CATILINA 
 IN CLASSIC TRADITION 
 
 A Thesis 
 for the 
 Doctorate in Philosophy 
 
 by 
 
 MATHILDA ANNA KOEHLER, M. A. 
 
Ik.. 
 
i 
 
CATILINA 
 
 IN CLASSIC TRADITION 
 A Thesis 
 
 for the 
 Doctorate in Philosophy 
 
 by 
 
 MATHILDA ANNA KOEHLER, M. A. 
 
 
13^ 
 
 ^5^ 
 
 A Thesis for the Doctorate 
 
 submitted in partial fulfillment of the 
 
 requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 in the Graduate School, 
 
 New York University, 
 
 New York 
 
 1919. 
 
 Qift 
 
 '{Jr; ■■ ■ 
 

 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^K:> 
 
 >^ 
 
 To 
 
 my Father and my Mother, 
 
 whose unfulfilled ambitions have ever 
 
 been an incentive to worthy achievement, 
 
 this thesis is dedicated ex pio animo. 
 
I 
 
 It is with the deepest sense of indebtedness to the wonder- 
 ful inspiration and noble ideals, emanating from the scholar- 
 ship and personality of 
 
 Ernest G. Sihler, Ph. D., Litt. D., 
 
 Professor of the Latin Language and Literature 
 
 at New York University, 
 
 that I would herewith tender to him public expression of my 
 recognition, appreciation, and gain, of those invaluable assets. 
 
CATILINA IN CLASSIC TRADITION 
 
 An historical review of the ancient reports chief among 
 which were those of M. TuUius Cicero, Quintus Cicero, Sal- 
 lust, Suetonius, Asconius, Plutarch, Dio Cassius, and Appian, 
 with references to modern critical surveys, destructive and 
 constructive, and a consideration of the problems incidental to 
 Catilinarian matters. 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 I Birth and Earlier Traits --___. 9 
 
 II Apprenticeship to Sulla - - - - - - -11 
 
 III Fabia __-_--__.. 12 
 
 IV The Minor Conspirac) - - - - / - - -13 
 
 V Trial for Malversation in Africa — De Catilina Defendendo 17 
 
 VI Conditioij of the Times _--__-- 19 
 
 VII Candidature in 64 B. C. - - - - - - 21 
 
 VIII In Toga Candida ..-_____ 22 
 
 IX Trial and Acquittal as Executioner under Sulla - - 23 
 
 X Preludes to the Great Conspiracy - - - - - 24 
 
 XI Motives and Associates of Catilina - - - - - 25 
 Xn Fulvia. the Detective - - - - - - - 27 
 
 XIII The First Catilinarian --_--__ 28 
 
 XIV The Contio _--_---__ 29 
 
 XV The Election Problem _______ 35 
 
 XVI Prosecution of Murena and Problem of the Date of his 
 
 Trial _---_-___- 39 
 
 XVII Documentary Evidence ------- 43 
 
 XVIII Infliction of the Penaky .-_____ 48 
 
 XIX Death of Catilina — Resulting Court Cases - - - 50 
 
 XX The Aftermath for the Consul - - - - - _ 54 
 
 XXI Sallust and Suetonius, and other historians, in brief - 54 
 
 XXII Conclusion -__-_-__-_ 56 
 XXITI Bibliography - - - - - - - - - .57 
 
Catilina In Classic Tradition 
 
 Lucius Sergius Catilina, born about io8 B. C, was a mem- 
 ber of one of the most ancient families of Rome ; a descendant 
 of that Sergestus mentioned in Vergil's Aeneid in connection 
 with the boat race/ There was no older family than the 
 Sergii in the city. Though patrician, the family had become 
 impoverished. 
 
 Catilina had gained all the offices of the Roman Cursus 
 Honorum, — quaestorship, aedileship, and the praetorship 68 
 B. C, after which he had been allotted Africa for his province. 
 Of his government as propraetor 67 B. C, Ave shall hear more. 
 Being a patrician, he was not eligible as a Tribune of the 
 Plebs. 
 
 Both Cicero' and Sallust," who present the most detailed 
 delineation of his character, agree that he was remarkable in 
 many ways; he possessed wonderful powers of physical 
 endurance and his mind was keen, but he exercised both 
 to pervert and lead astray those with whom he came into 
 contact, i)articularly influencing young boys whom he lured. 
 He checked his good impulses, restraining whatever innate 
 nobility he had inherited. That he possessed redeeming quali- 
 ties which he did not permit to gain the ascendancy is por- 
 trayed in Cicero's Pro Caelio^ where each evil tendency is 
 balanced b} a l^etter trait. The Pro Caelio gives a much 
 milder conception of Catiline than the Catilinarians do. The 
 contrasts are those of vice and virtue. His versatility drew to 
 himself the wicked, and by an apparent goodness he attracted 
 honorable men. The antithesis in the speech is strong. "A 
 man who would l)e all things to all men," Quintus Cicero' 
 describes Catiline. 
 
 His was an indomitable spirit.^ persistent in his attempts to 
 gain his goal. His determination is evinced especially in the 
 fact that although once prevented from standing for the con- 
 sulate because he had been an unjust governor in Africa, and 
 
 ^Vcrg. Acn., ancestry traced to ancient Troy. 
 
 -Cic. (!at. I, II, III, IV, chiefly, and Ins otlier works. Also -.Xsconins Frag. 
 In tog. cand., Clarendon Press. 
 ■'•Sail. Cat. 
 
 ^Cic. Pro Cael. C 4, 5. 6 (B. C. 56). 
 ■''In Cic. De Pet. Cons. 
 "Pro Mur. C. 24. 25. 
 ^Cat. I 9. 10. 
 
 tf 
 
later meeting with defeat (repulsa) in his election contest 
 with Cicero, he determined, nevertheless, to canvass again. 
 This effort, too, proved unsuccessful. Therefore, to gain his 
 point he resorted to hostile measures and intimacy with the 
 vilest men.^ ; 
 
 II 
 
 Catiline's career and reputation previous to the publicity 
 achieved by his great conspiracy are recorded by various 
 writers.^ 
 
 One of the experiences, perhaps the experience in life, 
 that had the greatest influence upon Catiline was his early 
 apprenticeship under Sulla, 8i B. C.-80 B. C. 
 - In the slaughterings of Roman Knights' he is first known 
 in the oldest and earliest written record of Sulla we have. 
 From his participation in them we gain, too, a glimpse of 
 Sulla's times. The knights and all who had been purse- 
 fillers^ under Cinna were publicly posted on proscription lists 
 after Sulla's victory, and with the bankers, whom as a class 
 Sulla hated, without trial suffered decapitation by law of war. 
 Every head was turned into the town house of Sulla and a 
 secretary identified the head and took the name of the con- 
 tributor. The slayer was entitled to a bounty of $2,000 per 
 head.* It is claimed that Catiline personally brought in about 
 ten heads ; Cicero names at least three'' not including Grati- 
 dianus. The loot was divided among the friends of Sulla. 
 
 In charge of the Gauls, who were either slaves or ex-slaves, 
 engaged to kill the proscribed, Sulla had appointed an excel- 
 lent supervisor. Lucius Sergius Catilina, whose murderous 
 instincts were ever displayed, then and later. "Nam illis 
 Gallis"^ — Gesner has even conjectured "demetebant" 
 for "demebant" — i. e., who "mowed off" heads of bankers. 
 
 Perhaps the most horrible execution was that of Marius 
 Gratidianus,' a clever politician highly esteemed by the people, 
 who had twice been, praetor under Cinna while Cinna domi- 
 nated Italy and the West during Sulla's activities in the East, 
 and before the latter's return. The head of Gratidianus had 
 been severed from his body, and Catiline himself, with his own 
 hands, had then carried it, still full of breath and living tissue, 
 through the streets of the city, from the Janiculum to Sulla 
 at the temple of Apollo.' Quintus Cicero in the De Petitione 
 Consulatus says the "blood was dripping through his fingers.'" 
 
 njvy 88, Plut., In tog. cand., Cicero, Sallust, Quintus Cicero. 
 
 -Q. Cic. De Pet. Cons. C. 2, Ascon. In tog. cand. 80, Plut. Sulla, Plut. Cat., chieflj-. 
 
 *In tog. cand. 80. 
 
 ■•Plut. Sulla, Plut. Cat. Min. 
 
 'In tog. cand. 75. 
 
 "De Pet. Cons. C. 2. 
 
 10 
 
Cicero and his brother Quintus repeatedly refer to this 
 cruel incident. These sights stirred up bitter feelings in 
 Cicero, then 25 years old (in 82 B. C.-81 B. C), for he and 
 his brother Quintus saw these acts on the Forum and sor- 
 rowed over these proscriptions. The descriptions of Quintus 
 are so vivid that there is probkbility that he saw many of 
 these acts and drew from his stock of memories'" of these 
 observations. There was some blood connection between 
 the grandfather of Cicero and this man ; Quintus and Marcus 
 Tullius therefore knew this case well, although Cicero men- 
 tions many others. 
 
 Everyone who had witnessed these exhibitions of Catiline's 
 cruelty shuddered at their very remembrance of them when- 
 ever they saw Catiline." On these memories were based the 
 people's fear of Catiline as a second Sulla.^^ The reflection of 
 the character of neither Sulla nor Catiline is very beautiful. 
 
 Sulla would pay double or triple money for that head of 
 Marius Gratidianus, who was considered the prize of prizes, 
 for he had been adopted by the great Marius and he was the 
 only man of the name of Marius whom Sulla could reach ; 
 he decreed that the eyes of Gratidianus be plucked out, and 
 his legs broken, and his hands cut ofif before being put to 
 death. It was then that the young aristocrat made his first 
 appearance upon the stage. It was a case of an "eye for an 
 eye and a tooth for a tooth," for Catulus had been a victim of 
 Marius ; therefore this Marius Gratidianus was slain on the 
 same spot. 
 
 Practically the same facts are related by Plutarch'^ in con- 
 nection with another story of Catiline's cruelty. Lucius 
 Sergius Catiline had been accused of many great offences, but 
 among the worst, which was thought to exceed all other 
 acts, was the decision, and the immediate fulfillmentof it, to 
 put his brother" out of the way. Afraid of being prosecuted 
 at law for that crime, he persuaded Sulla to enter his brother's 
 name" on the list of those to be proscribed as though he 
 were yet among the living. This request was granted, and 
 as an appreciation of the favor and an immunity for himself. 
 Catiline assassinated a certain Marcus Marius, belonqine to 
 the opposite faction. He then brought the head to Sulla in 
 the forum, and going to a near-by vessel containing the Holy 
 Water of Apollo." he washed his hands. 
 
 TJe Pet. Cons. C. 3, In tog. cand. 75, 78, 80. Sciu-ca c. T writi-s of Marius 
 "dignus erat Marius qui ilia pateretur.'' Sihlcr Cic. of Arp. p. 41 n. 3. 
 Tn tog. cand. 75, De pet. cons. 
 
 '*In tog. Cand. 80, 81. Asconius exact in detail in explanation to his sons 
 clearly established which temple and its location, for a changi- liad l)een made by 
 Augustus. 
 
 "Tn tog. cand. 75, De Pet. cons. C. 3. 
 
 ^"This 18 years previous to his composition, (De Pet. cons. 65-64 R. C). Ouintus 
 is usually a calm writer — no rhetorician — but here he is strong. C. 2, 3. 
 
 11 
 
By proscription debtors settled accounts, or grasped the 
 wealth of victims, as the price of their denunciations, and 
 Sulla's favorites had a chance to graft by bidding for the 
 properties of the unfortunates. It Was for defense of a case 
 from this period that Cicero won his first great renown as a 
 patronus" and became one of the most famous in Rome; the 
 forempst of his age. 
 
 In studying these events (81-80 B. C.) it is Avell to keep in 
 mind that Mommsen and his school contend that Cicero later 
 (65-63 B. C.) merely exaggerated the whole matter of repudia- 
 tion of debt. But is not the germ of that future plague 
 existent in these factors widely prevailing in 81-80 B. C? 
 
 "Plut. Cic, Plut. Cat., Sail. Cat. C. 15, In tog. cand. 80. 
 
 ^^Cic. Cat. II, "If Sulla's time will come once more." 
 
 ispiut. Suli., Plut. Cic. 
 
 "Plut. Sull. According to De Petit, cons. C. 2, it was a brother-in-law, Caecilius. 
 
 "Veil. II, 28, 4. Oros. V, 21, "alios proscribebant." 
 
 "Plut. Sull. 31. 
 
 "Pro Roscio Amerino. 
 
 in 
 
 Catiline, as a youth, had set at defiance all law and religion 
 and had committed many criminal offenses. In 73 B. C, Cati- 
 line was charged with an intrigue with a Vestal Virgin. A 
 priestess of Vesta found guilty of ^'incestum," i. e., lost chas- 
 tity, forfeited her life by state law ; no other woman was so 
 punished. The technical word, referring to the purity of the 
 Vestal Virginis only, is ''casta," chaste or virtuous. The con- 
 duct and chastity of the Vestals was of very particular im- 
 portance. It is recorded that Crassus^ had a kinswoman, a 
 cousin, one of the aristocracy,^ who was a Vestal Virgin and 
 because Crassus, who dealt in real estate, called on her fre- 
 quently at the Vestal Virgin house, in relation to her property 
 outside of the city, which he wanted, her name finally came 
 into question. 
 
 This trial of 73 B. C. is of especial interest because it 
 involved Fabia,^ the half-sister of Terentia, wife of Cicero : 
 both women were of the aristocracy, although Cicero was not. 
 When the suspicion of disgrace came upon Fabia, the Pon- 
 tifices under the Pontifex Maximus held a trial, investigated 
 the facts, clearly established her innocence, and gloriously 
 acquitted her. Catiline was dangerous to any pure woman ; any 
 lady acquainted with him lost in reputation, simply because 
 it was C:itiline. 
 
 *Plut. Crass. 
 
 ^Only women of tlic Iiighc-st aristocracy could be chosen Vestals. 
 
 12 
 
Sallusf .mentions the intrigue with the Vestal but does 
 not add a word about the investigation and non-conviction of 
 the Vestal. 
 
 Asconius, on the other hand, who is authority for the facts 
 of the trial, gives no intimation that Catiline stood trial, which 
 he certainly must have, if he was the accused man. 
 
 This we learn from Orosius/ Avho establishes the trial as of 
 73 B. C. Marcus and Quintus Cicero both bring in this Fabian 
 matter. Evidently Catiline committed adultery and the 
 abominable act of besmirching the name of a maiden of the 
 nobility, for we read "Cum deprehendebare in adulteriis . . ."" 
 and also "Dicitur Catilina adulterium commisisse cum ea quae 
 ei postea socrus fuit, et ex eo natam stupro duxisse uxorem,. 
 cum filia eius esset. Hoc Lucceius quoque Catilinae obicit in 
 oratonibus quas in eum scripsit," but Asconius says he had not 
 discovered the names of the two women." The case of the 
 maiden is probably the one referred to by Sallust C.-15 and 
 Plutarch. Sallust implies that he committed other flagrant 
 indiscretions but does not specify^ others. 
 
 "In tog. cand. 82, De Pet. Cons. C. 3. 
 
 *Sall. Cat. C. 15. 
 
 50ros. VI, 3. 
 
 'In tog. cand. 82. 
 
 ^Sall. Cat. C. 9-1 .S is rot exact in narration of early crimes. Pint. Cic, Plut. Cat.. 
 
 IV 
 
 The Minor Conspiracy, or so-called first conspiracy of 
 Catiline, has quite as much matter to commend it to our 
 serious thought as will the later great conspiracy. Some of 
 the leading characters in this one will assume their same roles 
 in the later one; the very underlying motive, though more 
 disguised in the earlier one. becomes the gigantic peril in the 
 later one ; the same perverted forces will be directed against 
 the government; and the same indifferent guards of the 
 republic are present, until in the later attempt a vigilant 
 consul rouses them from their lethargy. 
 
 The information, in regard to it, is to be had from various 
 sources, and it looms upon the horizon as a very potential 
 monster, whose foot-prints the wary hunter must ever track. 
 
 Suetonius* brings to light the fact that Caesar and Crassus 
 bad made a pact whereby they planned that at the inaugura- 
 tion of the consuls on January ist. 65 B. C, they would have 
 the Senate attacked, Crassus usurping the Dictatorship and 
 
 ^Suet. \'it. J. Caes. 1, 9; of this complicity in a plot Sallust says notliing, cf. Cic. 
 Phil. IT. In tog. cand. 83, Sihler Cacs. c. 9. 
 2In tog. cand. 74. 82. 
 3.App. Ticll. Civ. TV. 1. 
 
 13 
 
naming Caesar, now about thirty-five years, old, as Master 
 of Horse.' Caesar was already somewhat conspicuous as a 
 leader of the great party called Populares. At this time, how- 
 ever, the Senatorial Party was still the better organized. A 
 brief, but rather necessary, description of Caesar at this period 
 to throw light on later events might be interposed here; it is 
 taken from Appian.' Caesar was still a young man, forceful 
 in speech and deed, daring to a high degree, ambitious of all 
 honors, and lavish beyond his means in their pursuit ; thereby 
 he incurred heavy debts, though he was very popular with 
 the general public, who are ever wont to praise him who is 
 generous with gifts. 
 
 The tv/o hoped to gain the aforesaid advantages through 
 P. Autronius Paetus* and P. Cornelius Sulla,' who had been 
 -consuls-elect for 65 B. C, but were, unfortunately, indicted 
 on a charge of Ambitus," brought by Torquatus and two of 
 their colleagues. Since they were found guilty of paying 
 their way into office, Torquatus, with another competitor, 
 Cotta, entered office on Jan. ist. 65 B. C. 
 
