You are on page 1of 15

Cato's Speech against L. Flamininus: Liv. 39.42-3 Author(s): Edwin M. Carawan Source: The Classical Journal, Vol. 85, No. 4 (Apr.

- May, 1990), pp. 316-329 Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and South Stable URL: . Accessed: 02/05/2013 18:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

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


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 on Thu, 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

90. SblendorioCugusi. as consul. one evening at dinner. Sblendorio Cugusi.has been given "the best claim to credibility". 39." On Cato's frr. which seems the more damning indictment. Nissen. T. Quinctius (39. prominentamong them L. Among other censorial speeches extant. a Carthaginian atorial games. Phil. Philip nodded. how the speech came into Livy's hands. Catone Censore2 (Florence 1969). Scipio. 69-71. that Livy. and M. Livy remarks. with Nissen's Kritische Untersuchungen and Jordan'sedition of Cato's fragments. carriedoff to his provincehis favorite. FLAMININUS:LIV. Lucius offered to put him to death for the boy's amusement. Flamininus. Quinctius. begging for his life and calling upon the Jides of the Roman people. but in the case againstL.and the legalities of Plutarch's account have been deemed implausible.In recentworktheirjudgment has been generally accepted.71 Malcovati)belongs to this version but.] populartradition. and they concludedthat it was an authentictext of the actualarguments. Catonis praeter Librumde Re Rustica Quae Exstant (Leipzig 1860) lxxviii-lxxix. Livy gives the only clear and direct testimony to this the year 184.far the most serious charges (longe gravissima) were lodged against L. the consul of 192 and brotherof T. Livy cites anotherversion of the charges.the traditionin Antias and in De Senectute is discountedfor its apparent revisionism. Anspruch auf Glaubwiirdigkeit Jordan. was notoriousfor harshmeasuresagainst such nobiles as L. disputing the cited by author. Cato frr. and for the impeachmentof seven senators. Kritische Untersuchungen Livius (Berlin 1863) 226.42-3 Cato'scensorship. Livy tells us surprisingly little of Cato'snobilis censura. when a Gallic chief pleaded for refuge. "Dass unter diesen drei Darstellungendie Rede Catos den gr6ssten hat.58. Alongside the speech ascribedto Cato. M. MalcovatiORF4 (1976).6-12). Livy's version. Flamininushe seems to have done independentresearch.42.despite the boy's protestat missing the gladiPhilip. prostitute. as the woundedman struggledto escape. and yet anotherversion is preservedin Plutarch'sT. M. follows the view of F Della Corte. brotherof Africanus. and without resolving the problemof publication. [Hereafter 316 This content downloaded from 78.CATO'S SPEECHAGAINSTL. Flamininus18. then. it is better suited to uber die Quellen der vierten undfiinften Dekade des 1H. Porci Catonis Orationum Reliquiae (= Hist. Since the 1860s. reportedin Valerius Antias and echoed in Cicero'sCato Maior de Senectute42. It is sometimes suggestedthata fragmentof Cato in IsidorusDe Dif. and the consul."ristabill la veritA"(274). to oblige him. without reconsidering the substance of the charge. 12. H. Cato claimed that Lucius. Lucius ran him through. Turin 1982) 224-29.5 (fr. as we shall see. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . in general. brauchtkaum bemerkt zu werden. and Cato Maior 17. cf. bringing to light a text of Cato's speech evidently unknownto the earlier annalists. whetherLivy's version is the more plausibleaccount in light of other evidence. suddenlytook his swordand struckhis victim a blow to the head. conquerorof Macedon. Verb. Pol. if it was unknownto his predecessors.91 on Thu.' Nissen and Jordanwere convinced by Livy's claim thathe had beforehim Cato's speech.

9. "Cupidonte confecitanne Amor?"(Cupidontecumsaevit. a divergence. Lucius had the man beheaded by the lictors ratherthan by his own hand. and Afranius v. That Valerius reportedthe murderwas carriedout by the lictors is assumedby F. but. L. 66). Flamininus proconsul [sic] inter cenam meretrice rogatus.3 f. ex damnatis). longe aliud est cupido.2 There is a furtherreferenceto Cato's speech.see Fraccaro.( ..91 on Thu. hereafterFraccaro). Though Livy's paraphraseis ambiguous (. on the annalisticsourceof this addendum." The attribution depends entirely upon the name Philippus and the theme of love and desire. but it is generally accepted.Hermes40 (1905) 73 f.CATO'SSPEECH AGAINST FLAMININUS 317 anothercontext.. at odds with otf irtcrot. linked to the conflicting charges. Minucius Thermus. 6 As')Kto dtrKtr8tvEV Flam. Seneca Contr. Max.3 Livy finds fault with Valerius Antias. fr. (= Opuscula [1956] 444.. Cato der Censor (Heidelberg 1954) 22 f. after his note on the divergenttradition in Valerius Antias: Cato challenged Lucius to dispute the charge by judicial wager (sponsione defenderetsese. 430).3: .. "as one who had not read Cato's speech and put credence in a tale of unknown authority"(39. Cf. 47. tpwova)v• version of Nepos in De "ToOo Plutarchsuggests in his commentthatLivy's versionis at odds with his other sourceson this point.9 f. 421. 2.4). 23 R3. Bacch. which Livy cites in his conclusion to this episode.and the victim was not a refugee but a condemned man (mss. and by the This content downloaded from 78. "Alius est amor. Lindsay). This earlier version is at odds with 2Isid.." inquitCato. alter malus.5 (= Cato. but it is more likely that Livy addedthis note not from Cato's text but from a second source. and 35. is evident in the annalistictraditionin Liv. cuius amore tenebatur. quia in provincia quendamdamnatumsecuri percusserat. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Verb. Kienast. alius cupido.alter bonus. De Diff.9. The earlierversion of those events (21.25.. from referenceto the securis.7 f. 422 f.2. A. 21 (= Opusc." He suggests an allusion to Cato'sepigramin Plaut. in RhM84 (1935) 51. . temporesupplicii ad arbitrium et spectaculum mulierculae. electo. fr. Klotz. in the Valerianversion. . Miinzer. 35. Flamininus'predecessor.5). 18. quae aiebat se numquam vidisse hominem decollari. 43.21-2. cf.1-4). 71 Malc.. 11). That this was the version given by Valerius and implied in the late Valeriantraditionis indicatedby Plutarch'scomment that Livy's version. ubi alter recessit.58.tuttavia? probabile che questa modificazione fosse anche nell' Anziate (427). 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.90. whom Cato accused of similar atrocities. It is sometimes supposed that this epilogue derives directlyfromthe text thatLivy cites. is the view of Fraccaro.. it is likely that.13. fr. unum ex damnatis occidit.4In regardto the events in question. Accessit ilico alter. itiqt Xstpi • apt6g6Lvoq. too. "Philippe. and his paramourexclaims she has never seen a man beheaded and would be delighted at the spectacle. Flamininum.. supposed from stylistics that this note derivesfromCato (cf. 4The Valerianversion is also indicatedin Val. P. Fraccaro. phv oiv iK6q s iq 8SivaOrtvstpfoat. . attrahi iussum securi percussisse).): "Aliudest.. such. Lucius boasts how many men he has condemned to death.."Ricerche Storiche e Letterariesulla Censuradel 184/3" in Studi Storici per l'AntichithClassica 4 (1911)40 f.cites Nonius p.) has bearing upon the case against Q.. in the Gallic campaignof 192. 3D. 19.4 (see infra n. had Lucius do the deed with his own hand(6 9 A lpto .43. amor. e numero senatorumsustulit.

