This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
- May, 1990), pp. 316-329 Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297678 . Accessed: 02/05/2013 18:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Journal.
This content downloaded from 220.127.116.11 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90. Flamininushe seems to have done independentresearch. Porci Catonis Orationum Reliquiae (= Hist. the consul of 192 and brotherof T. Livy's version. and without resolving the problemof publication. 12. Phil. Cato frr. Cato claimed that Lucius.42-3 Cato'scensorship. brotherof Africanus. which seems the more damning indictment. "Dass unter diesen drei Darstellungendie Rede Catos den gr6ssten hat.42. Flamininus18. 69-71. [Hereafter 316 This content downloaded from 78. Sblendorio Cugusi. Livy cites anotherversion of the charges." On Cato's frr. MalcovatiORF4 (1976). prostitute. if it was unknownto his predecessors. Quinctius. as we shall see. Flamininus.71 Malcovati)belongs to this version but.far the most serious charges (longe gravissima) were lodged against L. Scipio. FLAMININUS:LIV. It is sometimes suggestedthata fragmentof Cato in IsidorusDe Dif. one evening at dinner. and Cato Maior 17. but in the case againstL. Nissen.has been given "the best claim to credibility". suddenlytook his swordand struckhis victim a blow to the head."ristabill la veritA"(274). whetherLivy's version is the more plausibleaccount in light of other evidence. then. begging for his life and calling upon the Jides of the Roman people. Anspruch auf Glaubwiirdigkeit Jordan. Livy tells us surprisingly little of Cato'snobilis censura. a Carthaginian atorial games. brauchtkaum bemerkt zu werden. without reconsidering the substance of the charge. that Livy. in general. Catonis praeter Librumde Re Rustica Quae Exstant (Leipzig 1860) lxxviii-lxxix. was notoriousfor harshmeasuresagainst such nobiles as L. Lucius ran him through. bringing to light a text of Cato's speech evidently unknownto the earlier annalists.despite the boy's protestat missing the gladiPhilip. M. as consul. conquerorof Macedon. and M.and the legalities of Plutarch's account have been deemed implausible. Livy remarks. to oblige him. it is better suited to uber die Quellen der vierten undfiinften Dekade des 1H. Among other censorial speeches extant. disputing the cited by author. and the consul.CATO'S SPEECHAGAINSTL.6-12).In recentworktheirjudgment has been generally accepted. as the woundedman struggledto escape. M.58. Lucius offered to put him to death for the boy's amusement.in the year 184. Catone Censore2 (Florence 1969). when a Gallic chief pleaded for refuge. carriedoff to his provincehis favorite. follows the view of F Della Corte.the traditionin Antias and in De Senectute is discountedfor its apparent revisionism. with Nissen's Kritische Untersuchungen and Jordan'sedition of Cato's fragments. Verb. Turin 1982) 224-29. Kritische Untersuchungen Livius (Berlin 1863) 226. and they concludedthat it was an authentictext of the actualarguments. how the speech came into Livy's hands. H.' Nissen and Jordanwere convinced by Livy's claim thathe had beforehim Cato's speech. Pol. Philip nodded. 39. Since the 1860s. Alongside the speech ascribedto Cato. T. cf. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and yet anotherversion is preservedin Plutarch'sT. prominentamong them L. SblendorioCugusi. Livy gives the only clear and direct testimony to this version. reportedin Valerius Antias and echoed in Cicero'sCato Maior de Senectute42.5 (fr.91 on Thu.] populartradition. and for the impeachmentof seven senators. Quinctius (39.
43. in RhM84 (1935) 51. It is sometimes supposed that this epilogue derives directlyfromthe text thatLivy cites. e numero senatorumsustulit. Max. fr. Accessit ilico alter. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .so Plutarchsuggests in his commentthatLivy's versionis at odds with his other sourceson this point. Cato der Censor (Heidelberg 1954) 22 f. fr..43. but.3 f... Verb. electo." inquitCato. That this was the version given by Valerius and implied in the late Valeriantraditionis indicatedby Plutarch'scomment that Livy's version..3 Livy finds fault with Valerius Antias." He suggests an allusion to Cato'sepigramin Plaut. Lucius had the man beheaded by the lictors ratherthan by his own hand. is the view of Fraccaro.90. 11). on the annalisticsourceof this addendum. ex damnatis).. His anonymous "fable" differedfrom Livy's version on at least two points: it was a woman at Placentia whom Lucius was so eager to impress. 421. Flamininus'predecessor. This earlier version is at odds with 2Isid. after his note on the divergenttradition in Valerius Antias: Cato challenged Lucius to dispute the charge by judicial wager (sponsione defenderetsese. 21 (= Opusc. De Diff..and the victim was not a refugee but a condemned man (mss. quae aiebat se numquam vidisse hominem decollari. (= Opuscula  444. Bacch.58.. Kienast.5 (= Cato.1-4).25. Klotz. Lucius boasts how many men he has condemned to death. Miinzer. and 35. from referenceto the securis.9 f. supposed from stylistics that this note derivesfromCato (cf. "Alius est amor. alius cupido.. in the Gallic campaignof 192. L.40."Ricerche Storiche e Letterariesulla Censuradel 184/3" in Studi Storici per l'AntichithClassica 4 (1911)40 f. The earlierversion of those events (21. in the Valerianversion. and by the This content downloaded from 78. Though Livy's paraphraseis ambiguous (. tpwova)v• version of Nepos in De "ToOo VirisIllustr. and his paramourexclaims she has never seen a man beheaded and would be delighted at the spectacle. Flamininus proconsul [sic] inter cenam meretrice rogatus.) has bearing upon the case against Q.Hermes40 (1905) 73 f. itiqt Xstpi • apt6g6Lvoq.4 (see infra n. hereafterFraccaro).3: .5).( . 23 R3. 66). cuius amore tenebatur. quia in provincia quendamdamnatumsecuri percusserat. P.4). attrahi iussum securi percussisse). 47. 19. ubi alter recessit. linked to the conflicting charges. Fraccaro. too.. Minucius Thermus. .13." The attribution depends entirely upon the name Philippus and the theme of love and desire. That Valerius reportedthe murderwas carriedout by the lictors is assumedby F. it is likely that.tuttavia? probabile che questa modificazione fosse anche nell' Anziate (427). cf. "as one who had not read Cato's speech and put credence in a tale of unknown authority"(39. 422 f.21-2. Flamininum. at odds with otf irtcrot.. phv oiv iK6q s iq 8SivaOrtvstpfoat. temporesupplicii ad arbitrium et spectaculum mulierculae.7 f. fr. whom Cato accused of similar atrocities. a divergence.cites Nonius p. A. but it is generally accepted. 9. unum ex damnatis occidit.2. alter malus. amor. 2. Cf. 6 As')Kto dtrKtr8tvEV Flam...2 There is a furtherreferenceto Cato's speech. 18.alter bonus. "Cupidonte confecitanne Amor?"(Cupidontecumsaevit. such. 4The Valerianversion is also indicatedin Val. and Afranius v.9. .CATO'SSPEECH AGAINST FLAMININUS 317 anothercontext. . had Lucius do the deed with his own hand(6 9 A lpto . longe aliud est cupido. which Livy cites in his conclusion to this episode.see Fraccaro. Seneca Contr. is evident in the annalistictraditionin Liv.): "Aliudest.4In regardto the events in question. 35. Lindsay). 430). but it is more likely that Livy addedthis note not from Cato's text but from a second source. 3D. 71 Malc. "Philippe.91 on Thu.