 It has also been said that Autronius and Sulla were financed 
 "by Crassus and Caesar, although Caesar needed much himself 
 •at this period ; his career was very tortuous at this time. The 
 deposed candidates were without hope, therefore, of replen- 
 ishing empty coffers with the spoil of proconsular provinces. 
 Conviction on the charge of Ambitus usually implied financial 
 Tuin. Both men were destitute and impoverished ; in the case 
 of Autronius it was especially true. 
 
 For this reason they might the more readily enter into a 
 conspiracy^ against citizens which would include their success- 
 ful competitors, Cotta and Torquatus, the newly placed con- 
 suls, and during the riot they might assassinate them, seize 
 the fasces and maneuver to obtain their provinces and so the 
 money. Apparently Autronius was won over to such 
 argument. 
 
 *Sall. Cat. XVIII, Cic. Pro Bull. V, XXIV, XXV, Cicero frequently names 
 Autronius as a conspirator both in the lesser and greater attempts. He later defended 
 Sulla charged with complicity in the great conspiracy, refusing the case of Autronius, 
 who repeatedly requested Cicero to be his patronus; but Cicero believed him really 
 guilty. Pro. Sull. C. 6. 
 
 *In tog. cand. 74. Crassus is named the originator of the plot. T.ivy c. Cl, 
 Pro Sull. c. 24 sqq. 
 
 ^Undet Lex Calpurnia de Ambitu of the year 67 B. C. imposing penalties for 
 "bribery: brought forward by C. Calpurnius Piso and directed against the buying of 
 votes. Ambitus is an illegal process which came to be a defect or disease in the 
 politics of that age; it came to mean electoral corruption. Few men in that period 
 were elected without it; Cicero was one of the few. Lex Calpurnia was passed by 
 the consuls themselves, says Dio, and stipulated expulsion forever from the senate, 
 and from any office, and a fine to be imposed, v. In tog. cand. 79. The Lex 
 Cornelia dc Ambitu of Sulla's time (81-80 B. C.) had not been quite as severe as 
 1he one of 67 B. C. It merely expelled for 10 years. There was a regular court 
 for Amliitus. v. Mommscn. Roemisches Strafrecht. 
 
 14 
 
In union with Autronius' were to be Catiline and Gneius 
 PivSo/ a young patrician of most daring spirit, in need and 
 discontented. His poverty and vicious principles urged him 
 to countenance any disturbance. All these were splendid 
 tools in the labor of undermining the foundations of the state ! 
 Piso was then to be sent with an army to take possession of 
 the two Spains.'*' 
 
 Catiline had desired to b^ a candidate^^ for consul, but could 
 not present himself as one Avithin the legitimate number" of 
 days, for he had a recent blot on his record ; he was under 
 indictment in the court Repetundarum for malversation as 
 propraetor in Africa ;^' and for this reason he was ineligible 
 in 66 B. C. for the consulate of 65 B. C. He was always on 
 the *'Qui Aave" for riot, usurpation, murder, proscription, or 
 any infamous act ; unless he died or there was a revolution, 
 his trial would surely come ofif in 65 B. C. He does not work 
 into the program most prominently nor assume his largest 
 and most important sphere until after this plot, which was 
 scheduled for Jan. i, 65 B. C, and which leaked out and was 
 not carried out. It is recorded some, through remorse or 
 fear, did not keep the date set for the slaughter. That the 
 matter did not come to a head is bad for the historian ; the 
 time for it was most favorable, with the army far away, with 
 Pompey warring in Pontus" and Armenia ; thus there was 
 no sufficient force at Rome to suppress a revolution. Surely 
 the idea of a clever, far-sighted person. The concerted meas- 
 ures*^ of these men were discovered and defeated, due, as has 
 been said, to the absence from his assigned post of one of the 
 principals who was to give the impetus to the whole afifair. 
 This conspiracy of the unsuccessful candidates is given in a 
 very few words by Livy." 
 
 The execution of the design was then postponed" to Feb- 
 ruary 5th, when the conspirators considered*^ the destruction, 
 not only of consuls but of the senate also. On that date too 
 there was a hitch in the operations. Catiline in front of the 
 senate house was too premature in giving the signal to his 
 associates, since all his armed fellow-conspirators had not yet 
 gathered in* numbers sufficient to warrant an attack. The lack 
 
 ^Sall. Cat. XVIII, Pro Sull. C. 24. 
 
 8In tog., cand. 82, 83, Cic. Pro. Mur. C. 38, Sail. Cat. XVIII, Suet. J. Caes. C. 12. 
 Die does not relate. 
 
 "Pro Sull. C. 24, In tog. cand. 82, 83, Sail. Cat. XIX. 
 
 i«Sall. Cat. XIX. 
 
 "In tog. cand. 80. 
 
 "Sail. Cat. XVin. 
 
 "In tog. cand. 76. 
 
 "Plut. Cic, Florus IV. I, Sal. Cat. XVI. 
 
 "Sail. Cat. XVIII. 
 
 "Livy CI, Dio 36, 44. 
 
 15 
 
of concerted effort defeated his purpose ; otherwise there 
 would have been executed the most atrocious outrage since 
 the founding of the city. Fortunately the plot was never con- 
 summated. Horrible acts would have ensued if it had been ! 
 "Quod ni Catilina . . . eo die post conditam urbem 
 Romam pessumum facinus . . . "^^ 
 
 Does not this whole transaction presage the danger which 
 within three years threatened to overwhelm the common- 
 wealth, and for preventing which Cicero suff'ered/" and for 
 which heroism he has been abused by some ancient historians'' 
 and some more modern critics?^ 
 
 The aristocracy let the whole matter pass by. Piso, the 
 Catiline the second, the little Spanish dagger/^ was after- 
 wards sent as quaestor with praetorian authority to Spain, 
 where he had a good chance to fill his pockets. According 
 to Sallust, Crassus promoted this appointment because he 
 knew him to be a bitter enemy to Gneius Pompey. The senate, 
 too, were not unwilling to grant him the province, for they 
 desired so infamous a man to be removed from the city. 
 Some, too, thought he might be a foil against the power of 
 Pompey, which was daily growing. On Piso's march to his 
 province the provincials could not endure his cruel, unjust 
 commands and harsh treatment, and he was finallv murdered 
 by cavalrymen, a Spanish native escort, once under Pompey. 
 Some declared that these former faithful soldiers of Pompey 
 attacked Piso with Pompey's approbation^* and at his instiga- 
 tion, since they had never been known to commit such out- 
 rages and were usually patient under severe orders. Sallust. 
 however, does not undertake to prove the assertions. 
 
 Plutarch" calls Catiline the leader in the conspiracy of 
 January 65 B. C. and February 65 B. C. — not quite accurately, 
 however — the real leaders were Crassus^*" and Caesar ; they 
 fathered the plan ; they were the powers behind the move- 
 ment ; Catiline was only subsidiary at this time, although he 
 got in deep in trouble. The only name which Plutarch saw 
 in Tiro's account was that of Catiline because it was the only 
 name Cicero cared to give out. Tiro could not mention the 
 two members of the regency, for Cicero at the time Tiro was 
 accumulating his notes for the biography was leaning on those 
 dynasts for maintenance of life and property. However, 
 ^'there were those" who were seeking to disturb the present 
 
 "Livy CI, In tog. cand. 83, Sail. Cat. XVIIT, Monimsen. 
 
 "Sail. Cat. XVIII. 
 
 "Sal. Cat. XVIII. 
 
 2«Cic. De Domo, In Piso., Ad Att., Phil. II, Pro Cacl. 
 
 2iDio. 
 
 ^^Drumann, Mommsen, John, etc. 
 
 ^Hn tog. cand. 83, Sail. Cat. XIX. 
 
 ^"In tos. cand. 83, Sail. Cat. XIX. 
 
 16 
 
situation (i. e. period approximately between (^y B. C. and 
 62 B. C.) to incite'* the dissatisfied to commotion for the sake 
 of private benefits." 
 
 25Plut. Cic. c. 10. 
 
 26In tog. cand. 74, 82, Sail. Cat. XLVIII, XLIX. 
 
 ^■fSuet. Vit. J. Caes. I, 12, Cic. Phil. II, Plut. Cic, Sihler Ann. of Caes. c. 9. 
 
 28Plut. Cic, Flor. IV, I, In tog. cand. 74, 8^2, Ad Att. I, 2, 65 B. C. 
 
 V 
 
 A further detail about that trial of Catiline for abuse of the 
 provincials in Africa/ his assignment after his praetorship. 
 Their ambassadors on the floor of the senate made many 
 serious complaints' against him while he was yet in the 
 province, concerning his outrageous conduct in office. When 
 Catiline appeared, an investigation was already on regarding 
 his government there; this in the consulship of Torquatus 
 and Cotta. 
 
 Publius Clodius Pulcher brought forward these charges of 
 Extortion (Repetundarum) (P. Clodio accusante . . .).' 
 There is a question as to who was Catiline's counsel at that 
 time. There are those who with Fenestella claim that Cati- 
 line was at this time defended on that charge by Cicero. They 
 l)ase their allegation that Cicero entertained the idea on his 
 own words, ''Hoc tempore Catilinam competitorem nostrum 
 defendere cogitamus,"* at the time matters were actually in 
 progress and Catiline was to come to trial, and that Cicero as 
 much as agreed to be his patronus ; also that he wrote, "Judices 
 habemus, quos voluimus, sumnia accusatoris voluntate. Spero. 
 si absolutus erit, conjunctiorem ilium nobis fore in ratione 
 petitionis ; sin aliter acciderit, humaniter feremus." 
 
 It would appear as if the accuser (P. Clodius) had been in 
 collusion^ with Catiline and had had conferences as to what 
 jurors should be admitted, i. e. he exercised his right of 
 rejectio (challenging) against such jurors as were unfavor- 
 ably disposed to the accused ; such collusion with one's oppo- 
 nent was called "praevaricatio." 
 
 ^In tog. cand. 76, 79. 
 
 -Pro. Cael. c. 4. Indicted in 66 15. C. trial in 65 l'>. C". 
 
 ^In tog. cand. 76, Drumann v. V, uses this as a strong factor against Cicero. 
 Incidentally it may be noted that this same youth, here on the offensive against 
 Catilina, when later seeking vengeance from his enemy Cicero for his own sujjposed 
 wrongs, takes the defensive in behalf of the conspirators, and has Cicero banished 
 'for executing Roman citizens uncondemned. 
 
 ^Ad Att. I, 2, i, Pro Bull. Sec. 81, In Pro Cael. c. 6, Cicero says that at one 
 time he did not even suspect Catiline. It would have been quite natural that he 
 should now defend Catiline as he afterwards defended Fonteius. Cicero's way to 
 distinction depended upon his achieving a great position at the bar. and it would 
 have been very adverse to his ultimate chance of the consulship if lie had now- 
 refused to undertake important cases. The time came when Cicero could pick 
 and choose his briefs but it had not yet arrived. 
 
 'In tog. cand. 76. Ad Att. T, 2. letter of Aug. 65 R. C. 
 
 17 
 
1 
 
 Cicero expresses a hope that if Catiline shall be acquitted 
 that he shall be more closely associated with him in a general 
 plan of candidacy. Those confessions of Cicero, while they 
 do not warrant any admiration, would have made his act 
 neither immoral nor unprofessional. However, Cicero aban- 
 doned the defence f he thought better of it no doubt as a thing 
 indefensible, and his better judgment made him drop it. This 
 is put forward by the detractors of Cicero as proof that he 
 was at this time making advances toward the popular party, 
 but Catiline was not at this time regarded as the leader of 
 the popular party, and if Cicero had defended him, he would 
 have been doing nothing at all politically significant. 
 
 Asconius, who closely examined the records, greatly doubts, 
 in fact, says he does not believe Fenestella's^ assertion, since 
 Cicero does not mention this prosecution of Clodius against 
 Catiline, and his own defence of the case, although he might 
 have used it to excite ill-will against a rival making an elec- 
 tion pact against him ; it is rendered especially clear by the 
 fact that Cicero in the very same speech reproaches his other 
 competitor, Antonius, with some slight services which he had 
 done him in his candidature for the praetorship and some 
 his benefits derived through his (Cicero's) kindness. In tog. 
 cand. 76. 
 
 Asconius fights against the notion of Cicero having de- 
 fended Catiline — *Tf he had defended Catiline, would he not 
 have protected him?" — if it were only a short time ago that 
 Cicero had been his patronus and had spoken in his defense. 
 In tog. cand. 76. 
 
 The argument in the In Tog*a Candida throughout this sec- 
 tion is splendid ! 
 
 Is it then creditable that if Cicero had really defended Cati- 
 line he would have failed to twit him with the fact? More- 
 over, Asconius pins his belief on the fact, also, that Cicero, in 
 attacking Clodius* later, refers to this case as he would not 
 have, if he had been a party to it. 
 
 Another argument that contradicts Drumann's position that 
 Cicero undertook the case is found in the De Petitione Con- 
 stilatus^ in which Quintus Cicero urges Marcus Cicero to 
 read repeatedly (saepius legito) the court records of the case 
 now over, for all praetorian court records could be read, and 
 if Cicero had had the case and had heard all the affidavits, 
 what need for him to have read them at all? Any one could 
 take the case" but we are sure Cicero did not ; it is not arguing' 
 from sense, says Asconius. If he had defended Catiline, could 
 
 ^Was not Cicero engaged in the defense of Cornelius about tiiis time? Asconius, 
 Pro Corn., Sihler Cic. of Arp. p. 118. 
 
 ^In tog. cand. 76. Fenestella, a Roman scholar, who flourished about 14 A. D. 
 'Cic. Harusp. Respons. Sec. 42. 
 «Dc Petit. Cons. c. 3. 
 
 18 
 
he have said in the In Toga Candida, "Miserable man, not to 
 see that by that verdict you w^ere not acquitted but reserved 
 for a more serious punishment?"" As a matter of fact, Cicero 
 did not defend Catiline. 
 
 But Cicero bemoans the ineflfectuar' results of the trial — 
 if such it can be called — for Catiline was acquitted — if acquit- 
 tal it must be named — through smudge ; although the senators 
 found him guilty, — a fact v\^hich angered him the more at 
 them and in^his later designs loomed large, — the equites and 
 tribuni aerarii acquitted him. "Nam judicium quoque secutum 
 est repetundarum, quo ipse per infamiam liberatus est Catilina, 
 sed ita ut senatorum urna damnaret, equitum et tribunorum 
 absolveret." 
 
 Catiline was tried late in the summer of 65 B. C. when 
 Cicero intended to go north to canvass for a consulship for 
 the year 67, B. C. By paying an enormous sum, of money to 
 the prosecutor Clodius, Catiline induced Clodius to queer 
 (praevaricare) or throw his own prosecution or defence, so 
 as to lose it. The jurors, too, had to be bribed." Some left the 
 trial because no money was to be had. \ye can from these 
 two incidents alone, conceive an idea of Catiline's gigantic 
 need for money. He left that trial absolutely destitute — 
 worse than a pauper — (egestas). He was reduced to poverty 
 in the gratification of his ambition, but withal was courted by 
 men and women of power and position." 
 
 loPro Sull. Sec. 81, In tog. cand. 76. 
 "In tog. cand. 77, 78. 
 i2In tog. cand. 78, 80. 
 
 ^^In tog. cand. 80, De Harusp. Respons. Sec. 42. 
 
 "App. Bell. Civ. II, 2, In tog. cand. 74, Pro. Cacl. c. 6. He had a charm to 
 attract men. 
 
 VI 
 
 That the economic basis during these years was desperately^ 
 bad and this condition widespread is attested also by Sallust, 
 who in this matter is probably free from rhetorical effect and 
 assumptions and gives us the truth unadorned. His general 
 description^ does not refer to 63 B. C. only but likewise to a 
 few years preceding. It was universal debt — mark it well — 
 debt caused by unlimited indulgence, which was the root of 
 this whole Catilinarian evil ; debt, vast in Italy, and, Sallust 
 emphasizes, in the whole world. 
 
 Scattered throughout Italy were Sulla's veterans who had 
 squandered too lavishly their ill-gotten gains ; with them com- 
 1)ined the spendthrifts, .whose funds were always "nil." All 
 classes" who had the same motives and necessities banded 
 together. It was then that Catiline resolved to overwhelm 
 the state. Docs not the defense of the \'iew of Mommsen and his 
 
 19 
 
school fall to the ground in the face of such facts — an argu- 
 ment which claims that the peril was. not as great as Cicero 
 portrays it ?* 
 
 Cicero's own colleague in the consulship, Antonius, bid fair 
 to membership in the insolvent class before his election. He 
 was almost bankrupt and was liquidating himself, his affairs 
 were so to speak in the sheriff's hands; matters were not 
 yet adjusted; they were still in the process of settlement. 
 Antonius was really very hard pressed for cash;' he hated 
 his own shadow, fearful that it was someone requesting a 
 payment. It was a terrible social disgrace if one were not 
 able to meet one's financial obligations, no matter what the 
 reason — whether due to vice, mismanagement, or misfortune. 
 Antonius had once given out contracts® for race horses ; it was 
 not good form for a senator to do so, nevertheless. He had 
 also driven a chariot in Sulla's triumph.. 
 
