I had written a post yesterday on Historia Civilis' video on Cicero's consulship. Now let's look at Cato's plebeian tribunate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOiyt63_1_U. Again, I abbreviate Historia Civilis to H as if I'm writing a review in the JRS or something.

0:00. Never consul. I actually like the gag at the front about how Cato was never consul. He stood for the consulship of 51 but was defeated, allegedly because he was too honest and refused to bribe anyone. Plut Cat min 49–50. Gruen Last generation p 156 has the best comment: "the campaign seems to have been designed to win admiration rather than votes".

0:30. H calls the Catilinarian conspiracy the "Catiline conspiracy". I have never heard this expression outside of Wikipedia. That seldom augurs well. (The page was created at "Second Catilinarian conspiracy" but a nonsense redirect was transcluded to add the name "Catiline conspiracy" in 2014.) [Edit. It seems that this is somewhat common name outside academic history. "Catiline conspiracy" practically does not exist in academic history journals per full-text Jstor searches of their corpora: Journal of Roman Studies uses "Catilinarian conspiracy" 40 times but never uses "Catiline conspiracy"; Historia is similarly unbalanced 26 to 1; Transactions of the American Philological Association is 31 to 1; the American Journal of Philology is 31 to 0; Phoenix is 16 to 1; Mnemosyne is 9 to 0; Classical Quarterly is 22 to 0; Hermes is 6 to 0; Classical Philology is 26 to 0; OCD⁴ (not a journal but searchable on Oxford Reference) is 9 to 0.]

0:50. The tribunes and the constitution. H doesn't seem to have a strong grip on the Roman republic's constitution. H says tribunes can "propose legislation both to the popular assembly and the senate". The latter is false: the senate is not a legislature in the republic; it can only issue (usually very influential) advice.

H conceives of the plebeian tribunate as a "populist counterbalance to the senate". This is wrong. First, every tribune was a member of the senate (Lintott Constitution (1999) pp 68–69; since the passage of the lex Atinia, see Livy 23.23.5–6); if you were not already inducted as quaestor, the tribunate gave you a seat in the senate for life (unless removed by a censor). Moreover, prosopography shows how the Roman elite reproduced itself and one of the mechanisms for that was sending their scions into the tribunate. "It [the tribunate] was regularly held by those who would go on to higher magistracies and some of the most distinguished holders were from the plebeian nobility". Lintott Constitution (1999) p 121. H thinks the plebeian tribunate was "usually dominated by populists and reformers". This is belied by the chronology and is internally inconsistent with his later narrative on the Roman constitution.

The chronology places tribunician agitation in specific years for short times: Sulpicius in 88, Varius in 90 or so (minor), Drusus in 91, Saturninus around 100, Mamilius in 109 (more minor), Gaius Gracchus around 122, and Tiberius Gracchus in 133. These are specific persons spaced out about every decade. In a decade, there would have been around 100 tribunes (10 every year assuming no repetition) of which a handful would have been seditious agitators. Five or ten per cent does not "usually dominated" make.

H in a separate video also notes how the tribal assembly was stacked with "conservative" Italian landowners. There, H mishandles the plebeian assembly's structure (it was identical to the tribal assembly's) but, inasmuch as the assembly packed with Italian landowners is electing the tribunes, they are not going to let it be "usually dominated by populists and reformers".

