Political Speeches (Oxford World's Classics)

by Cicero

  Although the senate … to resign his office: constitutionally, however, the senate was not empowered to strip a citizen of his legal rights. This paragraph also looks like a later addition (Lentulus’ resignation has already been covered in §14). See J. Barlow in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, 7 (Brussels, 1994), 180–9, who argues that Cicero has added this passage in order to counter accusations that he had committed sacrilege by executing a praetor in office (a Roman magistracy was considered sacred).

  Gaius Glaucia: see second note on Cat. 1.4 above. The precedent is a weak one because Marius was not directly responsible for Glaucia’s death.

  the consulship of Cotta and Torquatus: Lucius Aurelius Cotta and Lucius Manlius Torquatus were consuls in 65.

  you will remember it: it is interesting that Cicero needs to describe the statue. It looks as if he is addressing himself to people who were familiar with the statue but were not aware that it was of Romulus.

  every corner of Etruria: haruspicy had always been an Etruscan science. Whenever disquieting natural phenomena occurred, the senate summoned the soothsayers from Etruria to explain their meaning.

  until this very day!: scholars assume that Cicero timed the erection of the statue to coincide with this speech. But at the height of the conspiracy, was Cicero really sending messages to the workmen to ask them to speed up or delay their work so that its completion would coincide with his discovery of incriminating evidence, should he happen to discover any—merely in order that he could make a point in a speech which he might or might not then happen to give? It is surely more likely that he made use of a lucky coincidence (as is in any case implied by De divinatione 2.46–7 (44 BC), where he ridicules the idea that the statue was erected on the day in question by divine purpose rather than by chance). The passage which follows gives a good impression of the superstitious credulity of ordinary Romans, and the ease with which a more sophisticated person could exploit it—i.e., of the gulf between uneducated and educated Romans.

  the temple of Concord: at the northern end of the forum, at the foot of the Capitol. It was built in 121 BC by the consul Lucius Opimius after his brutal suppression of the supporters of Gaius Gracchus (see first note on Cat. 1.4 above), and was often used for meetings of the senate in times of civil disorder.

  Lucius Sulla crushed Publius Sulpicius: Cicero now gives a résumé of the civil wars between 88 and 77 BC (when he himself was aged 18 to 29); the passage presents these wars from the point of view of his audience (hence the respect for Marius and disapproval of Sulla), but I suspect that it accurately reflects Cicero’s own point of view as well (particularly in the reference to the victims of Cinna and Marius). In 88 the tribune Publius Sulpicius Rufus carried a bill to replace the consul Sulla with Marius in the Mithridatic command; Sulla occupied Rome and annulled Sulpicius’ laws, killing Sulpicius and killing or exiling his other opponents. Marius (‘the guardian of this city’, i.e. victor against the Teutoni and Cimbri in 102–101) escaped to his veterans in Africa, and Sulla went east to fight Mithridates. The next year, the consuls were Gnaeus Octavius and Lucius Cornelius Cinna, respectively a supporter and an opponent of Sulla. Cinna attempted to recall Marius and the other exiles, but was expelled from Rome by Octavius. Cinna then joined forces with Marius, who had meanwhile returned to Italy, and the two men seized Rome, inaugurating a reign of terror in which Octavius and the orator Marcus Antonius, the consul of 99 (and father of Cicero’s colleague), were murdered, and Quintus Lutatius Catulus, the consul of 102, committed suicide (cf. ‘our most illustrious citizens’). In 82, Sulla, who had returned to Italy the previous year, defeated the Marians (Marius himself having died in 86 and Cinna in 84), captured Rome, had himself made dictator, and instituted the proscriptions. Upon his death in 78 the consuls Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Quintus Lutatius Catulus (son of the consul of 102), respectively an opponent and a supporter of Sulla, quarrelled; Lepidus started a rising and was crushed the following year by Catulus and Pompey, dying soon afterwards (on Catulus, see second note on Ver. 44 above). With hindsight, all these conflicts can be seen as a single civil war starting with the attempt by Marius to seize the command against Mithridates in 88 and ending with the final defeat of the Marians (principally Sertorius) in Spain in 72. By 63, the wounds had not healed.

