Did M.P. Cato act illegally as Qaestor?

[G-Manicus]

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

Yeah, but he got a pass when his Mama went crying to the Don, so I don't know if we can count him.

 

What about the children of the proscribed? I've read where they lost their Roman citizenship, is that true? If so, was that restored to them?

[G-Manicus]

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.

 

MPC:

 

Question ... Do you agree that it was arguably illegal to refuse to recognize any potential immunity?

Edited December 11, 2007 by G-Manicus

[M. Porcius Cato]

What about the children of the proscribed? I've read where they lost their Roman citizenship, is that true? If so, was that restored to them?

 

Sulla decreed that the children of the proscribed could not seek magistracies. After Sulla, the ban was opposed by Cicero (Pro Roscius) and others, and the ban was certainly gone by the time of Caesar's dictatorship (when its abolition ceased to have any value).

[M. Porcius Cato]

Question ... Do you agree that it was arguably illegal to refuse to recognize any potential immunity?

 

No, I don't. If I claim immunity for committing murder and theft by order of the Klingon Council, the court has every right to dismiss my claim as patent nonsense and refuse a hearing on the matter. It could be that Caesar refused to hear arguments because the Cornelian law, being passed per vim and after Sulla's legal term as dictator had passed, were moot.

[G-Manicus]

No, I don't. If I claim immunity for committing murder and theft by order of the Klingon Council, the court has every right to dismiss my claim as patent nonsense and refuse a hearing on the matter. It could be that Caesar refused to hear arguments because the Cornelian law, being passed per vim and after Sulla's legal term as dictator had passed, were moot.

You don't find it "arguable"?

 

I don't think your Trekkie analogy is appropriate. The immunity granted by Sulla was not made up out of whole cloth by Gene Roddenberry. It's real. It existed. You can't just ignore it. It's implied in the various quoted sources in this thread that these individuals were acting in accordance with Sulla's law. Now I can well imagine a scenario where a hearing is held to determine if these folks were acting with in the confines of the law as established by Sulla, and finding they were not, well, then all bets are off and they would be subject to prosecution. There is no indication that this was the case though. It seems that the potential (and seemingly probable) legal immunity of these individuals was simply ignored.

 

And finally, I don't know what "per vim" means, but if I'm understanding your point in theory (even if not in practice! ) the acts of a Dictator are not prosecutable even after his term has passed.

Edited December 11, 2007 by G-Manicus

[Gaius Octavius]

Might be able to figure it out from Wikipedia:

 

"vim promovet insitam "promotes one's innate power".

 

Per vim: Through (by) its own power???

 

This might be a bit of fun:

 

http://latin-phrases.co.uk/

 

-------------------------------

 

But the word 'moot'. Arguable or not arguable? (Edited)

Edited December 11, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[G-Manicus]

But 'moot'. Arguable or not arguable?

While acknowledging that it's impossible to know for certain what exactly transpired at these various court proceedings (so-called), on it's face it would seem that a pretty decent case can be made that the State (in the form of Caesar, Cato, and other various and sundry elected/appointed officials) acted illegally in bringing charges against those who took part in Sulla's (legally sanctioned) proscriptions.

[Gaius Octavius]

But 'moot'. Arguable or not arguable?

While acknowledging that it's impossible to know for certain what exactly transpired at these various court proceedings (so-called), on it's face it would seem that a pretty decent case can be made that the State (in the form of Caesar, Cato, and other various and sundry elected/appointed officials) acted illegally in bringing charges against those who took part in Sulla's (legally sanctioned) proscriptions.

 

Sorry, should have been more clear. See edit above.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Now I can well imagine a scenario where a hearing is held to determine if these folks were acting with in the confines of the law as established by Sulla, and finding they were not, well, then all bets are off and they would be subject to prosecution. There is no indication that this was the case though.

 

But the scenario where people were acting as free agents WAS the case. Catiline, for example, was known to kill for personal gain and then have people added to the proscription list after the fact, and he is one of only two people who were specifically named in the sources as being prosecuted.

 

And finally, I don't know what "per vim" means, but if I'm understanding your point in theory (even if not in practice! ) the acts of a Dictator are not prosecutable even after his term has passed.

 

Per vim--by force. If Sulla's dictatorship was enacted by force rather than by a free act of the senate, the dictatorship itself was not legal.

[G-Manicus]

But the scenario where people were acting as free agents WAS the case. Catiline, for example, was known to kill for personal gain and then have people added to the proscription list after the fact, and he is one of only two people who were specifically named in the sources as being prosecuted.

MPC:

 

Understood, and agreed. Anyone who was freelancing would obviously be subject to prosecution. The citations I raised though (particularly Suetonius) seem to make it clear these were men acting within the boundaries of Sulla's law. Or not ... ? What is your take on the Suetonius citation? I don't read it any other way than they were within their rights at the time.