).atque etiam senatus eorum quingenti ad consules transfugerunt. H. rationi inimica est .2. 17. in Isidorus. Flamininifratrem L. In Livy's version. Contr. elapsus est. Lucius took the boy with him. gives the propercontext for the fr. consuli dedideruntse). presumably. it is evident that Plutarch'saccount derives from another adaptationof Cato's charges. Klotz. 6Cic. spe ingentiumdonorum. As in Livy's version.. ad mille cf. Minucium Thermum. 59-63. 9.2-4 the same exploits against the Liguriansare ascribed to L. and there are further discrepanciesnot likely to be Plutarch'sinvention. the victim was a condemnedman. 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. concluded that Atticus is Cicero's direct source. Quinctius campaigned against the Boii (22.Ille enim. but the later tradition in the anonymous De Viris Illustribus clearly agrees with Plutarchon this point. Philippe. 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.) suggests that the victim was among the 1500 Boii who surrendered to Lucius'colleague (35.3 f. virgae promuntur. Roman Politics 220-150 BC (Oxford 19732) 258. It is likely that the earlierversion derives from ClaudiusQuadrigarius and the later from Valerius(cf. RhM 84 [1935] 52).4). held that the consul orderedthe lictors to carryout execution. Extrahiturquidam e carcere in convivium praetoris [sic]. The traditionin Cicero. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . De Senectute42--which Cicero puts in the mouth of Cato himself-agrees essentially with the Valerianversion." 7Cf. but Lucius who seized upon the opportunity. as in the Valerianversion. in the Gallic campaignof 192. ValeriusMaximus.58. reportthatthe victim was a condemnedman.Invitus feci fortissimi viri T. sed notandum putavi libidinem. see esp. qui proximus ante me fuerat. Boii quieverunt.7None of these authorsrevealsprecisely who struckthe fatal blow. The version in Plut. exoratus in convivio a scorto est ut securiferiret aliquem eorum qui in vinculis essent damnatirei capitalis. 12. independentof Livy's version. and Lucius himself did not do the killing but ordered the lictors to carry out execution. alleging illegal execution of ten men. This remarkin Plutarch. amor.3 f. . Sen. In 35. and it provides the propercontextfor Cato's charges such as Livy followed. From such discrepancies and the apparent conflation. thus provides the proper context for Livy's accountof Cato's charges.and it was not the boy who urged him to stage an execution for the evening'sentertainment. The earlier passage. Geschichtschreiber. linked to Valerius Antias.).91 on Thu.but. ut .5 The other authorsextant from Livy's era.6-8.90. 35. and the agreementof these two versions confirms that the popular tradition. . Ne sobri quidem carnificis manu. SblendorioCugusi (224 f.40. This content downloaded from 78.318 EDWIN M.4. so Nissen KU 173-74. Cato Maior 17 appearsto involve elements from both the Valeriantraditionand Livy's version of Cato's text.not Livy's version. "Atticus als Hermes 40 (1905) 74-75.. 40. See infra n. CARAWAN the Valeriantraditionon the Gallic campaign (40. attributedto Albucius Silo. and the elder Seneca. On Cato's speech In Q. Quinctius that were earlier creditedto his predecessor Minucius Thermus (35. .7-22.Aliud est." and the more sympatheticview of pederastycould be Plutarch'sinference. Hic Titofratre suo censore.frr. . in which L.22. longe aliud est cupido. H.. . .3.he urges Lucius to prove his love). cum esset consul in Gallia. the boy complained that he was eager to see a fight to the death. cum liberis .6 ValeriusMaximus and Seneca also followed the Valeriantraditionthat a condemned man was killed for a woman'sfavors. Cicero.42: Impedit enim consilium voluptas. Flamininume senatu eiecerem septem annis post quam consulfuisset. 21. F Miinzer. mille et quingenti. The boy whom Lucius loved is one whom he had kept as a companion "from childhood. Scullard.