318 EDWIN M. the victim was a condemnedman. Minucium Thermum. Roman Politics 220-150 BC (Oxford 19732) 258. Extrahiturquidam e carcere in convivium praetoris [sic]. In 35. 17. presumably. Lucius took the boy with him.42: Impedit enim consilium voluptas. 35. taking his paramour by surprise 5The discrepanciesbetween Livy's version and Valerius are linked to the doublet in Livy's accountof the events in question. mille et quingenti.7-22. so Nissen KU 173-74. The boy whom Lucius loved is one whom he had kept as a companion "from childhood..frr. 12. . independentof Livy's version. Quinctius that were earlier creditedto his predecessor Minucius Thermus (35. longe aliud est cupido. Philippe. "Atticus als Hermes 40 (1905) 74-75.atque etiam senatus eorum quingenti ad consules transfugerunt. Geschichtschreiber. but Lucius who seized upon the opportunity. it is evident that Plutarch'saccount derives from another adaptationof Cato's charges. Scullard. .not Livy's version. and the elder Seneca.6-8.. H.but. CARAWAN the Valeriantraditionon the Gallic campaign (40.. Boii quieverunt. held that the consul orderedthe lictors to carryout execution. H. cum esset consul in Gallia. amor. RhM 84  52). On Cato's speech In Q.Aliud est. consuli dedideruntse). See infra n. gives the propercontext for the fr.5 The other authorsextant from Livy's era. . Sen. ut . exoratus in convivio a scorto est ut securiferiret aliquem eorum qui in vinculis essent damnatirei capitalis.91 on Thu. rationi inimica est .2-4 the same exploits against the Liguriansare ascribed to L.90. reportthatthe victim was a condemnedman.6 ValeriusMaximus and Seneca also followed the Valeriantraditionthat a condemned man was killed for a woman'sfavors. As in Livy's version. 6Cic. linked to Valerius Antias.3 f.2. but the later tradition in the anonymous De Viris Illustribus clearly agrees with Plutarchon this point. This content downloaded from 78. elapsus est. virgae promuntur.22. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 40. The earlier passage. attributedto Albucius Silo. see esp. and there are further discrepanciesnot likely to be Plutarch'sinvention. and the agreementof these two versions confirms that the popular tradition.). 21. It is likely that the earlierversion derives from ClaudiusQuadrigarius and the later from Valerius(cf.). Cicero. Contr. Flamininifratrem L. Ne sobri quidem carnificis manu. and it provides the propercontextfor Cato's charges such as Livy followed. the boy complained that he was eager to see a fight to the death. But a furtherdiscrepancypoints to an earlier adaptation of Cato's speech: the boy claims that he left Rome and missed the games because he so loved Lucius (and. in Isidorus. In Livy's version. 59-63. From such discrepancies and the apparent conflation.) suggests that the victim was among the 1500 Boii who surrendered to Lucius'colleague (35." and the more sympatheticview of pederastycould be Plutarch'sinference. SblendorioCugusi (224 f. Quinctius campaigned against the Boii (22. Flamininume senatu eiecerem septem annis post quam consulfuisset. F Miinzer. . qui proximus ante me fuerat.Invitus feci fortissimi viri T. and Lucius himself did not do the killing but ordered the lictors to carry out execution. sed notandum putavi libidinem. Cato Maior 17 appearsto involve elements from both the Valeriantraditionand Livy's version of Cato's text. concluded that Atticus is Cicero's direct source. 9. ad mille cf.Ille enim.4).7None of these authorsrevealsprecisely who struckthe fatal blow.40. cum liberis . thus provides the proper context for Livy's accountof Cato's charges.58.3 f.he urges Lucius to prove his love). in which L. alleging illegal execution of ten men.3. .and it was not the boy who urged him to stage an execution for the evening'sentertainment. in the Gallic campaignof 192. . This remarkin Plutarch. De Senectute42--which Cicero puts in the mouth of Cato himself-agrees essentially with the Valerianversion. Hic Titofratre suo censore.4." 7Cf. ValeriusMaximus. The version in Plut. as in the Valerianversion. spe ingentiumdonorum. Klotz. The traditionin Cicero.
