Did M.P. Cato act illegally as Qaestor?

[G-Manicus]

From Plutarch:

 

Again, there were many persons whom the famous Sulla had rewarded for killing men under

[M. Porcius Cato]

My understanding was that as Sulla was appointed Dictator that any actions he took were automatically legal. How could his actions be declared illegal ex post facto and those who participated in the proscriptions be brought to trial?

 

Sulla himself was beyond legal prosecution, not his accomplices, and there was nothing barring his acts from being overturned and his actions declared as invalid due to their being enacted per vim. Further, there were many (like Catiline) who killed citizens and THEN had their names added to the proscription lists. Furthermore, no law entitled murderers to their victim's property--that policy was entirely at the whim of the dictator.

 

BTW, does Plutarch mention the identity of the presiding praetor for these cases? As quaestor, Cato had the role of protecting the treasury, so his legal power for wresting blood money from the Sullans depended entirely on his finding a cooperative praetor. Any guess who that would be? Gaius Julius Caesar! Yep, they started off working together to free Rome from all the bad Sullans. In fact, it was Caesar who helped Labienus (the tribune for that year) set the relevant precedent by trying Rabirius for the murder of Saturninus. If only Caesar hadn't been seduced by the dark side of imperium...

[M. Porcius Cato]

Hold on... Nephele has very sweetly reminded me that Caesar was not praetor in 64.

 

Here's what E. G. Sihler (1911) says:

In this same year, 64, Caesar for the first time was a presiding and directing justice in a Roman court: not praetor as yet, but as ex-aedile, he was chosen a kind of deputy-praetor, or supplementary one, called by the Romans iudex quaestionis. His court was that entrusted by cases of murder (Suet., 11). Now Caesar, with impressive consistency, made responsible and treated as murderers those men who, for turning in heads of the proscribed, had received the bounties of Sulla out of the public treasury, and he refused to consider as a defence the immunity specifically granted to such executioners by a certain paragraph of the Cornelian laws.

 

It was politics, though, rather than striving for justice, for Caesar specifically selected the case of the man who slew Lucretius Ofella by order of the dictator, and he received the penalty (Dio., 37, 11)

 

But Catiline, similarly prosecuted, was acquitted. The public marvelled at both results. A commentary will readily suggest itself to the intelligence of my readers. Catiline was among the assets of the future.

 

Herr Sihler is almost dogmatically pro-Caesar (like most of the German scholars of the day--no wonder they fell for Bismarck), and facts sometimes elude him, but at least I was right about Caesar being on the court that Cato would have dragged those blood-stained Sullan toadies. As for the "certain paragraph of the Cornelian laws", Sihler cites no sources, and I'll see what I can dig up.

[G-Manicus]

Sulla himself was beyond legal prosecution, not his accomplices, and there was nothing barring his acts from being overturned and his actions declared as invalid due to their being enacted per vim. Further, there were many (like Catiline) who killed citizens and THEN had their names added to the proscription lists. Furthermore, no law entitled murderers to their victim's property--that policy was entirely at the whim of the dictator.

But we're not talking about his acts being repealed. We're talking about agents of Sulla undertaking technically legal actions on his behalf. Perhaps at his very direction. I take it they didn't have the equivalent of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution back in those days?

[P.Clodius]

Cato's participation in this is interesting and is certainly worth researching more. Caesar's participation and motives for such are obvious though. But to answer GMan's question, while it may not have been legal or prudent to attack Sulla, dead or not, it was an accepted practice to attack those who were part of the 'gang' so to speak. Look what happened to the Scipionic circle. Indeed, Cicero's first case devolved into a brave condemnation, however indirectly of the Sullan regime via his accusation and ridicule of Crysogenus (sp).

[G-Manicus]

I can certainly understand the desire to attack Sulla's supporters, particularly those who took part in the proscriptions. I'm just not clear on how it was able to be done on a legal basis. There actions were clearly immoral and unethical ... but were they illegal? Was "ex post facto" the norm during the Republic? Are there other examples of legal actions being declared illegal after the fact, so to speak? Because that in essence seems to be what has happened here.

[Primus Pilus]

Interestingly the condemned in these cases seem to have been largely non-entities. There are no "names" among them. There are none of the great Sullan opportunists like Catilina or Crassus (though Catilina seems to have been charged). Even the most prominent of the cases, Rabirius for the murder of Saturninus ended in the equivalent of an acquittal. Who were the convicted... prominent collegia thugs, equites, back bench senators? None of the typical narratives (Plutarch, Appian, Sallust, Cassius Dio) seem to indicate any names or details. Does Cicero?

[G-Manicus]

More, from Suetonius:

 

He [Caesar] failed however because of the opposition of the aristocratic party; wishing therefore to impair their prestige in every way he could, he restored the trophies commemorating the victories of Gaius Marius over Jugurtha and over the Cimbri and Teutoni, which Sulla had long since demolished. Furthermore in conducting prosecutions for murder, he included in the number of murderers even those who had received moneys from the public treasury during the proscriptions for bringing in the heads of Roman citizens, although they were expressly exempted by the Cornelian laws.

 

(I wonder what MPC's take would have been if I started off this one instead? )

[M. Porcius Cato]

Was "ex post facto" the norm during the Republic? Are there other examples of legal actions being declared illegal after the fact, so to speak?

 

I wouldn't say the norm but ex post facto laws (and even laws that named single individuals) happened fairly often.

 

Also, it's not entirely clear that those who were prosecuted were acting legally in the first place. To know this, we would need to know who exactly was prosecuted (clearly not everyone), what legal immunities they enjoyed (clearly not infinite), and whether the charge was murder or simply holding state property. If the latter, there are certainly many instances of people having their property legally confiscated.

[M. Porcius Cato]

(I wonder what MPC's take would have been if I started off this one instead? )

 

You do I realize that I brought up Caesar's involvement with Cato myself, as well as the reference to the Cornelian laws, don't you?

 

Moreover, WHICH Cornelian laws were relevant? Those by the tribune Cornelius or those by Sulla?

Edited December 11, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[G-Manicus]

You do I realize that I brought up Caesar's involvement with Cato myself, as well as the reference to the Cornelian laws, don't you?

Yeah, but then you did that whole back tracking thingy ...

 

(edit - just having some fun with you is all, MPC)

Edited December 11, 2007 by G-Manicus

[M. Porcius Cato]

You do I realize that I brought up Caesar's involvement with Cato myself, as well as the reference to the Cornelian laws, don't you?

Yeah, but then you did that whole back tracking thingy ...

 

I only back-tracked on whether Caesar's office was praetor. Apparently, his office--iudex quaestionis--was a kind of deputy-praetor. I didn't back-track on Caesar's involvement, and it was in my back-tracking post that I mentioned the Cornelian laws in the first place.

[G-Manicus]

I wouldn't say the norm but ex post facto laws (and even laws that named single individuals) happened fairly often.

Thanks. That for the most part answers my original question. My readings of Plutarch and Suetonius' accounts seem to imply that the "proscribers" (for lack of a better term) were working within the law and that their subsequent post-Sullan prosecutions were simply vengeance.

 

Do you know of any examples of those who were proscribed (but escaped murder) regaining their estates following Sulla's death?

[G-Manicus]

I only back-tracked on whether Caesar's office was praetor. Apparently, his office--iudex quaestionis--was a kind of deputy-praetor. I didn't back-track on Caesar's involvement, and it was in my back-tracking post that I mentioned the Cornelian laws in the first place.

See my edit.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Do you know of any examples of those who were proscribed (but escaped murder) regaining their estates following Sulla's death?

 

Wasn't there a hit put out on Caesar himself?