on the importanceof Nepos as Plutarch'sguide to the RomanLives. infra at n. 4. on the relative chronology of Nepos' tributeto Cato.4).8 It is certain that Plutarchhad before him an account of Cato's censorship in greater detail than Livy gives. on his own inspiration. ratherhe suggests that Cato's text was not an accurate account of the actual charges. 18. is The detailed 17 and most more source for Plut. in Neue Jahrbiicherf'r Philologie u. Plutarchsuggests that the "murderof an innocent man by the consul's own hand. Klotz in RhM 84 (1935) 51 (assuming Claudius Quadrigariusas a "control" in Liv.90. invidiosis addens vim oratio.. Cato led T. and 117-20. actro0 yEypdq(0at proiv. FaXS1. asperis. The agreementof Plutarchand De Vir. 47 [1985]) 83 f. CorneliusNepos and AncientPolitical Biography( = Hist.4. Porcius Cato Censorius (Breslau 153 (1896) 1905).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). though the the proceedings. Geiger. 243. likely Nepos (see KaTrlyopiag. A. 9. . 423-29. 47.2 (see infra at n. De Viris Illustribus (cf. . did the murderwith his own sword. Plutarchdoes not question the •sivotv. 107 f. and. Cat. 279). the tale that Lucius. makes it all but certain that this is the account given by Nepos. quae 68ivcoat. This content downloaded from 78. 11). Della Corteshowedthatthe account in anon. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . rebus indignis. (b. Cf. see also nn. Einzelschr.4 f. and that Lucius orderedthe man beheadedby the lictors (.5). Nissen KU 292-97. is partof a more melodramaticscenario. in the text of Cato that Livy followed. Baumgart. W. that the victim was a condemned man. Pdidagogik 123 ff. 6 6U Ailpto. 11 f. eductum quendam e carcere in convivio iugulari iussit) derives from Nepos' definitivebiography(esp.for emotional effect (si. cf..g Flam. O. 39.24: "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.58. Soltau.. quendame carcere in convivio iugulari iussisset). xapt?6gLE giKbedIe elE uiVoav gtpfoat rfq etvv y6iCi X1itpi r ApcogL&vc Flam.who probablyofferedsome commenton the rivalversionsand promptedPlutarch's note on the deinosis.11From the 8Cf. The figure deinosis is describedin Quintilian6. agrees with Plutarch'sversion on two points. Fraccaro Opusc. 18.9 Flamininus. Av .9.2. Plut. accuracy of Livy's version (though it is unlikely that Plutarchhimself had comparedCato's text).91 on Thu. 6otunra6otov 6 A8sK1to.6y0 Kdrcovo.Illustr. Flam. vocatur.4." 9Forthe annalistictraditionin Plutarch'saccountof Cato's censorship.. 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. of which Livy tells us nothing. Such a critical comment is not likely to be Plutarch's own editorialjudgment. '0M. That Plutarchwas not the first to comment on Cato's technique in this passage is evident from the populartopic of declamationin Sen. ad cuiusdam scorti spectaculum." in Livy's excerpt of Cato's speech.CATO'SSPEECH FLAMININUS AGAINST 319 (vixdumserio adnuisset).He tells us thatCatomade mayhavemisunderstood biographer his dramaticindictmentin the assembly where Lucius and Titus Flamininus and Plutarchdescribes a campaignof retaliation challengedthe impeachment.whereas. 06vTa CErdtnaioyv .8. but more probablyhe drewthatconclusion from one among his sources. infra. dtrlv ar)T6okov dmrK• . 17). Cat. See also J. Haec est illa. esp. 47.dIvo ro0To tggvoB0v vo. 18 f. "On the basis of correspondence to the shorterlife extant.10 Excerptsof Nepos' work are found in the anonymous De Viris Illustribus. 2.).43. Contr. in which Lucius put to death an innocentman who had thatvery hourinvoked Romanjides. 26-29. where the notice on this episode. was intentionalexaggeration. Untersuchungenzu den Reden des

not in Cato'stext. see C.presumablybecause of his "little to develophis Latinityat Rome. 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. . 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.91 on Thu. Gracch. were alreadyintegrated. but laterin Latin".90.58. of course. in cui Catone proponevaa Flamininouna sponsio . if he had found the challenge in Cato's text.. This content downloaded from 78. Marc. If Nepos is responsible for these three points in Plut.2. Pelling's study of the later Roman Lives in JHS 99 (1979) 74-96 and JHS 100 (1980) 127-40. as he does. 30. by way of the apothegmataCatonis we have no reason to doubt Baumgart's (238-45). though he may have noted the familiar 12So reasons Fraccaro. Luc. B. Livy. Livy. The legalities. he goes on to connect the challenge to sponsio with the account of opposition to Cato's recitatio in contione (Opusc. 23-25).12Nepos is the probable source for Plutarch'snote of the challenge to sponsio (6ptao6g). Marc. 431-32= Studi Storici 4. E.13Plutarchis not likely to have alteredthis one detail." (Opusc. who clings to the notion that much of Plutarch'sCato Maior derives from Polybius. Della Corte243. A furtherdetail likely to derivefromNepos in both accountsis the note thatCato capped his accusationswith a challenge to dispute the charges by which details from Cicero. as he is for the substance of this episode. 4). The use of the indefinite scortumin the version of Nepos in De Vir. and anotherannalist. as we shall see. Such hypotheticalMittelquellenareeloquentlydismissedby Geiger (supran. thatLucius had the lictors carryout execution. 13Theview that Plutarch'saccount derives from an earlier adaptation. R. See also the discussion infra at nn. 430). and Comp. The orderof such entries Dem.ratherthan follow Nepos directly. Plut. and in whom he presumably found some knowledge of Cato's text.320 EDWIN M. For Plutarch'sworking methods.goes back to Nissen KU 225. 21. Kienast(supra n. as well.18--that the victim was a condemnedman. as opposed to meretrixor mulierculain the Valeriantradition(supra n.18 f.and afterfurther commentson the enormityof afterthe paraphrase the crime from yet another a source (perhaps Nepos). For this Greek intermediary but a similarbiographicalsource was (possibly "Megacles"?).. It would be surprisingfor Livy to postpone the note on the sponsio. Pelop. may have taken this note from Nepos. Flam. whom he followed as a "control" to Antias. make it all the more likely thatLivy found a note of the challenge to sponsio.10-25) assumedthat Plutarchrelied upon Greekintermediaries (including an anti-Catonian pamphlet).ll) 34 f. e lo dimostrail fatto che in Livio e in Plutarcoricorrelo stesso frammento preso dalla fine dell' orazione. Ti.3: pp. such as Plutarchreports. pretendslittle opportunity the same chapterhe reveals his subsequentdevotion to Latin style. CARAWAN of ValeriusAntias we agreementof these two versions with Livy's paraphrase can conclude thatNepos followed the Valerianversion on these two points. but betweenCato andthe Quinctiiin in a second sourcedescribinga confrontation the assembly. but it should cast doubt upon the usual assumptionthat the note on sponsio derives from Cato's text. contradicting the prevailingtradition. without comment. of Valerius. These hypotheses seem to me unwarranted. 1. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Smithin CQ 34 (1941)106-12: cf.we have little or no confirmation. put forward by R. 296. "Riapparesempre la stessa fonte che Livio adopera per controllare 1'Anziate(Nepos). suggests thatNepos departed from Valerius Antias on this point.Illustr. Nepos is cited in Plut. 2. 43. inconclusive.

