by Cicero
Aulus Gabinius: the tribune of 67 who proposed the lex Gabinia giving Pompey his command against the pirates. He was later to become consul in the year that Cicero was exiled (58); declining to support him, he thereby earned his undying hatred and became a target of his invective. He was convicted of extortion in 54 or 53, after Pompey had forced Cicero to defend him—one case Cicero was happy to lose. See further second note on Phil. 2.48 below.
King Antiochus and King Perseus: Rome fought the Antiochean War against Antiochus III of Syria in 192–189 BC; there were naval victories at Corycus in 191 and at Myonnesus in 190. Perseus of Macedon was defeated in a land battle at Pydna in 168, in the Third Macedonian War (172–167). His fleet in fact defeated the Roman fleet in 170, and then surrendered to the Romans after Pydna without fighting; but Cicero’s audience would no doubt be unaware of this.
and defeated the Carthaginians: in the First Punic War (264–241 BC).
The island of Delos: a great commercial centre, particularly after the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC, and the centre of the slave trade in the eastern Mediterranean. It was sacked in 69 by the pirates, who enslaved the inhabitants; Mithridates had also sacked it in 88.
the Appian Way: the road from Rome to Capua; it follows the coast, and so no doubt was vulnerable to pirates. If Cicero is referring to a specific incident, it is unknown.
this very platform: the rostra. It was adorned with bronze prows taken from warships of Antium (in Latium) captured in 338 BC.
you: the Roman people. Latin has singular and plural forms of personal pronouns, so the ambiguity in the English is not present in the Latin.
opposition to the request … appointed as his legate: sponsors of laws were not allowed to hold any o ffice created by their own law, and therefore Gabinius was unable to serve as a legate of Pompey’s in the campaign against the pirates; Cicero affects to consider this merely a technicality (cf. §58 below, ‘So are people going to insist on the letter of the law …?’). Once the lex Manilia was passed, however, Pompey’s command no longer derived from the lex Gabinia, and at this point Gabinius could, and did, take a position as one of his legates.
Gaius Falcidius, Quintus Metellus, Quintus Coelius Latiniensis, and Gnaeus Lentulus: all were presumably still alive, since the phrase ‘whose names I mention with the greatest respect’ is only used by Cicero with reference to the living. T. P. Wiseman argues (CQ, NS 14 (1964), 122–3) that this list must be in order of seniority, and suggests that (i) Falcidius was tribune and legate in the 80s; (ii) Metellus is probably Metellus Creticus (see first note on Ver. 26 above), presumably tribune in 82 and legate in 81; (iii) Coelius was perhaps tribune and legate in the 70s (‘Latiniensis’ may be a geographical description, ‘of the ager Latiniensis’, not a cognomen); and (iv) Lentulus is Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, tribune in 69, legate in 68, and later consul in 56. R. Syme (JRS 53 (1963), 55–60), on the other hand, takes Quintus Metellus as Celer (consul in 60), not Creticus, and makes all four tribune in 68 and legate in 67. This is surely ruled out by Cicero’s order, which places the obscure Falcidius first; but Marcellinus’ tribunate should probably be dated, with Syme, to 68.
two very serious wars … by the same man, Scipio: Cicero here says the same thing twice over (while claiming not to be saying it at all), that one man, Scipio Aemilianus, ended the Third Punic War by destroying Carthage in 146, and then went on the end the war in Spain by destroying Numantia in 133. (Here ‘the Spanish war’ refers to the Numantine War; at §28 it referred to the war against Sertorius.)
against Jugurtha … against the Teutoni: see note on Ver. 2.5.14 above.
for a mere youth … at a time of national crisis: when, in 83 (aged 23), he raised three legions from his father’s veterans in Picenum and went to join Sulla on his return to Italy. After that he went on to fight Carbo in Sicily and Domitius and Iarbas in Africa (see fourth note on §28 above), before returning to Rome for a triumph in 81 (or possibly 80).
much too young to qualify for senatorial rank: quaestors joined the senate at the end of their year of office, and, under a law of Sulla’s of 81, no one could become a quaestor before the age of 30 (or praetor before 39 or consul before 42). Pompey omitted all the junior magistracies, and remained an eques until 70, when he became consul at the age of 35.
two illustrious and valiant consuls: Decimus Junius Brutus and Mamercus Aemilius Lepidus Livianus, consuls in 77 when Pompey was sent to fight Sertorius in Spain. The consuls had refused to go to Spain themselves, probably because they knew they were not capable of undertaking such a difficult war (which took even Pompey a full five years).