 Moreover, bankruptcy and insolvency were a disqualifica- 
 tion for offtce. A senator, too, who was impoverished, auto- 
 matically dropped out of the senate or was eliminated by the 
 censor. Therefore Antonius, who was bidding for the consul- 
 ship, auctioned^ off all his pastures in South Italy and parted 
 with all his stock for a financial consideration, retaining only 
 his slaves in order to have a following, should he ever require 
 their aid in an uprising. Therefore, Macedon^ in 62 B. C. 
 promised to be a welcome province for the proconsul to 
 rehabilitate his fortunes. 
 
 The agreement^ had been made between the two consuls, 
 Cicero and Antonius, probably before their entrance upon 
 their duties at the first of the year 63 B. C, and at the former's 
 suggestion, that the province, which by recourse to the lots, — 
 by which assignment of proconsular provinces was usually 
 determined, — had come to Cicero, would be resigned 
 and Antonius might have" that lucrative one of Macedon. 
 The role of Antonius in this pact was to preserve loyalty 
 toward his colleague during their tenure of office that year 
 (63 B. C). In addition, on the day of his installation" as 
 consul, Cicero renounced all claim, as proconsul, to any advan- 
 tage or any province" whatever, although Gaul, which he had 
 taken in exchange from Antonius, was most desirable and 
 well equipped. The people objected to his not having his 
 honor, but he thought it advantageous to the republic at that 
 time not to accept the proconsulate. 
 
 It is absolutely incorrect" to say Cicero wished to stay in 
 Rome because of his law practice. Dio does not give credit 
 
 iSuet. Vit. J. Caes., Sail. Cat. XVI. 
 
 -Cat. I, 31, Flor. Ill, 12. 
 
 ='Pio Mur. c. 25, Sail. Cat. XMT. In Piso. c. 2. 
 
 *C\c,. Cat. II, Sail. Cat. XVII. 
 
 "De Petit. Cons. c. 2. 
 
 "In toR. cand. 79, 83. 
 
 2(1 
 
to Cicero's nobler motive at all. Dio seemingly does not care 
 if he has facts upon which to base or not in assigning a motive. 
 He pragmatizes. 
 
 Cicero tells us that by patience and calm conduct he won"' 
 over his colleague, eager for a province, and harboring^" many 
 thoughts injurious to the state. Throughout their year of 
 administration the negative character of Antonius was sub- 
 servient to the stronger one near him. Cicero was virtually 
 the head of that government during that term ; Antonius 
 seems not to have presided. 
 
 ^In tog. cand. 78. 
 
 ^Plut. Cic. c. 12, Sail. Cat. XXVI. 
 
 Hn Piso. c. 2. 
 
 i«In Piso. c. 2, 25. Yr.63 B. C. Sail. Cat. XXVJ. 
 
 "De leg. agrar. I, 25, 26. 
 
 J^In Piso. c. 2. 
 
 ^»Dio 33. 
 
 "In Piso. c. 2, Pro Cad. 31^ Sail. Cat. XXIT, XXVI. 
 
 ^^Pro Cael. c. 31. 
 
 VII 
 
 Catiline sued for the consulship in 64 B. C. The consulate 
 in his design was merely a stepping stone,^ an expectation to 
 go forward to autocratic power; he was desirous of procuring 
 a strong position to carry on his designs. He wished to be 
 a second' Sulla with this difference ; we read nowhere that 
 Catiline had imputed to him any motive for gaining the 
 supreme office in Rome — whether by fair means or foul — 
 except that ever present one of freeing himself and his asso- 
 ciates from debt and enriching all. Sulla at least made some 
 improvements;' Catiline entertained no policy of reform. He 
 intended to use his office for a general upheaval. The majority 
 of honorable citizens appreciated this, for Rome was in a 
 dangerous condition, ripe for change." The seething mass of 
 discontented were inclined for any eruption. They were dis- 
 satisfied at the unequal distribution of wealth and property ; 
 or, if of a higher social rank, had impoverished themselves 
 through magnificent display. It needed only a slight tremor 
 to ])ut all into motion ; any recklessly venturesome person 
 might easily accomplish such purpose. 
 
 Catiline confidently expected to be elected' and had great 
 hopes of being appointed with Gains Antonius" as his col- 
 league. The suspicion of his ulterior purposes caused his 
 defeat and really^ elected^ Cicero, whom the people readily 
 received although he was descended from a father of the 
 equestrian and not of the senatorial order. The chiefs of the 
 state had always thwarted Catiline's every move to present 
 himself, even as in 66 R. C. The senatorial i^artv liad deprived* 
 
 21 
 
him of a magistrate's dignity as a result of his guilt in the 
 trial Repetundarum. The knights held against him his 
 participation m the Sullan proscriptions The plebs always 
 looked upon him with a shudder for his cruelties. Every class 
 was against him. Why his boldness to stand for office? He 
 relied upon his aristocratic birth to win him his object. 
 
 ^Plut. Cic. c. XI. 
 
 -'Cat. II, c. 9, etc. App. Bell. Civ. II. '1. 
 
 ^Especially court reforms. 
 
 *Plut. Cic. c. XI. 
 
 ^Pro Mur. c. 2.1, 24, 25, App. Bell. Civ., Plut. Cic. XI, In tog. cand. 1^9, Sail. 
 Cat. XXVI. 
 
 «"A man able to lead neither in a good cause nor a bad one but a valuable 
 ■addition to another's power." Plut. Cic. Also In tog. cand. Argum., 74. 
 
 ^In tog. cand. 84, Plut. Cic. c. XI. 
 
 *In tog cand. SO. 
 
 VIII 
 
 Election by bribery/ always bad, was daily increasing and 
 becoming so irksome that Cicero brought forward a proposal'/ 
 to make sharper the punishment therefor. 
 
 Probably urged by Crassus^ and Caesar, both later of the 
 triumvirate, Q. Mucius Orestinus tr. pi. (tribunus plebis) 
 vetoed this bill to increase the penalty for violation of the law 
 •of Ambitus, and the veto of this measure carried. It was then 
 that Cicero inveighed (In Toga Candida) against Antonius 
 and Catiline, the chief offenders, for their coalition to keep 
 him out of the consulship. He also charged that Crassus was 
 the originator* of the scheme to keep him out of the election. 
 Cicero knew a few days before the election who were the 
 big factors opposed to him, namely Crassus, the richest man 
 in Rome, the greatest financier of his day, seeking to make 
 himself influential ; and Caesar, head of the populares. 
 Antonius and Catiline were financilly set up by these two 
 politicians. Cicero tells us that his two chief rivals in connec- 
 tion with their union of purj^ose had intimacy with men promi- 
 nent'' in public life. The two candidates with their main 
 adherents had met a few days before (the Comitia of 64 B. C. 
 were to be held in a very few days) at the home of either 
 Crassus or Caesar ; these two powerful men so keen for 
 Cicero's defeat were bitterly ojiposed to him because thev 
 observed he was daily growing in influence and if he gained 
 
 ifn tog. cand. 74, 79. 
 
 =Lex TuUia de Ambitu adding 10 years exile to previous law (Lex Calpurnia). 
 Dio credits the added severity to the law of Ambitus as the reason for the conspiracy 
 <(,n , 29). Sail. Cat. c. 15 assigns another reason for the inception of that plot. 
 
 'In tog. cand. 74. 
 
 *In tog. cand. 74. 
 
 •""'Plut. Cic. TI, In log. cand. 74. 
 
 27 
 
the highest position they reahzed a man so eloquent could 
 block anything. They therefore aided and abetted his 
 opponents. 
 
 From this speech, spontaneous as was the first oration 
 against Catiline later, we glean data on the former lives of 
 Antonius and Catiline. The views of Catiline, who is far ahead 
 in importance in crime, are more numerous, about four to 
 one of Antonius ; none are particularly pleasing pictures. 
 
 If we were to confine ourselves to only the In Toga Candida 
 of Marcus TuUius Cicero and the De Petitione Consulatus by 
 Quintus Cicero, we would still have abundance of material to 
 form a basis for a conception of the dangers of the age. There 
 is some grain of truth in the matter there given. 
 
 It is Cicero's conception that if Antonius and Catiline were 
 elected it would place two assassins (duas sicas* — two daggers) 
 into the consular chairs for there were really only three candi- 
 dates' worthy of mention. But Catiline and Antonius needed 
 the office badly for the benefit of the provinces which came 
 later. This speech (In Tog. Cand.) called forth a most bitter 
 attack upon Cicero by both Catiline and Antonius, who in their 
 rejoinder scoffed at his ''Novitas," i. e. his prominence gained 
 through his own efforts without the backing of an aristo- 
 cratic pedigree, an ''upstart" so to speak. Another term of 
 contumel}^ which they hurled at him was 'Tnquilinus," i. e. 
 man who is a renter (Sail. XXXI), or transferred meaning, 
 ''A man Avho was not born in Rome." All this invective did 
 not prevent the "Homo Novus"^ from being unanimously 
 elected consul, with his colleague Antonius winning ovei 
 Catiline by only a few votes." It may be added that the 
 "obscure renter" became possessor of several villas ere his. 
 untimely death closed a most varied and interesting career. 
 
 "In tog. cand. 83. 
 
 'Tlic others were practically out of the running. In tog. cand. Arguni. 
 
 " hi ciuattuor jacebant." 
 
 sMan without ancestry. Sail. Cat. XXIV. 
 
 ■'In tog. cand. 84. Declared first consul by all. In Pis. c; 1. 
 
 IX 
 
 Here must be introduced Catiline's trial for murder com- 
 mitted during Sulla's regime.' At the time of the election 
 Catiline had not yet been brought before the court. After 
 the Comitia of 64 B. C. had declared him unsuccessful he was 
 brought before the special court Mntcr Sicarios' (murder 
 cases) as defendant against the charge of I.. Lucceius," later 
 a consul. 
 
 The judge of this special court/' which passed decision on 
 the murder cases under Sulla, was Caesar. He presided as 
 Ouaesitor Extraordinarius ; lie was not yet prnctc^r. Notice 
 
 2Z 
 
should be taken how inconsistent and unfair Caesar was in 
 dealing with the different criminals. 
 
 Cicero says that L. Luscius, a centurion, who was enriched 
 by the Sullan harvest, was condemned before this commis- 
 sion for killing proscribed citizens, as were other executioners 
 under Sulla, but that Catiline, the most infamous, and guilty 
 of the same charge, was acquitted not much later. Even an 
 uncle of Catiline, Bellienus^ by name, is said to have been 
 condemned about this same time. This inconsistency bring"s 
 to mind also the '"Bona Dea'' episode of 62 B, C, after which 
 Caesar's wife" was punished at his instigation, but Clodius 
 acquitted. 
 
 This acquittaT of Catiline means much ; it was probably 
 the important step in the series which led to the great climax. 
 This decision of Caesar that Catiline was ''Not guilty" is 
 an important chapter in the story. If Catiline had been found 
 ^'Guilty," Cicero's consulship would have been calm, for 
 Catiline Avould not have run for the consulship for 62 B. C. ; 
 he would not have been wiped off the board, he simply would 
 not ever have had a place on it. But Caesar and Crassus had 
 use for Catiline.^ 
 
 ^Dio 37, 10. In tog. cand. 75, 80. 
 
 ^v. c. JII of this dissertation; In tog. cand. 81. 
 
 ^In tog. cand. All the other courts were full; therefore the organization of this 
 special one. 
 
 *In tog. cand. 81. 
 
 ^Caesar divorced his wife after this scandal, for according to himself, even 
 ihough she were guiltless, no tai>it of shame must smirch Caesar's name. 
 
 *In tog. cand. 81, also c. II of this thesis. 
 
 'In tog. cand. 74, also Mommsen. 
 
 / 
 
 X 
 
 Certain preludes to the Catilinarian affair met Cicero's con- 
 sulate. What we know is found in Dio Cassius 37, 27, who 
 obtained his material from Livy. Cicero's induction into his 
 consulship was immediately followed by many preliminary 
 troubles, which for the time, effaced Catiline as chief object 
 of attention, although his aspirations were not yet generally 
 known. 
 
 One of the most important preludes was the problem of 
 the rehabilitation of the sons of those proscribed in 81 B. C, 
 when fathers were exiled, their fortunes lost, but worse fate, 
 their sons also disfranchised, — this was most cruel of Sulla. 
 This considerable number of those disqualified by the laws 
 of Sulla from holding public offices, now began to present 
 themselves as candidates. By their demagogical methods they 
 tended to excite the populace by their just, although untimely, 
 censure of Sulla's tyranny, and caused turbulent disorder in 
 the government. 
 
 .24 
 
^; 
 
 A colleague of RuUus proposed a special law to re-instate 
 ihese. From Cicero's opposition^ to this bill we gain a con- 
 ception of the unrest of the times ; for Cicero had the idea 
 that it was not a good season when any matter that was 
 settled should become unsettled. Such then was Cicero's view 
 of the social discontent; Cicero feared an uprising; therefore 
 he desired as little else of disturbance. The change' in gov- 
 ernment instituted by Sulla which at first seemed without 
 reason had in time and by usage come to be considered by 
 the people as no unsatisfactory settlement. 
 
 Also, RuUus himself, the other tribune, proposed a measure 
 t'tppointing a commission of ten with unlimited authority, 
 who should be vested with power to sell all public lands of 
 Italy and in all provinces, even in Syria and Pompey's newly 
 conquered domains ; they were really to establish a rule of 
 autocratic power. Plutarch says they were too to pass judg- 
 ment upon and banish whom they pleased ; they were to 
 establish colonies; have free access to the treasury; levy and 
 pay Avhatever soldiery was deemed essential. These last pro- 
 visions were probably not in the law or Cicero would not have 
 forgotten to mention them in his speech' in opposition to that 
 law. Several of the nobility favored this bill but especially 
 Antonius, the colleague of Cicero, who hoped to be one of the 
 ten. The nobles distrusted him particularly because they 
 thought him cognizant of, and favorable to, the designs of 
 Catiline, because of his (Antonius') heavy indebtedness. How- 
 ever Plutarch is probably again incorrect on this point for 
 Cicero and Antonius had made their pact concerning procon- 
 sular provinces ere this ; therefore there is doubt concerning 
 Plutarch's statement that Antonius worked for the daw and 
 then received pay. Moreover, he has been telling of events of 
 63 B. C. and then jumps back' to the spring or summer of 64 
 B. C. when Antonius because of his debts was not ill-pleased 
 to be assured of a rich province (Macedon) at the expiration 
 of his consulship. Dio, too, is not exact ; Antonius did not 
 co-operate during this year. Early in the year he and Cicero 
 had settled the choice of provinces for their proconsular vear. 
 and Antonius was now no longer a factor.* 
 
 ^Onc of tlu- lost speeches. De Prescript. Libcris. 
 
 2Pint. Cic. c. XT, Flor. JV, 1. 
 
 •''I)c I-ci,'. agrar. 
 
 ^Plut. Cic. Xn. Sal. Cat. XXVT. 
 
 XI 
 
 Catiline is descril)ed in Appian^ as a i)erson of importance, 
 of great celebrity, and high birth, but a mad man — 'emplektos 
 — a felicitous adjective, historians think, meaning rcckk\ssiu\ss 
 approaching insanity. 
 
 25 
 
The enormity of his acts bears out such descriptions. He 
 hesitated at no crime when his desire was to be satisfied, even 
 though it included murder in his own home. He was finally 
 seized with a passion for Aurelia Orestilla,' whose reputation 
 was such that no good man at any time commended anything 
 but her beauty. Because she had a dread of having a grown 
 up step-son, she w^as unwilling to marry Catiline, who it is 
 confidently believed therefore cleared his house for his mar- 
 riage by putting to death his own son. Sallust however gives 
 no proof of this atrocity ; he assumes it is true, and assigns the 
 crime in his belief as the chief reason for pushing forward 
 the conspiracy, because his guilty mind gave him no rest ; 
 which Sallust deduces from the fact that his complexion, 
 expression, and mien were not those of one whose conscience 
 was free from crime. Sallust, copying from Cicero, inserts 
 this description in the incorrect place.^ 
 
 However, did he have a conscience after his Sullan exploits? 
 His training as the ward, friend, and zealous partisan of Sulla,"* 
 as one who brought in heads for a stipulated sum, well fitted 
 him to commit such murder, however weak his motive. 
 
 Long' characterizes Sallust's assumptions as based on no 
 proof, sometimes displaying his incapacity to do what he had 
 undertaken — i. e. as a contemporary writer to record a history 
 of what he considered a memorable attempt to force a revo- 
 lution. 
 
 That one who was a patrician and descended from a most 
 Tcucient family should engage* in so notorious a design may 
 seem strange, but is really of small consideration, for behold 
 the old Roman names that follow in his wake : Sullae, Curii, 
 Porcii, Cethegi, Antonii, Varguntei, Longini, all names of 
 illustrious men, former ornaments of the senate, but now 
 representing accomplices in a nefarious undertaking.'^ Nor 
 must Lentulus* be omitted, from whom, and some say also 
 from the consul," he had the heartiest co-operation" in Rome. 
 Lentulus, because of his vile life, had been expelled from the 
 senate, 70 B. C, and had now been elected praetor" that he 
 might again gain senatorial rank. 
 
 All these members of senatorial and equestrian orders, 
 Catiline had as suoporters in his horrid attempt.'' Joined with 
 these aristocrats were some of the lowest characters'" in Rome, 
 and those always eager for a revolution, besides some colon- 
 ists, to whom he held forth the promises of cancellation of 
 debts, re-assi.s:nments of land, and all else by which he could 
 best attract them. As a pledge to unite them in the plot, he 
 
 ^\pp. Bell Civ. II, 2. All the codices say Gaius Catilina. The Latin version of 
 Candidus says Lucius. 
 