 

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.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The citations I raised though (particularly Suetonius) seem to make it clear these were men acting within the boundaries of Sulla's law. Or not ... ? What is your take on the Suetonius citation? I don't read it any other way than they were within their rights at the time.

 

But who are "they"? Suetonius could be talking about 2, 20, or 200 different men (and may not even know the difference himself). Other than that I think we have only two specific cases--Catiline and the murderer of Q. Lucretius Ofella.

 

Back to the point of the thread--as quaestor, Cato could only charge Catiline and the centurion who murdered Ofella with holding ill-begotten gains, and he couldn't try them for having committed murder, which (like treason) were cases that couldn't be pressed by private individuals. The higher court that presided over murder cases was Caesar's court. Caesar apparently decided for Catiline and against the centurion who murdered Ofella.

 

I don't see any way to justify finding Catiline innocent and the centurion guilty. If the proscriptions were not legal because they were issued by an illegal dictatorship, then they both should have been found guilty. If the proscriptions were legal because the dictatorship was legal, then the centurion should have been found innocent whereas Catiline should have been found guilty.

Edited December 12, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[G-Manicus]

But who are "they"? Suetonius could be talking about 2, 20, or 200 different men (and may not even know the difference himself). Other than that I think we have only two specific cases--Catiline and the murderer of Q. Lucretius Ofella.

 

Back to the point of the thread--as quaestor, Cato could only charge Catiline and the centurion who murdered Ofella with holding ill-begotten gains, and he couldn't try them for having committed murder, which (like treason) were cases that couldn't be pressed by private individuals. The higher court that presided over murder cases was Caesar's court. Caesar apparently decided for Catiline and against the centurion who murdered Ofella.

 

A reasonable interpretation is that we are NOT talking about Catiline or Ofella, else Plutarch, Suetonius, etal., would have mentioned them by name. No, it seems clear we're talking about any number of individuals forgotten to history who took advantage of Sulla's proscription law to (legally) fatten their wallet.

 

I don't see any way to justify finding Catiline innocent and the centurion guilty. If the proscriptions were not legal because they were issued by an illegal dictatorship, then they both should have been found guilty. If the proscriptions were legal because the dictatorship was legal, then the centurion should have been found innocent whereas Catiline should have been found guilty.

 

Why would Sulla's Dictatorship be illegal though? The Senate ratified it, did they not?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Why would Sulla's Dictatorship be illegal though? The Senate ratified it, did they not?

 

Constitutionally, dictators were named by consuls not by the senate, and the term of the dictator ended when the term of the consul ended. That didn't happen in the case of Sulla because both consuls (Marius and Carbo) were already dead--of natural causes in the case of Marius and by Sulla's orders in the case of Carbo.

 

With both consuls dead, the normal course of events would be to have the incoming consuls take office early. Instead, the princeps senatus, Valerius Flaccus, was made interrex (by what authority I don't know), nominally to oversee elections. Instead of running for consul, Sulla--already wet in the blood of the proscribed--ordered Flaccus to revive the dictatorship (dead for 120 years!) and name him dictator. Flaccus complied and the rest is history.

 

Now for the most important point--that I forgot until now--Sulla' proscriptions began long BEFORE he even held his illegal dictatorship.

[G-Manicus]

Constitutionally, dictators were named by consuls not by the senate, and the term of the dictator ended when the term of the consul ended. That didn't happen in the case of Sulla because both consuls (Marius and Carbo) were already dead--of natural causes in the case of Marius and by Sulla's orders in the case of Carbo.

 

With both consuls dead, the normal course of events would be to have the incoming consuls take office early. Instead, the princeps senatus, Valerius Flaccus, was made interrex (by what authority I don't know), nominally to oversee elections. Instead of running for consul, Sulla--already wet in the blood of the proscribed--ordered Flaccus to revive the dictatorship (dead for 120 years!) and name him dictator. Flaccus complied and the rest is history.

 

Now for the most important point--that I forgot until now--Sulla' proscriptions began long BEFORE he even held his illegal dictatorship.

Thanks, MPC.

 

Following Sulla's resignation and/or death, was there ever any formal proceedings held to declare his Dictatorship "unconstitutional" or "null and void" or whatever the proper term would have been?

 

Also, good point about the pre-Dictatorial proscriptions. THOSE could very well be the ones that were prosecuted as well I suppose.

 

G

[M. Porcius Cato]

Following Sulla's resignation and/or death, was there ever any formal proceedings held to declare his Dictatorship "unconstitutional" or "null and void" or whatever the proper term would have been?

 

All or nearly all of his acts were overturned, but there wasn't one formal body that reviewed acts as being constitutional--adherence to precedence was the responsibility of every magistrate.