  Lepidus’ death … those of the others: ‘the others’ is more likely to refer, in my view, to those who died with Lepidus than to the victims of the civil wars just mentioned. We must assume that the point was not ambiguous to Cicero’s audience.

  In return for this great service … this day for ever: this is another passage (§§26–29a) that looks as if it was written later than the dramatic date of the speech. The content of §§26–7 is closely similar to that of Cat. 4.22–3, which was probably added on publication in 60 BC (see first note on Cat. 4.18).

  one of whom: i.e. Pompey, who had just completed the Third Mithridatic War (73–63) and added Bithynia, Pontus, Syria, and Judaea to the empire.

  But if the attacks of internal enemies: Cicero is not thinking any longer of the conspirators, but of people like Metellus Nepos who were to attack him for executing the conspirators.

  IN CATILINAM IV

  I see, conscript fathers … about the danger to me: from the outset Cicero focuses his discussion not simply on what should be done about the conspirators, but on the consequences of their punishment for himself. This is generally taken as an indication that the speech has been revised, and reflects his position in 60 BC rather than on 5 December 63. M. Winterbottom (in B. Vickers (ed.), Rhetoric Revalued (New York, 1982), 61–2) points to the note of personal concern in the speech, and argues that the speech has been recast, particularly at the beginning and end (i.e. §§ 1–3 and 19–24, ‘hardly conceivable in the original senatorial speech’), in ways which bring it close to a forensic speech, one written in his own defence (‘the arguments for execution become, as well, arguments for Cicero’s correctness in desiring and carrying out that execution’). He goes on to suggest that Cicero did this partly for self-justification, but partly also because his readership of young aspiring orators was more interested in reading forensic speeches than deliberative ones. See further R. G. M. Nisbet in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Cicero (London, 1964), 62–3.

  the home of all justice: trials were held in the forum (hence the term ‘forensic’).

  nor the bed: an allusion to the attempt to assassinate Cicero on the morning after the meeting at Laeca’s house; cf. Cat. 1.9 ‘they gave their word that they would assassinate me in my bed the very same night, just before dawn’.

  much that I have forfeited: for example his province, Macedonia, to Antonius.

  the Vestal virgins: see third note on Cat. 3.9 above. The reference is a little odd unless Cicero is thinking of Catiline’s trial for adultery with the Vestal Fabia in 73.

  Publius Lentulus … destruction for our country: cf. Cat. 3.9.

  for a man who has reached the consulship, it cannot be untimely: Cicero was to recall this remark nineteen years later at Phil. 2.119.

  my dear beloved brother: Quintus was now a praetor-elect.

  all these men you can see surrounding me: in the senate, senators moved around so as to sit near those whose opinions they agreed with or apart from those whose opinions they disagreed with (hence the empty benches around Catiline at the meeting of 7 November: see Cat. 1.16, 2.12); this was a convenient way in which those not senior enough to be called to speak could make their views known. In this debate there must have been considerable movement around the temple as senators changed their minds.

  my wife … my … daughter, my baby son … my son-in-law: Terentia; Tullia, now about 16; Marcus, now 2; and Gaius Calpurnius Piso Frugi, not yet a member of the senate (he became quaestor in 58 and died the following year). Plutarch (Cic. 20.2) tells us that the day before the debate Terentia, prompted by an omen, had urged Cicero to take strong action against the conspirators.

  but only to make me wish … the
destruction of our country: i.e. if strong action is taken against the conspirators, Cicero may possibly be assassinated as a result—but at least his family and the senate will have been saved; if inadequate action is taken, then he, his family, and the senate will inevitably be massacred by the victorious conspirators.