Lucius Philippus … but with that of both the consuls!: Lucius Marcius Philippus was consul in 91 and censor in 86; he conquered Sardinia for Sulla in 82. The oldest consular still active in politics, he was a man of considerable influence in the post-Sullan era. He was noted for his witticisms, of which this one, which Cicero quotes again at Phil. 11.18, is the most famous. It is (naturally) snappier in Latin than in English, non … pro consule sed pro consulibus.
at an age … any curule office: i.e. when he became consul in 70, he was not even old enough to hold the praetorship (see second note on §61 above). He could, however, have held the curule aedileship, to which Sulla seems not to have attached any age qualification. (curulem, ‘curule’, is the conjecture of D. R. Shackleton Bailey, and is absolutely necessary to the sense, since Pompey was of course old enough to hold the noncurule office of quaestor; see Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 83 (1979), 254.)
a second triumph by senatorial decree: in 71, for his victory over Sertorius (see note on Ver. 45 above). The first triumph (in 81 or 80) was actually granted by Sulla, but was no doubt rubber-stamped by the senate.
with the full endorsement … of equal standing: Catulus and the other senators had of course opposed Pompey’s appointment to the pirate command, which is why Cicero omits that departure from precedent from his list.
the greed and corruption … in recent years: Cicero’s prosecution of Gaius Verres four years earlier allows him to speak on this subject with some authority.
they know well … their lamentations: yet Hortensius had defended Verres.
as if we did not see that Gnaeus Pompeius is ‘great’: a reference to Pompey’s cognomen Magnus (‘Great’), adopted in imitation of Alexander the Great in 81. (This is the only such reference in this speech: in this translation the English word ‘great’ is used to translate other Latin words besides magnus.)
Publius Servilius: Publius Servilius Vatia Isauricus, the consul of 79; see note on Ver. 2.5.66 above.
Gaius Curio: Gaius Scribonius Curio, the consul of 76; see note on Ver. 18 above.
Gnaeus Lentulus: Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, the consul of 72; see third note on Ver. 2.5.15 above.
Gaius Cassius: Gaius Cassius Longinus, the consul of 73. In 72 he was governor of Cisalpine Gaul, where he was defeated by Spartacus.
help in attaining office: i.e. in attaining the consulship. This is one of Cicero’s more disingenuous sentences.
the career I have been following: i.e. forensic advocacy.
this high office: the praetorship.
IN CATILINAM I
How far, I ask you: Quo usque tandem, a highly dramatic and effective opening to the speech (and one of the two or three most famous quotations from Latin literature). The expression is used nowhere else by Cicero, but occurs in Sallust (Cat. 20.9) in an address given by Catiline to his followers a year before Cicero delivered the First Catilinarian. Scholars have debated why Sallust should make Catiline echo the words with which Cicero began his famous denunciation of him. The problem was solved, in my view, by D. A. Malcolm (CQ, NS 29 (1979), 219–20), who proposed that quo usque tandem was a demagogic phrase favoured by Catiline, which Cicero then mockingly threw back at him. Sallust would therefore be accurately characterizing Catiline’s language in the speech he attributed to him—and incidentally explaining to his readers the significan
ce of Cicero’s famous words.
what you were up to yesterday evening, what you were up to last night: scholars are uncertain what the Latin means, and unfortunately the date of the First Catilinarian, Second Catilinarian (one day after the First Catilinarian), and the SCU (eighteen or seventeen days before the First Catilinarian, depending on whether Asconius (6 C) has used inclusive reckoning) depend on it. The passage is normally held to mean, ‘what you were up to last night, what you were up to the night before’: in that case, the events of ‘last night’ would be unknown, the events of ‘the night before’ would refer to the meeting at Laeca’s house (since the same phrase is used to refer to it below at §8), the date of the First Catilinarian would be 8 November (since we know from Cic. Sul. 52 that the meeting at Laeca’s house was on the night of 6–7 November), and Cicero would have delayed twenty-four hours after the assassination attempt on the morning of 7 November before summoning the senate. In our passage, however, it is difficult to see how ‘where you were, whom you collected together, and what plan of action you decided upon’ can apply to two different nights: the conspirators were summoned and plans made, surely, on just one night, that of the meeting at Laeca’s house on6–7 November. I therefore prefer to translate the passage in such a way as to refer to a single night, ‘what you were up to yesterday evening, what you were up to last night’, and allow Cicero to say the same thing twice over for rhetorical effect (as he commonly does, by the figure known as ‘pleonasm’). It is possible that different times of the same night are being described, as was suggested by T. Crane (CJ 61 (1965–6), 264–7). If we accept that Cicero is referring to a single night, the date of the First Catilinarian becomes 7 November, there is no second night to explain away, and Cicero no longer hesitates for twenty-four hours before summoning the senate. The date of the Second Catilinarian accordingly becomes 8 November, and the date of the SCU 20 October (or 21 October if Asconius used inclusive reckoning). Since this is the solution I have adopted, I have translated all references to the meeting at Laeca’s house as ‘last night’ in the First Catilinarian and as ‘the night before last’ in the Second Catilinarian (studies of the relevant Latin terms suggest that their meaning varied according to the context—hence the uncertainty).
Publius Scipio … killed Tiberius Gracchus: Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was the tribune of 133 BC whose controversial agrarian bill and unprecedented attempt to secure re-election to office led to his murder and that of his supporters at the hands of the pontifex maximus Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio (the former consul of 138), in 133. Cicero’s remark below about Gracchus causing a ‘mild disturbance’ is an extreme understatement, and well illustrates Z. Yavetz’s observation that ‘Cicero was extremely tolerant of all dead populares’ (Historia, 12 (1963), 493). Similar understatement is used at §4 and at Cat. 4.13.