on the importanceof Nepos as Plutarch'sguide to the RomanLives.6y0 Kdrcovo. 279).8 It is certain that Plutarchhad before him an account of Cato's censorship in greater detail than Livy gives. accuracy of Livy's version (though it is unlikely that Plutarchhimself had comparedCato's text). Cato led T. Baumgart. Plutarchdoes not question the •sivotv.).2 (see infra at n. 11).4 f. 47. "On the basis of correspondence to the shorterlife extant. rebus indignis. invidiosis addens vim oratio. A.4. 47. eductum quendam e carcere in convivio iugulari iussit) derives from Nepos' definitivebiography(esp. O. infra at n. see also nn. in Neue Jahrbiicherf'r Philologie u. 6 6U Ailpto. . Klotz in RhM 84 (1935) 51 (assuming Claudius Quadrigariusas a "control" in Liv. asperis. 2. and.CATO'SSPEECH FLAMININUS AGAINST 319 (vixdumserio adnuisset). Plutarchsuggests that the "murderof an innocent man by the consul's own hand.9 Flamininus. Fraccaro Opusc. on the relative chronology of Nepos' tributeto Cato.. and that Lucius orderedthe man beheadedby the lictors (. makes it all but certain that this is the account given by Nepos. ratherhe suggests that Cato's text was not an accurate account of the actual charges.90. in which Lucius put to death an innocentman who had thatvery hourinvoked Romanjides. vocatur. by against It was convincingly argued eighty years ago by Baumgartthat Plutarch's principal source for Cato's censorship was the longer biographyof Cato by Nepos (cf. esp.9. likely Nepos (see KaTrlyopiag." in Livy's excerpt of Cato's speech. Geiger. Cat. the tale that Lucius. ad cuiusdam scorti spectaculum. The agreementof Plutarchand De Vir. is The detailed 17 and most more source for Plut. 4.Illustr. dtrlv ar)T6okov dmrK• . Soltau. '0M. 17). Untersuchungenzu den Reden des M. Cf. 423-29. agrees with Plutarch'sversion on two points. Porcius Cato Censorius (Breslau 153 (1896) 1905). cf. 18. Flam. where the notice on this episode. 47 ) 83 f. Plut. 9. CorneliusNepos and AncientPolitical Biography( = Hist. 243. 11 f. FaXS1. 6otunra6otov 6 A8sK1to. Av . on his own inspiration." 9Forthe annalistictraditionin Plutarch'saccountof Cato's censorship.4. The figure deinosis is describedin Quintilian6.Thus the apostrophequoted in Isidorusbelongs to a version of Cato's charges where Lucius' lover expresseda desire to see one of the condemned men beheaded (as in the Valeriantradition).He tells us thatCatomade mayhavemisunderstood biographer his dramaticindictmentin the assembly where Lucius and Titus Flamininus and Plutarchdescribes a campaignof retaliation challengedthe impeachment. . This content downloaded from 78. quendame carcere in convivio iugulari iussisset). De Viris Illustribus (cf. xapt?6gLE giKbedIe elE uiVoav gtpfoat rfq etvv y6iCi X1itpi r ApcogL&vc Flam..4). That Plutarchwas not the first to comment on Cato's technique in this passage is evident from the populartopic of declamationin Sen. that the victim was a condemned man.43. Haec est illa. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . infra. though the the proceedings.8. See also J. quae 68ivcoat. Della Corteshowedthatthe account in anon. was intentionalexaggeration.for emotional effect (si. Nissen KU 292-97. actro0 yEypdq(0at proiv. Cat. in the text of Cato that Livy followed. Pdidagogik 123 ff.24: "The force of eloquence not only compels the judge to self-evidentconclusions but arousesemotions not inherentin the case or greaterthan the evidence itself would evoke. but more probablyhe drewthatconclusion from one among his sources.2. Contr. is partof a more melodramaticscenario. 26-29.cf.10 Excerptsof Nepos' work are found in the anonymous De Viris Illustribus. of which Livy tells us nothing. (b.11From the 8Cf.. and 117-20.. Einzelschr. 107 f.who probablyofferedsome commenton the rivalversionsand promptedPlutarch's note on the deinosis.g Flam.dIvo ro0To tggvoB0v vo.whereas.5). W. 18 f. 18. did the murderwith his own sword. Such a critical comment is not likely to be Plutarch's own editorialjudgment.58. 39. 06vTa CErdtnaioyv .91 on Thu.
if he had found the challenge in Cato's text. For this Greek intermediary but a similarbiographicalsource was (possibly "Megacles"?).18 f. 30. without comment. It would be surprisingfor Livy to postpone the note on the sponsio. e lo dimostrail fatto che in Livio e in Plutarcoricorrelo stesso frammento preso dalla fine dell' orazione.91 on Thu. but laterin Latin".58. see C. 4).13Plutarchis not likely to have alteredthis one detail. . such as Plutarchreports. and anotherannalist. 2. The use of the indefinite scortumin the version of Nepos in De Vir. as he is for the substance of this episode. suggests thatNepos departed from Valerius Antias on this point. Pelop. 13Theview that Plutarch'saccount derives from an earlier adaptation. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Smithin CQ 34 (1941)106-12: cf.ratherthan follow Nepos directly. These hypotheses seem to me unwarranted. The orderof such entries is. 431-32= Studi Storici 4.90..12Nepos is the probable source for Plutarch'snote of the challenge to sponsio (6ptao6g). put forward by R. but betweenCato andthe Quinctiiin in a second sourcedescribinga confrontation the assembly.Illustr. whom he followed as a "control" to Antias. make it all the more likely thatLivy found a note of the challenge to sponsio. B.ll) 34 f. 430). This content downloaded from 78. 1. as opposed to meretrixor mulierculain the Valeriantradition(supra n..presumablybecause of his "little to develophis Latinityat Rome. Della Corte243. 23-25). inconclusive. 296. Ti. A furtherdetail likely to derivefromNepos in both accountsis the note thatCato capped his accusationswith a challenge to dispute the charges by sponsio. as he does. who clings to the notion that much of Plutarch'sCato Maior derives from Polybius. R. 21. he goes on to connect the challenge to sponsio with the account of opposition to Cato's recitatio in contione (Opusc. as well. pretendslittle opportunity the same chapterhe reveals his subsequentdevotion to Latin style. The legalities. For Plutarch'sworking methods.goes back to Nissen KU 225. not in Cato'stext. Plut. CARAWAN of ValeriusAntias we agreementof these two versions with Livy's paraphrase can conclude thatNepos followed the Valerianversion on these two points. Marc. by way of the apothegmataCatonis we have no reason to doubt Baumgart's (238-45).in which details from Cicero. thatLucius had the lictors carryout execution. Pelling's study of the later Roman Lives in JHS 99 (1979) 74-96 and JHS 100 (1980) 127-40. as we shall see. in cui Catone proponevaa Flamininouna sponsio . 43.18--that the victim was a condemnedman. Flam. though he may have noted the familiar 12So reasons Fraccaro. "Riapparesempre la stessa fonte che Livio adopera per controllare 1'Anziate(Nepos).10-25) assumedthat Plutarchrelied upon Greekintermediaries (including an anti-Catonian pamphlet). Kienast(supra n.and afterfurther commentson the enormityof afterthe paraphrase the crime from yet another a source (perhaps Nepos). Gracch." (Opusc. and in whom he presumably found some knowledge of Cato's text.in Dem. Luc.320 EDWIN M.2. of Valerius. but it should cast doubt upon the usual assumptionthat the note on sponsio derives from Cato's text.3: pp. Livy. Such hypotheticalMittelquellenareeloquentlydismissedby Geiger (supran. and that Cato challenged Lucius to dispute the charges--it is also likely that for whom Lucius commitNepos identifiedthe young Philip as the paramour ted his crime. Nepos is cited in Plut. contradicting the prevailingtradition. and Comp. may have taken this note from Nepos. See also the discussion infra at nn. Marc. If Nepos is responsible for these three points in Plut. were alreadyintegrated. E. of course. assumptionthat Plutarchwould not have failed to consult directly the most notable biography among the works of his predecessors--and there should certainlybe no doubt that his Latin was equal to the task. Livy.we have little or no confirmation.
