Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
Cato's speech determined the sense of the House, which Cicero had left doubtful.
An effort was indeed made at the last moment to put off the decision, in spite of the protest which the consul had uttered against delay.
Tiberius Claudius Nero moved to adjourn the question until further measures of defence against Catiline should be provided, and Silanus, tossed to and fro by conflicting anxieties, took refuge at last in this neutral proposal and announced that he should vote with Nero. [54]
But by the rules of the Roman Senate motions for adjournment had no precedence over those on the main question, and thus it happened that the proposal of Nero was never put to the vote.
Cicero first submitted to the House the proposal of Cato, which was in substance the same as that of Silanus, but which was more fully and clearly expressed. [55]
This was carried by a great majority and all the other motions before the House necessarily dropped.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
CICERO AND THE CATILINE CONSPIRACY
Re: CICERO AND THE CATILINE CONSPIRACY
Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
Cicero lost no time in carrying the sentence into execution.
He at once dismissed the Senate, and proceeding to the Palatine, where Lentulus was confined, led him along the Sacred Way through the Forum to the door of the ancient prison of the Kings close to the Temple of Concord where the debate had been held.
Hither he commanded the other prisoners to be conveyed, one by one, from their several places of detention.
The multitude which thronged the Forum was as yet uncertain for what purpose they were being brought.
As each arrived he was handed over to the magistrates charged with the care of executions, and by them thrust down into the subterranean vault of the prison, where he was immediately strangled.
When all five had perished the consul turned to the assembled people and, humouring the superstition which forbade the ill-omened mention of death, announced their fate in the words, "They have lived their life."
Night was failing when Cicero returned homewards amidst the flare of torches displayed at every door and the shouts of the multitude who hailed him as their deliverer and preserver. [56]
The soundness of Cato's advice and the wisdom of Cicero's action were soon manifested; the army of Catiline, which had remained unaffected by all the previous decrees of the Senate, began, as soon as the news of Lentulus' execution arrived, to disperse and dwindle until it was reduced to three thousand men.
These were soon confronted near Pistoria, some twenty miles from Fæsulæ, by a superior force under Petreius, a brave and experienced officer who was acting as lieutenant to the second consul Antonius.
The whole of them were cut to pieces fighting bravely around their leader, whose gallant death atoned in some degree for the criminal stupidity of his attempt against the commonwealth.
We may fairly apply to Catiline the lines in which Scott records the death of another Roman who, like him,
"For empire enterprised;
He stood the cast his rashness played,
Left not the victims he had made,
Dug his red grave with his own blade,
And on the field he lost was laid,
Abhorred, but not despised."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
Cicero lost no time in carrying the sentence into execution.
He at once dismissed the Senate, and proceeding to the Palatine, where Lentulus was confined, led him along the Sacred Way through the Forum to the door of the ancient prison of the Kings close to the Temple of Concord where the debate had been held.
Hither he commanded the other prisoners to be conveyed, one by one, from their several places of detention.
The multitude which thronged the Forum was as yet uncertain for what purpose they were being brought.
As each arrived he was handed over to the magistrates charged with the care of executions, and by them thrust down into the subterranean vault of the prison, where he was immediately strangled.
When all five had perished the consul turned to the assembled people and, humouring the superstition which forbade the ill-omened mention of death, announced their fate in the words, "They have lived their life."
Night was failing when Cicero returned homewards amidst the flare of torches displayed at every door and the shouts of the multitude who hailed him as their deliverer and preserver. [56]
The soundness of Cato's advice and the wisdom of Cicero's action were soon manifested; the army of Catiline, which had remained unaffected by all the previous decrees of the Senate, began, as soon as the news of Lentulus' execution arrived, to disperse and dwindle until it was reduced to three thousand men.
These were soon confronted near Pistoria, some twenty miles from Fæsulæ, by a superior force under Petreius, a brave and experienced officer who was acting as lieutenant to the second consul Antonius.
The whole of them were cut to pieces fighting bravely around their leader, whose gallant death atoned in some degree for the criminal stupidity of his attempt against the commonwealth.