426-27). amor .58. and the very details thathave persuadedothers of the authenticity of the charges should.and he is some length to judge from Livy's paraphrase.9. cf. not from Livy's version. The companion is pointedly identified as a Carthaginian. if we assume as in Plutarchthat the boy was a slave belonging to Lucius. rouse our suspicions. 15Thetradition in Val.91 on Thu.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). Max. 2. This content downloaded from make the incident less of a national disgrace. weshalb Cicero von der guten und altern Uberlieferungabweicht".Hermes40 (1905) 74. therefore. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Cato.nor are the proceduraldetails in Plutarchto be discounted. Miinzer. 71).Aliud est. simile et libidine et crudelitate. it would seem. in the Valeriantradition and Plutarch'sversion. "Auch hier is die Tendenz der Milderung und Abschwaichung unbequemerTatsachendas Motiv. Philippe.and it is reasonableto assume that Nepos knew of the text that Livy reports. The boy's name would seem irrelevant. it makes little difference whether the victim was a condemned man or a deserterfrom the enemy.. As we turn to consider the legalities it will be clear that Livy's version gives no more plausible groundsof impeachment. quod amplissimi honoris maiestatem tam taetrofacinore inquinaverat. . derives from a Latin version of the scenario as it appearsin Plutarch. Such is the evidence regardingthe substanceof the charge in the sources of the extant versions.'"Despite the extraordinary detail of scenario in Livy's text of Cato there is no indication that any testimony or other evidence was cited. (fr. . The points at odds with Livy.on Plutarch'sversion. the most likely source for the fragmentin Isidorus and for the scenario in Plutarch. submissive to the every whim of his kept companion. suggests that Cato found Lucius' conduct all the more damnablebecause of the celebratedvictory of the Flamininiover Philip of Macedon: .nec pensi duxerat isdem imaginibusascribi meretricis oculos humano sanguine delectatos et regis Philippi supplices manus. for the very king from whom the Flamininihad won their greatestglory..interal.90.of a race whom Cato despised for perfidy. in Cicero(assumingCato's 14Cf.3. as we have seen. eo magis illum notandumstatuit. 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.Valeriustold just as damning a tale of lust and cruelty. The fragmentin an innocent man who pleaded for his family's safety. Nepos is. the culprit was cast as a depravedpederast.or.CATO'S SPEECH AGAINST FLAMININUS 321 variantin Valerius (as elsewhere he notes divergent traditionson notorious episodes). duplex severitatis exemplum. "ha voluto come 1' Anziate mitigarela gravithdell' atto di Flaminino"(Opusc.14but they do not alter the substanceof the chargeto exonerateFlamininus. a hostis who put his fate at the consul's discretion. the philhellenismof the Quinctii and their continuedinv6lvementin Macedonianaffairs. In terms of the censor's probrum. The victim was sympathetically portrayed. but it is at least sufficientto call into question the prevailingview of annalisticrevisionism. are often discounted as patriotic alterations. in fact. in regardto the tradition speech was known to Cicero). In Livy's text of Cato everydetail seems contrivedto make the episode more scandalous. The link between Nepos and Plutarchis not altogether conclusive. Fraccaro.

cf. as "evidence of a practice later recognized by statute. thefasces in the hands of the lictors.91 on Thu. Miinzer(supra n. 19. vestrae secures in quantum.and the controversiais of doubtful value for historical details (the speakers refer to Flamininus as proconsul or praetorand freely invent otherdetails). of course. or Seneca point of procedure. Seneca Contr.16 which the lictors were made partyto the atrocity. 5.Flamininus'offense in the Valerianversion.5). The travestyof lawful procedurefor execution was the most salient point of latertreatment of this episode in declamation. On sanctityof fasces and properprocedurein magisterial execution. much as the declaimers whom Seneca cites freely inventeddetails of a case that could neverhave come to court. CrimenMaiestatis (1967) 11."R.was undoubtedlyviewed by many as a greaterabuse of consularimperium. 59-63).7 supra.Seneca Contr. fact. too. may have been invented for rhetorical The the substance where. Flam. .Baumenmay have been misled by the treatment Contr. A. "vestrifasces.Thereis no clear reference to the traditionthatFlamininusstruckthe fatal blow (nor any mentionof the boy Philip). after all. see Mommsen. in peachment. attributedto Albucius Silo. wielded by drunkenlictors..2. an anachronism. the unlawfulexercise of the most reveredmagisterial power. repeatedly the declaimers cited by Seneca seize upon the fasces. An actio laesae maiestatis against Flamininus is.there should be little doubt that the most serious charge against Flamininus was not pederasty or perfidy. sensational details in Livy's version. in Galliam provinciam spe ingentiumdonorum in tabernaculum). was illegal execution. CARAWAN Nor does Livy's version of the charges give more urgent groundsfor imOn the contrary. Baumansuggests "his [Flamininus']exclusion in the comitia tributaon chargesof maiestas.6) "Die Catonischegab die geeignete Grundlagefur verschiedeneschwere Beschuldigungendes Flamininus:Paederastieund Perfidie. introductum Bauman. and he obviously realized the efficacy of such charges." On this may have been precededby condemnation in Plut. dazu vielleicht Erpressungin der Provinz (vgl. therefore. This content downloaded from 78. Such. In Livy's version. attributedto Capito (9). n.6-9. 31 f. as the most vivid emblem of the breachof maiestas.The Valerian version. Strafrecht915-18.The most serious charge.would seem the more cogent responseto the protestof the Quinctii. or religious tabu regardingthe tabernaculum. that any act demeaningthe emblems of high office.2. the speaker'spurthe charges. entirely to the propositionthat Flamininus'act constituteda breach of maiestas.but illegal execution. regardsthis case as an example of early remedies against such abuse of office." With referenceto other defacto proceduresof the era. was Cato's charge againstMinuciusThermus(fr.90. as Plutarchsupposed. legi potius quam scorto cadat".2 is devoted.butSeneca'sreport clearlyindicatesthatthe natureof Flamininus' offense had become a common theme for declamation. Cato had brought similar charges against Minucius Thermus (supra n. . 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. 9. 9.17 Thus the claim that Livy's version is the more plausible because it is the more damning carries little conviction. dedecus recciderunt!"Capito then went on to contrastthe scene with properprocedure. '7Cf. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . apparently. or violation of moral standardsregardingthe mensa. perductum)und Entweihungeiner geheiligten Sti'tte(vgl. but from the consensus of the varioustraditions. see supra at n.58. 16For the groundsof impeachment. but to ridicule his opponentin a case pose is not to substantiate of the charge is no longer at issue.322 EDWIN M. "Non veto quominus securi percutiatur: illud rogo.

