Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

PORC0907 M. Porcius (9) M. f. Pap. Cato 'Censorius'

The authors at three different periods of the three Porcian laws cannot be identified with certainty, nor did they with certainty hold the tribunate of the Plebs. All three regulated corporal punishment and the right of appeal of Roman citizens (Cic. Rep. 2.54). The first may perhaps be attributed to Cato the Censor (see Fest. 266 L; FOR 1.182-184), a second to a Porcius Laeca (Grueber, CRRBM 1.151), and a third of uncertain attribution forbade scourging a Roman in the city (Sall. Cat. 51.21; see Grueber CRRBM 2.301). One Porcian law permitted condemned persons to go into exile (Sall. Cat. 51.40). See Niccolini, FTP 424-426; Botsford, Roman Assemblies 250-253. (Broughton MRR II Appendix 2)

Status

  • Nobilis Expand

    Cic. Brut. 15.61-16.62 (founder of family's nobilitas), VM. 3.4.6, Sen. Ep. Mor. Ad Lucil. 86.10, Macrob. 2.1.8ff

  • Novus Expand

    Liv. 39.41; Cic. Verr. 2.5.181; Cic. Mur. 17; Cic. Rep. 1.1; Vell. 2.128; Plut. Cat. 1.2

Life Dates

  • 234, birth (Sumner Orators) Expand

    Sumner R13, Develin no. 94.

  • 149, death (Rüpke 2005)

Relationships

son of
M. Porcius (3) (father of M. Porcius (9) M. f. Pap. Cato 'Censorius' (cos. 195)) (RE)
married to
1 ? Licinia (177) (married to? M. Porcius (9) M. f. Pap. Cato 'Censorius' (cos. 195)) (Zmeskal 2009)
2 Salonia (A) (married to M. Porcius (9) M. f. Pap. Cato 'Censorius' (cos. 195)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Gell XIII 20.17, Plin. n.h. VII 61f., Plut. Cato mai. 27.5(8), Solin. I 59

father of
1 M. Porcius (14) M. f. M. n. Cato Licinianus (pr. 152) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. fam. IV 6.1, Frontin. strat. IV 5.17, Iustin XXXIII 2.1, Plin. n.h. VII 112f., Plin. n.h. VII 171, Plin. n.h. VII 61f., Plin. n.h. XXIX 13f.

2 M. Porcius (15) Cato (Salonianus) (pr. c. 113) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Auct. vir. ill. 47.9, Gell XIII 20.17

grandfather of
C. Porcius (5) M. f. M. n. Pap.? Cato (cos. 114) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Verr. II iv 22

? M. Porcius (10) M. f. M. n. Pap.? Cato (cos. 118) (DPRR Team)
? L. Porcius (7) M. f. M. n. Pap.? Cato (cos. 89) (DPRR Team)
great grandfather of
M. Porcius (16) M. f. M. n. Pap.? Cato (Uticensis) (pr. 54) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Auct. vir. ill. 80.1, Plut. Cato min. 1.1, Sen. dial. VII de vita beata 21.3, Vell. II 35.2

