Cicero Catilinarians

148 Pages·2008·10.21 MB·English

by  Dyck, Andrew R.

CONTENTS
Preface page ix
Abbreviations xi
Map i The Roman world in 63 bg xiv
Map 2 Rome, in the late Republic xvi
Chronological table: Catiline’s life and his conspiracy xvii
Introduction 1
1 Catiline’s career down to 63 1
2 Background to the conspiracy 4
3 The conspiracy 7
4 The Catilinariam: publication, possible revision 10
5 Types of rhetoric within the Catilinarian corpus 12
6 Influence through the centuries 13
7 Language and style 16
8 The text 20
M. TVLLI CICERONIS IN L. CATILINAM
ORATIONES 23
ORATIO PRIMA 25
ORATIO SECVNDA 34
ORATIO TERTIA 43
ORATIO QVARTA 52
Commentary 60
Appendix / Historical sources cited 241
Appendix 2 The date of Catilinarian 1 243
Appendix 3 Prose rhythm 245
References 247
Indexes 261
1 Latin words 261
2 Greek words 272
3 General 272
PREFACE
To produce a new commented edition of Cicero’s Catilinarians may seem like a woefully
unoriginal, if not altogether superfluous undertaking. There are, of course, various
commentaries, mostly of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century vintage, intended to
introduce this corpus to school children. But in the latter half of the twentieth century
interest in producing such works tapered off as the traditional classical curriculum
came under fire and lists of set books were altered in the hope of reinvigorating the
subject. In addition, the palpable decline of oratory in the political life of the Western
democracies made C.’s products seem less relevant to contemporary concerns. Last,
but not least, the negative assessment of C. by W. Drumann and T. Mommsen has
often colored the judgment of subsequent historians of antiquity1 and thus fed a
neglect of, if not outright hostility to, C. and his work.
The fact that his place in the curriculum can no longer be taken for granted may
prompt some salutary reflection on C. and his educational uses. Blind hero-worship is
clearly inappropriate, as Petrarch already realized upon discovery of C.’s letters. But
the fact that C., too, was human makes him more, not less interesting. His creation of
a distinctive and powerful prose style exploiting to the full the resources and registers
of the Latin of his day commands, or should command, admiration in an age when
language and style tend to be handled carelessly. We are beginning to understand
Mommsen’s admiration for Caesar and denigration of C. as conditioned by his own
historical circumstances/ C.’s position in the history of Western thought and edu­
cation makes him worth the acquaintance of anyone working within that tradition
or seeking to understand it from without. Given that he is the best-documented fig­
ure of the ancient pagan world, students of antiquity will continue to find him an
inexhaustible source of insight and wonder as well as irritation and frustration.
In preparing this volume I have sought to exploit the latest textual advances. The
notes set the text into the context of C.’s ideas and usage (as well as the history of
Latin as appropriate) and provide necessary historical background; they also refer
readers to sources, primary and secondary, that can lead them further. I have cited,
by way of agreement or disagreement, works of diverse provenance and written in
various languages. I do not expect all readers to be able to take advantage of all the
citations, though many advanced readers will, and less advanced ones may be spurred
to further study. Insofar as this book finds its way into classrooms, I rely on the tact
and insight of teachers to mediate. In default of an up-to-date and fully satisfactory
anglophone Latin reference grammar, I have been driven to cite a variety of works
and stylistic studies. Dominic Berry’s new translation of the Catilinarians (and other
major political speeches of C.’s) appeared just as this book was about to go to press;
readers will find many valuable observations there; in the circumstances I have had
to cite and engage with it less frequently than I would otherwise have done. 2
Gf. Habicht (1990) 3 5. 2 See further Rebenich (2002) 87-98.
