^{page 154 note 1} See Journal of Philology, xxxiii, 64, and xxxiv, 67.

^{page 154 note 2} Dio Cassius (xxxvii, 37) places this after the execution of the Catilinarians, but it obviously happened in the earlier half of the year.

^{page 155 note 1} According to Asconius the Cornelian laws were: (1) ne quis legatis exterarum nationum pecuniam expensam ferret; (2) ne quis in senatu legibus solveretur nisi CC adfuissent, neve quis, cum solutus esset, intercederet, cum de ea re ad populum ferretur; (3) ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent (in Cornelian., 58–60, Dio Cass. xxxvi, 39 and 40) It appears from D. C. c. 38 that even the lex Calpurnia de ambitu was only a milder version, substituted by the senate, of a severer measure prepared by Cornelius.

^{page 155 note 2} Asconius (64) quotes as Cicero's words: legem, inquit, de libertinorum suffragiis Cornelius C. Manilio dedit. Cicero's reply to the charge would not seem to have been very convincing.

^{page 156 note 1} Suet. Iul. 8.

^{page 156 note 2} Dio Cass. xxxvi, 43.

^{page 156 note 3} The trial and condemnation of Autronius and Sulla are given by Asconius, 75; Sallust Cat. 18; Dio Cassius, xxxvi, 44. There is some doubt whether the Torquatus who accused Sulla was the father or the son. Asconius and Dio make him the father, who took his place as consul, but a passage of Cicero (de fin. ii, 19, 62) is against this. In pro Sull. 49 Cicero's words to the younger Torquatus leave the matter doubtful: adflicto P. Sulla consulatus vobis pariebatur.

^{page 157 note 1} The words are quoted by Asconius, 89; conf. 85: gravissimis vestris decretis notatus est.

^{page 157 note 2} Mommsen, (Staatsr. i, 485Google Scholar) strangely takes the exclusion to refer to Catiline's candidature in 65, and not 66 at all. But (I) though Catiline might have announced his intention to stand next year, no decision on the part of Volcacius or his advisers could bind the consuls of next year, on whom alone Catiline's exclusion or acceptance would depend. (2) The context in Sallust, as well as a phrase of Dio, ῃτήκει δὲ καὶ αủτὶς τὴν, ἀρχήν και διὰ τοῦτο ὀργὴν ἐποιεῖτο (xxxvi, 44) prove that the rejection of his candidature induced Catiline to join the conspiracy at the end of 66 which was to have given him the consulship.

^{page 158 note 1} Ascon. 85: Torquato et Cotta coss. accusatus est repetundarum a P. Clodio, i.e. in 65.

^{page 158 note 2} Q. Cic. de pet. cons. 2, 9.

^{page 158 note 3} id. ib.; Ascon. 84, 87, 90.

^{page 158 note 4} Cicero in tog. cand. explained by Asconius, gives us some choice specimens. Sallust and Q. Cicero add to the list. Sallust's story of an intrigue with a vestal happens to be refuted because Cicero and his brother had some interest in the lady's reputation (Sall. c. 15; Ascon. 9 1; de pet. cons. 2, 9).

^{page 159 note 1} The question of the legitimi dies, ἐν αϊς, ἡμέραις ủπατείας ἤσαν παραγγελίαι (App. ii, 8), occurs again in connexion with Caesar's first consulship. As it appears from Plut. (Caes. 13) that Caesar only reached Rome πρὸς αύτὰς τὰς ὑπατικὰς ἀρχαιρεσίας, and from Suet. (Iul. 18) that it was after the day fixed for the comitia had been announced (edictis comitiis), the legitimi dies were clearly the interval, a trinundinum, between the fixture of the date (corresponding to the promulgatio of a law) and the election. Mommsen argues that they must have been before the trinundinum began, because in 49 Caesar declared se praesentem trinum nundinum petilurum (ad fam. xvi, 12, 3). But the promise clearly means only that Caesar would make his professio at the beginning of the legitimi dies, instead of waiting to the last moment.

^{page 159 note 2} Ascon. in Cornelian., 59 foll.

^{page 159 note 3} According to Dio (loc. cit.) the promise was extorted by the people; Cicero himself says (in Asconius, 65) that he was urged to the defence by one of the praetors.