Cato the Censor (Oxford 1978) 80 n. Le Sinat de la Rdpublique on the case against L. plebis. 19 clearly indicatesthat the Senate. RomanPolitics 153-59.and cf.7 [hereafter.18Titus Flamininus led a movement to challenge the auctoritas of Cato. Flam.30). 224 f. 111-20.J. 39.44. The first that the Quinctii learned of their disgrace-that Lucius was impeached. Assuming. and the traditionin Flam. 19Against most recently. and Titus was denied the title of princeps-probably came at the recitatio before the people. the recitatio." and it was in response to that protest that Cato stated the charges. Thoughthe censors' nota could not be canceled. thereare a numberof cases in which by cf. see A. J. and he is followed by Scullard(158).90. that Plutarch'saccount suggests a plausible setting for Cato's speech. 133. disputing the lectio senatus along with the other acts of the censors.. 19 has also been suspect as giving an implausibleaccountof procedure. On sponsio see. A furtherstudy of the lex Clodia and related censorial proceduresis forthcomingby Jeffrey Tatum.18 supra) assumes the Romaine(Louvain1885) 298 f. violating the moral and huhis offense was mane obligationsof which the censors were properguardians. impeachments. The frr. canceled Cato's leases and contracts (to which Livy alludes. then. Willems. Fraccaroargued (429-32) such a speech would have been given at the recitatio. second scenario. we are faced with threepossible scenarios. As Mommsennoted in regardto Plutarch'saccount. Scullard. Caelius trib. (1) The reading of the revised Senate roster. esp. See also P. esp. most recently. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . This content downloaded from 78. Flamininus. the censors' yet.386 f. H. Pro Cluentio Fraccaropointedout. 262 f. Lucius was charged with demeaning his office.1.AGAINST CATO'SSPEECH FLAMININUS 323 Aside from the substance of the charge. nor to give grounds for his expulsion. Becker. who kindly permittedme to see a draftof his work in progress. 178 or Astin]. For vote of the people the censor's verdict was (so to speak) "overturned": the electoral "reversal"of impeachments. 182.considerthe careerof Manlius(or Manilius)cos. On the proceduresof the censorship. we have no reason to doubt that Cato's judgmentswere called into question. it is often assumedthat Cato's speech was delivered before the Senate and that Plutarch'sscenario is a dramaticfabrication.58. do frr..91 on Thu. in fact. such as indictable before not. was there no not to were provocatio. Crook (n. questions of guilt or innocence were certainly not closed. 9. But that is not to say that the justice of Cato's overturned verdictcould not be challengedin an assembly of the people. Because there was no regularprocedurefor appeal. H. the annalistic traditionin Plut. cf. in assemblies following the lectio and census. E.2. LustriSui Felicitate attest to the challenge to Cato's censorship. could have provokedan outburstagainst Cato's severity. on the lex Clodia of 58. SblendorioCugusi.the Flaminini "appealedto the people.from a speech againstM. 234-39. the effect of the censor's judgment could be reversedin the next election. Astin. a contio such as Plutarch'sscenario suggests. on this case. According to Plutarch. De pr. and see infra at n. 387 n.andthe sponsio subject appeal: judgments in which Cato called upon Lucius to dispute the charges would not have the censor's verdict.Mommsen. in JRS 66 (1976) 132-38. which permitteda defense during the lectio. A. the usual assumptionthat Cato's speech would have been deliveredin the Senate (as. On the lattercase cf. Suolahti.. ROmischeAltertilmer(1846) 2.224-26. RomischeStaatsrecht(18873) 2. W. Scullard. Precedentfor a challenge to the lectio was to be found in the annals for the year 311 (Liv.8). There was no formal 18Th.). not in the Senate (as Livy's versionled some to suppose)but in contione beforethe people. Crook.19Cato was underno legal obligation to notify Flamininusof the charges before the Senate. 30. The Roman Censors: a Study in Social Structure(Helsinki 1963) 47-70. In a court.