 2Sail. Cat. c. XV, .App. Bell. Civ. II, 1, Cic. Cat. I. Sec. 17. 
 
 spro Mur. c. 24, Sail. Cat. c. XV, App. Bell. Civ. II, 1. 
 
 ^\pp. Bell. Civ. II, 2, Plut. Sull., In tog. cand. 75, 78, De Pet. Cons. c. 2. 
 
 ^Long. C. L.. Declirre of the Rom. Rcpub., Sal. Cat. c. XV. 
 
 26 
 
obliged the most prominent and most powerful" — among 
 whom Antonius, the consul, was incorrectly included by some 
 historians, to take an oath in an unholy manner. Florus'' 
 records human blood was introduced, which they drank. Dio^^ 
 goes further, and worse, and says that a boy was sacrificed, 
 and the oath of allegiance administered by Catiline, who in 
 company with his companions then tasted of the flesh. 
 
 All these abandoned" citizens got together in clandestine 
 meetings and prepared most miserable ruin for the country. 
 
 Once more it seemed an opportune time for an outbreak 
 since Pompey was still in the east, remote from Rome, and 
 in Italy there was no sufficient army ; again the senate was 
 exercising no special vigilance. The senatorial body, the city, 
 the treasury, the consulate, the government, all objects for 
 future destruction or plunder or subjugation seemed in prime 
 condition for this direful undertaking. There seemed no weak 
 link in the chain. But they reckoned without just one factor, 
 stronger than they, — the vigilance of a faithful custodian of 
 the government who detected their later notorious crime. 
 
 «Florus IV, 1. 
 
 ^Sall. adds Caes. & Crass., Flor. IV, 1, Cat. I, Veil. II, 34. 
 sPro Sull. c. 11, c. 19, Ad Att. 2, 1, 3, Dio 30, 29. 
 sPro Cael. c. 31, Sail. Cat. XXII, XXVI, In Pis. c. 2. 
 lODio 30, 29. 
 
 "Cat., Sail. Cat. makes Lentulus of consular rank. A mistake; he never was 
 consul. 
 
 "Flor. IV, 1, Veil. II, 34, 35. 
 
 "Dio 30, 29. 
 
 i*In Dio 37-29, In Piso. c. 2— Pro Cael. c. 31, Sail. Cat. XXII, XXYI. 
 
 ispior. IV, 1. 
 
 i«Dio 30-29. 
 
 "Pro Sull. c. 11. 
 
 XII 
 
 Although Catiline had escaped the attention of the general 
 public because of the interest in the problems of the earlier 
 period of Cicero's consulship, Cicero nevertheless from the 
 first day that he, as highest official in the government, had 
 the authority to use public funds for state business, engaged 
 Fulvia,^ the mistress of Ouintus Curius, to report to him all 
 information relative to Catiline's moves which she drew out of 
 Curius, a well-known gambler,^ and one of Catiline's coterie. 
 These designs while still secret were thus communicated to 
 Cicero. This Fulvia kept her counsel from her lover con- 
 cerning Cicero's interest in the news of the meetings which 
 Curius attended and the projects there discussed. It was she 
 who revealed the atrocious project, for she was unwilling to 
 be guilty of treason.^ Both Fulvia and Curius profited by the 
 money paid to Fulvia as a detective for the state. Curius 
 
 .27 
 
had a certain eminence among those of the decadents of that 
 period. He later turned state's evidence* in the trial and was 
 one of the informers against Caesar, when the personnel of 
 the body of the conspirators was under discussion and 
 investigation. 
 
 Dio' would have us believe that Cicero had quite a number 
 of detectives investigating. That is inaccurate ; he had Fulvia 
 and her lover who acquainted him with Catiline's designs, 
 whether of personal attacks or governmental disorders. It 
 is only later that the Allobroges* figure as informers. 
 
 Through his informant, plots were disclosed to Cicero 
 which endangered all. Therefore on October 21st, the senate 
 assembled to confer, and in Catiline's presence the plots were 
 exposed. The senate then charged the consuls to deliberate 
 for the welfare of the state, clothing them with the power to 
 use martial law,^the maximum power allowed a magistrate. 
 
 Catiline had been retained under private arrest at the home 
 of Metellus, but managed to send notice to his associates to 
 meet at Laeca's home, and he escaped Metellus' vigilance and 
 went to the meeting. 
 
 Meanwhile the Manlian camp at Faesulae in Etruria had 
 already been established, armed against the republic. Catiline, 
 during the night between Nov. 6-7th, met his partisans at 
 the home of M. Laeca, as has been said ; there leaders were 
 chosen, work assigned, and agents appointed to slay Cicero, 
 who, forewarned, refused them admittance next morning.* 
 Pro. Sull. c. 18. 
 
 ^Cat. I, 4, Sail. Cat. XXIII. Curius had been promising Fulvia wonderful 
 possessions, vainly boasting that he would soon be in a position of great power. 
 Thus leaked out hints of the conspiracy on foot. Not many informers as Dio 
 pragmatizes 37, 33, App. Bell. Civ. II, Sail. Cat. XXVI, XXVIII. 
 
 2In tog. cand. 83, 84. 
 
 3Sall. Cat. XXIII and Plut. Cic. call her a lady of nobility. Florus IV-1 calls 
 her a low creature. 
 
 *App. Bell. Civ., V. also c. XVII, & XIX of this thesis. 
 
 «Dio 37, 33. 
 
 «Cat. Ill, Sail. Cat. XLIV. 
 
 ^Sall. Cat. XXIX. 
 
 *Sall. Cat. XXIII, Cic. Cat. I, 4, Cat. I, 10, names Vargunteius (a senator) and 
 C. Cornelius (a knight); Sail. Cat. repoi-ts the same; App. Bell. Civ. II, 3, designates 
 the assassins to be as Lentulus and Cethegus when Catiline has departed. Plut. 
 XVT records Cethegus and Marcius; see Schwartz-Hermes. 
 
 XIII 
 
 On Nov. 8th, the senatorial assembly, for greater protection, 
 met in the temple of Jupiter Stator, where was delivered that 
 extemporaneous, scathing denunciation of Catiline upon his 
 bold appearance at that meeting, contrary to all expectation. 
 Cicero's spirit was aroused at his effrontery. A resume of the 
 Catilinarian T follows:^ 
 
 28 
 
Cicero harangues Catiline severely ; mentions the fate of 
 previous revolutionists ; and bemoans'' the remissness of the 
 consuls of his own consulship, namely Antonius and himself. 
 Cicero then states his reasons for his leniency up to this date 
 and makes it plain to Catiline that he is fully aw^are of his 
 movements, since he has received full information to that 
 effect.^ He urges Catiline to leave the city at once and join 
 Manlius,* for he has incurred the hatred of all citizens because 
 of his career of crime. In a speech spoken in 55 B. C, Cicero, 
 hi referring to this period of his career, says, ''I bade Catiline 
 planning to leave the city, to go, in order that we 
 could be safe."'^ 
 
 In Cat. I, 7, Cicero expresses the sentiments of Catiline's 
 fellow members of the senate toward Catiline, and the verdict 
 of the state. He then discusses Catiline's own proposal to 
 place himself in custody," and the very evident judgment of 
 the senate concerning him. 
 
 Cicero realizes the uselessness of pleading with Catiline for 
 a change of conduct and narrates some details of the low life 
 to which Catiline, a member of a patrician family, has fallen. 
 
 Cicero has thus far shown forebearance because he desired 
 all citizens to be convinced of the nature of the conspiracy, 
 for only then would the state realize the necessity for defeat- 
 ing not only Catiline but the whole conspiracy,^ and cease 
 to be inactive. 
 
 In the peroration of the first oration, Cicero's speech is in 
 reality a noble prayer to Jupiter to protect his peo])le. This 
 touch shows one of the orator's realizations of the fitness of 
 things, for the meeting is held in the tem])le and so Cicero 
 turns to the simulacrum, away from the culprit. All are 
 swayed by this splendid appeal, the prayer to the tutelar deity. 
 There's dignity, there's majesty in his words! 
 
 ''Dio gives none of this. Cicero's speech written and published later. Cat. T. 
 furious and threatening in tone, is a document of events, v. also Pro Sull. c. 18. 19. 
 
 2Cat. T, ]. 
 
 'Cat. 1, 3, 4, Sail. Cat. XXIIT. Florus says that Catiline left threatening 
 general ruin to all. 
 
 *Cat.*I, 5. 
 
 "In Piso. c. 2. 
 
 "Catiline had offered himself to Cicero as a house jirisotier. Init Cicero refused 
 to harbor him; he then went to the house of the Praetor, O. Metellus, in order not 
 to be suspected; from there to M. Metellus. Cat. I, c. S. 
 
 ^Cat. T, 11, rz. 
 
 XIV 
 
 When Catiline attempted to answer the charges made 
 against him by Cicero the senate would not give him the floor 
 and instead called him a traitor and other names indicative of 
 the crimes in which he had participated. Catiline then llir(\'U- 
 ened to head the leaderless mob.'' 
 
 29 
 
He rushed from the temple and during the night following- 
 Cicero's delivery of his eloquent and indignant address to 
 Catiline, the latter left Rome, ostensibly into exile at Mar- 
 seilles, in reality to join Manlius in his camp at Faesulae,. 
 intending to advance under arms against the city. Never was 
 Catiline to see his native city again. 
 
 On the following day, November 9th, Cicero assembled the 
 people in the forum to relate all that h^ad taken place in the 
 senate. He pointed out to them the advantage it was to the 
 republic that Catiline had gone; that they need feel no fear 
 from Catiline's forces ; he would watch. He urged those con- 
 federates in crime still in the city to become normal citizens 
 and assured them of the vengeance of the law if they per- 
 sisted, in their hostile intention. 
 
 Catiline had departed from Rome and Cicero was very 
 happy, though he felt certain that now an open conflict be- 
 tween citizens and conspirators was probable.^ 
 
 Cicero states his reasons* for allowing Catiline to depart 
 from the city. He did not immediately arrest and execute 
 him because there are citizens who really doubt the existence 
 of a conspiracy, and these must be convinced by proof, and 
 Cicero, we learn, did his best to obtain all necessary evidence f 
 and moreover, there are many men who sympathize in Cati- 
 line's movement. 
 
 Cicero's greatest regret is that Catiline did not take all his 
 cojifederates with him because the actual danger arises from 
 those still in the city.^ There are however some advantages 
 accruing from Catiline's withdrawal because Catiline is a 
 leader in all crimes and furnishes a rendezvous for all disso- 
 lute and abandoned men who have become his supporters 
 and so not tolerable to those interested in the preservation 
 and welfare of the commonwealth. Catiline is intimate with 
 all classes of people.' Again Cicero begs the citizens to be 
 alive to the exigencies of the hour. 
 
 In the speech in the senate on November 8th, 65 B. C, the 
 day previous to the address to the Roman people (Nov. 9th. 
 B. C), strong suggestions were made to Catiline that he leave 
 the city immediately. Since Cicero voiced the sentiment of 
 the senate in this request, the statement has been made that 
 it was Cicero who drove Catiline into exile. Cicero states* 
 that Catiline was not banished by the consul but voluntarily 
 left after that meeting of Nov. 8th. Cicero feels the criti- 
 cisms from all sides and realizes the dif¥iculties of his i)osition 
 but is content provided the state remains intact. His allusion 
 
 'Pro Mur. c. 25. 
 
 ^Sall. Cat. XXVT, Pro Sull. c. 19, Cat. IT. c. 6. 7. 9. 
 
 ''Cat. II, 1. 
 
 "Cat II, 2, etc. 
 
 ••Sail. Cat. XXITT. 
 
 30 
 
is to the unsuccessful attempt of Catiline's men to assassinate 
 him at his own home a few days previous.'"* 
 
 Among the men who are Catiline's adherents are the 
 wealthy farmers whose estates have been mortgaged ; the 
 debtors to whom cancellation of their debts was promised by 
 Catiline (novas tabulas) ;" the former veterans of Sulla's army 
 who had squandered their apportionment received upon their 
 return with him ;" the men who have been declared bankrupt 
 and whose financial status is hopeless ; the criminals guilty 
 of the various capital crimes ; and lastly that class composed 
 of Catiline's own particular and boon companions in vice and 
 debauchery. Cicero had hopes of reforming all classes but 
 the last ; these he considered beyond redemption." 
 
 The outcome of the struggle with the conspirators, Cicero 
 feels, is not doubtful, but constant vigilance is necessary be- 
 cause of the friends of the conspiracy in the city who must 
 expect no quarter nor favor." Cicero assures the people that 
 if the gods are propitious the existing situation will soon be 
 quietly settled, for he hopes to crush the efforts toward revo- 
 lution without recourse to arms." 
 
 In Livy CII, year 688 B. C. (64 B. C.) we read that Catiline 
 having been twice defeated in his efforts to obtain the consul- 
 ship, formed a conspiracy with Lentulus, Cethegus, and 
 others. Their aim was to destroy the consul, and the senate, 
 to set the city afire, and to seize the commonwealth. In B. C. 
 ■63, this conspiracy was discovered and frustrated by the 
 efforts of the consul. 
 
 The brief statement in the preserved contents to Livy Bk. 
 CII informs us that Catiline in A. U. C. 689 (63 B. C.) was 
 driven out of Rome and raised an army in Etruria ; the other 
 -conspirators were punished with death. 
 
 Paterculus too is brief, merely recording that Catiline was 
 compelled through fear of extraordinary powers (S. C. U.),'" 
 conferred on the consuls, to flee from the city. 
 
 He was confronted with his evil purposes by Cicero, where- 
 upon he fled from the city, says Plutarch (Cat.). 
 
 He was actuated""' by an idea to change the existing condi- 
 tions and also to arouse the entire empire and throw every- 
 thing into turmoil. He was forced to flee before the proofs 
 against him were complete; before all his ultimate purposes 
 were uncovered. 
 
 «Cat. IT, c. 3, 12. 
 
 ■^Cat. II, c. 4, 5, Pro Cacl. c. 5. 6* 
 
 «Cat. II. c. 6, 7. 9, Pro SuH. c. 5. In Pis. c. S, Cat. III. 2, Sail. Cat. XXX IT. 
 XXXIV, XXXVI. 
 
 "Cat. I, 4, Sail. Cat. XXVII, XXVIIT. Pro Suil. o. 18. 
 
 ^"Sall. Cat. XXI, Cat. I, c. 8. 9. 10. 
 
 "Sail. Cat. XXI, XXVIII. 
 
 "Cat. II, c. 10, Sec. 22, 23. 
 
 "Cat. TI, c. 3, 12. 
 
 "Cat. If, 0. 13. V. latiT results r. X\1I this tlu-sis. 
 
 31 
 
Catiline plotted a wicked and general upheavar' of the 
 Roman state by sedition and open warfare. 
 
 Lentulus'* and Cethegus remained with several others to 
 continue the work. They found fault with Catiline as one 
 who lacked courage and was cowardly and weak in his 
 schemes. They determined to set the city on hre and to over- 
 throw the government, to rouse the nations to revolt, and 
 to urge foreign wars. This plan too was discovered by 
 Cicero, as lias l)een told in the life of Cicero by the same 
 author (Plutarch). 
 
 Of greater length is the accouixt of of .Vppian.'' Catiline 
 departed to join Manlius, with the intention of enlisting addi- 
 tional forces and of invading the city while it was afire. As 
 though he were already a. consul, he journeyed to Manlius 
 with rods and axes^" borne before him. 
 
 At the time'^ the conspiracy was at its height," Catiline was 
 appointed in the camp to manage the destruction of the 
 republic. 
 
 He had l^een allowed to depart'^ out of the city — he whom 
 Cicero says should never have left it alive f* to him Autronius 
 had sent arms, trumpets, bugles, scythes,"^ standards and 
 legions. 
 
 Catiline's chief support'^ and leader of veterans at Faesulae, 
 was ]\Ianlius," a man most experienced in military affairs, 
 since he had served with distinction as a centurion under 
 Sulla, and a spendthrift of repute. What he had reaped under 
 Sulla's generous provision for plunder — immense sum though 
 it had been — was already spent in corrupt practices, and he 
 was keen for further adventure. 
 
 As soon as information'^ was received of Catiline's arrival 
 at Faesulae, the further plan for those in the city was for 
 Lentulus and Cethegus, his accomplices, to call early in the 
 morning at the home of Cicero, and while in conversation 
 with him, slay him with the daggers which they would carry 
 concealed. 
 
 ^^Senatus consullum ultimum invested the consuls with power to use martial 
 law; it was without doubt assigned the consuls on Oct. 21, 63 T>. C. : one of the 
 absolutely certain dates; a bed rock of chronology. 
 
 "Plut. Caes.— Plut. Cat. 
 
 "Plut. Cat. III. 
 
 ii^Plut. Caes. and Cat., Sail. Cat. XXXII. 
 
 i^App. Bell. Civ. 
 
 -"Sail. Cat. XXXVI. Not quite correct in Appian. 
 
 2iPro Sull. c. 19. • 
 
 -2Pro Sull. c. 11. 
 
 23Pro Sull. c. 5, Cat. II. 
 
 2*Pro Mur. c. 25. 
 
 ^"Therc arc commentators who proi)ose fasces instead of faices here, which is 
 probably the sense of the thought. 
 
 2ei)io 37, 29. 
 
 2'The Greek reads Mallios, in .\pi)ian, Plutarch, Dio, v. Cat. I c. 4. Pro Sull. c. 18. 
 
 28App. Bell. Civ. Sail. Cat. XXVIT. XXVIII, XXXII. 
 