ix
X PREFACE
Finally, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the institutions and individuals who have ABBREVIATIONS
helped this work during its several years’ gestation. I owe thanks first to E. J. Kenney
and Philip Hardie, the Latin editors of Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics, for
their support and encouragement; to Michael Sharp of Cambridge University Press CITED EDITIONS OF THE CATILLNAR1ANS
for his patience, encouragement, and help in keeping the project on track; to the
Academic Senate of the University of California, Los Angeles, for providing me ed. princeps Rome 1471
with support for this research during the 2003-4 academic year; to Paul Naiditch, Lambinus1 Paris 1565
now Emeritus Classics Bibliographer of the UCLA Young Research Library, for kind C. Halm' Zurich 1851
help in obtaining relevant materials; to Robert A. Raster for allowing me to read his R. Klotz Leipzig 1852
commentary on Pro Sestio prior to publication; to Jonathan Powell andjohn Ramsey for A. C. Clark Oxford 1905
helpful comments on a portion of my MS; to T. J. Cadoux for beneficial discussion of E Richter-A. Eberhard-H. Nohl Leipzig -Berlin 1912
some historical problems; for remaining defects I bear sole responsibility. My greatest K. Halm-W. Sternkopf Berlin 1916
debt is indicated in the dedication. H. Bornecque Paris 1926
E Reis Leipzig 1933
T. Maslowski Munich Leipzig 2003
STANDARD WORKS
AG Allen and Greenough’s New Latin grammar, ed. J. B.
Greenough et al. (Boston 1903)
B. A. “'Bradley’s Arnold’ Latin prose composition, ed. J. F.
Mountford (New Rochelle 1992; orig. 1938)
CAH The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edn (Cambridge
1984-2005)
Daremberg and Saglio Daremberg, C., and E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des
antiquites, 5 pts. in 10 vols. (Paris 1877-1919)
Ernout and Meillet Ernout, A., and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire etymologique
de la langue latvne. Histoire des mots, 4th edn (Paris
1959)
FGrHist Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby
(Leiden 1923-)
fr. orat. Crawford, J. W., ed. Cicero: The fragmentary speeches,
2nd edn (Atlanta 1994)
fr. phil. Garbarino, I., ed. M. Tulli Ciceronis Fragmenta ex
libris philosophicis, ex aliis libris deperditis, ex scriptis
incertis (Turin 1984)
fr. poet. Courtney, E., ed. The fragmentary Latin poets, 2nd
edn (Oxford 2003) 149-78
Frisk, H. Griechisches Etymologisches Worterbuch, 3 vols.
(Heidelberg 1973-9)
xi
xii ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS xiii
G-L Gildersleeve, B. L., and G. Lodge. Latin grammar, Richardson, L.J. jr. A new topographical dictionary of ancient Rome
3rd edn (London 1895) (Baltimore and London 1992)
H B Hale, W. G., and C. D. Buck, A Latin grammar Roby Roby, H. J. A grammar of the Latin language, 2 vols.
(Boston 1903) (London 1871-4)
H-S Hofmann, J. B., and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax sch. Gronov. Asconius, Scholia Bobiensia, Scholia Pseudasconii
and Stilistik (Munich 1965) Sangallensia, Scholia Cluniacensia et recentima
Hand, F. Tursellinus seu De particulis Latinis commentarii, 4 vols. Ambrosiana ac Vaticana, Scholia Lugdunensia sive
(Leipzig 1829-45) Gronoviana et eorum excerpta Lugdunensia, ed.
ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau, 3 vols. T. Stangl (Vienna 1912) 281-90
(Berlin 1892-1916) SyllA Dittenberger, W., ed., Sylloge inscriptionum
K-S Kiihner, R., and C. Stegmann, Ausfuhrliche Graecarum, 3rd edn (Leipzig 1915)
Grammatik der lateinischen Spraehe, II: Satzlehre. 2 vols. Talbert, R. J. A., ed. Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world
With corrections to the 4th edn by A. Thierfelder (Princeton 2000)
(Darmstadt 1966) ILL Thesaurus linguae Latinae (Leipzig 1900-)
Lausberg, H. Handbook of literary rhetoric: A foundation for literary TLRR Alexander, M. C., Trials in the late Roman Republic,
study, tr. M. T. Bliss, A. Jansen, D. E. Orton, ed. D. 149 bc to 50 bc (Toronto 1990)
E. Orton and R. D. Anderson (Leiden 1998)
LSJ Liddell, H., and R. Scott, Greek-English lemon,
rev. H. Stuart Jones; suppi. E. Barber et al.
(Oxford 1968)
LTUR Steinby, E. M., ed., Lexicon topographicum urbis
Romae, 6 vols. (Rome 1993-2000)
MRR Broughton, T. R. S. Magistrates of the Roman
Republic, 3 vols. (New York 1951—Atlanta 1986)
Nettleship, H. Contributions to Latin lexicography (Oxford 1889)
NLS Woodcock, E. C., A new Latin syntax (Cambridge,
Mass. 1959)
OCIP Hornblower, S., and A. Spawforth, edd., The
Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn (Oxford 1996)
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare (Oxford
1982)
PHI Database of Latin authors to ad 200: cd rom 5.3
produced by Packard Humanities Institute
(source of statements about nos. of attestations
and the like) (Palo Alto, Calif.)
