No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
One of the most frequently attested facts concerning M. Porcius Cato, cos. 195 B.C., ‘the Censor’, is that his place of origo was Tusculum. Tusculum was a Latin town which had long since acquired the status of a municipium and the full privileges of Roman citizenship: Cato was a ‘new man’ in the political sense, but we might naturally infer that he came from a long line of Roman citizens. Yet some of the most eminent of modern scholars, and in particular P. Fraccaro, have held that the inference is false. Instead it has been argued that his family was Sabine, had received Roman citizenship only in his father's generation, and only recently had taken up residence in Tusculum. Although several writers have rejected these conclusions—some by silence rather than explicitly—the arguments for them, which are weighty and at first sight convincing, have not been subjected to the detailed examination which they merit. The present paper seeks to supply such an examination.
1 Cic, Brut. 294; De Leg. 2, 5; Rep. I, 1; Pro Planc. 20; Schol. Bob. pro Sulla p. 80 Stangl; id. pro Planc. p. 153 Stangl; ‘Victor’, De Vir. Ill. 47, 1; Nepos, Cato I, 1; Vell. 2, 128, 2; Val. Max. 3, 4, 6; Sil. Ital., Pun. 7, 692; Fronto, Laudes fumi 5; Gell., NA 13, 24, 2; Plut., Cat. Mai. I, 1; Amm. Marc. 16, 5, 2; cf. Tac, Ann. II, 24, 2. Status and history of Tusculum: G. McCracken, RE s.v. Tusculum coll. 1463 ff., esp. 1467 ff.
2 F. Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien 194, n. 1; A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae XIII, i, Fasti Consulares et Triumphales 21 f.; H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics III, n. 1.; P. Fraccaro, Opuscula I, 169 f.; L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic 248.
3 Marmorale, E. V., Cato Maior 2 (1949) 25 f.Google Scholar; M. Gelzer, RE s.v. Porcius 9, col. 108; D. Kienast, Cato der Zensor 141, n. 29; della Corte, F., Catone Censore 2 (1969), 11 f.Google Scholar Marmorale considers and rejects only the most extreme and most unlikely hypothesis, that Cato's grandfather was a freedman. Kienast takes the problem seriously but his argument is brief and depends principally on Plut., Cato Mai. I, 1. Cato is there reported to have asserted that his great-grandfather had had five horses killed under him in battle and had been recompensed from the treasury; but this would be compatible with service in an allied contingent.
4 Although Degrassi's publication is earlier than Fraccaro's he indicates that he is following a suggestion put to him by Fraccaro. For detailed refs. see n. 2 above.
5 Cic., Rep. 3, 40; De Sen. 55, cf. 24, 46; Nepos, Cato I, 1; Plut., Cato Mai. I, 1.
6 Civitas in 290 and 268: Vell. I, 14, 6 f. Curius' distribution of Sabine land: Val. Max. 4, 3, 5; Colum. 1, praef. 14; 1, 3, 10; Plut., Apophth. Man. Cur. I; Frontin., Strat. 4, 3, 12; cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat. 18, 18; ‘Victor’ De Vir. Ill. 33, 5. Curius is said to have refused an offer of additional land for himself. Forni, G., ‘Manio Curio Dentato uomo democratico’, Athenaeum n.s. 31 (1953), 197 f.Google Scholar, defends the authenticity of Curius' assignments, contra Frank, T., ‘On Rome's Conquest of Sabinum, Picenum and Etruria’, Klio II (1911), 365–373.Google Scholar
7 Plut., Cato Mai. I, 1.
8 Pliny, Hist. Nat. 7, 100; ‘Victor’, De Vir. Ill. 47, 7; Plut., Cato Mai. 15, 4; cf. Nepos, Cato 2, 4; Livy, 39, 40, 9 and 44, 9.
9 Pro Sulla 23.
10 Taylor o.c. (n. 2), 59 ff.
11 L. Porcius Licinus, aed. pl. 210, pr. 207; P. Porcius Laeca, tr. pl. 199, pr. 195.
12 McCracken, RE s.v. Tusculum, coll. 1482 f.
13 Op. cit. (n. 2), p. 20. Since substantial portions of the Capitoline Fasti are missing there may, of course, have been more instances than are now known.
14 Excluding the later entries regarding Augustus, which will be mentioned separately below.
15 Th. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. I3, 488, n. 2; Degrassi, o.c. (n. 2) 21 f.; C. Cichorius, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius 19 f.; also Römische Studien 127; Münzer, Röm. Adels. 194, n. 1. For other references see above, n. 2.
16 Evidence collected in RE, s.v. Tullius no. 18, coll. 806 f.; Ventidius no. 5, coll. 796–8; Cornelius no. 70 (nephew of Caesar's friend, no 69); Claudius no. 166. In several articles in RE the absence of the grandfather's praenomen from the fasti is treated as sufficient evidence in itself, but in all the instances cited here there are other reasons for believing that the grandfathers were not citizens.
17 Cichorius, Unters. Luc. 19 f.; Münzer, , ‘Norbanus’, Hermes 67 (1932), 223Google Scholar, n. 1; Groag, RE s.v. Norbanus 9a, col. 1270.
18 Degrassi, o.c. p. 22. Dion. Hal., 10, 24, 3, ἄνδρα τῶν ἠμελημένων μὲν διὰ πενίαν, τὰ δὲ πολέμια γενναῑον, is less precise but is not at variance with Livy.
19 Degrassi, p. 22; Klebs, RE s.v. Aemilius nos. 17 and 103 (death of Numida: Livy, 26, 23, 7); MRR pp. 223 and 276 f.
20 The entry concerning Cato's censorship is slightly different in that M.n. was first engraved and then erased. The simplest explanation is that the mason made a mistake (a form of dittography, following M.f.) and then corrected it. The Capitoline Fasti exhibit a high standard of workmanship but are not free from errors, some of which were certainly committed by masons: Degrassi, pp. 22 and 641 f. In addition some of the instances where letters have been erased and re-engraved are presumably corrections of masons' errors: e.g. in the fasti consulares ‘Flaccus’ in 261 and ‘M.n.’ in 246.