I am a Hobbes scholar and I am working on an extract where Hobbes raises a discussion by Cicero. I have two questions that I am struggling to find an answer to. 1 is, who is this Cassius? Is it Gaius Cassius Longinus or someone else? 2 is, where in Cicero is this discussion? Any help on either would be amazing. This is the original extract -
"Cicero maketh honourable mention of one of the Casii, a severe judge amongst the Romans, for a custom he had in criminal causes (where the testimony of the witnesses was not sufficient) to ask the accusers: cui bono?" (1ch47, Leviathan)
In his Latin edition he changes this slightly to:
"“Cicero somewhere makes honourable mention of a certain Roman praetor, Cassius, because in deciding criminal cases, when the testimony was not sufficient, he was accustomed to ask the accuser for what advantage the accused acted. […] For being a prudent man he thought that no one is evil gratuitously, but that whatever a person does voluntarily, he does for the sake of some good for himself. […] Therefore we shall use the same criterion to seek out the authors of doctrines which for so long now have disturbed the peace of Christian commonwealths: For what Profit?”
Thanks!
It's at Cic., Pro Rosc., 84:
L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat 'cui bono' fuisset.
That great L. Cassius, whom the Roman people considered the truest and wisest judge [i.e. juror], who was accustomed to asking in court cases over and over 'to whose benefit' it was.
L. Cassius was consul 127, censor 125, and was best known for his involvement in the prosecution of the Vestals in 113 and especially for his tribunate in 137, during which he promulgated a lex tabellaria on the secret ballot (Cic., Brut., 97; 106; Leg., 3,35 -37)
where in Cicero is this discussion?
I'm not sure what you mean. Cicero had not been born yet [Never mind, I read you wrong]. He refers to L. Cassius' principle because the whole point of the speech is that Magnus and Capito stood to gain the most from the death of Roscius' father, and that it doesn't make sense to charge Roscius when all fingers are really pointing at Magnus and Capito.
I also don't understand why Hobbes singles L. Cassius out as a praetor. He held the praetorship, but his was fairly uneventful--his tribunate and time as iudex over the Vestals is what he was famous for, and what Cicero singles him out for. Hobbes may be thinking that since praetors often presided over civil courts, Cassius must have been praetor when he made his pronouncement. But Cicero clearly calls him iudex, and the praetor would not have been a juror at the same time. Further, Hobbes incorrectly associates the praetorship with criminal courts, which is erroneous.