 32 
 
Lucius Bestia/" the tribune, was at once to assemble the 
 people and accuse Cicero of timidity and inciting the people 
 to warfare, and of causing unnecessary disturbance in the 
 city. 
 
 The night following Bestia's address to the people the city 
 was to be set on fire by others in twelve places, according to 
 Appian ; there Avas to be general plundering and assassina- 
 tion of the leading citizens. 
 
 Cassius^** was appointed to superintend the conflagration ; 
 Cethegus, the massacre; and Autronius had allotted to him the 
 task of occupying Italy. 
 
 Thus schemed" Lentulus, Cethegus, Statilius, and Cassius, 
 the leaders in the plot, and they awaited the appointed time. 
 Lentulus,^' after Catiline went to Etruria, promised himself the 
 royal supremacy, prophesied for his family in the Sibylline 
 books ; he distributed throughout the city in readiness for the 
 day appointed by Catiline, men, combustibles, and weapons. 
 
 During the course of these preparations, information 
 reached Cicero ; first, of events occurring in the city by means 
 of some letters,"^' sent anonymously, which were given to Cras- 
 sus and some other influential men. A decree was passed 
 that a state of disorder existed and that search should be 
 made for the agitators. Next came the news from Etruria 
 whereupon the senate voted also to the consuls the guardian- 
 ship of the city and its interests. 
 
 After his second defeat at the polls Catiline prepared then 
 for his attack, engaging lost men in his cause, and no longer 
 directing his aims secretly, nor against Cicero and his con- 
 stituents only but against the whole state. Cicero too would 
 make us think that it was not a personaf* matter between him- 
 self and Catiline, but the enmity was against him (Cicero) as 
 chief representative, and an honorable one, watchful of the 
 state's interests just as it was against any mn officially protect- 
 ing the constitutional rights of the republic. Cato, too, scrupu- 
 lous and just upholder of the laws of the city, was as much sub- 
 ject to attack as the consul. "Neque isti me meo nomine inter- 
 ficere sed vigilantem consulem . . . volunt ; nee minus vel- 
 lent, Cato, te . . . tollere." This at the time of the 
 conflict. Later (19 years) he renders the same version of 
 the struggle, i. e. that it was all a question of the cancella- 
 tion of debts. In this retrospect he does not even mention 
 Catiline. "Numquam vehementius actum est quam me consule 
 sule (63 B. C), ne solveretur ; armis et castris temptata res 
 est ab omni genere hominum et ordine, qui1)us ita rcstiti, ut 
 
 2»App. Bell. Civ. 
 
 "Pro Sull. c. 19, V, also c. 5. 
 
 '^App. Bell. Civ. 
 
 82Florns lY, 1. 
 
 »»nio 37, 29. 
 
 33 
 
hoc totum malum de republica tolleretur.'"*" This passage, 
 which agrees with his sentiments at the time of the events, is 
 but another argument that the upheaval in 63 B. C. was but 
 the result of the general tendency toward decadence, and 
 not a fabrication of an imaginative consul endeavoring to stir 
 up the populace, as some critics would have us believe. 
 
 To resume the narrative : 
 
 Of this same period Plutarch writes that Catiline, with his 
 conspirators, was at first subdued and discouraged but soon 
 began to be courageous again. They gathered together, 
 exhorting each other to boldly undertake their plan before 
 Pompey's'" return, who, with his forces, was reported to be 
 en route to Rome. 
 
 One of the important paragraphs in Sallust voices the daily 
 thought of these financially embarrassed citizens, whose con- 
 stant cry was, "What is left for us but a wretched existence?" 
 Therefore, to them the promise of the repudiation of debts — 
 Tabulae Novae — came as a most welcome salvation. 
 
 Sulla's old soldiers were Catiline's chief stimulus to action, 
 however. Though disbanded all through Italy, their greatest 
 number and most aggressive members were scattered among 
 the cities of Etruria, which had been excited to revolt, as well 
 as a great part of Gaul within the Alps. These were dream- 
 ing of the riches and plunder to be gotten from the hoarded 
 wealth of Italy. They affiliated with Catiline and came to 
 Rome to aid him with votes at the election of 63 B. C, for he 
 had again presented himself for the consulship, having deter- 
 mined to kill Cicero in the tumult at the elections. Dio,^' 
 more particular in this instance than Plutarch, says Catiline 
 had a band ready to kill Cicero. Catiline felt he would then 
 be elected if Cicero were killed. 
 
 It was during the conduct^^ of this election of 63 B. C. for 
 62 B. C. that a charge was to be made upon Cicero, who as 
 chief official would preside over the election. The plot^" did 
 not turn out successfully. Cicero had gained some inkling of 
 the threats against his life and came surrounded and escorted 
 by men from Reate ; he wore as an additional protection a 
 steel corselet which the style of wearing his gown permitted 
 to be seen. John*" is angered at Cicero for that trick, but 
 Cicero was enraged against Catiline's party and we may sup- 
 pose considered his life in danger, although he realized the 
 corselet would not entirely cover him, for he thought Catiline 
 would aim not for his chest" but rather for his head. Cicero's 
 intention was that all honorable men might see the armor 
 and so, as they actually did, rush to his aid. ''His tum rebus 
 commotus, et quod homines iam tum conjuratos cum gladiis 
 
 "Pro Mur. c. 38. 
 
 ^»De Offic. 2, 84 in Nov. 44 B. C. 
 •■■•'Sail. Cat. XXVII, Plut. Cic. c. 11. 
 
 34 
 
in campum deduci a Catilina sciebam, descendi in campum 
 cum firmissimo praesidio . . . lata lorica . . . Cati- 
 linam non latiis . . . sed caput . . . petere 
 omnes boni animadverterent . . . in metu et periculo 
 consulem viderent . . . ad opem conciirrerent." And yet 
 there are some'' who agree he did it to cause calumny against 
 Catiline and his partisans. 
 
 The sight'' of this breastplate, and a rumor of an attempt 
 against Cicero's life being circulated, caused the populace to 
 become furiously angry and Catiline's associates through fear 
 became quiescent. 
 
 s^Dio, ^7, 29. 
 
 ^*Sall. Cat. XXVI. The date of this particular election was long a subject of 
 controversy. 
 
 39Sall. Cat. XXVI, Cic. Pro Mur. c. 26, Pro Sull. Sec. 51; see also c. XII of 
 this thesis. 
 
 "**'Constantin John accuses Cicero of acting on the emotions of the populace to magnify 
 peril. I 
 
 "Pro Mur. c. 26. 
 
 42Dio i7, '29. 
 
 ^^Plut. Cic. adds that future trouble seemed foreshadowed by the divine powers 
 in earthquakes, thunderbolts, and unwonted appearances, v. Livy 22 for Prodigia. 
 
 XV 
 
 The chronology of the Catilinarian history still bears much 
 investigation, demanding a keen handling of tradition. There 
 is a question as to the time of the consular election of 63 B. C. 
 In the speech in defence of Murena we get more about the 
 election than perhaps in any other text. 
 
 The date of the annual election was not a settled matter ; 
 the consuls had some freedom in the choice of day ; they were 
 not dependent upon a stated day; their judgment without the 
 consent of the senate could decide the day.^ The usual season 
 was late July or early August, for no courts were held during- 
 these months. 
 
 Constantin John with his follower Heitland is of the opinion 
 that the election of 63 B. C. took place in July or August, the 
 usual season, and not later in the year, but do not events 
 prove that theory unstable? Mommsen" holds that the elec- 
 tion was held November 4th. 
 
 In endeavoring to approximate the date of the consular 
 election of 63 B. C. for 62 B. C, use will be made almost 
 exclusively of Cicero's speech in defence of Murena. For 
 this reason the arguments will consist mainly of transcrip- 
 tions from that speech of those passages which to my mind 
 seem to contain hints on Avhich T base my theory that the cloc- 
 
 iPro Mur. In Vcrr. 
 2Monograi)h 1901. 
 
 35 
 
tion was held later in the year. I may have read and under- 
 stood incorrectly ; my angle of vision may not have afforded 
 the proper perspective, but the following are my conceptions 
 of the subject, gained from my viewpoint. 
 
 In the course of his defence,"* Cicero reminds the jury of 
 their own apprehensions, and those of all good men, lest Cati- 
 line become consul at that time, when there became public 
 some of the utterances which Catiline was reported to have 
 made at an assembly at his own house, which caused his 
 ambitions to become definitely known. Therefore when the 
 rumors of that seditious speech were rife, the consul requested 
 the men of the jury to recollect that a resolution* of the senate 
 was passed, on his motion," that the Comitia should not be 
 held the following day, in order that the senate might discuss 
 those very matters in the senate, and deliberate upon these, 
 the most important recent developments, in Catiline's enter- 
 prise. Accordingly, the next day Avas assembled a full meet- 
 ing of the senate, at which Catiline himself ap])eared, much 
 to the surprise and consternation of Cicero, and then Cicero 
 delivered his famous ist CafHinarian.'' 
 
 Evidently there had yet been no election up to the time Cati- 
 line addressed his confreres. Also history generally agrees 
 that the senatorial meeting was held and Cicero's first invec- 
 tive was delivered, on Nov. 8, 63 B. C, and since Cicero had 
 moved that the Comitia should not be held as had been stated. 
 we must perforce believe the election came later, and could 
 not have been even as early as Nov. 8, leaving out of the argu- 
 ment entirely the question of the usual July or August season. 
 
 At the close of Cicero's harangue, which consisted of de- 
 mands for explanation of reports of misdeeds, of a presenta- 
 tion of personal knowledge of misdemeanors up to date, and 
 of a scathing denunciation of a disloyal citizen of Rome, Cati- 
 line, not accustomed to disguising his intentions, did not 
 attempt to vindicate^ himself and disavow the accusations but 
 rather boldly embraced and accepted them by responding to 
 the consul in a most fiery declaration of his intentions. After 
 this, he rushed triumphantly forth from the senate house. 
 
 When the citizens finally realized the intensity of Catiline's 
 hopes and desires they were eager to repef that pest from the 
 state and immediately joined the party of Murena, since Sul- 
 picius had, apparently, abaridoned a canvass for a consulship, 
 for a prosecutor's pursuit of proof against a bribe giver. If the 
 number of voters for Murena was increased because of Cati- 
 line's avowal of purpose on Nov. 8th. the idea is conveyed that 
 
 •■'Pro Miir. c. 24. 2S, Sail. Cat. XX. Cat. I. 
 ^Pro Mtir. c. 25. 
 
 •""'Dio .37-29 says senate did not vote — is not clear. 
 "Pro M;ir. c. 2.S, Cat. T, v. Fischer, Zeittafeln. 
 •Pro Mnr. c. 25. 
 
 36 
 
the election had not yet been held on that day. The quotation 
 following will again be used in proof of another point ; it may 
 also be inserted here. 'Ttaque cum te, Servi, remissiorem in 
 petendo putarent, Catilinam et spe et cupiditate inflammatum 
 viderent, omnes, qui ab re publica pestem illam depellere cupie- 
 bant, ad Murenam se statim contulerunt.'"" 
 
 The sentence folloAving, taken in conjunction with the fore- 
 going one, bears additional evidence both of the urgency and 
 stress of the period and the establishment of the date. 'Tn 
 the consular comitia the sudden inclination of men's feelings 
 is often of great weight," especially as in this case. "Magna 
 est autem comitiis consularibus repentina voluntatum in- 
 clinatio"" . . . Men's feelings and attitudes were inclined 
 by the realization that Catiline was inflamed with an evil 
 thought to subvert the government as is witnessed by his 
 speech on November 8th in the senate ; so the election was 
 not yet an event by that date. An anti-John paragraph is 
 Pro Mur. Sec. 89. Cicero's own addition to the law^' against 
 bribery (exile for 10 years) would exile Murena. This would 
 fell John's idea — a few days before, not months. "Subitam 
 spem'"' of Catiline was of great help to Murena. Cicero had 
 said on November 20th that Catiline had no hope" to be 
 elected and yet refers to second repulsa so that the election 
 could not have been in July nor August, as John thinks. 
 
 Cicero does not regard it strange nor wonderful that this 
 sudden hope which Catiline entertains of obtaining the consul- 
 ship should be a great aid to Murena. 
 
 Election day was surely after Catiline's explosive threats 
 and his rush" from the Senate House ; certainly scheduled later 
 than the date on which the senate convened, following Cati- 
 line's exhortation of his confederates. 
 
 In establishing an approximate date for the election we 
 gain ground on which to base approximately a calculation of 
 the date for the trial of Murena, a consul chosen at that elec- 
 tion and charged with electoral bribery. 'The one hinges to 
 a great degree on the other ; prosecutions of Ambitus usually 
 followed shortly after elections, and Murena was tried toward 
 the close of the year. 
 
 A less convincing argument because of the elasticity of 
 meaning assigned the adverb ''now" may be found in the sen- 
 
 spro Mur. c. 23, Cat. I. , 
 
 "Pro Mur. c. 26. 
 
 i"Pro Mur. c. 26. 
 
 "Pro Mur. c. 26. 
 
 "Lex Tullia. 
 
 ^•'Pro Mur. Sec. 52-3, Murcna's election due to Catiline's sudden hope of gaining 
 the consulship, just as in Cicero's case (64 R. C.) it had been due to the i)cople's 
 tear of Catiline. 
 
 ^■•Pro Mur. Sec. .S.5. 
 
 ^''Pro Mur. Sec. 52, v. also ch. on .Murena. 
 
 37 
 
tence with which Cicero addresses the judges, in bringing out 
 Alurena's superior advantages over Sulpicius in his candi- 
 dature for consulship ; in it he remarks he can mention pub- 
 licly "now that the election is over"" matters pertaining to a 
 candidate's attention to his canvass which he had often re- 
 marked privately to Sulpicius, ''before the affair Avas decided." 
 
 "Pro Mur. Sec. 43. 
 
 There are many puzzling factors in connection with the 
 establishment of the date of the election. If the election was 
 held in July or August, as is contended by some, why was 
 it so late in the year before Catiline was prosecuted by A. 
 Paullus" under the Lex Plautia de vi for intention to assault 
 Cicero at that particular election ? Indictments were not 
 usually .so long delayed after an offense had been committed. 
 That he will not offer any defense to the charge Catiline sig- 
 nifies in his letter sent to L. Catulus when he had presumably 
 gone into voluntary exile but in reality had gone to Manlius 
 after the first Catilinarian had been delivered. 
 
 Herewith follows the gist of Catiline's speech,^^ which 
 caused good men to fear and finall}^ awakened such appre- 
 hension in the senate. No faithful defender of miserable citi- 
 zens could be found unless he were himself wretched. Men 
 embarrassed and in desperate need should not trust the prom- 
 ises of men fortunate and prosperous ; therefore, all wha 
 desired restitution of fortunes spent were wise to consider 
 Catiline's position as debtor and his possibilities in 
 daring enterprises, for only a fearless man and one whollv 
 destitute could be the leader and advocate of men in despair. 
 
 It is plainly seen that he regarded the consulate only 
 as a steo toward gaining his supreme ambition, i. e. to be a 
 second Sulla. 
 
 His convincing manner and persuasive speech inflamed his 
 hearers to enter into any project of their chief. Although 
 he had often discussed his aims with them individually, his 
 generalship demanded a union of purpose. He therefore had 
 retired to a private apartment in his own home to address 
 them. Do we wonder the citizens were willing to overlook a 
 minor offense — if Murena had committed one — in order to 
 guard against the most "important and glorious enterprise"*'* 
 in which Catiline now professed himself about to engage? 
 The question of the election is a matter of controversy. If 
 the election was held in the earlier season — July or August — 
 why did Sulpicius with Cato wait until so late in the year — 
 probably late November, judged from internal evidence— to 
 prosecute Murena for Ambitus when the time was drawing 
 so near for him to assume the dignity of the supreme honor? 
 
 "v. Sih'cr Cic. of .\i"p. ]>. 144 n. 4, p. 145 n. 2. 
 "Sail. Cat. XX. 
 i"Sal. Cat. XTX. XX. 
 
 38 
 
In tiie speech for the defence of Murena, Cicero says his own 
 jSiiip is Hearing port and he desires"" as satisfactory an earnest 
 as possible that the succeeding year will have efficient officers. 
 It was not lack of evidence that caused the postponement of 
 the prosecution, for in the trial one of the faults which Cicero 
 censures is the constant search of Sulpicious for evidence 
 toward prosecutions in place of attending to the winning of 
 votes. 
 
 The election in all probability w^as held between the date- 
 of November 8th. w^hen Catiline, after having acquainted the 
 public wath his real designs and having recognized their true 
 measure of mm. rushed from the assembly, and December 3rd. 
 when the Allobroges figured so prominently. For by the 
 latter date Murena had already- been on trial, as we shall 
 see in a section following later, and the election perforce 
 prexeded it, since he was charged with electioneering on a 
 financial basis. I think that after Catiline's departure during 
 the night of the 8th the excitement over the coming election 
 waned and that it was so quiet an afifair compared w^ith events 
 immediately preceding that it passed off without any commo- 
 tion and no reason to have particular stress laid upon the 
 date of its happening. It came somewdiere between Novem- 
 ber 8th and December 3rd, minus a suitable interval of time 
 for a prosecution. We dra^v it to still a narrower limit of time 
 if we choose the November 20th date, from w^hich plausible 
 inferences may be drawn as the one margin and December 3rd 
 the other. Then election and prosecution must have fol- 
 low^ed fast upon each other's heels. 
 