H also characterises Cato as an exceptional "conservative" tribune. To believe this you need to ignore both what we know about who is elected to the tribunate (the elite), who is electing them (rich Italian landowners according to H), and now all the following tribunes: - Octavius in 133 vetoing Tiberius Gracchus' lex agraria; - Publius Satureius who was the tribune that murdered Tiberius Gracchus the same year; - Marcus Junius Pennus in 126 (opposed by Gaius Gracchus); - Livius Drusus in 122 who opposed Gaius Gracchus; - Marius Minucius Rufus in 121 opposing Gaius Gracchus; - Gaius Marius in 119 blocking grain distributions; - Gaius Baebius stopping Memmius from questioning Jugurtha on bribes given to senators in 111; - Marcus Baebius Tamphilius in 103 vetoing Saturninus' land bill; - the tribunes that vetoed a land bill in 99; - Gaius Appuleius Decianus who in 98 who prosecuted someone just for regretting Saturninus' death; - Gaius Canuleius who joined in that prosecution; - the tribunes that vetoed Quintus Varius' bill in 90 to set up the Varian commission (a political witch hunt); - the other Livius Drusus in 91 doing land distributions and trying to extend citizenship to the Italians; - Lucius Trebellius in 67 attempting to veto the lex Gabinia granting Pompey extraordinary imperium; - Publius Servilius Globulus doing the same; - Lucius Caecilius Rufus who vetoed Rullus' land reform bill in 63; - the tribunes who vetoed Gaius Herrenius' bill to make Clodius plebeian in 60; - Quintus Ancharius opposing Caesar in 59; - Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus doing the same; - Gaius Fannius doing the same; - Lucius Antistius in 58 who attempted to prosecute Caesar for actions while consul; - Titus Annius Milo (that one) in 57 opposing Clodius and supported Cicero's return; - Gaius Cestilius who supported Cicero's restoration in 57; - Gaius Cestilius doing the same; - Marcus Cispius doing the same; - Manlius Curtius doing the same; - Quintus Fabricius doing the same (he presented the bill); - Gaius Messius doing the same; - Publius Sestius doing the same; - Lucius Racilius in 56 opposing Clodius; - Publius Rutilius Lupus in 56 opposing Caesar; - Publius Quillius Gallus in 55 opposing Pompey and Crassus and vetoing the lex Trebonia; - Gaius Ateius Capito doing the same; - Gaius Memmius in 54 prosecuting Pompey's ally Gabinius for corruption; - Marcus Caeilius Rufus in 52 supporting Milo; - Quintus Manilius Cumanus doing the same; - Lucius Caecilius Metellus who attempted to stop Caesar from accessing the aerarium when he marched on Rome in 49; and - Gaius Cassius Longinus (the tyrannicide) in 49.

(I here categorise a tribune as "conservative" if he opposed a "popularis", opposed "popularis" legislation, or otherwise supported or is a politician traditionally considered to be "optimate". This is consistent with mid-century scholarship which acceded the existence of "populares" but defined "optimates" as their mechanical opponents. See Mouritsen Politics (2017) p 112.)

1:19. "Optimates" and grain. H again characterises Roman politics in terms of factions of optimates and populares. This idea comes from Mommsen in the 19th century; nobody today believes it. Party politics is unidentifiable and unsupported by the literary evidence. (It is possible to read it in if you already assume it exists, as Robb points out.) There is a lot of reading on this: M A Robb Beyond populares and optimates (2010); H Mouritsen Politics in the Roman republic (2017); E Gruen Last generation of the Roman republic (Rev ed, 1995). Even the scholars who believe that optimates and populares were ideological labels do not make it a "party" or faction. Mackie RMfP 135 (1992) pp 49–73.

In H's narrative, Cato is the leader of the conservative faction ("his faction") and says that "traditionally, the conservative faction liked to make a show of chipping away at the grain dole". To believe this, you need to ignore the restoration of the grain dole in the 70s without resistance: the lex Aemilia in 78 and the lex Terentia Cassia in 73, both enacted with senatorial support by consuls. You also have to ignore the expansion of the grain dole by the senate on the initiative of Drusus in 91. Yet, it is the case that some "conservatives" attacked the dole: Cicero did so in letters but never enacted anything about it; Sulla abolished it during his dictatorship (but Sulla's constitutional vision is hugely misunderstood see Steel CQ 64 (2014) pp 657 et seq and Steel Hist 63 (2014) pp 323 et seq).

H also characterises Cato's motive only in terms of settling the city after unrest. This is almost certainly one of the arguments. However, the ancient sources give a more personalist flavour – Cato and Caesar were bitter rivals though it was more one-sided inasmuch as Cato really hated Caesar's guts – Plut Cat min 26.1 depicts this action as a direct reaction of Caesar's attempting to do the same and accrue the popularity for himself. Drogula Cato (2019) places the bill in December 63 and done largely to steal Caesar's thunder.

3:00. The Catilinarian command. H has Cato respond to Metellus Nepos' bill by arguing that the consuls should respond instead. I can't say I know where H gets this idea because it isn't in Plut Cat min (the only source on this). Moreover, because H wrote Antonius out of the narrative in Cicero's year (Antonius was Cicero's co-consul), he fails to mention that Antonius was the general leading the fight. A victory was expected shortly; there was no need to send 62's consuls after Catiline if 63's consul was going to (and did) defeat him within a week. H also mischaracterises Catiline's army in Etruria. This was not a mere mop-up operation; Catiline was personally in command and would be killed shortly.