RAC Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum, ed. T. Klauser
(Stuttgart 1950-)
RE Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumsivissenschqft,
edd. A. Pauly, G. Wissowa and W. Kroll (Stuttgart
1893-1980)
Map i. The Roman world in 63 bc Map 1. (cord.)
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE: CATILINE’S LIFE
AND HIS CONSPIRACY
108 (106?) Birth
89 Possibly member of the consilium of Cn. Pompeius Strabo
c. 83-80 Active on Sullan side in civil war and proscriptions
November 82 Murder of M. Marius Gratidianus
73 Tried and acquitted of seducing the Vestal Virgin Fabia
68 Praetor
67 Propraetor in Africa
66 His candidature in second consular elections disallowed
29 December Present in the comitium with a weapon
65, second half Tried and acquitted de repetundis for activity in Africa
64 Unsuccessful candidate for consul
after consular elections Tried and acquitted under kx Cornelia de sicariis et ueneficiis
63 (July?) Again defeated in consular elections
21 or 22 October Senate passes the consultum, ultimum
21 October C. predicts Manlius’ revolt
after 21 October Catiline prosecuted under kx Plautia de ui
27 October Rising of Manlius at Faesulae
28 October Alleged plan to murder optimates at Rome
1 November Assault on Praeneste thwarted
6- 7 November Night meeting at Laeca’s house in Scythemakers’ Street
7 November (?) C.’s assassination thwarted
7- 8 November (?) Departure of some of Catiline’s supporters to Forum
Aurelium
8 November (?) C. confronts Catiline in the senate: First Catilinarian
8- 9 November (?) Catiline departs Rome by night
g November (?) C. announces the departure: Second Catilinarian
c. mid-November Catiline declared a hostis by the Senate
2-3 December Seizure by night of incriminating-letters at the Mulvian
Bridge
s.
ure 3 December Leading city conspirators confronted in senate with
Republic erial struct 4 December Sedveeicndraeetneecd ve io nat egCsa i.rn’ess wht aothrndeosmr ;f ;o Ttrh hTeir.i drV Ccooalnttiuflierncsaisruiiosa nnas n; dth tahnek sgiving-
e mp ambassadors of the Allobroges; L. Tarquinius links
me in the latg indicates i 5 December FCSoeruanrsatshtue C sd atetoibl itanhateeris ac ntoh;n ets hpfeaiirtrea cdoyef a btthuhet iicss a ddpeitscubrreeeeldide ;cv oeCdn. s pprierastiodress: over
Ronin the execution, is escorted home by admirers
p 2. derli 62 early January Catiline and his followers defeated and annihilated at
an Pistoria
MU
INTRODUCTION
i. CATILINE’S CAREER DOWN TO 63'
For most of his life, Lucius Sergius Catilina, or Catiline, as he has come to be known in
English, looked like anything but a revolutionary. He was the scion of an old patrician
family, the gens Sergia, which gave its name to one of the Roman tribes; and Virgil
glorified, if he did not invent altogether, an eponymous ancestor, Sergestus, as one of
the Trojan heroes who migrated to Italy with Aeneas (Aen. 5.121).'~ Even his adversary
C. was able, in the very different context of a lawcourt speech, to express a certain
appreciation for the attractive features of Catiline’s many-faceted personality (Cael.
12-14).
Catiline’s great-grandfather, M. Sergius Silus, had distinguished himself in the
Hannibalic War (without, however, rising above praetorian rank).3 As praetor of the
year 68, Catiline must have been born by 108 (or 106 on the assumption that patricians
had the option of presenting themselves two years early).4 He substituted an individual
cognomen for the inherited Silus5 but followed the family tradition of military service.6
The beginnings of his military career are lost unless he is to be identified with the L.
Sergius Lf. attested as a member of the consilium of the consul Cn. Pompeius Strabo
in 89 during the Social War.7 Following Sulla’s return to Italy in 83, he became one
of the generalissimo’s most reliable henchmen, not scrupling to kill his own brother
after the battle of the Colline Gate;'1 he is also reported to have tortured to death M.
