Nepos not be left to the tribune?

 

Filibustering is a device used to thwart a bill that will otherwise pass. It deliberately seeks to thwart the spirit of the constitution. There was nothing unconstitutional about applying to satnd for consul in absentia. Precedent existed.

 

No, I'm sure Cato was very careful to keep his hands clean.

 

Land reform could have been debated in the senate. In fact when Caesar presented his bill to the senate, there was little debate. Mainly because his bill seems to have been very fair, it was difficult to object too. Hence Cato's filibuster. Clearly he was opposed to any debate otherwise he could have debated/proposed amendment etc while it was before the senate.

 

My criticism of Cato is really that his pursuit of vendetta, disguised (possibly even to himself) as concern for the constitution actually helped precipitate the collapse of the republic. He drove Pompey into the hands of Crassus and Caesar thus creating the triumvirate that you so detest.

 

'Blind and stupid force'. Come now, it was very effective use of force, applied when they had been 'talked out' of the senate.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't have Sallust to hand so I'll take your word for that. Did Cato in fact argue for a trial by jury? But you concur that the killing of the conspirators was against Roman law? Though IIRC Caesar said that it would be better to follow the law and not put citizens to death without trial.

Caesar spoke before Cato and argued that anyone who wanted a trial for the accused (who had already confessed) were enemies of the state. So, no--Cato didn't then defy Caesar and argue for a trial by jury. And, yes, I concur that the execution was hasty by Roman law. Ideally, the accused should have been kept in the carcer until Catiline and his supporters were defeated. Trial while Catiline was in the field would have been out of the question because the physical mechanism of trial (in the forum, before the people) would have provided an opportunity for allies of Catiline to use force to prevent justice.

 

I'm well aware that Nepos had armed thugs guarding him. Nonethless Cato used violence against him, though I grant you he had a tame tribune in tow when he did so. Why was Cato present at all? Why could the silencing of Nepos not be left to the tribune?

At this time, Cato WAS a tribune of the plebs, so he had to be present to veto the bill. And Cato used no violence (unless you're counting the fact that he ripped up the bill after vetoing it).

 

My criticism of Cato is really that his pursuit of vendetta, disguised (possibly even to himself) as concern for the constitution actually helped precipitate the collapse of the republic. He drove Pompey into the hands of Crassus and Caesar thus creating the triumvirate that you so detest.

I don't agree. After Sulla, Rome faced a fundamental constitutional dilemma--with so many laws broken and monarchical precedents set, should the state restore the constitution that existed before Marius or should it continue to allow military figures to concentrate all political power to themselves? Cato led a movement to restore the pre-Marian, anti-monarchical constitution; opportunists from all factions preferred a chance to attain supreme power for themselves, as Marius and Sulla before them. At the same time, there were certainly reforms needed, particularly in strengthening central control over the provinces, in state finance, and in election laws. In these areas, Cato was NOT a mere traditionalist, but a real reformer, sometimes cooperating with 'populares' and continuously opposing the remnants of the Sullan oligarchy. It was this early career that earned him his reputation as a strict constitutionalist, and why someone as late as Plutarch would place Cato's life in parallel with Aristides the Just.

[Furius Venator]

At this time, Cato WAS a tribune of the plebs

 

Of course, I was forgetting that, sorry.

 

 

 

I'd be interested to know how you regard Cato's surprising support for the prosecution of Murena, given that had he been found guilty and stripped of his consulship, Catiline would have filled the vacant place. It doesn't really strike me as the shrewdest of moves, even though in the event Murena was acquitted.

 

Cato led a movement to restore the pre-Marian, anti-monarchical constitution

 

were this so then he seems to have made some poor long term judgements, not least as I've said, driving Crassus, caesar and Pompey into collusion.

 

Of course the Sullan constitution was pretty rigorous (in theory). I'm surprised that a traditionalist wouldn't have defended it rather than attempted to restore the pre-Marian constitution (which, with hindsight, would surely have been impossible due to the utterly changed nature of the army). But then of course, Cato would not have reaped political reward from defending the Sullan constitution.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd be interested to know how you regard Cato's surprising support for the prosecution of Murena, given that had he been found guilty and stripped of his consulship, Catiline would have filled the vacant place. It doesn't really strike me as the shrewdest of moves, even though in the event Murena was acquitted.

The prosecution of Murena was vintage Cato--an idealistic constitutionalism that sat astride the border of pure genius and pure folly--as well as vintage Cicero--an authentic sense of right and wrong combined with amoral pragmatism that never failed to be shocking for its self-satisfied venality.

 

Of course you're right that the immediate beneficiary of the prosecution might have been Catiline (who probably wouldn't have assumed the consulship in the event of Murena's prosecution, but this is a minor quibble). However, at this point, it wasn't at all clear what the nature of the Catilinean threat really was.

 

On the other hand, Murena was guilty as sin--Cicero didn't even attempt to dispute this point. Cicero's defense employed two appeals to distraction. The first argument was that the crime was small and that young Cato's Stoicism, while commendable, was too idealistic. Poking fun at the Stoic disputanda that it was as bad to wrongly kill a rooster as to slay one's own father, the consul Cicero blithely ignored the evidence against Murena and offered Cato the avuncular advice that he should recall the Stoic virtues of prudentia and temperentia as much as iustitia and fortitudo. The second argument was a darker distraction--that Catiline was in field and that the republic required two consuls for the battle ahead. Although Cato suspected the danger posed by Catiline was being exaggerated, the jury sided with Cicero, and Murena was acquitted.