^{page 159 note 4} de pet. cons. 13, 51: where Cicero's claims to popularity lie in Pompeio ornando, Manili causa recipienda, Cornelio defendendo.

^{page 160 note 1} Ascon. 66: dicit de disturbato indicia Maniliano. That the trial was postponed by Cicero to the last day of the year is clear from Plutarch's words (Cic. 9) ἡς ểτι μόνης κύριος ἡν ἡμέρας στρατηγῶν, ταύτην ἐπίτηδες ὁρίσαι.

^{page 160 note 2} We may accept the statements of Sallust (c. 14) and Plutarch (Cic. 10) as to the evil influence exercised by Catiline's personality on young men.

^{page 161 note 1} Cicero refers to the affair again in pro Sull. 68, and adds the name of Vargunteius.

^{page 161 note 2} Dio and Suetonius state that Sulla was to have been consul with Autronius, but Sallust and Cicero are better witnesses. Torquatus too, Sulla's later accuser, though this version would have suited his case better, asserted that Sulla had joined the plot ut Catilinam consulem efficeret (pro Sull. 68).

^{page 162 note 1} Sall. c. 19: neque tamen senatus provinciam invitus dederat; Ascon. 92: in Hispaniam missus a senatu.

^{page 162 note 2} e.g. Dio says: ἐφοβήθη τε ἡ γερουσία μή τι συνταράξῃ, καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἐς Ἰβηρίαν πρόφασιν ὡς καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἀρχήν τιναα, ἔπεμψε.

^{page 162 note 3} Dessau, 875: Cn. Calpurnius Cn. l. Piso quaestor pro pr. ex s. c. provinciam Hispaniam citeriorem optinuit.

^{page 162 note 4} It was no doubt due to this hushing up that the persons to be assassinated are described so differently. Sallust and Dio speak only of the two consuls; Cicero in tog. cand. speaks of caedem optimatium; later (in Cat. i, 15) we have cosulum et principum civitatis interficiendorum; in pro Mur. 38 it has got to be consilium senatus interficiendi. The sober phrase of the epitomator coniuratio de interficiendis consulibus makes us wish all the more that we had Livy's account.

^{page 163 note 1} Sallust characteristically tells this story as well as others equally uncertain without any expression of doubt, but, as we have seen, for Cicero it was merely a plot quae facta esse dicitur, while Asconiusas (82) introduces the story with: fuit enim opinio.

^{page 164 note 1} Cicero's defence of Sulla in 62 is far from convincing; and he was probably in the affair. The omission of Catiline and Piso by Suetonius has little weight against Cicero, Sallust, Asconius and Dio. Piso too is mentioned, but in what Suetonius regards as a second combination.

^{page 164 note 2} Actorius Naso is thought to have been more or less a contemporary of Caesar.

^{page 166 note 1} I have argued this point as against Mommsen's, view in Journ. of Phil. xxxiii, 65Google Scholar. That Caesar as well as Crassus favoured the Transpadane claim is clear from Suet. Iul. 8.

^{page 168 note 1} Quoted in Ascon. 83.

^{page 168 note 2} Sall. c. 17; the situation assigned by Sallust to the period before the elections in 64 fairly corresponds with that after the elections of 63.

^{page 168 note 3} Plut. Cic. 10: ὲπῆρτο δ᾿ἡ Τυρρηνία πρὸς ἀπόστασιν ὅλη καὶ τὰ πολλὰ τῆς ἐντὸς Ἄλπεων Γαλατίας.

^{page 169 note 1} Sallust can hardly be intentionally referring to Caesar and Crassus. He is more probably reflecting the suspicion of the time that powerful men were behind, and perhaps confusing this with the known support received by Catiline in his candidature in 64. Cicero (in Cat. ii, 19) speaks equally vaguely of a class of men, qui, quamquam aere alieno premuntur, tamen dominationem expectant, rerum potiri volunt. I take this, however, as intended for a covert allusion to Caesar. Sallust may conceivably be alluding to Crassus alone, whom he takes little trouble to defend.

^{page 169 note 2} Sall. c. 23; Appian (ii, 3) tells the same story about Curius and Fulvia, but not in connexion with the elections in 64.