 It certainly was not in the summer. Could it even have 
 been, as Mommsen believes, November 4th, quite before Cati- 
 Ime's purpose, unvarnished and naked, was declared bv him- 
 self, although this is nearer the probable time? 
 
 At this election defeat was again Catiline's lot. Silanus and 
 Murena were chosen for 62 B. C. 
 
 ^"Pro Mur. «ec. 80. Also c 2. ^7. 
 
 XVI 
 
 x^t this juncture, the trial (>f Murena may properly be intro- 
 duced as of weight in proving the gigantic proportions wdiich 
 the conspiracy had assumed. In this Catiline figures to a 
 large extent. 
 
 At the consular election's in 63 B. C. for 62 !>. C. Decimus 
 Junius Silanus and Lucius Licinius Murena. wlio figured little 
 in social life, were elected consuls, as lias been noted. The 
 defeated candidates were Lucius Sergius Catilina and. unfortu- 
 nately, Servius Sulpicius Rufus, a man qualified ideally, and 
 
 30 
 
the ablest* jurist at the Roman bar. Of Catiline we have heard 
 and shall hear further. 
 
 Sulpicius charged Murena with bribery. Marcus Cato with 
 others signed the indictment. The lawyers for the defence 
 were Hortensius, Crassus, and Cicero. 
 
 The trial was held in November, probably the latter part, 
 when Catiline was already carrying on his operations against 
 the republic. It is programmed between the first two and 
 the last two of the Catilinarian orations of Cicero. The Murena 
 is one of the most important orations historically; showing 
 Cicero's splendid ability, it has a value for matters historical 
 and antiquarian; gives an insight into Stoic philosophy; and 
 in lighter vein, reveals the depth of a jurist's erudition. 
 
 This speech in behalf of Murena discloses the fact that the 
 jury in this trial overlooked the detail that Murena had put 
 money into his pocket during his canvass, and presents the 
 Catilinarian matter in a very strong light. ". . . ne consul 
 Catilina fieret."" 
 
 Denying the assertions of all of Cicero's detractors, should 
 we not rather, then, take that view of the situation which 
 the jury at that trial took? They considered it most impor- 
 tant to keep two consuls and the government as it was. If 
 Murena were thrown out,* Silanus would have been com- 
 pelled to hold an election about January, or rule alone. 
 
 He is called "consul suifectus" who has to be chosen to 
 supplant^ another. ''Unus erit consul . . . non in admin- 
 istrando bello, sed in sufificiendo collega occupatus." 
 
 There would then have ensued new possibilities of con- 
 fusion and would have but postponed the evil for a future 
 day.'' ". . . de manibus nostris in eum annum qui con- 
 sequitur." Therefore the jury was blind to Murena's former 
 act of Ambitus. 
 
 Catiline's plans, too, would be furthered by the presence 
 of only one consul, for it would be easier to overcome a state 
 handicapped in such respect ; it would mean the weakening 
 of the stronger element in tribunician power also, and there is 
 an implacate that the other tribune* for the coming year was 
 not without fault, and Cato, the upright, was to be the balance 
 wheel. 
 
 Catiline was fearless ;' and that Cicero and the Roman people 
 ascribed much power to him is demonstrated frequently. 
 **Lest he should become consul" pulsates with their throbs of 
 anxiety as to the ill use he would make of an official authority 
 entrusted to him. 
 
 His bold entrance' into the meeting of the senate, the very 
 body whose wholesale assassination is included in his pro- 
 gram, is another evidence of his bold fearlessness. His evil 
 projects were already rumored abroad, yet he came. His 
 
 'Justini.-.n Digest 1. 2. 43, Plut. Cat. Min. '21. Drumann V. 
 
 40 
 
!\ 
 
 Speech," too, in boldly defining his position as head of a strong" 
 but leaderless body of the republic shows his profound dis- 
 regard for all laws of state or man. 
 
 The argument by which the case was won was the general 
 condition of the times. Cicero, as one of the defence, speaks 
 little about the charge of ambitus. Cicero does not say Murena 
 did not pay for voters but it is psychologically plausible that 
 since people liked games and Murena, as praetor, had held 
 good shows, that he had the good will of the people thereby, 
 and they liked the person furnishing the entertainment. 
 ". . . praetura grata in munere."^" 
 
 All the leading men in Rome knew that were Murena found 
 guilty, there would be but one consul, Silanus ; and because 
 great issues were ahead, since Catiline was in the field, it was 
 considered all important by the jury that there should be two 
 consuls, and not one, on January ist, 62 B. C. "Magni interest 
 . esse Kalendis Januariis in re publica duos consules."" 
 One consul would be required in the city conducting home 
 affairs, and the other one would probably be called to com- 
 mand the army against the insurgent forces, for Roman con- 
 suls are nominally commanders of the army. 
 
 This whole question of the complete apprehension of the 
 Catilinarian faction was projected^' into the consulship suc- 
 ceeding, for no one had intimation that such decisive evidence 
 would be produced ere Cicero's administration closed, for the 
 seizure of the conspirators and the incident at the Mulvian" 
 Bridge had not yet eventuated, or such anxiety had not existed 
 in the consul's mind, but he is urgent that a state as well 
 fortified as possible be handed over to his successors. 
 '*. . rem publicam cupio tradere incolumem ab his tantis 
 
 periculis defendendam."" 
 
 It was this remissness^^ of Servius Sulpicius in his candidacy, 
 who threatened prosecutions instead of zealously winning 
 adherents, and the frenzy of Catiline in his canvass which 
 caused citizens to lean tow^ard Murena, the only other candi- 
 date of the four, possible of election, for there had been no 
 question in regard to Silanus. ". . . te . . . remissi- 
 orem in petendo putarent, Catilinam et spe et cupiditate 
 inflammatum . . . omnes ad Murenam se statim con- 
 tulerunt.'"' 
 
 2Pro Mur. c. 24. 
 
 ■■•Pro Mur. c. 3S, 39. 
 
 ••Pro IVTur. c. 39. 
 
 "Pro Mur. Sec. 85, Cat. 1, Stx\ 31. 
 
 "Pro Mur. Sees. 81-2. 
 
 ^Pro Mur. Sec. 48. » 
 
 "Cat. I. 
 
 "Pro Mur. Sec. 51. 
 
 i«Pro Mur. c. 26. 
 
 "Pro Mur. c. 2. and Sees. 79, 80. 
 
 41 
 
Therefore can Mommsen, and Drumann, and John, and 
 that whole school of later enemies of Cicero, those who belittle 
 the Catilinarian dangers, justly affirm that Cicero did all for 
 his own glory and that he merely exaggerated the whole 
 thing? 
 
 , The Pro Murena is one of the most brilliant speeches; in 
 it Cicero ridicules dry, civil law. It is important on the sub- 
 ject of Ambitus; contains data of the Catilinarian proposals, 
 including the expression of Catiline's sentiments before his 
 second repulsa. It comes between the second (Nov. 9th) and 
 third Catiline orations, after Catiline had left and before the 
 testimony of the Allobroges (Dec. 3rd). There are intima- 
 tions in Pro Murena that plots were still unhatched. 
 
 The question of the time of Murena's trial is a debateable 
 one. Lange" thinks it was held only a few days after the 
 nones of December. Sihler is against that theory. The argu- 
 mentum to the oration cites November. 
 
 We may infer that the case was probably called in late 
 November, 63 B. C, and that not enough decisive evidence 
 of Catiline's plans were yet produced at the time of the trial, 
 from Cicero's statement, which fits well with such conclusion. 
 "Sed moneo indices : in exitu iam est mens consulatus."^^ 
 
 Couple with those words the knowledge that on December 
 3rd satisfactory proof and convincing witnesses were avail- 
 able ; therefore we feel sure the trial speech was held before 
 December 3rd. We are positive it was before December loth. 
 for tribunes took office December loth, three weeks before con- 
 suls — and after his election each official was termed *'desig- 
 natus" until he assumed his office ; in addressing Cato, Cicero' 
 speaks of Metellus, the colleague-elect, who is to share the 
 tribunician power with Cato for the year 62 B. C, as ''desig- 
 nati tribuni, colleagae tui."^" 
 
 Pointing conclusively to the fact that the case of Murena was 
 spoken before the Mulvian Bridge event are Cicero's historical 
 words, wonderfully descriptive of the elements of sedition 
 within the city. 'Tntus, intus, inquam, est equus Trojanus !""° 
 A truly great passage ! The conspirators are not yet appre- 
 hended and the documents are not yet in his hands. He is 
 still nervous about the outcome; Lentulus, Gabinius, and 
 others are known by Cicero, through Fulvia, to belong to that 
 circle, but no convicting evidence has he to bring before a 
 
 "Pro Mur. Sees. 80, 85. 
 
 ^'Cat. III. Basis foi- a date-, contrary to Lange's supposition; after the nones 
 of Dec. all the proof was in. 
 
 "Pro Mur. c. 37. 
 
 "Pro Mur. c. 24, 25, 26. 
 
 ^"Election day matter after Catiline's rush from senate house. Pro Mur. c. 25 
 26, V. also X\' of this thesis. 
 
 *'!-. T.ange. E. G. Sihler, Cic. of Arp. p. 154. 
 
 i»Pro Mur. c. 37. 
 
 42 
 
court. But after the examination of the Allobroges, the fel- 
 lows in the Trojan horse were brought out.'' 
 
 How can any one argue that the speech came after the 
 nones of December (5th) after the garroting, after the receipt 
 of the documents, which at the time of the trial were clearly 
 not yet in possession of the vigilant consul, who was con- 
 stantly on guard to prevent the citizens from being ensnared 
 by those lurking in the Trojan horse. ''Audite consulem totos 
 dies atque noctes de re publica cogitantem." " . . . equus 
 Trojanus a quo numquam me consule dormientes oppri- 
 memini."" How true to his promise was the watchful consul ! 
 Could it have been at the time Lange believes? 
 
 Are we not fairly justified in the position we maintain that 
 the speech was not held after the nones of December, when 
 the proofs were already in possession of the state? Lange is 
 probably incorrect on this point. 
 
 ^9Pro Mur. c. 38. 
 
 20Pro Mur. c. 2,7. 
 
 2iCat. Ill, IV, Sillier, Cic. of Arp. p. 155. 
 
 ^^Pro Mur. c. i7 . 
 
 XVH 
 
 At this point the uninterrupted chain of events breaks. 
 
 There were in the city' at this time ambassadors^ of the 
 Allobroges to complain against their Roman governor; for 
 it was customary for all subject states to have patrons at 
 Rome. 
 
 Not to confine the plot to the citizens, the deputies of the 
 Allobroges^ were also invited to join in the conspiracy of 
 which Lentulus,* who had the highest" rank (praetor) in the 
 conspiracy, was now the recognized head in the city ;* the 
 object was to cause an insurrection against the Romans in 
 Gaul and so spread it beyond the Alps.' The Allobroges, in 
 doubt, consulted with Fabius Sanga, their patron. 
 
 We would understand from the Pro Sulla^ that Cassius also 
 treated with the Allobroges, for we read if Cassius had sup- 
 posed that there was any danger of their ever giving any 
 information at all, he probably would not have made any con- 
 fession of himself as implicated in the conspiracy. It was 
 proven that much of it was deliberated upon in his house.' 
 
 In company" with the Allobroges, Lentulus sent to Catiline 
 a man of Croton, Volturcius by name, who was entrusted with 
 letters, unsigned. 
 
 According to Appian. Sanga disclosed the communication 
 of the Allobroges to Cicero, who took them and Volturcius 
 captive while they were en route and brought them at once 
 1->efore the senate. Florus bricflv states that the envoys were 
 
 43 
 
at once captured by order of Cicero. More likely. 
 
 Sallust" records that they were captured without resistance 
 at the Mulvian Bridge, being privy to their own arrest; Vol- 
 turcius, however, was overpowered only after a struggle. 
 Florus relates that the letter was intercepted through the 
 information of Volturcius. He," for his evidence, was granted 
 immunity. Praetors" had charge of the night work at the 
 Mulvian Bridge. 
 
 To resume Appian's account — the Allobroges in the pres- 
 ence of Lentulus acknowledged their negotiations with him 
 and testified that he had frequently boasted that it was proph- 
 esied in the Sibylline" verses that three Cornelii were to be 
 rulers in Rome ; there had already been two, Cinna and Sulla. 
 
 Cicero refers to the Allobroges as those who had given the 
 truest information^^ in the most important matters. 
 
 The senate gathered,'® read the documents and heard the 
 informers — Voltur.cius and the Allobroges. When the testi- 
 mony of the Allobroges had been taken and Lentulus had 
 been examined and convicted of sending letters to Catiline, 
 advising him not to overlook the slaves, Lentulus resigned 
 his office." 
 
 Not found in Sallust is this — that Silanus stated that some 
 people heard said that Cethegus had asserted that three of 
 consular rank, including Cicero, and four praetors were about 
 to be slain.'*' 
 
 Also Piso, the consul of 67 B. C, and Gains Sulpicius, a 
 praetor, being sent to search the house of Cethegus, found 
 missiles, arms, and darts, newly sharpened. 
 
 A word must here be inserted concerning the careful 
 method'^ adopted by Cicero in relation to the testimony of the 
 Allobroges and Volturcius, which shows the thoroughness 
 with which he went about his work. After he had brought 
 the informers 1)efore the senate (Dec. 3rd) he appointed sen- 
 ators, men of intelligence, fine memory, rapid in thought and 
 writing, to take down every statement made by the witnesses, 
 every question asked, every answer given. The scribes, whom 
 Cicero names, easily followed whatever was said and had the 
 
 *'Accorflirg to .\])]>. Bell. Civ. they deprive Lentulus of office. Cat. Ill, 6 also 
 
 ability required to write an accurate report, in order that in 
 the future, the recollection of the senate on the subject when 
 still fresh, might be borne out by evidence of public records, 
 as the authority and particulars of the case. This was done to 
 deter any foe of j^eace and tranquil government to seek pro- 
 
 >Ap|). Pell. Civ. 11, 
 
 1. 
 
 -Plut. say.s 2. 
 
 
 ■»App. Pell. Civ. 11, 
 
 1. Florus I\'. 1. 
 
 *Pro Sull. c. .S. c. 
 
 19, Cat. Ill, 2. 
 
 '•Dio 37, 29-30. Plut. Cic. 19. 
 
 "Pro SuM. c. 11. 
 
 
 •Florus IV. 1. 
 
 
 44 
 
tection for himself in a precedent, perverted through incorrect 
 report. 
 
 In addition, he did not keep"** the record made in the senate 
 at private homes, as had been the custom among the ances- 
 tors ; he had it copied to have no future falsification of facts, 
 and distributed to all the Roman people in Italy, and in the 
 provinces ; he wished all to know by what information safety 
 had been bestowed on all. These papers really became official. 
 (Acta Senatus.)"' 
 
 Another reason for distributing the information was that 
 none could accuse the senate of giving credence too rashly ; 
 that none should remember or forget only as much as he 
 pleased; that none in perusing Cicero's private journals or 
 questioning him as consul of that year, should accuse him of 
 noting only what he wished ; suppressing other information ; 
 falsifying, or tampering with, the account. 
 
 The Sulla oration is of utmost importance historically and 
 must be read as a necessary accompaniment" to Catiline III. 
 There are facts there not found in Catiline III. 
 
 This document also gives the exact names of those impli- 
 cated. "Indices (editicii) ab accusatoribus delecti." 
 
 We have reports also in Plutarch and Sallust — all reports 
 do not agree about these men. These were all tried and 
 exiled, or their property confiscated. 
 
 This document is later valuable for settled restitution of 
 rights and in the trial of Sulla.''' In fact the whole case is 
 based on this record with which Cicero took such pains. 
 
 This sneech (pro Sulla) is one of the richest in the whole 
 Catilinarian matter. 
 
 It will be noted that Fulvia divulged the i:)revious secret 
 undertakings of Catiline but that this later development of 
 Lentulus' hatching was made known through the agency of 
 the Allobroges. 
 
 The third oration against Catiline is the oration of docu- 
 mentary evidence. There is a lapse of more than three weeks 
 
 sPro Sull. c. 13. 
 
 9Pro Sull. Sec. 39. 
 
 "App. Bell. Civ. 1. 
 
 "Sail. Cat. c. XLV. 
 
 "Plut. Cic. 19. 
 
 i-''Cat. Ill, Sal!. Cat. XLV. 
 
 "Flor. IV, 1. 
 
 ispro Sull. c. 5. 
 
 lopiut. Cic. 19. 
 of citizenship-extraordinary. 
 
 ispiut. Cic. 19. 
 
 "Pro. Sull. c. 14, 15. 
 
 20Pro Sull. c. 15. 
 
 -^Tabulae publicae, the otiticial records, i. e. Sciiatiis coitsultu ni iiltiniiim ; other 
 .caat senatus remained in the hands of the consuls in office, llalni. 
 22Pro Sull. c. 13, 14, 15, Cat. Til. 
 
 23Pro Sull. c. 14. 15. 
 
 45 
 
between the second and the third oration, which was delivered 
 on the evening of December 5th.'* 
 
 Cicero, meanwhile, had watched constantly and carefully 
 and had finally obtained proof, complete and convicting, 
 against those who were chiefly involved as leaders in Rome. 
 These details of the examination of the malefactors we get 
 from Sallust ;" and from Cicero's Pro Murena, we also gain 
 knowledge of the subject. Cicero himself had no occasion to 
 make a formal speech on the day of the examination. On the 
 following one,'" he acquainted the citizens with all the circum- 
 stances, including the proofs produced and how gained. 
 