 

Cato led a movement to restore the pre-Marian, anti-monarchical constitution

were this so then he seems to have made some poor long term judgements, not least as I've said, driving Crassus, caesar and Pompey into collusion.

I would say that it was the ambition of the individual triumvirs that brought them into collusion, not Cato's resistance to them. If their individual projects had not been resisted by Cato when they were, it is almost certain that some sort of resistance would have been necessary later.

 

Of course the Sullan constitution was pretty rigorous (in theory). I'm surprised that a traditionalist wouldn't have defended it rather than attempted to restore the pre-Marian constitution (which, with hindsight, would surely have been impossible due to the utterly changed nature of the army). But then of course, Cato would not have reaped political reward from defending the Sullan constitution.

 

Cato didn't have much to gain from the Sullan order, and he was always active in overturning it (this was an early point of cooperation between Cato and Caesar). Also, the opening of the ranks to the landless needn't have been overturned to reverse the monarchical trends that Marius initiated. Even Sulla kept this one of Marius' laws intact. My guess is that nearly everyone recognized the value in a larger, more inclusive, and better equipped military force. What needed to be restored from Marius' brief royal rule was the principle of collegiality and term limits.

[Furius Venator]

If their individual projects had not been resisted by Cato when they were, it is almost certain that some sort of resistance would have been necry later.

 

resistance to what though?

 

Offices for their supporters? Land reform? Cancellation of debt? (Can't see Crassus being keen on that...)

 

I mean why would Crassus form alliance with Pompey, whom he cordially hated, unless he was forced into it?

 

I don't immediately see what was unconstitutional about Pompey's land bills for instance. Rather they threatened the influence of Cato's faction.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If their individual projects had not been resisted by Cato when they were, it is almost certain that some sort of resistance would have been necry later.

 

resistance to what though?

 

Unauthorized campaigns of plunder (like Caesar's Gallic adventures or Crassus' Parthian campaign), use of hand-picked legates to administer provincial rule (as Pompey did), and misappropriation of public funds for personal political gain (such as the seizing of the ager publica for veterans).

 

The latter was especially critical--the lion's share of state revenues came from the rents charged on the ager publica--unless these lands were auctioned off to the highest bidder, it's hard to see how the loss of the lands could be recouped in another form of taxation.

[Furius Venator]

But surely Caesar's Gallic campaigns paid for themselves? And further brought an influx of wealth to Rome in the form of slaves if nothing else. Also unauthorised how? (I know Caesar was 'pushing it') but technically he was acting in defence of Roman allies.

 

Nobody could find fault with Caesar's land bill in the senate (hence Cato's filibuster to block it). It proposed the following:

 

Communally owned land, except in Campania for some reason, to be divided up. No expense there.

Pompey's loot to be used for purchase of land. No expense to the state there.

Voluntary sale of land at the value assessed by the census. Nobody losing money there.

Priority given to veterans, any residual land to the urban poor.

 

Caesar was prepared to debate this point by point. Nobody in the senate challenged it.

 

 

 

Pompey of course had legal dispensation to govern through legates. This is surely a fault of the system. Government by precedent is an invitation to abuse.

[M. Porcius Cato]

But surely Caesar's Gallic campaigns paid for themselves? And further brought an influx of wealth to Rome in the form of slaves if nothing else. Also unauthorised how? (I know Caesar was 'pushing it') but technically he was acting in defence of Roman allies.

He was more than pushing it in my opinion--there's a whole thread I started on Caesar's illegal war.

 

Nobody could find fault with Caesar's land bill in the senate (hence Cato's filibuster to block it). It proposed the following:

Communally owned land, except in Campania for some reason, to be divided up. No expense there.

The land was already being rented, so the state would lose money.

 

Pompey's loot to be used for purchase of land. No expense to the state there.

Except, again, all the future rents.

 

Voluntary sale of land at the value assessed by the census. Nobody losing money there.

Unless the census conducts an auction, there is no way for it to determine the fair market value of the land. Most likely, the census would reach a sweetheart deal with Pompey, and who knows where that could lead?

 

Priority given to veterans, any residual land to the urban poor.

Again, there is no reason to think that veterans and the urban poor would make any more productive use of the land than the current tenants; therefore, the state would be sacrificing a very large portion of its revenues to a sweetheart deal with Pompey's vets.

 

Caesar was prepared to debate this point by point. Nobody in the senate challenged it.

Actually, that idiot Bibulus was charged with the task, and he botched the job, but that doesn't mean the bill was a good one. And it certainly wasn't worth the triumvirate!

[Furius Venator]

If your points are valid, then why on earth did nobody challenge on those grounds? It can't all be blamed on Bibulus, he was not the only senator capable of speech!

 

And it certainly wasn't worth the triumvirate!

 

If the senate had had the wit to settle with Pompey before 60 then there would have been no triumvirate.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If your points are valid, then why on earth did nobody challenge on those grounds? It can't all be blamed on Bibulus, he was not the only senator capable of speech!

 

No, but he was the senior magistrate opposing the law. Further, many of these same points were made about earlier land settlements.