^{page 172 note 1} pro Mur. 34, 71: Itaque et legi Fabiae quae est de numero sectatorum et senatus consulto quod est L. Caesare cos. (i.e. 64) factum restiterunt.

^{page 172 note 2} Ascon. 94; Sall. Cat. 24; Plut. Cic. II: ταῦτα δὴ (the union of Catiline and Antonius) τῶν καλῶν καὶ ἀγαθῶν οἱ πλεῖστοι προαισθόμενοι τὸν Κικέρωνα προσῆγον ἐπὶ τὴν ὑπατείαν.

^{page 173 note 1} in Cat. i, 15: ac iam ilia omitto … quotiens tu me designatum, quotiens consulem interficere conatus es. Conf. ib. II: quam diu mibi consuli designato insidiatus es.

^{page 174 note 1} Cicero, however, in two passages uses language which might imply that he had defeated such a law. In ad Att. ii, I, II he speaks of himself as vindicem aeris alieni; and in ad fam, v, 6, 8 he says that he ex obsidione feneratores exemerit. These expressions, however, might refer to the conspiracy of Catiline after the elections in 63; cf. also his remarks on debt in de Officiis ii, 24, 84.

^{page 175 note 1} For a fuller consideration of the Caesarian policy underlying the Rullan proposal I venture to refer to an article on the subject in the Journal of Philology, xxxii, 64. Besides dexterously and far-sightedly meeting the situation as against Pompey, the measure was a real agrarian law, and not a mere pretence of one, as Cicero asserted. All the principles of Caesar's later agrarian legislation may be traced in this abortive scheme.

^{page 176 note 1} If, as stated by Sallust and Appian, Fulvia's suspicions were first aroused by the boasts of Curius about his coming good fortune, the incident must belong to the period of a fully formed plot with revolutionary designs, and that, as we shall see, was after the elections in 63.

^{page 178 note 1} I have worked out this view of the impeachment in an article ‘On the political and legal aspects of the trial of Rabirius’ in the Journal of Philology, xxxiv, 67.

^{page 178 note 2} Dio narrates this after the collapse of the final conspiracy. But Labienus went out of office on December 10, and Caesar's election was certainly in the first half of the year.

^{page 179 note 1} The passage in the pro Murena, from which my quotations are taken, is 23, 46 to 26, 53.

^{page 180 note 1} Sallust (c. 31) makes Catiline say this at a later stage, after Cicero's first speech: quoniam … praeceps agor, incendium meum ruina exstinguam.

^{page 180 note 2} Plutarch (c. 14) gives the parable of the two bodies exactly as Cicero reports it, and mentions. Catiline's belief that there were many in the: senate πραγμάτων καινῶν ἐΦιέμενοι.

^{page 184 note 1} The inference from the order of the speeches is on the whole confirmed by in Pis. 2, 5, where, after enumerating other acts of his consulship, he says: ego Antonium conlegam, cupidum provinciae, multa in republica molientem … mitigavi; ego provinciam Gallium … quam cum Antonio commutavi, … in contione deposui. The transfer of Macedonia and the relinquishment of Gaul were two steps probably taken at the same time, though Dio's narrative, referred to below, obscures this.

^{page 185 note 1} Speaking of Murena's supporters, Cicero says: omitto clientes, vicinos, tribules, exercitum totum Luculli qui ad triumphum per eos dies venerant (pro Mur. 33, 69). It was therefore not Catiline alone who was inflatus spe militum.

^{page 186 note 1} Cicero himself (in Cat. i, 12), after alluding to the attempted assassination at the elections, says: nunc iam aperte rempublicam universam petis. He adds with an obvious exaggeration, which makes the statement worthless: templa deorum …, tecta urbis, vitam omnium civium, Italiam totam ad exitium ac vastitatem vocas.

^{page 187 note 1} Both Plutarch and Dio introduce Lentulus as already praetor.

^{page 188 note 1} Cicero mentions what he calls a sixth class, men qui, quamquam premuntur aere alieno, dominationem tamen expectant, rerum potiri volunt, hoping for positions amid disturbance which would be out of reach under normal conditions. I feel little doubt that the representative, probably the sole representative, of this class in Cicero's mind was Caesar.