Marius Gratidianus in November 8q on the grave of Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 102),
whom Gratidianus had forced to commit suicide; Catiline is said to have severed the
victim’s head and carried it to Sulla.9 After relieving besieged Praeneste, he led a
squadron of Gauls who hunted down the proscribed with deadly efficiency; among
1 C. refers throughout to Cicero; all dates are lie; for the material in sections 1 -3 Drexler
(1976) provides a collection of sources with German translation. References to Sallust are to the
Helium Catilinae., those to Quintilian are to the Institutio oratoria unless otherwise indicated. For
cross-references within the commentary § is used to denote paragraphs within the particular
speech being explicated; references to the other speeches include the number of the speech.
All references in the introduction are to the Catilinariam unless otherwise identified. Standard
commentaries on other texts are cited by the name of the commentator (e.g. “Berry on Sul”)
and are omitted from the list of books and articles cited on p. 247.
2 Cf. Mtinzer, RE ha 2.1688 s.v. Sergius. 3 Miinzer, RE ha 2.1719 20 s.v. Sergius no. 40.
4 MRR n 68; cf. Radian (1964).
5 WolfHin (1884) 278 connects Catilina with catulinus (“of or belonging to dogs”); it would then
be a substantivized feminine referring to meat on the analogy of Porcina or Aprulla (= aprurmlu)
or It. Canitur, but as there is no evidence for the Romans eating puppies, the explanation seems
implausible (this point is owed to J. G. F. Powell).
6 C. speaks of Catiline’s studia m mililaris at Cael 12.
7 /7,58888 with Gichorius (1922) 172 4; cf also Mattingly (1975) 263 and n. 8.
8 i November 82; cf. Plut. Cic. 10.3.
9 On the (divided) tradition cf Dyck on Off. pp. 599 600.
1
2 INTRODUCTION 1. CATILINE’S CAREER DOWN TO 63 3
his victims was his brother-in-law Q. Caecilius.10 * Sulla will have seen that Catiline, putsch carried out by gladiators and runaway slaves. Such a plot was alleged by
like his other agents, profited handsomely; hence Sallust’s remark: huic ab adulescentia Torquatus in his prosecution in 62 de ui of P. Sulla, nephew of the dictator (TLRR
bella intestina.. .gratafuere (5.2). Though Catiline insured himself against legal penalties no. 234).In his defense speech C. sought to cast doubt on that claim by citing the
for his brother’s murder by having his name added posthumously to the proscription dismissive comment of Torquatus’ father: se audisse aliquid, non credidisse (Sul. 81). Sallust
list," he did face prosecution in 73 for seducing the Vestal Virgin Fabia, the cousin 18.5 states, however, that Catiline and Autronius planned to kill the new consuls L.
or half-sister of C.’s wife Terentia, but was acquitted with some assistance from Q. Cotta and L. Torquatus on the Capitol on the first of January. Sallust’s date, however,
Lutatius Catulus (cos. 78).12 may rest upon a false inference from Sul. 68, where C. reports the younger Torquatus’
Catiline’s year as praetor (68) was followed by assignment as propraetor in Africa. argument that P. Sulla planned ut interfecta patre tuo [sc. Tarqmti\ consul descenderet kalendis
His extortionate conduct of that office, complained of by several embassies,'3 suggests lanuariis cum lictoribusf this leaves the possibility open that the assassination of the
that he was recouping expenditures of his previous candidacies and laying up a war consuls-elect was to take place on the last day of December so that the way would
chest for a consular campaign. Upon return from his province in 66, Catiline did not be clear for new consuls to assume office on 1 January; this is more plausible than
stand for consul in the regular election, perhaps because he discounted his chances the idea that Cotta and Torquatus were to be assassinated after assuming office on
of prevailing against P. Sulla or L. Manlius Torquatus to fill the one seat open to a 1 January when they would enjoy tightened security (cf. i.ii.5-6n.). In exchange for
patrician.14 When, however, the initial victors, Sulla andP. Autronius, were prosecuted his services Catiline may have been promised support for his candidacy in the next
by their defeated opponents for bribery and convicted,'5 Catiline presented himself consular elections.1*1 By the date of Sulla’s trial (62) any enormity could be imputed to
as a candidate in the new elections, but a consilium presided over by the consul L. Catiline; and his services to the defendant’s uncle and Autronius’ later association with
Volcatius Tullus disallowed his candidacy either quod intra legitimos dies profiteri nequiuerat him were notorious.lfl This “first conspiracy,” then, remains in the realm of rumor
(Sal. 18.3) or because he was under prosecution de repetundis (Asc. 89C); cf. Marshall and innuendo.