thata largebody of Cato's speeches were widely known long beforeLivy's day. How. late in life. In the formerinstance we are told that the tribune's summonswas "quashed"by the Senate (17.324 EDWIN M.and drew upon his notes or his best recollection of the evidence to respondextempore. long after the events in question. he would challenge Lucius to disputethe charges by sponsio. and the evidence that Cato himself. 17. nonetheless.37 (census of 204). In the assembly T. Astin has argued against such "post eventumrevision. 19). and Liv. Plutarchclearly suggests that the confrontationcame sometime after the lectio became known. but.The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World(Princeton 1972) 57 f. This content downloaded from 78.16.see Willems (supra n. and Cato. "without hesitation" Cato give came forwardwith his colleague. pp. or (3) that a contio was convened at the instigation of T. but he assumes. then. despite rules of order. Kennedy. 13-25. There is no indication that Cato issued his speeches as pamphlets to influence currentopinion. we his accountof the chargesat thatcontio. 21See Baumgart(supra n.entirely in keeping with Plutarch's account: both in Flam. how did this speech come into Livy's hands. 29. in the latter. It is possible then either (2) that after the recitatio. We know of two instances. Flamininushimself.Astin 133-37.91 on Thu. Cato convened a contio to answer the public outcry. De Senectute38." and there is merit to his argumentagainst a publishedcollection by Cato himself. suggests thatCato himself. Such an assembly could have been called by the tribunes.21Cicero. Such a scenario is not.20 Neither at the recitatio nor at later contiones is Cato likely to have had a preparedtext of his argumentsin hand. fti z6v 6filov IcaK•tpuy• (Cat. which had been called at Flamininus' instigation. G.58. edited or "published"a collection of speeches is less than conclusive. was involvedin the compositionof speeches on the famouscases of his career: causarum illustrium.90. and how accuratelydid the extant speech recordthe actual arguments? Thus we come to the problem of publicationand the question of authenticity. it is conceivable that Flamininus spoke out in protest at the recitatio. did these charges come to be writtenout as a verbatimtext. can reasonablyconclude that.To silence the protestof the Quinctii without lengthy debate. 17). 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . the censors were narrowlyacquitted. This last alternativeis perhapsthe most likely. in Plutarch'ssource. ne postea obnoxiapopulari aurae censurae esset). he had no need of a preparedspeech.4 (census of 169). cf. From this o&v (oiS&v 6tnoc•Etd•d'evoq). CARAWAN procedurefor those censuredto make a defense duringthe lectio. with Gellius NA 3. followed by Sblendorio Cugusi 27-30. nunc cum maxime conficio orationes.when the censorswere summonedby tribunesto face charges before the people: Liv. however. 19 and Cat. and on thatpoint his argumentis not entirelyconvinc200n variousattemptsat retaliation by tribunes. A. Plutarchin both versions clearly implies that the Flamininiinitiatedthe proceedingsbefore an assembly of the people. whom. Plutarchtells us. 43. 19). nposhO6vtsE i zt6v 8ftLov (Flam. quascunquedefendi. With this tactic. Flamininus demanded that an explanation of the charges.19) 263. on charges of perduellio. as Livy tells at some length. [herefterARRW]. Cato gave sequence. he probably anticipatedobjections from many quarters.10) esp. Flamininusenlisted to bring charges against Cato (Cat. one not long beforeand anothernot long afterCato'scensorship.

quas quidem adhuc invenerimet legerim. the work of editing a standardcollection had begun. as did Nepos. It has even been suggested that Livy had before him not a text of the speech but a paraphrase by Nepos.). Out of this researchthe speech became known to Livy.Illustr.. The definitive biography. 23Cic. withoutany clear referenceto text of speeches other than those in the Origines. and indeed since copies of the speeches were certainly in circulationthere must have 4. see esp. of Nepos in the anonymousDe VirisIllustribus. where the authorclearly had before him a text of the speech rather than anecdotes or general impressions. 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. it is highly unlikely that Livy could have adaptedhis version from Nepos. Otherdetails Cicero may havebeen reluctantto accept."23 So.22 As Baumgartpointed out. 65 f: Catonem vero quis nostrorumoratorum.however." Aside fromBrutus65 f.which I have found and read thusfar (adhuc). .as does the version of Nepos in De Vir. see H.24Fromthe version indeed. 240n Cato's influence. . . and the same term is found in Livy's version. Livy." but he insists that "his wordscan well be takento mean thatthis had not always been is thus reasonableto assume that Nepos had access to Cato's text.7 as been an interestat an earlierdate.FLAMININUS CATO'SSPEECH AGAINST 325 ing. full of noteworthyargumentation. . as Fraccaro supposed. u. however. other than those in the Origines. as opposed to the meretrixor muliercula in the Valeriantradition. Akad. as we have the most likely source for Plutarchand the fragmentin Isidorus.probablyunderthe auspicesof Atticus himself. . Mainz 4 (1971) 111-37. 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? . 115. Brut. that at that time the speeches were rarelyread. Trinkle. 2. on this speech. though he discountedcertaindetails of the scenario that Livy later accepted. . qui quidem nunc sunt. he can cite only Ad Herrenium evidence that copies of speeches were available. another version lay as yet undiscoveredin the family archives. and this corpus was availableto Nepos as he composed the definitive biographyof Cato. it is reasonableto assume that Cicero knew of the text. at Atticus' request(Cat. Wiss. contrary. et verbis et rebus illustribus. Just such an archivaltext may have come to light a few years afterthe death of Cato Uticensis and soon afterthe death of Cicero. "Cato in der viertenund fiinften Dekade des Livius." Abh. In the year 44. On the other hand. Lit.58. In the Brutus (65 f. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . This content downloaded from 78. Thereare more than 150 speeches. Cicero claims that he had discovered and studied 150 speeches. where Cicero seems ignorantof Cato's text. Even in the De Oratore (nine years earlier)we seem to havegeneralimpressionsof Cato'swork.4). perhapsnot long before 46. before Cicero'sBrutus (in the year 46) there is no specific reference to a single speech of Cato.. thoughTrinkle arguesconvincingly to the that made use of Cato's speeches. legit? aut quis novit omnino? . against the notion that Livy took his version from the annalistictradition(ClaudiusQuadrigarius). Baumgart'sview suggests two possible explanationsfor the account in De Senectute42.91 on Thu. Cicero uses the indefinitescortumof Lucius' lover. Refertae sunt orationes amplius centum quinquaginta. not simply because he 22Astin admits (133) that "Cicero indicated in the Brutus . Baumgartsupposed that sometime in the decade after 46 such an edition was published.