  This is not Tiberius Gracchus … he killed Gaius Memmius: see first note on Cat. 1.3 (Tiberius Gracchus), first note on Cat. 1.4 (Gaius Gracchus), and second note on Cat. 1.4 (Saturninus) above.

  the slaves are roused to revolt: this allegation relates (as the next clause confirms) to the conspirators in the city, not to Catiline. In his letter to Catiline, Lentulus had urged him to enlist slaves (Cat. 3.8), and Caeparius had intended to start a slave rising in Apulia (Cat. 3.14).

  Decimus Silanus: Decimus Junius Silanus, consul-elect of 62 and the husband of Cato’s half-sister Servilia. We know little about him. In view of the importance placed by Murena’s jury on there being two consuls in place on 1. See further D. H.1 January 62 (Flac. 98), he is unlikely to have been a military man; and in view of his change of mind in the debate, it is possible that he was not a natural leader. He had made a previous attempt at the consulship in 65.

  someone: i.e. a chief magistrate in an Italian town. Cicero is explaining why a request to the Italian towns would be ‘problematic’: the towns would most likely refuse to have conspirators from Rome foisted on them for life.

  his own standing and the distinction of his ancestors: Caesar was a patrician, claimed descent from Venus and Aeneas, was related by marriage to Marius (hence the popular credentials), and had just been elected pontifex maximus for life (defeating Catulus) and praetor for 62 (along with Quintus Cicero).

  demagogues: such as Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos and Lucius Calpurnius Bestia, who were to attack Cicero for the executions.

  one of those … popular politicians: Crassus.

  the Sempronian law: on the law, see first note on Ver. 2.5.163 above; and on the validity of Cicero’s argument, note on Cat. 1.28 above. We do not know exactly what Caesar said, but it looks as if Cicero is making inferences about his views (in his presence!) rather than simply reporting them. The passage is well discussed by A. W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome2 (Oxford, 1999), 170 (‘This passage shows Cicero placing ideas in Caesar’s mind, when Caesar himself had refused to express them’).

  to the public meeting: i.e. the meeting at which Cicero would announce the senate’s decision to the people in the forum. In the event, no such meeting appears to have taken place. It is interesting that Cicero clearly anticipates trouble in justifying either course of action to the people: the difficulty was that both courses were illegal, and would be opposed by the tribunes Nepos and Bestia.

  as he told us himself … to hope: cf. Cat. 3.9.

  Vestal virgins being raped: see fourth note on §2 above.

  Lucius Caesar: Lucius Julius Caesar, the consul of 64. His sister Julia was married to Lentulus (they were all patricians), and his maternal grandfather was Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, the consul of 125 who was killed in 121 along with his elder son and the other followers of Gaius Gracchus (see first note on Cat. 1.4 above). Fulvius’ younger son (the uncle of Lucius Caesar), to whom Cicero refers in the next sentence, had been sent by his father to discuss terms with the consul, Lucius Opimius, but was thrown into prison where he was either executed or allowed to commit suicide. The Scholiasta Gronovianus (290 Stangl) gives further details of the incident which Cicero is about to relate. He says that Lucius Caesar made his remarks in the senate, and that his actual words (though he no doubt gives a shortened paraphrase) were: ‘This man lives, and has my sister for his wife! My grandfather was killed on a consul’s order—and does this man live?’ Lucius Caesar’s words would have had a greater poignancy in that they were spoken in the temple of Concord, which Opimius had built after carrying out the killings referred to (see note on Cat. 3.21 above).

  a desire … an element of factional strife: Cicero refers to Gaius Gracchus’ controversial scheme to provide subsidized grain (cf. Off. 2.72), the first time this had been provided at Rome. As at Cat. 1.3–4, he uses extreme understatement in referring to the violence and political turmoil of the Gracchan period.