H also mishandles the nature of the consulship this early in the year. Catiline was defeated around 3 January. Sumner CPh 58 (1963) pp 215–19. The consuls would first have to deal with their inauguration – the term here literally meaning the granting to the consuls of the augural auspices – and a number of religious rituals (especially the feriae Latinae) in these first days. Sending the consuls would have been a non-starter. See Pina Polo Consul at Rome (2011).

Sumner's argument is the most compelling here as well: Sumner has Metellus rapidly force a vote on transfer of command from Antonius to Pompey because he gets news that Catiline is about to be defeated. He does so because he thinks it helps Pompey. Metellus therefore is trying to force the matter because there is no time. H presents very little about Metellus' motivations and fails to understand Metellus' haste.

4:45. Metellus and Caesar. H simply fails to mention the SCU against Metellus and Caesar, which was triggered by the political crisis over the command. It was the SCU which forced Metellus to flee and Caesar to back down. H's narrative – that Metellus left because he was bitter and wanted to protest – makes little sense without this capital element.

H follows, it seems, Suetonius and Plutarch's claims that Metellus' tribunate was to be nullified. This is "preposterous". Drogula Cato (2019) p 94. The reason why is because the senate had no authority to unseat tribunes during the republic. If they had the power to do so, surely the senate would have resorted to such an expedient in its many confrontations with tribunician agitation. This claim emerges from an anachronistic imperial conception of the magistracies: by the time Suetonius was writing the senate was the sole (legal) decider of magisterial elections.

Drogula, ibid p 95, views the alleged intervention of Cato to stop Metellus' deposition as a fabrication. He argues instead that what happened is a misinterpretation of events. A letter from Cicero (Fam 5.2.9) indicates that the senate voted to "relieve" Metellus (Shuckburgh's translation says "relieved from penalties") and Cicero thinks it a good thing for him, which indicates the senate probably waived Metellus' obligation as tribune to stay near the city.

H also seems to follow Suetonius' story about Caesar's praetorship being suspended (H omits this and has Caesar resign in protest to Metellus' treatment), Caesar resigning, Caesar being mobbed by supporters at his house, and then him dismissing them in peace so that the senate gives him his praetorship back. Suet Iul 16. This is impossible for the same legal reason. And also importantly no other source contains any similar story: Suetonius' story is likely concocted to make Caesar look good and "cannot be true as written". Drogula Cato (2019) pp 95–96. [Edit. This analysis was apparently first made in Frolov Mnemos (2017) pp 977–95; H therefore could not have known about this. I still stand by my remarks about H's omission of Suet's describing Caesar's suspension rather than his resignation in solidarity and Dio's contradiction.] Moreover, Dio (37.44.2) directly contradicts Suetonius' (impossible) narrative.

Omissions. After this, Cato's year largely ends. H focuses on how Cato and Caesar's rivalry grew. But he misses two important pieces of legislation in Cato's year. First, Cato passed a law making it more difficult for generals to get triumphs. Val Max 2.8.1. Second, it was Cato who passed in this year the law that later required Caesar to show up in-person to declare his candidacy (professio). It was here that Cato set up the apparatus to foil Caesar's return in 60 before the consular elections for 59. I don't know why H fails to make the connection.

Most of my sources are in-line. I use Oxford Classical Dictionary abbreviations.

The best recent biography on Cato is undoubtedly Fred K Drogula Cato the younger (OUP, 2019).

These are some other the important ones: - Broughton MRR (especially for tribunes) (nb Broughton was writing at in the late days of "party politics") - OCD⁴ (see also the recent OCD Online article by Yakobson on optimates and populares) - Morstein-Marx Julius Caesar and the Roman people (2021) - Lintott Constitution of the Roman republic (1999) - Cloud CAH² 9 (1994)

Edit. Fixed a superscript error. Amended comments on "Catiline conspiracy". Amended comments on the suspension of Caesar (or, in H, Caesar's resignation in solidarity) from his praetorship. Added link to post on H' video on Cicero.