 He explained fully the measures of the senate in relation 
 to the conspirators. He informed the people of the progress 
 of investigation and the proceedings up to the date of the 
 meeting. Cicero assured the citizens that the republic was 
 preserved through the consul's efforts ; he gave the details of 
 the investigations, and the detection of the conspirators ; and 
 the arrest of the AUobrogian envoys. He acquainted the 
 people with the facts concerning the stationing of the prae- 
 tors as guards at the Mulvian Bridge, to lie in wait for and 
 capture the traitors or their messengers. The people were 
 told that all dispatches seized had been referred intact to 
 the senate by Cicero. He did this — left the seals unbroken — 
 that none might claim any agent of his had forged such letters 
 and documents as had been seized. 
 
 Likewise w^ere the citizens informed that Volturcius was 
 state's evidence, and that the envoys from the Allobroges also 
 testified, thus incriminating the conspirators, and finally that 
 Lentulus, Cethegus. Gabinius, and Statilius had all been cross- 
 examined, and had confessed. As material evidences of these 
 crimes, Cicero had had retained the seals, tablets, and letters. 
 Moreover, the confession of each criminal as well as the facial 
 proof of crime while under examination had convicted the 
 several prisoners. The prisoners were now held in custody. 
 Since Catiline is beyond the city and his chief supporters have 
 been captured. Cicero feels sure that Catiline Avill soon also 
 despair and lose hope. 
 
 Nor must the state forget to attribute to the good will of 
 the gods the good fortune that the plot was discovered ere 
 the state was overwhelmed. The gods have shown their 
 favor, since this civil disorder has been settled without blood- 
 shed, while those of other days had not been so peaceably 
 settled. Cicero took great credit to himself for this settle- 
 ment. Cicero asked no return for his services to the state 
 except the gratitude of his fellow citizens Avhom he trusted 
 
 -*Cat. Ill, Plut. Cic. XIX. 
 25Sall. Cat. 46, etc., Pro Mur. 
 -«Cat. ITT, Plut. Cic. XTX. 
 
 46 
 
to protect him from harm, and to whom he pledged to remain 
 worthy of their confidence. 
 
 Cicero, who had previously been distinguished for his elo- 
 quence/' became famous also as a man of action, who had 
 unquestionably saved his country from the clutches of its 
 enemies. Quintus Catulus/' the chief of the senatorial body, 
 the great leader of the public council, paid tribute ^to Cicero's 
 achievements in the fullest possible house, by calling him the 
 "Father of his country." Some think that this appellation,''^ 
 which was later bestowed upon emperors worthy of it, had 
 its inception at the time of Cato's application of it to Cicero. 
 It is only decreed as a testimonial of valuable services ren- 
 dered. That illustrious man, in the hearing of all the mem- 
 bers, said that a civic^" crown was due Cicero from the republic. 
 
 With general acclamation the senate showed its apprecia- 
 tion of Cicero's long watchfulness by a supplication^^ unprece- 
 dented, by opening the temples of the gods in his honor ; not 
 because he had successfully governed the republic — many 
 had been paid that compliment — but because he had saved 
 it ; that was an honor never before conferred, and Cicero, 
 though clad in the garb of peace, was its proud recipient. His 
 feat in crushing Catiline without unsheathing his sword is 
 often alluded to by Cicero ". . . pacis auctori 
 (the author of peace),'" also ". . . cedant arma 
 togae . . ."^' and many such boasts. 
 
 On the day. too, when Cicero resigned his office to his suc- 
 cessor, the people voiced their congratulations.^^ Cicero had 
 been prevented by the tribune Metellus Nepos from making 
 the customary speech at close of his official year, and was 
 allowed only to take the oath ; this Cicero did in an unusual 
 fashion,^" by swearing that his individual exertions had pre- 
 served the city and state. It was then the populace unani- 
 mously approved of his words and rendered him great glory 
 and escorted him home in a long train. 
 
 Such is the state of affairs at Rome when the prisoners were 
 brought to trial to receive sentence for their crimes. Sallust 
 and Cicero, in the facts previous to the trial scene itself, agree 
 well. Sallust introduces his subject by a more or less per- 
 sonal preface in historical styles ; Cicero, his in direct 
 addresses in four divisions, in oratorical st3de. His tone 
 throughout oration III is a happy one over the successful 
 results'" of his alert, continual vigilance. He had a personal 
 pride in his politics; his policy was one of prevention of ill 
 and it had called forth all the vigor of the man to maintain 
 it throughout his consulship. 
 
 2Tpiut. Cic. 
 
 28In Piso. c. 3. 
 
 2»Pliit. Cic. 
 
 ""A civic crown was awarded for saving llu' life of a citizen. 
 
 47 
 
Cicero'*' then went to the home of a friend where he was to 
 spend the night, for the Roman women were holding sway in 
 his home in the ritual and mystery, called that of Bona Dea.^^ 
 
 It was at the home^'' of the scholar and antiquarian, Publius 
 Nigidius Figukis, that Cicero spent this night following the 
 third Catilinarian, — a night full of reflection as to the course 
 to pursue in punishing these traitors. He wished to apply 
 caution, and to guard against using the extreme and proper 
 penalty suitable for such misdeeds. There were many factors 
 to make him shrink from doing so. He himself was non- 
 aristocratic, while the culprit Lentulus was of the very aristo- 
 cratic Cornelii family ; therefore he hesitated at the application 
 of martial law in his case. Yet if he treated the conspirators 
 too gently, he feared danger from them. 
 
 siln Piso, c. 3, 29, Cat. Ill c. 6, Cat. IV c. 10, Sail. Cat. XLVIII. 
 
 32Ad Fam. VII, 23, to Fadius Callus — about 55 B. C, — some place the letter 
 later. Pro. Sull. c. 11, Cat. Ill c. 1. 
 
 ^'In Piso. c. 29, Cat. Ill c. 10. v. his earlier hope and endeavor Cat. II c. 13. 
 
 •''^In Piso. c. 3. 
 
 35Ad Fam. 5, 2. 
 
 ^® Aside from Plut. we are able to use De Div. 19 sqq., De Consulatu suo 60 odd 
 verses on his own consulship, as sources for details of Cicero's civic triumphs. 
 
 3'Plut. Cic. c. 19. 
 
 ^A festival celebrating the function of conception, propagation, and passing on 
 of life. The \cstal Virgins with wife or mother of some high official were hostesses 
 to these thousands of women who took part in the celebration. No male person 
 was allowed to be present or in the house that night; therefore Cicero did not spend 
 the night following the handling of the documents at home for Terentia was hostess, 
 Cicero being the highest official executive. At this festival a large basin of wine 
 was used, called milk on this occasion; there was music and gayety, etc. Plutarch 
 gives many important details about this rite. Plut. Cic. XII-XXIII. 
 
 ^Plut. Cic. XIX is a great chap, on the personal self revelation of Cicero that 
 evening before the 4th Catilinarian — ^just as reliable as though he had left a diary. 
 Cicero was not an audacious man in public. Plut. Cic. XIX alone has this. 
 
 XVIII 
 
 On the fiftli (Nones) of December, 63 B. C, the senate 
 convened and Cicero delivered the fourth oration against 
 Catiline. He made his speech during the debate concerning 
 ihe punishment to be inflicted on the conspirators who had 
 been taken ])risoners. 
 
 At the beginning of this trial Cicero disclaimed any feeling 
 of anxiety for his personal safety and was willing to accept 
 the conditions of his consulship and content to bear all indig- 
 nities and hardships, i)roviding the public was preserved and 
 danger averted. 
 
 Cicero assured the senate of his belief that no man will meet 
 a death undeserving his character or meet death before his 
 allotted time, and ur.c^ed upon them once again the need to 
 
 48 
 
consider the question of their own welfare, the peril threaten- 
 ing their families and the weal of the state. 
 
 Cicero cited as precedents acts in former history, unconsti- 
 tutional, but not so destructive, which merited and met with 
 the severest punishment. Severe measures were justifiable. 
 It would seem as though the senate had already practically 
 condemned the guilty, inasmuch as it had voted Cicero a 
 thanksgiving and had given the captured ones into custody. 
 
 This was the important date in Cicero's career, December 
 5th, 63 B. C, when fwas held the trial of those conspiring 
 against the commonwealth which Cicero untiringly toiled to 
 preserve from peril from without and from corruption from 
 within. On this date the revolutionists who had been cap- 
 tured were sentenced to pay the penalty by death ; and the 
 decree passed into immediate execution. 
 
 The question is which of the two alternatives moved shall 
 be adopted. Shall it be capital punishment or life imprison- 
 ment? D. Silanus, the consul-elect, called first, advises the 
 one ;^ Julius Caesar, the other. 
 
 There are objections to Caesar's plan,' though that would be 
 the simpler proposition for Cicero personally, i. e. life impris- 
 onment. But no penalty can be too severe for the revolu- 
 tionists, and in commending the opinion of Silanus, Cicero 
 takes the ground that those who plot ruin for the republic are 
 no longer citizens and therefore not legally protected by the 
 Sempronian law which also affirmed the principle that Roman 
 citizens could not be put to death except by decree of the 
 people, to whom appeal could be made after sentence by a 
 magistrate.^ 
 
 All classes of sound thinking people are united in defence 
 of the state, even the slaves and freedmen ; therefore the 
 senate should not neglect its duty and the responsibility 
 reposed in it.^ As for himself, Cicero disclaims any fear for 
 the future because of his relentless actions toward the con- 
 spirators. Never shall he regret having sentenced them with 
 the death penalty. His conduct in this trial shall never smite 
 his conscience. He feels he has acted wisely for the good of 
 all, and the only reward he requests is the sincere regard of 
 the citizens and a remembrance of his services for the state." 
 Sallust makes no mention" of Cicero's speech and Cicero, of 
 course, omits the motion of Cato/ which came later, and which 
 Sallust gives as the influencing factor in decreeing the death 
 penalty. Cato received glory; Cicero, in later years, humilia- 
 tion, because it was under his regime that the decree was 
 executed. 
 
 iSuet. Caes. 14, Pint. Cic. '21. 
 
 ^Ad Att. 12, 21, 1; even 18 years later, when Caesar was Dictator, Cicero regards 
 Caesar's motion in 63 B. C. as severe. Pint. Cic. 21 supposed imprisonment of 
 culprits for limited period. Ap))ian inaccurately reports Caesar's motion as 
 "arrest until Catiline is defeated: tlien they are to be prosecuted." 
 
 49 
 
It is generally agreed by historians that Cicero's speech 
 was not the decisive one. It was short and came before 
 Cato's expression of summary action and execution/ Com- 
 pared with the almost triumphantly cheerful second and third 
 speeches — particularly the third — it is gloomy, bearing in it- 
 self the characteristics of depression, the prospect of evil to 
 come, the foreshadowing of future woe. It is a reflection of 
 his anxiety, doubts, and fears of the previous night. But the 
 state must be energetically preserved, whatever of personal 
 ill-fortune befall the consul ; that is Cicero's main thought,^ as 
 we have frequently had evidence ; he and Cato were two of 
 the very few ideally patriotic and loyal citizens of Rome of 
 that generation. Until Cato rose to express his opinion the 
 majority of the senate had been swayed by Caesar's logic, 
 i. e. placement of the culprits under surveillance in the munici- 
 palities, and confiscation of their property. It is to be noted 
 that the discussion lay to the greater extent between Caesar 
 and Cato, for Silanus after advocating capital punishment 
 had later hedged more or less in his proposal. 
 
 Cato's motion prevailed, and the chief conspirators in the 
 city were executed in the Tullianum." Even then, although 
 accomplished with the sanction of the senate, the Aveight of 
 responsibility which fell upon Cicero's shoulders oppresses 
 his thoughts and presages some impending misfortune. 
 
 ••Cat. IV, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 
 
 *Cat. IV, 9. ■ 
 
 -Cat. IV, 10, 11. - 
 
 «Sall. Cat. LII 
 
 'V. also Ad Att. 12, 21, cf. Plut. Cat. Min. 22, Appian II, 6 reports Nero's 
 motion "To keep in arrest until Catiline is driven out of Italy by battle." 
 
 *Plut. Cat. Min. 23 records the speech of Cato taken down by clerks appointed 
 by Cicero. 
 
 'Pro Mur. c. Z7. In the Pro Sull.. Cicero is compelled to review his activities 
 in the premise. 
 
 i''Pro Sull. c. 11. 
 
 XIX 
 
 Soon after, early in January, 62 B. C, the leader of all 
 this discontented rabble, a unique character, fighting to the 
 last with a tremendous courage worthy of a more heroic 
 endeavor, fell on the field at Pistoria, where he and those 
 remaining of his dauntless, bold coterie had engagement with 
 Petreius, who led the Roman forces, although Antonius was 
 nominally commander. He is reported to have been ill that 
 day of battle. Catiline's head was sent to Rome. Thus fell 
 a man of solendid attainments,^ physically and mentally, who 
 appeared throughout his whole career to have been domi- 
 nated by vice and crime, whose nefarious deeds in official and 
 non-official positions had finally fired him with a reckless zeal 
 
 50 
 
which led him to attempt the committal of the most das- 
 tardly crime of men — the overthrow of his own common- 
 wealth. 
 
 In the consulship of Silanus and Murena, 62 B. C, after 
 Catiline's death, there followed prosecutions of others said 
 to have been members of the conspiracy. These court cases 
 would not* have been possible if Catiline had not been killed. 
 Among those involved were Autronius" and Sulla ; the latter 
 later became Cicero's client. These trials took some time; 
 Sec. 83 shows there were many cases before Sulla's was pro- 
 grammed. 
 
 Autronius, as has been said in a preceding section, had 
 allotted to him the occupation of Italy when everything was 
 being arranged, prepared and settled. He was accused by 
 the Allobroges,"* whose testimony was most authentic and 
 important, and likewise by the letters of many men and many 
 private witnesses. He was left in the city but expected out of 
 it ; his only check at flight seems to have been the punishment 
 of Lentulus (December 5th, 63 B. C). Of him Cicero says 
 that he sometimes succumbed to emotions of fear but never 
 to any of proper feelings or good sense. Most all of the men 
 proven to have been in the undertaking were convicted* by 
 their own manner of life, before the suspicion of good citizens 
 fastened iipon them. 
 
 Autronius had always been bold, profligate, and reckless ; 
 he had been known to be violent toward his accusers and to 
 defend himself by his pugilistic method and by a vulgar 
 language. He had also been charged with usurping men's 
 properties and doing away with his neighbors. Desecration of 
 the temples of the allies was not unknown to his hands; 
 plunder, violation of courts, adultery, hostility toward all good 
 men and the interest of the state, were all numbered among 
 his qualifications as a capable applicant for membership in 
 that circle of evil doers. Crassus" did not escape suspicion 
 of being concerned in the great conspiracy of Catiline which 
 very nearly subverted the government. One. witness declared 
 him a plotter but nobody credited this testimony. 
 
 Cicero clearly charges both Crassus and Caesar with impli- 
 cation" in the j)lot. Crassus seems to have mitigated his 
 co-operation in the plot to some extent for he came to Cicero 
 by night and brought a letter' concerning Catiline stating the 
 details of the conspiracy. Crassus hated him ever after that 
 but his son's* influence hindered him from doing Cicero any 
 public injury. 
 
 ^Sall. Cat. XX-XXIV, Pro Caclio, Cat. I-IV. 
 
 2Pro Sull. Sees. 10, 15, 16, 17, 18. 37, 66. 67. 68, 83. 
 
 spi-o Sull. c. 5. 
 
 ^Pro Sull. c. 25. yr. 62 B. C. 
 
 *Plut. Crass. 
 
 51 
 
Plutarch informs us that Caesar found so many insinuations"' 
 and charges against him in the senate that he went to the 
 people and endeavored to excite the more corrupt and disso- 
 lute of the elements of the state in order to form a body 
 for his own support, but Cato, apprehensive of the results, 
 induced the senate to distribute corn among the poor classes, 
 and thus win them over. This act of liberality, without ques- 
 tion, prevented that threatening danger. 
 
 But Metellus began to hold riotous assemblies and pre- 
 pared a motion that Pompey should be called into Italy with 
 his forces, to preserve the city from peril of Catiline's con- 
 spiracy. That was only a plausible pretense ; the real purpose 
 was to resign all matters into Pompey 's jurisdiction, subject 
 to his absolute command. 
 
 The two men who turned state's evidence at the trial of the 
 conspirators were Curius and Vettius, who named Caesar 
 also." The conservatives wanted to get rid of Caesar ; they 
 knew that he was a mighty man ; therefore his enemies would 
 gladly have had him in the list if they could have. 
 
 Caesar" and Crassus were a problem — their real moves 
 were one of those things that did not come out. 
 
 In connection with this narrative let us read in Suetonius. 
 He gives some incidents in Caesar's career subsequent to the 
 trial, which had their origin in the conspiracy. Substantially, 
 they bear witness that some time after the trial and condemna- 
 tion of the conspirators, Caesar was named^ as having been 
 among the accomplices of Catiline, both before Novius Niger, 
 the quaestor, by the informer L. Vettius ; and also in the 
 senate by Q. Curius, to whom a reward had been voted because 
 he had first discovered the designs of the conspirators. 
 
 Curius claimed that he had his information against Caesar 
 from Catiline. Vettius, indeed, pledged himself able to pro- 
 duce as evidence against Caesar, papers, in Caesar's hand- 
 writing, which Caesar had given Catiline. 
 