  Lentulus’ illustrious grandfather: the man depicted on Lentulus’ seal; see second note on Cat. 3.10 above.

  of all people: the family from which Cicero came was equestrian, not senatorial, and rather than trying to conceal this, he frequently goes out of his way to draw attention to his special status as the senior senator with the closest ties to the equestrian order. See further D. H. Berry, CQ, NS 53 (2003), 222–34.

  Now … harmony with this order: the long-standing conflict between the senators and the equites had in fact been substantially put to rest in 70 by the lex Aurelia, which resolved the question of who should control the courts by making juries effectively two-thirds equestrian and one-third senatorial. Mindful of his own special status and connections, Cicero was anxious to promote ‘harmony between the orders’ (concordia ordinum), and he viewed the unanimity between the senate (most of it), equites, and people over the Catilinarian question as evidence that this was being achieved. Conflict was to break out again in 60, however, when a company of equites demanded renegotiation of their contract for tax-farming in Asia.

  the entire body of scribes: a body (technically an ‘order’) of officials attached to the various magistracies; those attached to the quaestors dealt with financial matters and enjoyed the highest status (the poet Horace was one for a time). The scribes had come to the treasury (adjacent to the temple of Concord) because this was the day on which they drew lots for their posts for the year ahead (as did the new quaestors, who assumed office on 5 December). According to the Scholiasta Gronovianus (290 Stangl), when they saw the conspirators being taken to the senate, they left off what they were doing and offered themselves as guards.

  that is how the matter stands: it is likely that this paragraph was the ending of the original speech, and that §§ 19–24 were added on publication in 60 BC: see H. Fuchs, Hermes, 87 (1959), 463–9. Fuchs draws attention to the verbal repetitions between §18 and §§19+24, and suggests that when §§19–24 were added in 60 BC the copyists failed to suppress §18, with the result that we now have both of the alternative endings of the speech. See further second note on §21 below.

  yonder eternal fire of Vesta: see third note on Cat. 3.9 above. Cicero gestures in the direction of the temple, at the other end of the forum.

  a single night: that of 2–3 December.

  Let Scipio have his fame: on the generals mentioned in this paragraph, see second note on Ver. 2.5.25 (the elder Scipio), note on Ver. 2.5.14 (the younger Scipio, Aemilius Paullus, Marius), and second note on Cat. 3.26 (Pompey), above.

  unless perhaps … return in triumph: Cicero compares Pompey’s achievement unfavourably with his own, arguing that Pompey merely extended the empire, whereas he saved Rome (the argument is rhetorically neat but faulty in logic, since he has just said that Pompey’s achievement was greater than that of Marius, who saved Rome twice). On the face of it, Cicero’s remarks would seem needlessly and inappropriately insulting to Pompey. But Off. 1.78 shows that he is in fact paraphrasing (and reminding his readership of) a gracious compliment that Pompey had paid him: ‘Gnaeus Pompeius, in many people’s hearing, paid me this compliment: he said that he would have brought home his third triumph in vain were it not for the fact that my service to the state had ensured that there was a home to which he could bring it.’ This compliment cannot of course have been paid by Pompey in the east and reported at Rome in time to be included in the original Fourth Catilinarian: news could not travel from Rome to Pontus (where Pompey was spending the winter) and back again between 3 and 5 December. The compliment will obviously have been made on or after Pompey’s return to Italy at the end of 62 (he paid Cicero a similar compliment immediately on his return: see Phil. 2.12). Our passage cannot therefore have been included in the original speech, and so m
ust date from its publication in 60—a point which gives powerful support to Fuchs’s thesis (first note on §18 above). This conclusion is supported by the letter which provides our evidence for the publication of the Catilinarians. In that letter (Att. 2.1), after discussing the publication of his consular corpus, Cicero goes on to say (§ 6) that Pompey has been eulogizing his achievements, and has declared that whereas he had merely given the state good service, Cicero had saved it. Cicero was clearly flattered by these compliments, and it would seem that when he published his speech he could not resist slipping an allusion to one of them into his new ending—taking care, however, not to attribute it directly to Pompey, in order to avoid an anachronism.