Career

  • Tribunus Militum 214 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Served in Sicily (Nep. Cat. 1.2, 3.3; cf. Cic. Sen. 18; Auct. Vir. Ill. 47.1). See D.- G. 5.104f., no. 15; Lübker, no. 4. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Sodalis Sacris Idaeis Magnae Matris 204 to 149 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Quaestor 204 Africa (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Cicero (Sen. 10; Brut. 60) and Livy (29.25.10) agree that this was the year of Cato's quaestorship. Nepos (Cat. 1.3) agrees in his statement that Cato left Africa for Sardinia after his quaestorship, but in 1.4 (quaestor obtigit P. Africano consuli) the word consuli refers either to Scipio's status at the time of the election of Quaestors or is used loosely for proconsuli (Mommsen, Str. 2.240, note 5). According to Plutarch (Cat. Mai. 3.5) Cato was sent as Quaestor for the war in Africa, but quarrelled with Scipio regarding his conduct in Sicily, returned to Rome to denounce him and thus caused the sending of Tribunes to investigate him. Though Plutarch appears to preserve a second version of the investigation of Scipio in 205, the chronology of this account can hardly weigh against the testimony of Cicero, Livy, and probably Nepos; and Münzer's claim that their date, based on the use of the Liber Annalis of Atticus, is a conscious falsification should be rejected (Hermes 40 [1905] 68-70). Sobeck (8f.) favors 204. D.- G. (5.106) favor 205 with continuation in 204, and reject Plutarch's story. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Served under Scipio in Africa (Cic. Sen. 10 and 45, cf. 32; Brut. 60; Nep. Cato 1.3; Liv. 29.25.10; Plut. Cat. Mai. 3.5-8; Auct. Vir. Ill. 47.1; cf. Plin. NH praef. 30; Frontin. Str. 4.7.12). See D.- G. 5.106f., no. 15; Lübker, no. 4. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Aedilis Plebis 199 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Liv. 32.7.13; Nep. Cato 1.3. On Cato, see D.- G., no. 15; Lübker, no. 4. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Praetor 198 Sardinia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Election Liv. 32.7.13 Provinces and armies 32.8.5-8. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Instituted a strict regime, expelling the money-lenders and reducing his own expenses (Liv. 32.27.2-4; Nep. Cato 1.4; Plut. Cat. Mai. 6.1-3; Auct. Vir. Ill. 47.1). See D.- G., no. 15; Lübker, no. 4. (Broughton MRR I)
    • p. 729 (Brennan 2000)
  • Consul 195 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Nep. Cato 1.1; 2.1; Liv. 33.42.7; 34.1.7, and 5.2; Fast. Cap., Degrassi 48f., 121, 452f.; Chr. 354; Fast. Hyd. (Festo et Flacco); Chr. Pasc. ({Gr}); Oros. 4.20.12; Cassiod.; and on Cato, Cic. Sen. 19. Valerius was assigned Italy as his province and carried on war with the Gauls (Liv. 33.43.5; 34.22.1-3, and 42.2-4; Plut. Cat. Mai. 10.1), while Cato waged an important and successful war in Spain (Liv. 33.43.5; 34.8-9, and 11-21; Val. Max. 4.3.11; Frontin. Str. 1.1.1, and 2.5; 3.1.2, and 10.1; 4.7.31, 33, and 35; App. Ib. 39-41; Plut. Cat. Mai. 10-11; Auct. Vir. Ill. 47; Zon. 9.17; cf. FOR 1.158-166; Nep. Cato 2.1; Cic. Div. in Caec. 66; Plin. NH 14.91). He vowed an aedicula to Victoria Virgo (Liv. 35.9.6; cf. Grueber, CRRBM 2.303, 574; Cesano, Stud. Num. 1 [1942] 182f.). On Cato, see D.- G., no. 15; Lübker, no. 4; and on Valerius, Münzer, Gent. Val. 39, no. 17. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Triumphator 194 (Rich 2014) Expand
    • Triumph ex Hispania Citeriore. MRR I.344, Itgenshorst no. 172, Rich no. 171. (Rich 2014)
  • Proconsul 194 Hispania Citerior (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Returned from Spain to celebrate a triumph as Proconsul (Liv. 34.46.2-3; Nep. Cato 2.1; Act. Tr. Cap. and Tol. (Procos.), Degrassi 78f., 338f., 553; Plin. NH pref. 30; 14.44, and 91; 29.13; Plut. Cat. Mai. 11.3; cf. FOR 1.158-166; Grueber, CRRBM 2.303). See D.- G. 5.112, no. 15. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant)? 194 Gallia Cisalpina (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Perhaps served under Sempronius in Gaul as a Legate ({Gr}), but certainly not, as Plutarch says, in Thrace or on the Danube (Cat. Mai. 12.1-2). See D.- G. 5, no. 15; Lübker, no. 4.{345} (Broughton MRR I)
  • Tribunus Militum 191 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Cic. Sen. 32; Frontin. Str. 2.4.4, elected by the people; App. Syr. 18; Auct. Vir. Ill. 47; cf. Polyb. 20.10.10, on L. Valerius Flaccus; termed Legatus, Liv. 36.17.1. Served under Acilius Glabrio at Thermopylae (Liv. 36.17-18; Plut. Cat. Mai. 12-14; App. Syr. 18-19; Zon. 9.19; cf. Frontin. Str. 2.7.14). See Legates. See D.- G. 5, no. 15. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant)? 191 Achaea (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • See Tribunes of the Soldiers, and Envoys. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Cos. 195. Leg., lieut. or Tr. Mil. 191. In MRR 1.354 and 355, refer also to Phlegon Trall. 