In support of Clodius he pressed for the holding of the aedilician elections (Cic. Fam. 1.4.1; cf. QF 1.1.2). Attacked both proposals for the restoration of the Egyptian King, either through Lentulus Spinther, whose imperium in Cilicia he proposed to abrogate, or through Pompey (Cic. Fam. 1.2.4, 5a.2, 5b, and 7.4-7; QF 2.3.1- 4, and 4.5-6; Sest. 144; Fenestella fr. 21 Peter; Dio 39.15). He proposed a special court to prosecute Milo (Cic. QF 2.3.4). After the conference of Luca he supported the Triumvirate and was later prosecuted for his part in delaying the elections, but acquitted (Cic. Att. 4.15.4, and 16.5-6; Liv. Per. 105; Dio 39.27-31). (Broughton MRR II)
Tr. Pl. 56, Pr. 55? One charge against Cato in 54 was probably minuta maiestas (Cic. Att. 4.15.4; J. Linderski, Studi E. Volterra 2.283-302, esp. 291f), and he was also prosecuted under the Lex Fufia and acquitted (Att. 4.16.5). Why was he not prosecuted in 55 immediately after his tribunate in 56? Perhaps because of the control exercised in that year by Pompey and Crassus, but if, as seems very probable, he was the Cato praetorius who hastened away from the trial of Gabinius de maiestate in 54 in order to inform Pompey of the acquittal (Cic. QF 3.4.1; Linderski, op. cit. 287-288) he must have been praetor in 55. This was possible since his tribunate ended on December 10, 56, and the elections for 55 were not carried through until after an interregnum at the beginning of 55. See J. Jahn, Interregnum and Wahldiktatur 167-172.[169x]
(Broughton MRR III)
Quaestor?
before 50
Sicilia
(Broughton MRR II Appendix 2)
Expand
CIL 1(2).2, p. 764, nos. 382, commentary, and 383 c. Bahrfeldt interprets Por. as referring to the Portus of Panormus. For Cato in CIL Grant reads Cat. Q. (26f.) and suggests that M. Porcius Cato was Quaestor in Sicily. This is impossible since he was fully occupied in Rome (see 64, Quaestors), but C. Porcius Cato, Tr. Pl. 56, remains a possibility. (Broughton MRR II Appendix 2)