nor are the proceduraldetails in Plutarchto be discounted. if we assume as in Plutarchthat the boy was a slave belonging to Lucius.9. it would seem.58. nor can it derive directly from the text of Cato's speech that Livy followed-unless we are to assume that Livy freely alteredthe salient points of a source he took pride in reportingmore faithfully than his predecessors. weshalb Cicero von der guten und altern Uberlieferungabweicht". 71).as an innocent man who pleaded for his family's safety. it makes little difference whether the victim was a condemned man or a deserterfrom the enemy.. simile et libidine et crudelitate. In Livy's text of Cato everydetail seems contrivedto make the episode more scandalous.of a race whom Cato despised for perfidy. The fragmentin Isidorus. 15Thetradition in Val.and he is named. The companion is pointedly identified as a Carthaginian. .'"Despite the extraordinary detail of scenario in Livy's text of Cato there is no indication that any testimony or other evidence was cited.Valeriustold just as damning a tale of lust and cruelty.on Plutarch'sversion. are often discounted as patriotic alterations.to make the incident less of a national disgrace. for the very king from whom the Flamininihad won their greatestglory. duplex severitatis exemplum. suggests that Cato found Lucius' conduct all the more damnablebecause of the celebratedvictory of the Flamininiover Philip of Macedon: . In terms of the censor's probrum. a hostis who put his fate at the consul's discretion.91 on Thu. Philippe. in regardto the tradition speech was known to Cicero). quod amplissimi honoris maiestatem tam taetrofacinore inquinaverat. "Auch hier is die Tendenz der Milderung und Abschwaichung unbequemerTatsachendas Motiv. As we turn to consider the legalities it will be clear that Livy's version gives no more plausible groundsof impeachment. but it is at least sufficientto call into question the prevailingview of annalisticrevisionism.unless Cato meant to conjure strongassociations:the mention of a Carthaginian alliance of Carthageand bearingthe name of Philip could not fail to evoke either the treacherous Macedon (so importantan issue in the annalistic Fides-propaganda). eo magis illum notandumstatuit.nec pensi duxerat isdem imaginibusascribi meretricis oculos humano sanguine delectatos et regis Philippi supplices manus. amor . as we have seen. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . therefore. (fr. in Cicero(assumingCato's 14Cf.interal.CATO'S SPEECH AGAINST FLAMININUS 321 variantin Valerius (as elsewhere he notes divergent traditionson notorious episodes). submissive to the every whim of his kept companion. 426-27). The link between Nepos and Plutarchis not altogether conclusive.14but they do not alter the substanceof the chargeto exonerateFlamininus. in fact.and it is reasonableto assume that Nepos knew of the text that Livy reports. and the very details thathave persuadedothers of the authenticity of the charges should.Hermes40 (1905) 74.. This content downloaded from 78. The boy's name would seem irrelevant. the culprit was cast as a depravedpederast. Max. "ha voluto come 1' Anziate mitigarela gravithdell' atto di Flaminino"(Opusc.or.90. rouse our suspicions. not from Livy's version. Cato. 2.Aliud est. Fraccaro. Nepos is. Miinzer. cf.at some length to judge from Livy's paraphrase. Such is the evidence regardingthe substanceof the charge in the sources of the extant versions. the philhellenismof the Quinctii and their continuedinv6lvementin Macedonianaffairs. derives from a Latin version of the scenario as it appearsin Plutarch. the most likely source for the fragmentin Isidorus and for the scenario in Plutarch. in the Valeriantradition and Plutarch'sversion. The victim was sympathetically portrayed. . The points at odds with Livy.3.
or religious tabu regardingthe tabernaculum.butSeneca'sreport clearlyindicatesthatthe natureof Flamininus' offense had become a common theme for declamation. 9. in Galliam provinciam spe ingentiumdonorum in tabernaculum).in fact. therefore. but to ridicule his opponentin a case pose is not to substantiate of the charge is no longer at issue. legi potius quam scorto cadat". as "evidence of a practice later recognized by statute. CARAWAN Nor does Livy's version of the charges give more urgent groundsfor imOn the contrary.cf.2 is devoted. . that any act demeaningthe emblems of high office. much as the declaimers whom Seneca cites freely inventeddetails of a case that could neverhave come to court. 5.Thereis no clear reference to the traditionthatFlamininusstruckthe fatal blow (nor any mentionof the boy Philip). see Mommsen. The travestyof lawful procedurefor execution was the most salient point of latertreatment of this episode in declamation. Flam.322 EDWIN M. n. The the substance where. sensational details in Livy's version.The most serious charge. apparently. an anachronism. in peachment.cf. CrimenMaiestatis (1967) 11.58.but illegal execution. "vestrifasces. 59-63). would be a serious concern to the Senate and that any abuse of the consul's power of execution would be of equal concern to the citizen-army. the speaker'spurthe charges. repeatedly the declaimers cited by Seneca seize upon the fasces. dedecus recciderunt!"Capito then went on to contrastthe scene with properprocedure. 9. of course. perductum)und Entweihungeiner geheiligten Sti'tte(vgl. attributedto Albucius Silo.17 Thus the claim that Livy's version is the more plausible because it is the more damning carries little conviction. or violation of moral standardsregardingthe mensa. and he obviously realized the efficacy of such charges.2. entirely to the propositionthat Flamininus'act constituteda breach of maiestas." With referenceto other defacto proceduresof the era." On this may have been precededby condemnation in Plut. attributedto Capito (9). but from the consensus of the varioustraditions. Miinzer(supra n. wielded by drunkenlictors. as Plutarchsupposed. Strafrecht915-18. was illegal execution. On sanctityof fasces and properprocedurein magisterial execution.Seneca Contr. or Seneca point of procedure.6-9.. A. '7Cf. Baumansuggests "his [Flamininus']exclusion in the comitia tributaon chargesof maiestas.90. dazu vielleicht Erpressungin der Provinz (vgl. "Non veto quominus securi percutiatur: illud rogo. Cato had brought similar charges against Minucius Thermus (supra n.7 supra. was Cato's charge againstMinuciusThermus(fr.was undoubtedlyviewed by many as a greaterabuse of consularimperium. 31 f.16 which the lictors were made partyto the atrocity. introductum Bauman. Seneca Contr. may have been invented for rhetorical effect.would seem the more cogent responseto the protestof the Quinctii. .Baumenmay have been misled by the treatment Contr. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . see supra at n. as the most vivid emblem of the breachof maiestas. too. Such.6) "Die Catonischegab die geeignete Grundlagefur verschiedeneschwere Beschuldigungendes Flamininus:Paederastieund Perfidie.there should be little doubt that the most serious charge against Flamininus was not pederasty or perfidy. thefasces in the hands of the lictors.and the controversiais of doubtful value for historical details (the speakers refer to Flamininus as proconsul or praetorand freely invent otherdetails). 19.91 on Thu.Flamininus'offense in the Valerianversion.5). An actio laesae maiestatis against Flamininus is."R. 9.The Valerian version. In Livy's version. This content downloaded from 78. after all. the unlawfulexercise of the most reveredmagisterial power.2. vestrae secures in quantum. regardsthis case as an example of early remedies against such abuse of office. 16For the groundsof impeachment.