p. . p. "E infatti impossibile. If we read with Mommsen perhibere. 27Fronto. &. in fact. as Cato mentions many proofs of his integrity. inevitablyhe made revisions. we can reasonably assume that he also 25Fraccaro. deinde scriptumerat in oratione: "numquamego pecuniam neque meam neque sociorumper ambitionemdilargitus sum. fecissem leguntur. Fronto gives the excerpt as an especially elegant example of praeteritio.326 M. 428-29 ( = StudiStoriciper l'AntichittiClassica 4.). Opusc. Cato admits (however ironically) to such revisions. cribere). tabulaeprolatae: maiorumbenefactaperlecta. it is also possible that the scribe proceeds to make alterationson the the scribe is instructedto erase sections of the new draft original..58. and in some cases the revision was extensive. Kennedy. deinde quae ego pro r. seems to haveknownof the versionLivy followed.27 Astin cites this passage in supportof his argumentagainst revision" eventum that the "versionswhich survivedwere very close to "post the actualspeeches that were delivered.. in this case. "noli scribere.che gli annali .he has copied as the earlier text is read): "istud quoque dele . enimverousque istuc ad lignum dele. Scullard. Archivalcopies can usually be expected to give a more accuraterecordof the actual argumentsthan do pamphletsfor publication or anecdotal tradition. (which. 92. in this case.but. Cornelio. ." On the other hand.which he had the scribe delete to avoidresentment. 21 = fr. non avesse ricordato il fatto. avevanolargamentediffusa. but variousemendationshave been proposed.25 Astin is inclined to agree that these were not published editions by Cato himself but archivaltexts. CARAWAN EDWIN was anxious to conceal so disgraceful an episode. where the charges may well have been frivolous. . o che Cicerone.. avendola at any rate. Astin 134-37. 268).. Cornelium. At this point Cato presumably protests to the scribe. but it must be agreedthat Cato somehow adaptshis argumentsfrom an earliercase for inclusion in a laterspeech." The maiorum benefacta and his own services to the state are probably common topics which he could have transposedfrom any numberof exemplars. ubi id utrumque perlectumest.ARRW 42-44. istuc quoquedele . presumably." Thereare differinginterpretations of the methodsimplied in this passage.. assumed that the passage describes the readingof an earlier speech in evidence by the "clerk of court" (221... 173 Malcovati:iussi caudicemproferri. among 150 speeches that he claims to haveread.Nepos. non fosse compresaquella longe gravissima contro L. . In composing De SumptuSuo (173 Malc." (mss.26 Cato himself tells us that he drew upon his earlier speeches as a source of common topics.ubi mea oratio scripta erat de ea re. just as Plutarchor his source discounted this detail as an exaggerationsi. This content downloaded from 78. Quinzio. concludes with Hendrickson AJP 26 (1906) 197 thatthe "hundred numberof and fifty" speeches was the standard known speeches. quodsponsionemfeceramcum M.The murderof an innocentman by the consul himself may have roused his suspicions. che fra le 150 orazioni di Catone . there is reason to doubt the veracityof the "esoteric" work. 260n the accuracyof the versions extantin Livy's day. but did not accept the sensationaldetails. If." Cf. It is also possible that Cicero found somethingto confirmthe populartradition.91 on Thu. nota anche a Nepote. 19-20). and Cicero somewhat exaggeratedhis familiaritywith the corpus. . but because context or conflicting references led him to suppose that the text was not an accurate recordof the actualarguments. he tells how he had his scribe transposepassages from his speech in sponsio against a certainM. the very mention of this episode in De Senectutemay mean thatCicero was eager to dispel the fascinationof the literati with "the newly discoveredversion".90. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Cornelius. see Astin 136. Vuoldire che non l'ha letta e che scrivendoil Cato ha accolto la versione corrente. on the speech In M. perge istuc quoque uti cum maximedelere . By the usual interpretation..or to contradictthe versionthatLivy followed. and he assumes that such a procedureis familiarto his audience.

58. 38: Septimusmihi liber Originumest in manibus. 38. Sen. and 28Cic.Cato relied upon his notes and his recollection. nunc cum maxime conficio orationes.If Cato had no text of a preparedspeech against L. the completion of the all of these endeavors Origines-if we assume that Cicero. by contrast. 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. but from the same source that Plutarch later followed. It is not unlikely that Cato also edited those drafts. It is probablythis body of text that survivedto Livy's day in the family archivesof the PorciiCatones. Quinctium. as he assembled materialfor the Origines. treatmentof varioustopics of law. the researchon monumenta. Nepos. . after the event. in consequence of Cato's censorship. for which no prepared speech had been which the charges againstL.omnia antiquitatismonumenta colligo. As it is not likely that Cato published the speech separatelyas a partisanpamphlet. 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. the comment on Cato's adaptationof his speeches. "this is just the kind of imaginative detail which Cicero could have supplied for the purposes of his argument.when a serious quarrelwas revived in later proceedings. appearsto be linked to other researchfor the historical work. he may then have adaptedhis notes and common topics from later speeches to compose such an oration.where the Quinctii challenged Cato in contione. All of the latterstudies. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . that T. when the same issues arose in a later case. It is unlikely that Cato spoke from a preparedtext when he answeredthe challenge of the Quinctii: the text that Livy followed was composed. Even if we assume that Cato had a preparedspeech to answerthe protestof the Quinctii. if not for "publication. and in such cases we should expect greaterlicense in the adaptation.multoetiam Graecis litteris utor. Sen. Such editing may accountfor the discrepanciesbetween Livy's version and the nearunanimoustradition. Livy's version. the fragmentDe SumptuSuo clearly implies that Cato may have adaptedhis earlier argumentsfor inclusion in a later composition.91 on Thu. causarum illustrium. Cato'sleases andcontracts.28 In the process of adapting speeches for inclusion in the Origines. the note on sponsio belongs to a scenario such as Plutarchreports. and extensive referenceto Greek sources.the adaptationof speeches. in fact. We have seen that Livy's reference to the sponsio may derive not from the text of Cato's speech thatLivy cites.90. as Plutarchdoes. Astin (135) supposes.. could easily be related to the first. In regardto some cases." This content downloaded from 78. and it would not be surprisingif such a redactionwere laterexcerptedfrom its propercontext and given the title In L. almost certainly.. indeed it is precisely one of the activities in which he is likely to have envisaged himself engaging in old age. Quinctius. quascunque defendi.CATO'S SPEECH AGAINST FLAMININUS 327 adaptedhis earlierargumentsto greateradvantage." at least for the edification of his son and descendants (andperhapsfor limited circulationamongfamiliares).but he Livy concedes thatthe Senateinvalidated does not tell us. had some basis for attributing to Cato's later years. to producea full recordof his public life. in Cic. may yet yield a solution to the problemof publication: the speechwritingthat Cato more likely to derive from an adaptationof those charges for a later legal battle. ius augurium pontificiumcivile tracto. Flamininusled the opposition. as he completed the last book of the Origines. Flamininuswere heardagain.