The one charge that dates from before the conspiracy of 63 is that Catiline and Piso
(1976-7) 130-5-
Fact and fiction are hard to disentangle in reports of Catiline’s skulduggery at planned a murder of optimates (fr. orat. tog. cand. 21 caedem optimatum facere uoluisti). But
the end of 66 and/or beginning of 65: the evidence is fragmentary and heavily it is hard to see how that could have served Catiline’s interests; after all, his acquittal
slanted against Catiline. C. charged Catiline and Piso with aiming at a caedes opti­ in the trial repetundarum in the second half of 65 would be owed at least in part to help
matium (fr. orat, toga cand. 21). The same plot seems to be referred to at Mur. 81, from distinguished members of the nobility,20 and he would need their support if he
where C. claims that the current situation is the consummation of all that was set were to have any hope of fulfilling his consular ambitions. C.’s charge, if not outright
in motion over the past three years. More concrete is C.’s claim at Cat. 1.15.1-4 slander, must be rhetorically exaggerated.
that Catiline stood in the forum on the last day of December 66 with a weapon in Catiline’s candidacy for the consulate of 64 was thwarted by his pending trial de
hand and that he had prepared a band of men to kill the consuls and other leading repetundis as a result of his misconduct as governor of Africa.21 His acquittal, however,
citizens. freed him to compete in the elections for 63-22 In all, seven candidates presented
C. Manilius’ trial for extortion (repetundarum: TLRR no. 205) was set to begin on
29 December 66, and some have seen a connection with Catiline’s action that day.
16 Sul. 10 dime coniurationes abs te, Torquate, conslitumtur, una quae lepido el Volcatia considibus patre
Thus Gelzer, RE iia 2.1697.24, suggested that Catiline was present in the comitium tuo consule designato Jacta esse dicitur, Sul. 15 ilk ambitus indicium tollere ac disturbare primum conflato rnbiil
that day to demonstrate against the trial; Seager (1964) 344-5 sought to undergird gladiatorum etfugitimrum tumultu.
that idea by pointing to connections between Catiline and Pompey, whom Manilius’ 17 Cf. the rumor me Parilibus. .. cum fascibus descensurum (Phil. 14.14).
'8 That is the way Gelzer, RE iia 2.1696.36-52, interprets Sul. 68 (... susltdisti lumc suspicionem
law had installed in command in the war against Mithridates. But Catiline’s ties to
cum dixisti lumc, ul [sc. Sulla] Catilinam consulem efficeret, contra patrem tuum operas ei manum comparasse)',
Pompey are not strong, and Gruen (1969) 24 thinks that any such demonstration on if that is right, C. tendentiously misrepresents the prosecutor; in claiming that the putsch aimed
Catiline’s part “can hardly have been to the advantage of Manilius or Pompey.” to install Catiline as one of the consuls, Sallust (18.5) seems to have taken the statement at face
value. Symc (1964) 92, however, remarks that, in view of their friendship, Catiline might have
Another possible motive for violence on the last day of 66 would have been an
been expected to defend, rather than attack, Torquatus.
attack on the consuls-designate with the plan of installing other consuls through a
111 In 62 Autronius was convicted de ui and exiled to Greece: TLRR no. 229.
20 Collusion (praeuaricatio, i.e. cooperation so as to secure an acquittal) on the part of the
prosecutor is not excluded, however; C. claims that this occurred (liar. resp. 42; Pis. 23), and the
10 Or perhaps Caucilius; so Shackleton Bailey at Q, Gie. (?) Comm. pet. 9; cf. Hinard (1985) dismissal of allegedly prejudiced jurors is suspect (Atl. 1.2.1; Asc. 87C).
21 C. contemplated defending him to secure his support in the next year’s elections; cf Alt.
339-4°-
" Plut. Cic. 10.3 and Sul. 32. 12 'ILRR no. 167; Cadoux (2005) esp. 167. 1.2.1; Cael. 14.