RomischeStaatsrecht(18873) 2. The first that the Quinctii learned of their disgrace-that Lucius was impeached.J. questions of guilt or innocence were certainly not closed. 19 has also been suspect as giving an implausibleaccountof procedure. the effect of the censor's judgment could be reversedin the next election. then. in assemblies following the lectio and census. 111-20. 19Against most recently. 9.1. Flam.386 f.91 on Thu. not in the Senate (as Livy's versionled some to suppose)but in contione beforethe people. In a court. we are faced with threepossible scenarios.19Cato was underno legal obligation to notify Flamininusof the charges before the Senate. Astin. and Titus was denied the title of princeps-probably came at the recitatio before the people. plebis. the usual assumptionthat Cato's speech would have been deliveredin the Senate (as. Precedentfor a challenge to the lectio was to be found in the annals for the year 311 (Liv. thereare a numberof cases in which by cf.. LustriSui Felicitate attest to the challenge to Cato's censorship. on the lex Clodia of 58. 224 f. disputing the lectio senatus along with the other acts of the censors. 19 clearly indicatesthat the Senate. that Plutarch'saccount suggests a plausible setting for Cato's speech.and cf. and see infra at n. But that is not to say that the justice of Cato's overturned verdictcould not be challengedin an assembly of the people. Suolahti.. On sponsio see.). Scullard. we have no reason to doubt that Cato's judgmentswere called into question. Assuming. Crook. W. and the traditionin Flam. which permitteda defense during the lectio.as Fraccaropointedout. 30. According to Plutarch. esp. A. Pro Cluentio 121.18Titus Flamininus led a movement to challenge the auctoritas of Cato. Crook (n. De pr.the Flaminini "appealedto the people. There was no formal 18Th. Flamininus. canceled Cato's leases and contracts (to which Livy alludes. was there no not to were provocatio. Fraccaroargued (429-32) such a speech would have been given at the recitatio. On the proceduresof the censorship.from a speech againstM. second scenario. Le Sinat de la Rdpublique on the case against L. J.7 [hereafter. violating the moral and huhis offense was mane obligationsof which the censors were properguardians.considerthe careerof Manlius(or Manilius)cos. Willems. and he is followed by Scullard(158). On the lattercase cf. cf. who kindly permittedme to see a draftof his work in progress. Cato the Censor (Oxford 1978) 80 n.as do frr. (1) The reading of the revised Senate roster. The frr. could have provokedan outburstagainst Cato's severity. on this case. impeachments. E. ROmischeAltertilmer(1846) 2.90. 39." and it was in response to that protest that Cato stated the charges.andthe sponsio subject appeal: judgments in which Cato called upon Lucius to dispute the charges would not have the censor's verdict. esp. As Mommsennoted in regardto Plutarch'saccount. see A. 182. Scullard.30).. 387 n.58. Lucius was charged with demeaning his office. most recently. See also P. H. the annalistic traditionin Plut. Caelius trib. in JRS 66 (1976) 132-38. Thus. The Roman Censors: a Study in Social Structure(Helsinki 1963) 47-70. RomanPolitics 153-59. For vote of the people the censor's verdict was (so to speak) "overturned": the electoral "reversal"of impeachments. This content downloaded from 78. it is often assumedthat Cato's speech was delivered before the Senate and that Plutarch'sscenario is a dramaticfabrication.AGAINST CATO'SSPEECH FLAMININUS 323 Aside from the substance of the charge.2. the recitatio.Mommsen. nor to give grounds for his expulsion. A furtherstudy of the lex Clodia and related censorial proceduresis forthcomingby Jeffrey Tatum. such as indictable before not. 133. the censors' yet. 234-39. 178 or Astin]. in fact.224-26. H.18 supra) assumes the Romaine(Louvain1885) 298 f.8). a contio such as Plutarch'sscenario suggests.44. Thoughthe censors' nota could not be canceled. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Because there was no regularprocedurefor appeal. 262 f. SblendorioCugusi. Becker.