^{page 191 note 1} That the meeting at Laeca's house was on the night before the first speech is not only implied by all accounts, but is proved by Cicero's words: recognosce tandem mecum noctem illam superiorem, etc. (i, 8) coupled with the phrase priore nocte just after. It is true that Cicero says (i, i) quid proxima quid superiore nocte egeris; but here the meeting was held proxima nocte, the word superiore being always relative to a later terminus, here to proxima, in the other passage to the date of the speech. Cicero obviously only inserts superiore to convey the impression that he had been watching Catiline for days.

^{page 192 note 1} Sallust places these steps after the news from Etruria, but this could not have reached Rome before the 29th, and, as there was information of a massacre planned for the 28th, no time would have been lost, and Cicero explicitly states that he prevented the massacre by means of his guards (in Cat. i, 8).

^{page 192 note 2} Dio Cass. c. 31: γενομένου δἐ τούτου καὶ φρουρᾶς πολλαχόθι καταστάσης τὰ μὲν ἐν τῷ ἄστει οὐκέτ᾿ ἐνεωτερίσθη.

^{page 192 note 3} Whether Manlius really first took overt action exactly on this date, or whether Cicero arranged that the news should confirm his own prediction, is uncertain. He at any rate laid great stress on the verification of his date (i, 7).

^{page 195 note 1} Sall. c. 31; conf. Dio Cass. c. 31: βίας ὲπ' αὐτοῖς γραΦὴν τῷ Κατιλείνạ παρεσκεύασαν.

^{page 195 note 2} In Cat, i, 19; Dio (c. 32) confuses the two Metelli.

^{page 195 note 3} Sall. cc. 33–4. It is uncertain whether the correspondence took place, or is the invention of Sallust.

^{page 196 note 1} The passage in pro Sull. 19, 53 agrees with this. Dio (c. 32) mentions the meeting, and the plan to kill Cicero, but otherwise merely represents Catiline as upbraiding them for the delay, which was clearly no more their fault than his own.

^{page 196 note 2} Sallust of course, in accordance with his general scheme, puts this design much earlier. He even makes Catiline leave Rome quod ab incendio intelligebat urbem vigiliis munitam.

^{page 198 note 1} in Cat. i, 4. That Cicero did not dare to take the decisive step, he admits in i, 12, though he scouts the imputation of timidity in i, 19.

^{page 198 note 2} Plutarch knew of Cicero's speech, as the following passages show. δεῖν γàρ ἀυτοῦ μὲν λόγοις, ἐκεἱνου δ' ὄπλοις πολιτευομένου μέσον εἵναι τό τεῖχος (Cic. 16). dummodo inter me atque te murus intersit (in Cat. i, 10).

^{page 199 note 1} I interpret Dio's words τήν τε βίαν αὑτồυ κατεψηΦίσαντο as referring to Catiline's proclamation as a public enemy, and not to his condemnation under the lex Plautia de vi.

^{page 199 note 2} Two things should be remembered: (i) that only Catiline and Manlius were affected by this declaration; (2) that it was not a necessary or even usual sequel to the S. c. ultimum, which was itself a declaration that all citizens in arms or open resistance to the state may be dealt with as public enemies.

^{page 199 note 3} The passages bearing upon Antonius and Macedonia have already been considered above, p. 184.

^{page 200 note 1} We are told by Sallust (c. 42) that C. Murena, brother of the consul designate, was acting as legatus in Gallia Citerior. But it is clear from pro Mur. 41, 89 that he was legate to his brother, who was governor of Transalpine Gaul. Unless Sallust has made a mistake, Murena was perhaps governor of both Gauls for the time. At any rate, if Cisalpine Gaul was not under Murena, there is nothing to show who held it before Metellus.

^{page 200 note 2} Cicero in the third speech and Sallust are the authorities for what follows, usefully supplementing one another. Dio's account of the affair of the Allobroges is lost.

^{page 201 note 1} Cicero and Sallust both state the wider object, but it appears that the Allobroges in their evidence only mentioned the stipulated despatch of cavalry (in Cat. iii, 4 and 9; Sall. c. 40).