 Caesar rebelled against these accusations and appealed to 
 Cicero himself, if he had not of his own free will made known 
 to Cicero some particulars of the conspiracy. Caesar, through 
 his appeal, accomplished it that Curius was prevented from 
 receiving the expected reward. As for Vettius, Caesar obliged 
 him to give pledges to answer for his conduct ; he deorived 
 him of his possessions ; he saw him harshly abused and almost 
 
 ''Plut. Crass. 13. CictTO did not publish his speech until they were both dead. 
 Sail. Cat. XLVITT, XTJX. 
 
 "In tog. cand. 74. Pkit. Cra.ss. 13. 
 
 "Publius Crassus, the younger, was a great lover of learning and eloquence; he 
 attended Cicero constantly, to such an extent that he adopted mourning when Cicero 
 xvas accused through the machinations of Clodius, and persuaded his companions to 
 ffo likewise. ITe did finally reconcile Cicero to his father. Pint. Crass. 
 
 "Plut. Cato. 
 
 '"Suet. Vit. J. Cats. 1. 17. v. also c. 12 of this thesis. Tn tog. cand. 74. 
 
 52 
 
 i 
 
I 
 
 torn to pieces in an assembly of the people at the Rostra ; 
 lastly, he threw Vettitis into prison. 
 
 Imprisonment was the fate of Novius Niger, also, the pre- 
 siding judge, for having audaciously listened to information 
 against a magistrate of superior" office. 
 
 The very fact that Cicero, who laid bare the Catilinarian 
 designs, took the case of Sulla, chiefly prosecuted by Tor- 
 quatus, shows prima facie that he is convinced of Sulla's 
 innocence, although Torquatus" assumes Cicero should not 
 have done so. He used his prestige (auctoritas) by taking 
 this ca^e though not to throw weight into the case. He believes 
 Sulla free from guilt of the charge. This was Cicero's last 
 battle" at the bar in connection with any Catilinarian asso- 
 ciation ; joint pleader with him Avas Hortensius ; this is one 
 evidence of his eminence among prominent men. 
 
 The Pro Sulla has its importance as furnishing an epilogue^" 
 to the Catilinarian episode, in detailing which many references 
 have been made to the aforesaid oration, for in this speech 
 Cicero ran through the earlier months of the year 62 B. C. 
 
 That the courts were full is evidenced by the special appoint- 
 ment by the senate of a quaesitor, who was usually some able 
 or competent aedile, next in grade, and who was to preside at 
 these overflow court proceedings. This prosecution was a 
 state trial, in cases of which the government did not choose 
 jurors but allowed the prosecution to do so ; the defense, how- 
 ever, had a right to reject a certain number. Rome had no 
 l^ublic prosecutor ; any worthy lawyer could present charges, 
 and with him some others subscribed. Torquatus and his 
 colleague Cotta indicted and convicted, in 66 B. C, Autronius 
 Paetus and Cornelius Sulla as consuls designati for 65 B. C. 
 
 The case of Autronius^^ was over, as were the trials" of all 
 other suspected conspirators ; the essential evidence had found 
 him guiltv of partisanship in the conspiracy and he had gone 
 into exile. He is introduced^^ often in the Pro Sulla as a 
 foil to contrast Sulla's excellent traits with the heinous 
 characteristics of Autronius. 
 
 "Suet. Vit. J. Caes. 9, Plut. Crass., Pint. Cato. Ouintilian. 
 
 ^-Caesar was at that time praetor. Suet. Vit. J. Caes. c. 17. 
 
 ^'Son of consul of 6.t T5. C. Interesting to note that one of the subscriptors to 
 the charge of Torquatus was son of that man C. Cornelius, who witli \'argunteius 
 was to slay Cicero in 63 B. C. Pro Sull. c. 18. v. too Cat. 1 c. 4, Sail. Cat. XX Ml, 
 XXVIII. 
 
 "cf. Langc also. Pro Cael. brings in association but not in the conspiracy. 
 
 I'^Pro Sull., Liv. c 1, Sail. Cat. XVII, Flor. IV, 1, Dio 36, 44. 
 
 ^®Tried in Jan. or Feb. Pro Sull. In 66 B. C. had been charged with AmI.itus. 
 
 "Pro Sull. c. .T. c. 30. 
 
 i**Pro Sull. Sees. 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 37, 66. Sulla's case perhaps held in late 
 Feb. or early March. Not only did Cicero refuse to defend Autronius (Sees. 17-18), 
 he even came forward as a witness against him. He considered his honor at stake 
 if he defended one so intrinsically inculpated in the conspiracy. "Autrimius kept 
 coming and asking me to take the case.'' c. 6. 
 
 S3 
 
XX 
 
 Among the members of the decadent' Roman society was 
 the majority of the family of the Claudii — but of the very 
 acme ot the dregs of the society of that day were P. Clodius^ 
 Pulcher, and 'his sister Clodia. A full dose of the malignant 
 ill-will of this Clodius, was the most bitter medicine'' Cicero 
 ever had to swallow in his life. 
 
 P. Clodius Pulcher, actuated by motives of hatred against 
 Cicero, who had always denounced him for his unseemly^ life, 
 renounced his patrician rank and had himself adopted as a 
 plebeian that he might become a tribune of the people (tri- 
 bunus plebis), which office an aristocrat could not hold. In 
 that capacity, he passed a law that any one putting to death 
 a Roman citizen, without trial, should be banished. The law 
 was aimed at Cicero, although he had had the authority of 
 the senate to execute those whom he considered no longer 
 citizens, but traitors. The invidia and penalty, however, came 
 to Cicero, as consul and executive in that year. 
 
 Exile now threatened the ''vSaviour of his Country." Caesar 
 and Pompey were suspected of aiding this persecution because 
 of Cicero's refusaF to agree to some of their wishes. 
 
 Within two years, in 57 B. C, he was recalled^ to his native 
 land, for which he had suffered so much hostility and envy, 
 chiefly by Pompey's now bolder though late efforts and per- 
 suasion, and through the untiring exertions of Titus Annius 
 Milo,' a tribune, who also argued in Cicero's favor, backed by 
 the desire of all Italy and the decree of the senate, and to 
 their great joy. 
 
 His banishment had caused great regret ; his return, greater 
 joy. His house, demolished by Clodius, was rebuilt at the 
 expense of the state. 
 
 iPlut. Cic. 20, Veil. II, 4, 5, Livy CIV. 
 
 -Clodius — plebeian spelling. 
 
 3Ad Att., Plut., Pro Cael., De Domo, Cat. IV Sec. 20. 
 
 ■•v. also Cat. on trial for African extortion, In tog. cand., Bona Dea episode, and 
 Cic. Pro Cael. 
 
 ^Vell. II, 4, 5, Cic. refused to be 1 of 20 commissioners to divide lands of 
 Campagna, v. De leg. agrar. 
 
 «Ad Att., Livy CIV. In Piso. c. 15. 
 
 "Pro Milone. 
 
 XXI 
 
 A few facts regarding the chief authors, aside from Cicero, 
 whose works have been consulted, to supplement or review 
 his versions. 
 
 A very brief comparison will be included. In reading the 
 accounts of the various historians, the personal element in 
 their writing must not be depreciated. 
 
 54 
 
Sallust, a former debauched aristocrat, was a Caesarian ; 
 he was made by Caesar both as a politican and as a rich man. 
 When he abandoned public life he was very wealthy/ It was 
 then he began to write history. He had no motive but truth 
 .telling in giving his account of any achievemients of Cicero in 
 the Catilinarian matter. Caesar's questionable^ acts he does 
 not mention, or else glosses over. Compared with Dio, who 
 is hostile in attitude, Sallust is gentle in his opinion toward 
 Cicero. His purpose can hardly be called a "white-washing'" 
 of Caesar. If he wrote with any such intention why does he 
 at times praise Cicero ; not effusively nor frequently, but if he 
 were a Cicero hater, why at all? Surely we can ascribe a 
 higher motive. His faults in the monograph are not in judg- 
 ment. He displays an impartiality toward all classes. Although 
 not a partisan of the Optimates, he is as fair toward Caesar's 
 opponents as toward Caesar. He lauds Cato, one of Caesar's 
 most bitter enemies, with the same sincerity as he does 
 Caesar. 
 
 All critics agree Sallust is loose in chronology,* — at least 
 one year ahead. Sallust was a senator who could have had 
 access to all records ; so if he had been inclined toward re- 
 search, he could have been most exact. Specific facts in his- 
 tory, names, figures, and dates, are important only if based 
 on careful research. Sallust, however, was so brilliant that 
 he appealed strongly to the school people. He is inaccurate 
 sometimes in slipping in facts ; schedules them previous to 
 their occurrence, anticipating events ; or else later f or appro- 
 priates passages directly, but inserts them incorrectly," 
 although in P. I. of ch. XVIII, he informs his readers that 
 he will give as accurate an account as possible of the con- 
 spiracy. Sallust puts into the mouths of his speakers bril- 
 liant speeches such as he might have composed. He omits 
 evidence to support general charges against Catiline in his 
 relationship to some of his companions ; if he had facts he 
 should have stated them ; if none, as we may assume, he was 
 then simply careless about the truth of his statements, and 
 regarded only the rhetorical effect. 
 
 Suetonius, whose chief composition is the Vitae Caesarum, 
 was a scholar writing under Hadrian. He was not in politics. 
 In comparing the statements of Suetonius and Sallust in 
 reference to the same matters pertaining to Julius Caesar's 
 actions, more reliance may be placed upon the accuracy of 
 the words of Suetonius, because Sallust was a beneficiary of 
 the great Julius. Suetonius, writing from 100-150 years later 
 than the events happened, presents his views of all those 
 concerned, impartially and with judgment. He records items 
 Sallust, intentionally or otherwise, omits.^ 
 
 *To witness: his Horti Sallustiani. 
 
 ^Suet. Vit. Caes. J. Caes. T, co-operation with Autronius. 
 
 55 
 
Dio Cassius, a Roman senator of eastern extraction, who 
 wrote in Greek, clearly largely follows Livy. He wrote a 
 life of Caesar and of Cicero ; but is not always fair to Cicero 
 and very often bitter in his expressions ; he imputes Cicero's 
 support of Pompey to his desire to have Pompey and his 
 friends later show him favor. 
 
 Livy, much like Scott, writes in the vein of the historical 
 novel. It is the loss of all students of classical research that 
 all of Livy has not been preserved, or else we should have 
 most authentic history. 
 
 Without the De Petitione Consulatus of Quintus Cicero 
 and the version of Asconius of the In toga Candida, many side- 
 lights on the lives of Catiline and Antonius, previous to their 
 closer contacts with Cicero, would not be ours. 
 
 Appian's account is the most unimportant of all these; he 
 did not have a sense of limitation ; he inserts some sensational 
 data of his own ; the ancients often invented speeches to fit the 
 character, environment, and circumstances of the subjects who 
 Avere the topics of their composition. 
 
 Plutarch gives full and graphic history of all the main 
 characters involved. 
 
 ^As Mommsen and others believe. 
 
 *Cf. C. John: Sail, ueber Cat. Candidattir im J. 688, Rh. Mus. 1871, on Sallust'f 
 inaccuracies in time; he is concerned only with the story. 
 
 sSall. Cat. c. XXXI, 4, "... ipse lege . . .", XXXII, cf. Sail. Cat. 
 XXI with In tog. cand. "... inquilinus . . ."of Aug. 64. 
 
 «Pro Mur. Sec. 49 ". . . Vultus ..." Sec. 51 ". . . duo corpora . . ." 
 Sec. 51 ". . . erupit ..." Sail. Cat. XV. 
 
 ''Suet. Vit. Caes. "J. Caes. I — Autronius matter of 66-65 B. C. 
 
 XXII 
 
 To summarize — An attempt has been made to read closely 
 and elicit such facts in connection with the history of the 
 tradition of Catiline as are not generally used, gathering data 
 from contemporary historians, writers, and orators, whose 
 speeches were published, or from private letters where the 
 touches are most intimate and self revealing. Reports, also, 
 of later authors, who had recourse to the original literary 
 productions, which now have been entirely or partially lost, 
 or who were eligible to search through records, not accessible 
 to the general public, furnish many facts on which definite 
 assertions may be based, or which may be a fotmdation for 
 establishing a closer approximation to the truth of doubtful 
 points. 
 
 Some questions, because of lack of internal evidence or 
 lack of sufficiently strong light being brought to bear upon 
 them, must remain clouded ; some later development may 
 draw them forth from out of their obscurity. 
 
 56 
 
 "«*.--- ifc^-'-- 
 
The season of the year, even if not the exact date of the 
 event, which has been a matter of discussion, has been to 
 some extent established in the case of both the election of 63 
 B. C, and the trial of Murena. 
 
 No attempt has been made to treat of the literary form 
 of any one of the writers. Only Sallust and Suetonius, the 
 Latin historians, have been briefly compared ; the ether Latin 
 historians are either lost to some extent or brief, and the other 
 writers^ not so universally renowned. Could we have all of 
 Livy, who, probably through Tiro, took much from Cicero's 
 own works, judging by the traces, we would have a rock 
 upon which to build. Dio, who bases upon Livy, so often 
 injects his own motives into his narration, or omits essentials, 
 as the mood seems to capture him, that cautious steps are 
 necessary in following him. 
 
 Plutarch gives us many personal, exceedingly familiar, and 
 graphic touches that we can affirm, almost without hesita- 
 tion, that he probably read intensively in Tiro's biography, 
 at least in the main. While Suetonius is most careful, and 
 exact in research, the minute, detailed facts of personal his- 
 tory in Plutarch would point to Tiro.^ 
 
 ^Their facts are most authentic because contemporaneous and not designed for 
 the public, but private memoranda, as Quintus Cicero in De Petitione; or because 
 later and impartial as witness Asconius in In Toga Candida. 
 
 ^Gudemann — Plut. Sources of Cic. Life — thinks otherwise; that Plutarch followed 
 Suetonius. 
 
 XXIII 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Of the Chief Works Consulted 
 
 Cicero, M. Tulii Ciceronis Opera quae supersunt omnia. Edi- 
 tion by C. F. W. Mueller and others. Teubner, 1884-1890, 
 1 90 1 -1904. 
 
 Cicero-Letters v. Tyrrell and Purser, O. E. Schmidt. 
 
 — Quintus, De Petitione Consulatus. 
 
 Dio Cassius Cocceianus. 
 
 Publius Vergilius Maro-Aeneid I-XII. 
 
 Q. Asconius Pedianus, commentary, by Orelli, Kiessling & 
 Schoell, Berlin. 
 
 — Commentary, A. G. Clark. Clarendon Press. 
 
 Nepos Cornelius, (Atticus). Nipperdey's edition, 1849. 
 
 Appian, Civil War, esp. Fr. 2, 2, to 4, 20. 
 
 Velleius Paterculus. 
 
 Plutarch of Chaeronea. The lives of Sulla, Marius, Pompey, 
 Caesar, Cicero, Cato minor. 
 
 C. Crispus Sallustius, Historia de Catilinae Conjuratione. 
 
 57 
 
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Vitae Caesarum Liber I. 
 
 Gaston Boissier, Cicero et ses Amis, Paris, 1866. 
 
 \V. Drumann, Gesch. Roms. in seinem Uebergange, etc., 1834, 
 sqq., vol. 5 (1841) and vol. 6 (1844). 
 
 Fischer, Zeittafeln. 
 
 Wm. Forsyth, M. A. Queen's Counsel. Life of Cicero, 1862. 
 
 Alfred Gudeman, The Sources of Plutarch's Life of Cicero. 
 Publ. of the Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1902. 
 
 Carl Halm edited w. notes : the Catilinarians, pro Murena, 
 pro P. Sulla and the first six of the Philippics. 
 
 W. Ihne, Rom. Geschichte. (8 vols.) Heidelberg Vols. 6, 7, 
 8, (1886.) 
 
 Const. John, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der Catil. Versch- 
 worung, etc. Jahrb. f. Philol., Supplement and 8, 701-819. 
 
 L. Lange — Constitution and Laws — 3 vols. 
 
 Fr. Leo, Miscella Ciceroniana. Goett., 1892. 
 
 George L. Long, The Decline of the Roman Republic. Lon- 
 don & Cambridge, 1864-74, 5 volumes. 
 
 Conyers Middleton (1683-1750). The Life of M. Tullius 
 Cicero. 
 
 Th. Mommsen, Strafrecht, 1899. 
 
 Pauly-Wissowa, articles : Appianus, Asconius, Asinius Pollio, 
 Cassius Die. 
 
 Carl Peter, Geschichte Roms, Zweiter Band. Halle, 1854. 
 
 Otto E. Schmidt, Die letzten Kaempfe der Rom. Republ. 1884. 
 
 E. G. Sillier, Testimonium Animae (chapt. 16, Cicero of 
 Arpinum, Cato of Utica), 1908. 
 
 — Lucretius and Cicero, Amer. Philol. Association, Trans, f. 
 1897. 
 
 — Annals of Caesar. 
 
 --—Cicero of Arpinum. 
 
 E. Von Stern, Catilina U. die Parteikaempfe in Rom. der Jahr 
 66-63 Dorpat, 1883. 
 
 J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Cicero and the Fall of the Roman 
 Republic, Putnams, 1906. 
 
 W. H. D. Suringar, M. TuUii Ciceronis Commentarii Rerum 
 Suarum sive de vita sua. 
 
 W. Teuffel, Ueber Ciceros Charakter und Schriften. Tubin- 
 gen, 1863. 
 
 Robt. Yelverton^ Tyrrell and L. Purser, The Correspondence 
 of M. Tullius Cicero, arranged ace. to its chron. order, 2nd 
 ed. Dubl. London, 1885, 6 vols., and se.par. Index vol. 
 
 S8 
 
I 
 
J!