13 References at MRJl 11 147. ‘4 So Ramsey (1982) 123. 15 Cf TLRR 110s. 200 1. 22 Cf. L/JiRna. 212.
4 INTRODUCTION 2. BACKGROUND TO THE CONSPIRACY
themselves, of whom, however, only three had a realistic prospect of election, Catiline, The capital markets in Italy and in the provinces differed markedly. Interest rates
C. Antonius, son of the famous orator M. Antonius, immortalized in De oratore, and C. within Italy are not known to have risen above 12 percent, with 4-6 percent being
himself.'3 Antonius had followed a similar path to Catiline’s, using the civil war and normal, whereas those in the provinces were less tightly regulated and could, in
proscriptions as an opportunity for self-enrichment but then squandering his gains; view of the greater risk, rise to as high as 48 percent.28 Asia, with its fertile lands,
he had been expelled from the senate by the censors of 70 but then elected to the was held to be particularly lucrative.29 During much of the 60s, however, invest­
praetorship for 66 with C., not least thanks to the orator’s help (fr. orat. tog. catid. ment in overseas property was extremely risky because of the pirates infesting the
24). Nonetheless Antonius now entered into electoral alliance with Catiline, not C., Mediterranean30 and the ongoing war in Asia against Mithridates. But by 63 the sea
and with the support, Asconius asserts (83C), of Crassus and Caesar. The wealthy had been cleared of pirates through Pompey’s energetic campaign,3' and the war
Crassus’ involvement would help account for the fact that bribery was rife, provoking in Asia was winding down,32 though the army was still there, itself draining Italian
a proposal for tighter sanctions against electoral bribery (ambitus). This, however, was capital. In any case, Italian investors began to feel comfortable about sending their
vetoed by the tribune Q. Mucius Orestinus, who used the occasion to declare C. unfit money abroad once again. Within Italy, however, the consequence was a crisis of
to be consul (fr. orat. tog. acrid. 25). The following day C. replied with the impassioned liquidity, with insufficient cash reserves available to meet needs as they arose.33 A
Oratio in toga candida. sign of the times is the case of P. Sittius, who, though wealthy, was forced to sell a
This speech, an early example of Ciceronian invective, seems to have been, like the portion of his estates to discharge his debts.34 The senate acted - we do not know
Second Philippic, a farrago of miscellaneous charges. C. probably began by attacking the precisely when - to stem the flow of precious metals from Italy.35 C. enforced that
tribune Q. Mucius, whom he had once defended on a charge of theft,23 24 for ingratitude decree with vigor, despatching for the purpose his later adversary, then quaestor,
(fr. 25). He went on to declare himself satisfied with the existing law against ambitus (fr. P. Vatinius to Puteoli (mod. Pozzuoli).31’ For a Sittius the crisis of liquidity was embar­
9) and claimed to know ofviolations even of that (fr. 1). The bulk of the speech, however, rassing, but not devastating. In die city, however, to the general problem of liquid­
appears to have been given over to a scathing denunciation of his two leading consular ity was added speculation in the construction industry and soaring rents. Artisans
opponents, compared to two daggers (sicas) that certain persons are drawing in rem and shopkeepers, who had no such assets as Sittius to call upon, were under severe
publicam (fr. 26), a suggestive image perhaps inspired by the rhetoric of C. Gracchus.25 * pressure;37 hence Sallust’s claim that initially cuncta plebes approved of Catiline’s
Though Antonius is not spared (frr. 2, 7, 22), C. saves his heavy artillery for the more program (37.1).38
dangerous Catiline, who is repeatedly addressed, as in Cat. 1, in the second person The politicians sensed discontent and restlessness among the urban plebsA9 The
(frr. 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24). Even details of his private life are fair first to try to capitalize on it was P. Servilius Rullus, who, as tribune of the plebs for 63,
game for criticism (fr, 19), as they are at Cat. 1.13-14. The speech and the fact that his promulgated a law for the distribution of land in Italy. The ambitious plan aimed to
opponents could muster no satisfactory reply21’ must have had an impact, no doubt resettle thousands of the urban poor on government land in Campania; in addition,
consolidating C.’s support among the optimates. In the following election C. carried the state would offer to buy Italian land from its owners; the financial basis was to be
all the centuries; Antonius was elected in second place, a bit ahead of Catiline (Asc.
94C). 28 Cf Frank (1933) 352; Cic. Att. 5.21.10 13; SyllA 748.