^{page 201 note 2} According to Sallust, nominat multos cuiusque generis innoxios, quo legatis animus amplior esset.

^{page 202 note 1} Appian (ii, 3) follows Sallust in the matter of the meeting to be called by Bestia. But he has hopelessly confused the date. He places it immediately after Catiline's departure, and so before Bestia was tribune. He also confuses the attempt on Cicero's life on November 7 with the part which Cethegus was to have played in the rising on the Saturnalia.

^{page 202 note 2} Mr. Warde Fowler suggests that ad agrum Falerianum would suit my proposed correction of Sallust.

^{page 205 note 1} According to Sallust this disclosure of names was part of the evidence of Volturcius. It may well have come from both sources.

^{page 206 note 1} Cicero is quoting to the people from memory. If he quotes correctly, the senate in its excitement must have caught the contagion of Cicero's own balanced style.

^{page 208 note 1} If Sallust was anxious, as I believe he was, to keep Caesar out of all suspicion, he should have extended his defence to Crassus, for they were certainly acting together. As it is, he expresses no opinion about Crassus, but says that Cicero refused to allow ut Caesar falso nominaretur.

^{page 208 note 2} Plutarch (Cic. 20) speaks of rumours set afloat by Piso and Silanus.

^{page 209 note 1} Cicero (iii, 14) and Sallust (c. 50) agree that the four, whose arrest was decreed, were Cassius Longinus, M. Furius, a colonist of Faesulae, Annius Chilo and Umbrenus.

^{page 209 note 2} Me autem hic (Brutus) laudat quod rettulerim, non quod patefecerim, quod cobortatus sim, quod denique ante quam consulerem, ipse iudicaverim. Ad Att. xii, 21.

^{page 211 note 1} in Cat. iv, 10. Video de istis, qui se populares baberi volunt, abesse nonneminem, ne de capite videlicet civium Romanorum sententiam ferat; is et nudius tertius in custodiam cives Romanos dedit et supplicationem mihi decrevit … Iam boc nemini dubium est, qui reo custodiam quaesitori gratulationem … quid de toto re et causa judicaverit. At vero C. Caesar intellegit legen Semproniam esse de civibus Romanis constitutam; qui autem reipublicae sit hostis, eum civetn nullo modo esse posse; denique ipsum latorem legis Semproniae iniussu populi poenas reipublicae dependisse.

^{page 212 note 1} As far as I can see, Cicero regarded the three meetings of the senate, December 3 to 5, as virtually a trial of the prisoners. On the first the evidence, wholly ex parte however, was heard, and the men damnati on the facts, as implied by the decrees of this and the second day. On the third day the sentence was discussed and pronounced. To confine the term iudicium to the question of fact, as distinct from punishment, is specious but untenable, and the distinction is given up in the speech against Piso. Crassus is criticised for sanctioning the damnatio of the first two days, and then protesting against the pronouncement of sentence, as contrary to the lex Sempronia.

^{page 213 note 1} Plutarch places the speech of Catulus after Caesar's, but as he was a consular, we can easily correct this slip.

^{page 214 note 1} Sail. c. 51. The argument, though not the style, is Caesarian, and probably authentic. Dio and Plutarch both insist on its appearance of moderation and equity. The point about the fine on municipia comes from Cicero (iv, 8) and is confirmed by Dio (c. 36). Several minor points in Sallust's version also receive confirmation from Cicero, especially the remarks on the subject of death.

^{page 214 note 1} The richest towns would be selected, because those suffering from aes alienum might be suspected of sharing the novarum rerum studium.

^{page 214 note 2} Where Sallust speaks of socios atque cives, I have no doubt that he gives to socios its old connotation of Italians as distinct from Romans.

^{page 214 note 1} Plutarch puts the eagerness of Cicero's friends to adopt Caesar's proposal after Cicero's own speech, and makes even Silanus change his mind at this point. But C.c.ro's opening sentences show that his friends had already manifested their anxiety on his account, and it can hardly be doubted that Sallust is right in attributing Silanus' change of view to Caesar's speech. I suspect that we have not Cicero's speech exactly as it was delivered. He could hardly have ignored completely the retreat of Silanus, though, as the latter came round again after Cato's speech, there was no need in the edited version to allude to a regrettable incident. For the same reason it is kept out of sight in the letter to Atticus referred to.