however. cf. It is possible then either (2) that after the recitatio. on charges of perduellio. can reasonablyconclude that. thata largebody of Cato's speeches were widely known long beforeLivy's day. Plutarchin both versions clearly implies that the Flamininiinitiatedthe proceedingsbefore an assembly of the people. Astin has argued against such "post eventumrevision.entirely in keeping with Plutarch's account: both in Flam. but. 17). From this o&v (oiS&v 6tnoc•Etd•d'evoq).when the censorswere summonedby tribunesto face charges before the people: Liv. G. We know of two instances. 43. in the latter. with Gellius NA 3. one not long beforeand anothernot long afterCato'scensorship. we his accountof the chargesat thatcontio. but he assumes. Kennedy. did these charges come to be writtenout as a verbatimtext.and drew upon his notes or his best recollection of the evidence to respondextempore. "without hesitation" Cato give came forwardwith his colleague. suggests thatCato himself. pp.91 on Thu. how did this speech come into Livy's hands. and the evidence that Cato himself. In the assembly T. it is conceivable that Flamininus spoke out in protest at the recitatio.10) esp. Flamininushimself. edited or "published"a collection of speeches is less than conclusive. late in life. A. De Senectute38.58. 13-25. despite rules of order. Flamininusenlisted to bring charges against Cato (Cat. and on thatpoint his argumentis not entirelyconvinc200n variousattemptsat retaliation by tribunes.4 (census of 169). in Plutarch'ssource. nonetheless. and how accuratelydid the extant speech recordthe actual arguments? Thus we come to the problem of publicationand the question of authenticity. Plutarchtells us. Such a scenario is not. whom.To silence the protestof the Quinctii without lengthy debate.19) 263. Cato gave sequence. and Liv." and there is merit to his argumentagainst a publishedcollection by Cato himself. nposhO6vtsE i zt6v 8ftLov (Flam. he had no need of a preparedspeech. How. the censors were narrowlyacquitted. Plutarchclearly suggests that the confrontationcame sometime after the lectio became known. which had been called at Flamininus' instigation.324 EDWIN M. he would challenge Lucius to disputethe charges by sponsio.The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World(Princeton 1972) 57 f. Cato convened a contio to answer the public outcry. [herefterARRW]. Such an assembly could have been called by the tribunes. followed by Sblendorio Cugusi 27-30.Astin 133-37.37 (census of 204). This content downloaded from 78. or (3) that a contio was convened at the instigation of T. was involvedin the compositionof speeches on the famouscases of his career: causarum illustrium.90. long after the events in question. ne postea obnoxiapopulari aurae censurae esset). 21See Baumgart(supra n. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . nunc cum maxime conficio orationes. then. This last alternativeis perhapsthe most likely. There is no indication that Cato issued his speeches as pamphlets to influence currentopinion. 19). and Cato.16.see Willems (supra n. quascunquedefendi. 17. as Livy tells at some length. he probably anticipatedobjections from many quarters. fti z6v 6filov IcaK•tpuy• (Cat. In the formerinstance we are told that the tribune's summonswas "quashed"by the Senate (17. Flamininus demanded that an explanation of the charges. 19). With this tactic. CARAWAN procedurefor those censuredto make a defense duringthe lectio. 19 and Cat. 29.21Cicero.20 Neither at the recitatio nor at later contiones is Cato likely to have had a preparedtext of his argumentsin hand.
It has even been suggested that Livy had before him not a text of the speech but a paraphrase by Nepos. as opposed to the meretrixor muliercula in the Valeriantradition." Abh. where the authorclearly had before him a text of the speech rather than anecdotes or general impressions. another version lay as yet undiscoveredin the family archives. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Baumgart'sview suggests two possible explanationsfor the account in De Senectute42. and this corpus was availableto Nepos as he composed the definitive biographyof Cato. the work of editing a standardcollection had begun. 65 f: Catonem vero quis nostrorumoratorum. Otherdetails Cicero may havebeen reluctantto accept. withoutany clear referenceto text of speeches other than those in the Origines.. Akad. he can cite only Ad Herrenium evidence that copies of speeches were available. "Cato in der viertenund fiinften Dekade des Livius. perhapsnot long before 46.however. u. and indeed since copies of the speeches were certainly in circulationthere must have 4. Cicero claims that he had discovered and studied 150 speeches. at Atticus' request(Cat. not simply because he 22Astin admits (133) that "Cicero indicated in the Brutus . Thereare more than 150 speeches. and his words suggest that there was as yet no standardcorpus: "Who among our modernoratorshas actuallyread Cato! Who has any [firsthand]knowledge of him at all? ." but he insists that "his wordscan well be takento mean thatthis had not always been so. .. et verbis et rebus illustribus. 23Cic. . contrary. Livy. . Even in the De Oratore (nine years earlier)we seem to havegeneralimpressionsof Cato'swork. Lit.24Fromthe version indeed. full of noteworthyargumentation. thoughTrinkle arguesconvincingly to the that made use of Cato's speeches. . however.4). Out of this researchthe speech became known to Livy. legit? aut quis novit omnino? . This content downloaded from 78. it is reasonableto assume that Cicero knew of the text." Aside fromBrutus65 f.58.probablyunderthe auspicesof Atticus himself. before Cicero'sBrutus (in the year 46) there is no specific reference to a single speech of Cato. on this speech.FLAMININUS CATO'SSPEECH AGAINST 325 ing. 2. In the Brutus (65 f. .which I have found and read thusfar (adhuc). Trinkle. see esp. Brut.90. Cicero uses the indefinitescortumof Lucius' lover. On the other hand. the version that Livy was to adopt may have been yet unknown to Cicero: he simply accepted a story that was widely known through oral tradition and secondary sources. other than those in the Origines. though he discountedcertaindetails of the scenario that Livy later accepted. it is highly unlikely that Livy could have adaptedhis version from Nepos. as Fraccaro supposed. of Nepos in the anonymousDe VirisIllustribus.). Wiss. that at that time the speeches were rarelyread. see H. Mainz 4 (1971) 111-37.it is thus reasonableto assume that Nepos had access to Cato's text. . 240n Cato's influence. qui quidem nunc sunt. where Cicero seems ignorantof Cato's text. as did Nepos.Illustr.as does the version of Nepos in De Vir. Refertae sunt orationes amplius centum quinquaginta."23 So. 115. Just such an archivaltext may have come to light a few years afterthe death of Cato Uticensis and soon afterthe death of Cicero. as we have seen.is the most likely source for Plutarchand the fragmentin Isidorus. The definitive biography.7 as been an interestat an earlierdate. quas quidem adhuc invenerimet legerim.91 on Thu. and the same term is found in Livy's version. against the notion that Livy took his version from the annalistictradition(ClaudiusQuadrigarius). Baumgartsupposed that sometime in the decade after 46 such an edition was published. In the year 44.22 As Baumgartpointed out.