3.3, FGrH 2B, no. 257, p. 1174; Zon. 9.19.9; Astin, Cato the Censor 55-59 (tr. Mil.); Kienast, Cato der Zensor 48-50 (legatus). Augur. See MRR 1.457, and Cic. Sen. 64. The dramatic date of De Senectute is 150, but, if Cato was an augur, he must have been coopted many years before. The crucial point is whether the correct reading in Sen. 64 is in nostro collegio (BS) or in vestro collegio (L3). In the latter case he was addressing Laelius and Scipio Aemilianus (330), who might possibly, but not at all certainly, have become augurs by that date. The text tradition seems to favor nostro. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Tribunus Militum? 191 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Cato also went about various Greek towns (Plut. Cat. Mai. 12). Glabrio sent him to Rome to report the victory at Thermopylae (Liv. 36.21.4-8; Plut. Cat. Mai. 14). See D.- G. 5, no. 15. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Cos. 195. Leg., lieut. or Tr. Mil. 191. In MRR 1.354 and 355, refer also to Phlegon Trall. 3.3, FGrH 2B, no. 257, p. 1174; Zon. 9.19.9; Astin, Cato the Censor 55-59 (tr. Mil.); Kienast, Cato der Zensor 48-50 (legatus). Augur. See MRR 1.457, and Cic. Sen. 64. The dramatic date of De Senectute is 150, but, if Cato was an augur, he must have been coopted many years before. The crucial point is whether the correct reading in Sen. 64 is in nostro collegio (BS) or in vestro collegio (L3). In the latter case he was addressing Laelius and Scipio Aemilianus (330), who might possibly, but not at all certainly, have become augurs by that date. The text tradition seems to favor nostro. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Legatus (Envoy) 189 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Sent to Fulvius Nobilior in Aetolia (FOR 1.170, from Fest. 196 L). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Repulsa (Cens.) 189 (Pina Polo 2012) Expand
    • pp. 65-72 (Pina Polo 2012)
  • Censor 184 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • These won a hotly contested election (Liv. 39.40-41; Plut. Cat. Mai. 16.1-6; cf. Nep. Cato 1; Fast. Cap., Degrassi 48f., 122, 456f.). They exercised a censorship noted for its severity, in the revision of the roll of the Senate, whence Cato removed L. Flamininus, Cos. 192, in the review of the knights, when he took the horse from L. Scipio, Cos. 190, and in the leasing of the public contracts (Cic. Sen. 19; Nep. Cato 2.3; Liv. 39.42.5-44.9; Val. Max. 2.9.3; 4.5.1; Plut. Cat. Mai. 17-19; Flam. 18.3-19.4; Auct. Vir. Ill. 47.4; 53.2; cf. FOR 1.35-53, 174-186).{375} After the death of Scipio Africanus, L. Valerius Flaccus became Princeps Senatus (Liv. 39.52.1-2). On Cato, see D.- G., 5, no. 15; on Valerius, Münzer, Gent. Val. 39, no. 17. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Special Commissioners 171 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • A commission, apparently of former officials in Spain, chosen as patrons by peoples of Spain who complained of the peculations of the following governors: 1. M. Titinius (Curvus) (see 178, 177, 176), who was acquitted; 2. P. Furius Philus (see 174, 173, 172); and 3. C. (not M.) Matienus (see 173), who both went into exile (Liv. 43.2.1-11). On Cato, see D.- G. 5.130, no. 15. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Ambassador) 153 Africa, Numidia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Went as member of a commission to Carthage to mediate a dispute between Carthage and Massinissa regarding the Campi Magni and Tusca (Thugga), but retired, leaving the matter undecided, when Carthage appealed to the treaty of 201 (App. Lib. 68-69; cf. Liv. Per. 47; Plut. Cat. Mai. 26; Gsell, Hist. anc. Afr. Nord 3.319-321). See D.- G. 5.135f., no. 15. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Augur before 150 to 149 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Mentioned, Cic. Sen. 64; the dramatic date is 150, but Cato must have entered the college serveral years earlier. The evidence for Cato's augurate depends upon the correct reading in Cic. Sen. 64, whether it is 'in nostro collegio' (BS) or 'in vestro collegio' (L(1)). The latter reading is accepted as the consensus of the best manuscripts in the recent edition by Weuillemier. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Cic. Brut. 61, and 80; Plin. NH 29.15; Plut. Cat. Mai. 27.6. See D.- G. 5, no. 15; 150, Augurs. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Cos. 195. Leg., lieut. or Tr. Mil. 191. In MRR 1.354 and 355, refer also to Phlegon Trall. 3.3, FGrH 2B, no. 257, p. 1174; Zon. 9.19.9; Astin, Cato the Censor 55-59 (tr. Mil.); Kienast, Cato der Zensor 48-50 (legatus). Augur. See MRR 1.457, and Cic. Sen. 64. The dramatic date of De Senectute is 150, but, if Cato was an augur, he must have been coopted many years before. The crucial point is whether the correct reading in Sen. 64 is in nostro collegio (BS) or in vestro collegio (L3). In the latter case he was addressing Laelius and Scipio Aemilianus (330), who might possibly, but not at all certainly, have become augurs by that date. The text tradition seems to favor nostro. (Broughton MRR III)

< Back to results