Gaius Servilius Ahala … killed Spurius Maelius: Maelius was a wealthy plebeian who used his own means to relieve a corn shortage in 439 BC, was suspected of aiming at tyranny, and was killed by Ahala.
a decree of the senate: the SCU, although it was passed in response to Manlius’ rising, and not specifically against Catiline.
the consul Lucius Opimius … came to no harm: in 121 BC the consul Opimius secured the passage of the first-ever SCU (the wording of which Cicero quotes here; it mentions only one consul because the other one, Quintus Fabius Maximus, was away in Gaul fighting the Allobroges). He then immediately proceeded to massacre the supporters of the reformer Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (the tribune of 123 and 122, and younger brother of Tiberius); Gracchus himself committed suicide to avoid capture. (Gracchus’ father, mentioned below, was Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, consul in 177 and 163 and censor in 169, and his maternal grandfather was Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, the conqueror of Hannibal (202), consul in 205 and 194, and censor in 199.) Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, the consul of 125, and his two sons were among the 3,000 Gracchans who lost their lives (see first note on Cat. 4.13 below).
A similar senatorial decree … Lucius Valerius: when the SCU was passed for the second ever time in 100 BC, the consuls Gaius Marius and Lucius Valerius Flaccus took action against the violent activities of Marius’ former allies the tribune Lucius Appuleius Saturninus and the praetor Gaius Servilius Glaucia, both of whom were seeking further office for 99. Saturninus had been elected to his third tribunate (after 103 and 100), and Glaucia was standing for the consulship (illegally, so soon after the praetorship); on election day, Saturninus’ men murdered Glaucia’s principal rival, Gaius Memmius. Marius shut Saturninus and his supporters inside the senate-house, hoping to save their lives; but the people broke through the roof and stoned them to death with the roof-tiles. Glaucia was captured and killed in a separate incident.
for twenty days now: Asconius (6 C) claims that this is a round figure, and that it was in fact only eighteen days since the SCU had been passed. He says that it was Cicero’s regular practice in his speeches to talk in round figures.
my only wish is to be compassionate: passages like this are often suspected of having been added after the event, since at the time when Cicero spoke the conspirators had not yet been executed. (I translate clemens as ‘compassionate’ in the Catilinarians, but prefer to render clementia as ‘clemency’ in the very different context of Pro Marcello.)
Praeneste: in the hills 20 miles south-east of Rome. It had been a Marian stronghold; Sulla sacked it in 82 and settled a colony of his veterans there.
Marcus Laeca: Marcus Porcius Laeca, a senator (his career is unknown), chiefly remembered as the owner of the house where the meeting of the conspirators took place on the night of 6–7 November. He was convicted and went into exile in 62.
I am not even wounding … with my words: because he has not named them.
Two Roman equestrians: Gaius Cornelius and Lucius Vargunteius.
Jupiter Stator: Jupiter the Stayer (of troops in battle); he was said to have stayed the flight of Romulus’ army from the Sabines at the point where the temple was later built (in an uncertain location close to the Palatine). The senate was meeting in this temple (we know of no other occasion when it met there); we should imagine Cicero as turning towards the statue of the god. On the significance of the choice of venue, see A. Vasaly, Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley etc., 1993), 41–59.
the last consular elections: in July 63.
Or again … with yet another that is quite incredible?: Cicero alleges that Catiline murdered his penultimate wife in order to secure his marriage to his last wife, Aurelia Orestilla (who in In toga candida (Asc. 91 C) he goes so far as to claim was actually Catiline’s daughter). He then alludes to a further, unspecified crime, explained by Sallust (Cat. 15.2) and later authors: that Catiline also murdered his own son, again in order to facilitate his marriage to Orestilla. The brevity with which Cicero touches upon these mysterious allegations is a sure sign that they could not be substantiated. Nevertheless, they were repeated and enlarged upon by later authors with relish.
on the 13th of this month: literally, ‘on the coming Ides’—the Ides being the 13th or the 15th day of the month (depending on the month), and the day on which debtors were required to pay interest.
Can this light of day … the good luck of the Roman people?: this allegation is one of the bases of the myth of the ‘first Catilinarian conspiracy’ (the only such basis in the Catilinarians, in fact—one indication that it is indeed a myth). The reference to Catiline appearing armed in the place of assembly (comitium) in front of the senate-house on the last day (29th) of December 66 (the consulship of Manius Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Volcacius Tullus) appears to have the status of a historical fact. But the statement that his purpose was to kill the consuls and other prominent men can be no more than a conjecture, since no one was attacked, or prosecuted afterwards. It is hard to see why Catiline might have wanted to kill outgoing consuls; but if Cicero is referring to the incoming ones (who would not, however, enter office until 1 Janua
ry), the statement is even less plausible, because one of them, Lucius Manlius Torquatus, went on to support Catiline at his extortion trial in 65 (a difficulty Cicero attempts to explain away at Sul. 81). Catiline’s appearance in the forum can more plausibly be explained as being connected in some way with the impending trial of Gaius Manilius for extortion.