as Cato mentions many proofs of his integrity. ubi id utrumque perlectumest. assumed that the passage describes the readingof an earlier speech in evidence by the "clerk of court" (221. in this case. and Cicero somewhat exaggeratedhis familiaritywith the corpus. deinde quae ego pro r.26 Cato himself tells us that he drew upon his earlier speeches as a source of common topics. Scullard. but it must be agreedthat Cato somehow adaptshis argumentsfrom an earliercase for inclusion in a laterspeech.. Opusc. it is also possible that the scribe proceeds to make alterationson the the scribe is instructedto erase sections of the new draft original. among 150 speeches that he claims to haveread. Kennedy.he has copied as the earlier text is read): "istud quoque dele . Quinzio. 92. If. fecissem leguntur. If we read with Mommsen perhibere. p. see Astin 136. &." The maiorum benefacta and his own services to the state are probably common topics which he could have transposedfrom any numberof exemplars. non avesse ricordato il fatto.). Cornelium. . non fosse compresaquella longe gravissima contro L.The murderof an innocentman by the consul himself may have roused his suspicions.ARRW 42-44.25 Astin is inclined to agree that these were not published editions by Cato himself but archivaltexts.. tabulaeprolatae: maiorumbenefactaperlecta. "E infatti impossibile. quodsponsionemfeceramcum M. perge istuc quoque uti cum maximedelere .but.ivwotv. the very mention of this episode in De Senectutemay mean thatCicero was eager to dispel the fascinationof the literati with "the newly discoveredversion". we can reasonably assume that he also 25Fraccaro. . "noli scribere.90. 21 = fr...which he had the scribe delete to avoidresentment.. 173 Malcovati:iussi caudicemproferri.ubi mea oratio scripta erat de ea re. This content downloaded from 78. presumably. 260n the accuracyof the versions extantin Livy's day. and he assumes that such a procedureis familiarto his audience. che fra le 150 orazioni di Catone .. ." (mss." Thereare differinginterpretations of the methodsimplied in this passage. . but did not accept the sensationaldetails. It is also possible that Cicero found somethingto confirmthe populartradition. In composing De SumptuSuo (173 Malc. where the charges may well have been frivolous. inevitablyhe made revisions. there is reason to doubt the veracityof the "esoteric" work.Nepos. enimverousque istuc ad lignum dele. Fronto gives the excerpt as an especially elegant example of praeteritio." Cf. nota anche a Nepote. Cornelio. concludes with Hendrickson AJP 26 (1906) 197 thatthe "hundred numberof and fifty" speeches was the standard known speeches.cf. Vuoldire che non l'ha letta e che scrivendoil Cato ha accolto la versione corrente.. istuc quoquedele . Astin 134-37. avevanolargamentediffusa. At this point Cato presumably protests to the scribe. By the usual interpretation. CARAWAN EDWIN was anxious to conceal so disgraceful an episode. 27Fronto. deinde scriptumerat in oratione: "numquamego pecuniam neque meam neque sociorumper ambitionemdilargitus sum. 428-29 ( = StudiStoriciper l'AntichittiClassica 4.. 268). seems to haveknownof the versionLivy followed. he tells how he had his scribe transposepassages from his speech in sponsio against a certainM. at any rate. .326 M. and in some cases the revision was extensive. (which. 19-20). just as Plutarchor his source discounted this detail as an exaggerationsi. on the speech In M. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .27 Astin cites this passage in supportof his argumentagainst revision" eventum that the "versionswhich survivedwere very close to "post the actualspeeches that were delivered. Archivalcopies can usually be expected to give a more accuraterecordof the actual argumentsthan do pamphletsfor publication or anecdotal tradition. Cato admits (however ironically) to such revisions. but because context or conflicting references led him to suppose that the text was not an accurate recordof the actualarguments." On the other hand.che gli annali . but variousemendationshave been proposed. avendola letta. in this case.or to contradictthe versionthatLivy followed.p.91 on Thu. cribere). Cornelius. o che Cicerone. in fact.58.
omnia antiquitatismonumenta colligo. that T. in Cic. quascunque defendi. "this is just the kind of imaginative detail which Cicero could have supplied for the purposes of his argument.but he Livy concedes thatthe Senateinvalidated does not tell us. Astin (135) supposes. Cato'sleases andcontracts.. as he completed the last book of the Origines.58. and in such cases we should expect greaterlicense in the adaptation. . 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . It is probablythis body of text that survivedto Livy's day in the family archivesof the PorciiCatones. the completion of the all of these endeavors Origines-if we assume that Cicero. if not for "publication. Sen. 38. Such editing may accountfor the discrepanciesbetween Livy's version and the nearunanimoustradition. In regardto some cases. All of the latterstudies.91 on Thu.Cato relied upon his notes and his recollection. Quinctium. Quinctius. in fact. Nepos. may yet yield a solution to the problemof publication: the speechwritingthat Cato practiced. ius augurium pontificiumcivile tracto. the comment on Cato's adaptationof his speeches. almost certainly. 38: Septimusmihi liber Originumest in manibus. as Plutarchdoes. Livy's version.multoetiam Graecis litteris utor. could easily be related to the first.where the Quinctii challenged Cato in contione. by contrast. and 28Cic. and it would not be surprisingif such a redactionwere laterexcerptedfrom its propercontext and given the title In L.in which the charges againstL.28 In the process of adapting speeches for inclusion in the Origines. We have seen that Livy's reference to the sponsio may derive not from the text of Cato's speech thatLivy cites. the researchon monumenta. the note on sponsio belongs to a scenario such as Plutarchreports.. whether he intended it as part of a defense of his censorship in the Origines or as an archival record for his son and descendants. when the same issues arose in a later case. and extensive referenceto Greek sources.when a serious quarrelwas revived in later proceedings. the fragmentDe SumptuSuo clearly implies that Cato may have adaptedhis earlier argumentsfor inclusion in a later composition. It is not unlikely that Cato also edited those drafts." at least for the edification of his son and descendants (andperhapsfor limited circulationamongfamiliares).CATO'S SPEECH AGAINST FLAMININUS 327 adaptedhis earlierargumentsto greateradvantage. indeed it is precisely one of the activities in which he is likely to have envisaged himself engaging in old age.is more likely to derive from an adaptationof those charges for a later legal battle. but from the same source that Plutarch later followed.If Cato had no text of a preparedspeech against L. Even if we assume that Cato had a preparedspeech to answerthe protestof the Quinctii. for which no prepared speech had been written. he put in orderthe corpus of his notes and draftspeeches for other cases which he was not able to discuss in the brief scope of the historicalwork. to producea full recordof his public life. nunc cum maxime conficio orationes. treatmentof varioustopics of law. Sen. causarum illustrium. he may then have adaptedhis notes and common topics from later speeches to compose such an oration. appearsto be linked to other researchfor the historical work. after the event.90." This content downloaded from 78. As it is not likely that Cato published the speech separatelyas a partisanpamphlet. Flamininuswere heardagain. Flamininusled the opposition. had some basis for attributing to Cato's later years. It is unlikely that Cato spoke from a preparedtext when he answeredthe challenge of the Quinctii: the text that Livy followed was composed.the adaptationof speeches. in consequence of Cato's censorship. as he assembled materialfor the Origines.