29 Cf. Cic. Mac. 71 agros habent [sc. Apollonuienses] el natura perbonos el diligentia mlturaque meliores.
30 On the evidence for piratical activity anil Roman counter-measures down to 67 cf. Pohl
2. BACKGROUND TO THE CONSPIRACY ('993) 266-78; dr Souza (1999) chs. 3 4.
31 Cf Gelzcr (1984) ch. 5; Pohl (1993) 278-80; de Souza (1999) ch. 5; Seager (2002) 43-9.
Although our information about the Roman economy in the years immediately prior 32 Gelzcr (1984) 90-9 (esp. 912 on Mithridates’ death); more briefly Kallel-Marx (1995)
to 63 is limited, it is generally agreed that, as he himself later observed, the problem :U4 5-
33 Besides cash payment, there might have been the possibility of clearing a debt through
of indebtedness reached a climax during C.’s consulate.27 attributio, i.e. assigning X, a debtor of Y, to repay Y’s debt to Z; this is attested in C. ’s correspon­
dence of 45 pertaining to Vettius’ debt, but it is uni dear when it was introduced or how it was
23 Cf. Asc. 8a0; Q. Cie. (?) Comm. pel. 7- 10. incorporated in law; cf. Bcnbhr (1986) 298.
24 TLRR no. 213. It seems probable that, as in liar, resp, another published senatorial speech, 34 Gic. Sid. 56 8.
C. began with the causa efficiens for the speech; the reconstruction given here differs in some 35 Gic. Mac. 67 exportari aurum non oportere cum saepe antea senatus tum me consulegrauissime iudicmdl.
respects from those previously proposed. 38 Vat. 12. 37 Cf Giovannini (1995) 28; Yavetz (1958) 517.
25 Cf. 1.16.1-511. 38 The debt burden was a problem that had to he dealt with periodieally; Gaesar as dictator
28 Cf Asc. 93-4(1 huic aratum Ciceronis et Catilina et Antonius contumeliose responderunt, quod solum would later offer some relief, though not on the scale of Home tabulae; cf Bcnbhr (19(16) 319;
poterant, inueeti in nouifalm eius. Frederikscn (1966).
27 Off. 2.84 nmnquam uehemenlias actum quam me consute ne sotuerelur etc. For a different view cf 39 The problem continued in the aftermath of C.’s consulate; hence Cato as tribune for 62
Drummond (1999b) 136 47. proposed distribution of grain: Plul. Cat. min. 26.1.
G INTRODUCTION 3. THE CONSPIRACY 7
secured by the sale of public land in the provinces or raising of interest rates there as of prosecution, he declared that if his fortunes were set on fire, he would put out
well as energetic collection of tribute and spoils of war. Oversight was to be exercised the blaze non aqua sed ruina (Mur. 51); or again he described the state as having two
by a commission often officials possessing imperium who were to be elected for five years bodies, one weak with a weak head, the other robust but headless and promised to
according to the same procedure as the pontifex maximus.40 C. opposed the measure supply the missing head (Mur. 51). The elections were postponed and, when they
vigorously beginning with his first speech as consul (Agr. i: i January). He leaves vague were held,48 C., as presiding consul, surrounded himself with guards and wore a
who exacdy were the auctores behind the proposal (Agr. 2.20; cf. 2.23 and 98); Crassus breastplate which he purposely allowed to show beneath his tunic (Mur. 52). No vio­
and Caesar are the obvious candidates in view of the latter’s revival of agrarian lence occurred, however, and D. Junius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena were elected
legislation in his consulate.4' In any case, in view of C.’s aggressive opposition both (MRR11172).
in the senate and in contionibus as well perhaps as the lack of a real appetite among
die urban plebs for resettlement in the countryside,42 its author let the bill quiedy
3. THE CONSPIRACY
drop.