We may fairly apply to Catiline the lines in which Scott records the death of another Roman who, like him,
"For empire enterprised;
He stood the cast his rashness played,
Left not the victims he had made,
Dug his red grave with his own blade,
And on the field he lost was laid,
Abhorred, but not despised."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: CICERO AND THE CATILINE CONSPIRACY
Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
The defeat and death of Catiline happened on the Nones of January, exactly one month after the execution of Lentulus.
There can be no question that the one event was the direct result of the other.
Catiline had calculated on having to deal with a weak government, divided by party factions and hampered by constitutional scruples.
He was met by a dramatic revelation of the total collapse of the schemes of his confederates in the city, and by a startling example of the length to which the consul and the Senate were prepared to go in dealing with them.
Down to the Nones of December, it was not clear which party had most force on its side.
When once this question seemed to be decided, Catiline lost his chief hopes of support.
All the outer circle of his followers deserted him, and he was left alone with a handful of desperate men for whom there was no retreat.
No State trial, except that perhaps of Charles I., has ever been the subject of so much controversy as that which consigned Lentulus and his companions to the executioner.
The clamour against Cicero's action began a few days later and never ceased until he was driven into banishment by a vote of the People.
This condemnation was solemnly reversed, and the exile restored in triumph eighteen months later.
But after nineteen centuries the controversy still rages, and the question is eagerly debated whether Cicero's act was that of a bold and public-spirited magistrate, who at a critical moment used his legitimate powers with rigour and discretion, or whether it was a judicial murder, [57] perpetrated without legal warrant by a timid and self-seeking partisan.
I will attempt to state very shortly the main points at issue.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
The defeat and death of Catiline happened on the Nones of January, exactly one month after the execution of Lentulus.
There can be no question that the one event was the direct result of the other.
Catiline had calculated on having to deal with a weak government, divided by party factions and hampered by constitutional scruples.
He was met by a dramatic revelation of the total collapse of the schemes of his confederates in the city, and by a startling example of the length to which the consul and the Senate were prepared to go in dealing with them.
Down to the Nones of December, it was not clear which party had most force on its side.
When once this question seemed to be decided, Catiline lost his chief hopes of support.
All the outer circle of his followers deserted him, and he was left alone with a handful of desperate men for whom there was no retreat.
No State trial, except that perhaps of Charles I., has ever been the subject of so much controversy as that which consigned Lentulus and his companions to the executioner.
The clamour against Cicero's action began a few days later and never ceased until he was driven into banishment by a vote of the People.
This condemnation was solemnly reversed, and the exile restored in triumph eighteen months later.
But after nineteen centuries the controversy still rages, and the question is eagerly debated whether Cicero's act was that of a bold and public-spirited magistrate, who at a critical moment used his legitimate powers with rigour and discretion, or whether it was a judicial murder, [57] perpetrated without legal warrant by a timid and self-seeking partisan.
I will attempt to state very shortly the main points at issue.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: CICERO AND THE CATILINE CONSPIRACY
Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
The Roman constitution, while restricting the capital jurisdiction of the magistrate over citizens, allows him to use any amount of force against enemies of the State.
A citizen may commit acts which constitute him an enemy, in which case he by his own deed renounces his civic privileges.
The rule for the magistrate by Roman, as by English, [58] law seems to be that he may not treat any citizen as an enemy on the ground of apprehended or future mischief nor on the ground of past offences, but only in the presence of overt acts implying grave and immediate danger to the State, which can only be repelled by the use of violent methods of self-defence.
It follows that the executions must be on a scale not out of proportion to the necessity, and that they must not be continued after the imminent danger has ceased.
If the conduct of the magistrate is afterwards called in question, the burden of proof that the forcible act was really necessary lies on him.
On the other hand the moment that the necessity is present he is neglecting his duty if he fails to act on it.
In extreme cases the private man has the same duty.
In the colonies and dependencies of England the exercise of this terrible responsibility has been sometimes preceded by a solemn proclamation of "Martial Law."
This proclamation does not, strictly speaking, make any alteration in the rights and duties which each magistrate and each citizen had before, [59] but it calls attention to the fact that a state of war exists with all the extraordinary obligations which such condition implies; it indicates that the magistrate or the officer expects to be obliged to act on his extreme powers, and that he intends to do so.