as princeps senatus. Flamininus. . the legalities of Plutarch'saccountare problematic. followedby Scullard262 f. 42. Caelius trib. 111-20 Malc.29 But thereis certainly substance to the report of later trials involving Cato and T. Sen. and Liv." This does not noteworthy.91 on Thu. NH 7.g. Such comments bear witness to prolongedhostilities. Again. 42. CARAWAN not only succeeded in discreditingmuch of Cato'sreactionary programme. condemnsT.despite indications.T. On Livy's handlingof the annalistictraditionhostile to T. The insult provokedTitus to challenge Cato before the people. 39. "Graecia Liberata and the Role of Flamininus in Livy's Fourth 118(1988) 209-52. in the image of those stoic heroesof the early Republic. . Livy discountedthe annalisticrecordof senatorial faction in the Age of Liberation:he saw the Liberator. Astin 106 n. that Cato shame- 29pliny'sclaim.). Cato was not likely to neglect his greatest triumphover the Quinctii. probably taking his cue from Nepos." but "never suffereda loss of prestige. Such recriminations (indicatedin Cic.30Livy notes that the quarrelsprovokedby Cato's nobilis censura kept him tied up in legal proceedingsthe rest of his life. 30So Fraccaro. and when the historianhimself was a young man. Liv. . But cf. Val. Titus was implicatedin his brother'sdisgrace (Flam.Studi Storici per l'Antichita Classica 4 (1911)59 f.3) were probably Cato's justification for passing over Flamininus to name his own colleague. rei publicae causa suscipere inimicitiasnon destitit. Livy seems to answer such criticism of Titus in his preface to the impeachment(Liv.44. had Cato made the accusations in Titus' censorship. sed quoad vixit. we have no clear statementthat Cato was never once defeated.90. 2. and he made of Cato a righteousinquisitor. in Plutarchand in Livy.but also urged the tribunesto charge Cato with "high crimes" and demanda fine of two talents.if in fact Cato was neverconvicted. Cat.) probablyrespondedto a tribunician challenge to variousacta of Cato's censorship. 457 f.oftencited. a multis tentatusnon extremam modo nullum detrimentum existimationisfecit.328 EDWIN M. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Plutarch. Nobilis censura fuit simultatiumque plena.4 (usque ad aetatem . Flamininushimself could not have acquittedhim. Livy's judgment has long gone unquestionedfrom a presumptionof Cato's veracity.7).to whom dutywas moredear than kin. per omnemvitam exercuerunt. auvact?o0oeat). Max. in the course of laterdisputes. he was." TAPA This content downloaded from 78. see my study.40. Flamininusfor his vendettaagainst "a lawful magistrate and renownedpatriot" for the sake of an unworthykinsman.though often repeated(e. precludethe possibility that Cato was on some occasion fined. etiam causam dicendo fatigavit inimicos. 19. 39. and 120 (= Opusc. 39. plebis. ValeriusFlaccus. neverable to silence his accusers.In this one small problem. . Flamininus. thoughLivy absolves Titus Flamininusfrom the blame that Plutarch'ssource laid upon him. Before Pliny's comment. Flamininus:the puzzling speech against M.9. if only because he had failed to take notice of the charges in his own term as censor (189).100 (itaque sit propriumCatonis quater et quadragienscausam dixisse nec quemquamsaepius postulatumet semper absolutum). Livy acceptedwithout question the text of Cato's speech that came to light for Cato.and thereis Pliny's testimony. 2. thatCato neverlost a case. Decade.7): so serious were the charges Cato made against Lucius that T. and the faint praise of Nepos is he does not say "neverlost.9. quae M. is possibly a mistakeninferencefrom such statementsas we find in Nep.58. nonetheless. Out of admiration distrustof ValeriusAntias. (frr. Porcium . and496 f. virtutumlaude crevit).
. with nn. This content downloaded from 78. CARAWAN SouthwestMissouri State University 31E. Cat..15.58.i . 57. in Astin's study. 106 f. Cato ipse. and. ratherthan a preparedtext of the original charges. it should be subject to the same scepticism warranted attributed contradicted by any partisanclaim of an historianor statesmanapparently by his own words.31 Cato himself tells us that he adapted and altered his earlier arguments in subsequentdisputes. And in naming his colleague Valerius Flaccus princeps at Flamininus'expense is patent. instead.g." that Nissen to it..9.e. nXsiatra nadvrv axor6v t8ioiv tyKcoj)gio)vdptS. and JeffreyTatum. there is often a senatus. were called intestabile periurium.g.2.M' Acilius Glabrio. The evidence on the legalities of this case and the transmissionof Cato's speeches stronglysuggests thatthe text In L. 7-12. QuinctiumthatLivy followed is just such a productof revision. 19.91 on Thu. 32Fortheir very constructivecomments I am much indebtedto ChristophKonrad. Nonetheless.. T6ov v . if he later edited his censorial speeches as Cicero suggests. gLyactauXia yieKOLiaCKcev. he had all the more opportunityto sharpenhis invective.15.5. haud sane detrectatorlaudum suarum. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 34.90.32 EDWIN M.(pseys.CATO'S SPEECH AGAINST FLAMININUS 329 lessly glorifiedhis own achievementsand viciously slanderedhis opponents.. o6K ..His charges against his former commander. 14. his self-aggrandizement presumptionof Cato's veracity. Liv. 37. Plut. Thus Livy's version is unworthy of "the best claim to credibility. Liv.Jerzy Linderski..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.