^{page 216 note 1} Suetonius (c. 14) and Plutarch say that Silanus was led to give a non-natural interpretation to his own proposal, explaining, according to the latter, that ἐσχάτη δικὴ in the case of senators could mean no more than imprisonment. This does not deserve to be set against the statement of Sallust: permotus oratione Caesaris pedibus in sententiam Ti. Neronis iturum se dixerat, qui de ea re, praesidiis additis, referundum censuerat.

^{page 218 note 1} Cicero mentions as the consulars who had voted for death, Catulus, Servilius, the Luculli, Curio, Torquatus, Lepidus, Volcacius, Figulus, Cotta, L. Caesar, C. Piso, Silanus and Murena.

^{page 221 note 1} Appian says 20,000, but agrees as to the proportion of unarmed.

^{page 221 note 2} Sallust's concluding chapters sufficiently explain the military situation.

^{page 222 note 1} It can hardly be doubted that both Crassus and Caesar were suspected by the optimates generally of being somehow concerned in the conspiracy. This was the not wholly unnatural result of their former connexion with Catiline and of their marked reserve during the whole affair. The existence of the suspicion against Crassus is explicitly stated by Sallust and Dio; that against Caesar comes out in the action of Catulus and Piso, in the speech of Cato, in the hostile demonstration of the equites, and in the episode of Curius and Vettius. Cicero himself was most careful not to countenance this suspicion, but he was of course aware of it, and he certainly shared it. There is no reason to doubt the statement of Plutarch (Crassus 13) that in a work published after Caesar's death Cicero Φανερὸς ἤν ΚράσσΨ καὶ καὶσαρι τὴν αἱτἱαν προστριβόμενος. That Crassus found it diplomatic early in 61 to expatiate on Cicero's services in having saved the state was not likely to have removed these suspicions though Cicero naturally makes the most of it in a letter to Atticus (i, 14, 3). It is amusing to note the puzzled complacency with which Cicero listened to his own familiar outpourings about flames and murder seriously repeated by Crassus: totum bunc locum quem ego varie nostris orationibus … soleo pingere, de flammis, de ferro, nosti illas ληκύθους, valde graviter pertexuit.

^{page 222 note 2} It is exactly the sort of incident which Cicero might be expected to omit. On the other hand, it is curiously like the incident placed by Sallust between December 3 and 5.

^{page 223 note 1} It is probable that Bestia took part with Metellus in the agitation against Cicero. Though Metellus had certainly left Rome before the pro Sull. was delivered, there was still one tribune left ad lugendos coniuratos (41). This is generally referred to Bestia, and, I think, rightly.

^{page 224 note 1} ad fam. v, 2, 8. Cicero gives his version of the action of Nepos in a letter to his brother Metellus Celer. He also speaks in pro Sest. 5, 12 of the new tribunes qui tum extremis diebus consulatus met res eas quas gesseram vexare cupiebant.

^{page 224 note 2} Dio at least (c. 38) says that the act made him more hated than before. Metellus no doubt deprived us of a fine piece of oratory, but passages in pro Sull., e.g. 33, give us specimens of what we should have had.

^{page 225 note 1} Suetonius does not mention Pompey's name in the matter, but this is convincingly supplied by Dio. Dio only mentions the incident after the withdrawal of Metellus, but his language implies that its relinquishment and not its inception belongs to this point.

^{page 225 note 2} Plutarch confirms Suetonius as to the joint action of Metellus and Caesar. Dio omits the part played by Caesar, but he implies it when he remarks that after the retirement of Metellus, οὐδ' ὁ Καῖσαρ… Ễτ' ἐνεωτέρισεν.

^{page 225 note 3} I can find no indication in the authorities that the idea of recalling Pompey had ever had any connexion with putting down the conspiracy. When Metellus came home there was no conspiracy, and when this law was proposed the conspiracy was a thing of the past.

^{page 226 note 1} ad fam. v, 7, written in April 62. I understand the phrases veteres bostes and novos amicos to refer to Caesar and Crassus before and after the understanding through Metellus.