In the late Republic the theater could serve as a barometer of social tension,43 * Sallust’s catalogue of conspirators (17.3—4) classes them as senators, equites, and those
especially after L. Roscius Otho (tr. pi. 67) carried a law reserving the first 14 rows for from the colonies and municipia, the last group unnamed, albeit it would have included
the equites.u As the class that included the moneylenders, the equites were, however, M. Caeparius of Tarracina (3.14.11-12); he does not descend to the level of freed-
increasingly unpopular. The class tensions of the time are highlighted by an incident men such as P. Umbrenus (3.14.15-16). The motives of some of the conspirators
from early in C.’s consulate: upon entering the theater, Otho was greeted with catcalls are clear: Lentulus was driven by overweening ambition that could not be satis­
by the plebs but cheers by the equites', the rival demonstrations escalated and threatened fied within the constitutional framework of the Republic (cf. 3.9.5-8 with n.); C.
to turn ugly. C. responded by summoning the plebs to a meeting at the temple of Manlius was a representative of the Sullan veterans who had settled as colonists
Bellona, where he reproved and exhorted them to better behavior; the next time but failed at farming and now hoped for a fresh infusion of booty (2.20.1-4 with
Otho appeared in the theater the plebs and the equites competed in applause (Plut. n.); L. Vargunteius was perhaps disgruntled at his expulsion from the senate fol­
Cic. 13). lowing conviction on charges of ambitus,4n The figure holding together this dis­
The bill of Rullus and the demonstration against Otho had no serious conse­ parate band was Catiline himself, a man of outsize ambition and, to judge from
quences but were straws in the wind for those who could read them. One such C.’s remarks at Gael. 10-14, considerable charisma, but now frustrated by two suc­
was Catiline, who, after being acquitted on a charge of murder stemming from his cessive defeats in consular elections and perhaps feeling the pressure of creditors
actions as Sulla’s henchman,45 was preparing another consular campaign. His plat­ (Cat. 1.14.5-7).50
form included cancellation of debts (nouae tabulae), plundering of the rich, and distribu­ The goals of the conspiracy seem to have been similar to those of his failed consular
tion of all offices among his followers.4*’ The program appealed to those members of candidacy: a change in top leadership (as soon as he left Rome Catiline assumed the
the senatorial and equestrian elite whose debts threatened them with ruin, those who consular insignia (Sal. 36.1; Dio 37.33)), redistribution of other offices, cancellation of
had lost their property and/or citizenship during the civil war of the 80s,47 and finally debts, and new proscriptions (2.18-20). Catiline was coordinating the activities both of
to Sulla’s veterans, mostly settled in Etruria, who, having squandered their gains from Manlius’ camp of disgruntled Sullan veterans at Faesulae (mod. Fiesole), which he had
the civil war and failed in farming, were hoping for new booty (2.20). subsidized for some time (Sal. 24.2; App. BC 2.10), and the city conspirators. Clearly
When Catiline’s promises were leaked to the public, they caused alarm, and this close coordination was needed; yet Manlius raised the flag of revolt on 27 October,
was merely amplified by his own rhetoric in the senate. Responding to Cato’s threat before the city conspirators were ready to act. A key point on the conspirators’ agenda
was the assassination of C.; this was to be perpetrated in the night of 6-7 November
40 I.e. 17 of the 35 tribes were to be chosen by lot to vote in the matter; cf. Gilzer (1969) 72, but was thwarted when C. received advance warning and took precautions (1.9-10).
summarizing the provisions based on C.’s extant speeches. C. used this fact as well as Manlius’ rising to make his adversary’s position in Rome
41 (Jelzer (1969) 79-3, emphasizing that the bill also gave a handle for annexing Ptolemaic
untenable (Cat. 1; probably 8 November; see appendix 2): Catiline departed Rome in
Egypt; Grucn (1974) 393, while connecting the bill with the anticipated return of Pompey’s
the night of 8-9 November.
veterans, also sees Caesar behind it, as does Hardy (1917) 227.
42 So Yavelz (1983) 490. 43 Cl'. C.’s remarks at Sest. 115 23 with Kaster ad he. Next was to be a rising in the city, but there are several competing accounts of
44 MUR n 145; cf. Rotondi (1912) 375 and 507. its scope and purpose. The conspirators’ plans need first to be disentangled from
45 TLIIR no. 217; Julius Caesar was the presiding officer (index quaestionis).
46 Cat. 2.18-20; Sal. 2i.2 (albeit antedated to 64; cf. Symc (1964) 75 7; Vretska on Sal. 17.1); 48 Cf. Benson (1986), placing the elections, after a short postponement, still in July, the normal
Dio 37.30.2. month.
47 Cut. 2.21; Sal. 28.4 and 37.9. 49 Cf Lindcrski (1995) no. 18; see 1.9.11.1311. 50 Cf Eagle (1949) 26.