we have no clear statementthat Cato was never once defeated.91 on Thu. and the faint praise of Nepos is he does not say "neverlost. .44. in Plutarchand in Livy. Flamininus. (frr. thoughLivy absolves Titus Flamininusfrom the blame that Plutarch'ssource laid upon him. condemnsT. neverable to silence his accusers. .) probablyrespondedto a tribunician challenge to variousacta of Cato's censorship." TAPA This content downloaded from 78. 2. 2. 39. is possibly a mistakeninferencefrom such statementsas we find in Nep.4 (usque ad aetatem ." This does not noteworthy. 111-20 Malc. Sen. nonetheless. he was. and Liv. precludethe possibility that Cato was on some occasion fined. 30So Fraccaro. . ValeriusFlaccus. that Cato shame- 29pliny'sclaim. Decade. But cf. Flamininusfor his vendettaagainst "a lawful magistrate and renownedpatriot" for the sake of an unworthykinsman. had Cato made the accusations in Titus' censorship. the legalities of Plutarch'saccountare problematic. Astin 106 n. and he made of Cato a righteousinquisitor. quae M.7). On Livy's handlingof the annalistictraditionhostile to T.30Livy notes that the quarrelsprovokedby Cato's nobilis censura kept him tied up in legal proceedingsthe rest of his life. and 120 (= Opusc.In this one small problem.Studi Storici per l'Antichita Classica 4 (1911)59 f. auvact?o0oeat).90. Livy acceptedwithout question the text of Cato's speech that came to light for Cato.40." but "never suffereda loss of prestige. Max. Titus was implicatedin his brother'sdisgrace (Flam.but also urged the tribunesto charge Cato with "high crimes" and demanda fine of two talents.3) were probably Cato's justification for passing over Flamininus to name his own colleague. and496 f.9.though often repeated(e. Plutarch. 42. Porcium .oftencited. CARAWAN not only succeeded in discreditingmuch of Cato'sreactionary programme.9. thatCato neverlost a case. if only because he had failed to take notice of the charges in his own term as censor (189). etiam causam dicendo fatigavit inimicos. in the course of laterdisputes. rei publicae causa suscipere inimicitiasnon destitit. per omnemvitam exercuerunt. Such recriminations (indicatedin Cic. Flamininus:the puzzling speech against M. and when the historianhimself was a young man.if in fact Cato was neverconvicted. Cat.and thereis Pliny's testimony. The insult provokedTitus to challenge Cato before the people. Livy's judgment has long gone unquestionedfrom a presumptionof Cato's veracity. "Graecia Liberata and the Role of Flamininus in Livy's Fourth 118(1988) 209-52. Flamininushimself could not have acquittedhim. Livy seems to answer such criticism of Titus in his preface to the impeachment(Liv. followedby Scullard262 f. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Liv.). Before Pliny's comment.100 (itaque sit propriumCatonis quater et quadragienscausam dixisse nec quemquamsaepius postulatumet semper absolutum). Flamininus.58.29 But thereis certainly substance to the report of later trials involving Cato and T. 457 f. NH whom dutywas moredear than kin. plebis. in the image of those stoic heroesof the early Republic. 19. 39.328 EDWIN M.g. Livy discountedthe annalisticrecordof senatorial faction in the Age of Liberation:he saw the Liberator. see my study.7): so serious were the charges Cato made against Lucius that T. Again.T. . a multis tentatusnon extremam modo nullum detrimentum existimationisfecit. Val. sed quoad vixit. probably taking his cue from Nepos. 42. as princeps senatus. Out of admiration distrustof ValeriusAntias.despite indications. Nobilis censura fuit simultatiumque plena. Caelius trib. 39. Such comments bear witness to prolongedhostilities. Cato was not likely to neglect his greatest triumphover the Quinctii. virtutumlaude crevit).

. in Astin's study.31 Cato himself tells us that he adapted and altered his earlier arguments in subsequentdisputes.2. 57.M' Acilius Glabrio. it should be subject to the same scepticism warranted attributed contradicted by any partisanclaim of an historianor statesmanapparently by his own words.g.90. he had all the more opportunityto sharpenhis invective. 2 May 2013 18:47:28 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and.. CARAWAN SouthwestMissouri State University 31E. haud sane detrectatorlaudum suarum. Plut. if he later edited his censorial speeches as Cicero suggests. The evidence on the legalities of this case and the transmissionof Cato's speeches stronglysuggests thatthe text In L.CATO'S SPEECH AGAINST FLAMININUS 329 lessly glorifiedhis own achievementsand viciously slanderedhis opponents.58. Cato ipse.. Cat. and JeffreyTatum..(pseys. ratherthan a preparedtext of the original charges.His charges against his former commander. there is often a senatus. with nn. 19. QuinctiumthatLivy followed is just such a productof revision. instead. 32Fortheir very constructivecomments I am much indebtedto ChristophKonrad. his self-aggrandizement presumptionof Cato's veracity. nXsiatra nadvrv axor6v t8ioiv tyKcoj)gio)vdptS.15. were called intestabile periurium. 34." that Nissen to it.. Nonetheless.e.Jerzy Linderski.9.5.i .g.. And in naming his colleague Valerius Flaccus princeps at Flamininus'expense is patent. This content downloaded from 78. 106 f.91 on Thu. gLyactauXia yieKOLiaCKcev. 37.32 EDWIN M. 14. o6K .15. Liv. T6ov v . 7-12. Thus Livy's version is unworthy of "the best claim to credibility. Liv..