In Rome a corresponding proclamation is found in the decree of the Senate "that the consuls see to it that the State takes no harm."
This decree, on the face of it, does not so much confer fresh powers, as call upon the magistrates to stir up the powers which they already possess.
Nevertheless it is felt to make a grave difference in the situation, to bring home to the magistrate the responsibility for defending the commonwealth, and to justify acts which otherwise would be held tyrannous and outrageous.
It authorises the consul, as Sallust says, [60] "to employ every means of compulsion on aliens and Romans alike and to exercise extreme authority inside and outside the city."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
The Roman constitution, while restricting the capital jurisdiction of the magistrate over citizens, allows him to use any amount of force against enemies of the State.
A citizen may commit acts which constitute him an enemy, in which case he by his own deed renounces his civic privileges.
The rule for the magistrate by Roman, as by English, [58] law seems to be that he may not treat any citizen as an enemy on the ground of apprehended or future mischief nor on the ground of past offences, but only in the presence of overt acts implying grave and immediate danger to the State, which can only be repelled by the use of violent methods of self-defence.
It follows that the executions must be on a scale not out of proportion to the necessity, and that they must not be continued after the imminent danger has ceased.
If the conduct of the magistrate is afterwards called in question, the burden of proof that the forcible act was really necessary lies on him.
On the other hand the moment that the necessity is present he is neglecting his duty if he fails to act on it.
In extreme cases the private man has the same duty.
In the colonies and dependencies of England the exercise of this terrible responsibility has been sometimes preceded by a solemn proclamation of "Martial Law."
This proclamation does not, strictly speaking, make any alteration in the rights and duties which each magistrate and each citizen had before, [59] but it calls attention to the fact that a state of war exists with all the extraordinary obligations which such condition implies; it indicates that the magistrate or the officer expects to be obliged to act on his extreme powers, and that he intends to do so.
In Rome a corresponding proclamation is found in the decree of the Senate "that the consuls see to it that the State takes no harm."
This decree, on the face of it, does not so much confer fresh powers, as call upon the magistrates to stir up the powers which they already possess.
Nevertheless it is felt to make a grave difference in the situation, to bring home to the magistrate the responsibility for defending the commonwealth, and to justify acts which otherwise would be held tyrannous and outrageous.
It authorises the consul, as Sallust says, [60] "to employ every means of compulsion on aliens and Romans alike and to exercise extreme authority inside and outside the city."
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: CICERO AND THE CATILINE CONSPIRACY
Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
As Cicero himself puts the case, the whole dispute resolves itself into the question, was Lentulus a citizen or an enemy?
About Catiline who was openly in arms there could be no doubt; but Lentulus had not actually struck a blow: was he to be classed in the same category?
There was no doubt on any hand as to the guilt of the accused.
They were taken red-handed in the act of corresponding with the enemies of the State, and their own public confession constituted a plea of "Guilty."
But how were they to be dealt with?
The Law of Caius Gracchus said that no Roman citizen was to be condemned to death without the command of the People.
The democratic exposition of that law was that, given a citizen, no amount of treason short of physically appearing in arms against the State could constitute an enemy.
The view of the Senate was that a man who from inside the walls co-operated with insurgents was really and truly an enemy, and a more dangerous one because he was posted in ambush.
The common-sense answer to the question seems to be that suggested by Cato's speech as reported by Sallust.
If the peril from outside had been over, there would have been no public need for the execution of these men, and under those circumstances their rights as citizens would have revived, as they did in fact in the case of the four criminals [61] who were included in the sentence of the Senate, and who escaped immediate seizure; but while Catiline was still threatening the commonwealth with a dangerous army, his confederates could not justly claim any immunity which conflicted with the public safety.
The determining factor in the decision was the prospect of the effect which either course would produce on the operations in the field.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
As Cicero himself puts the case, the whole dispute resolves itself into the question, was Lentulus a citizen or an enemy?
About Catiline who was openly in arms there could be no doubt; but Lentulus had not actually struck a blow: was he to be classed in the same category?
There was no doubt on any hand as to the guilt of the accused.
They were taken red-handed in the act of corresponding with the enemies of the State, and their own public confession constituted a plea of "Guilty."
But how were they to be dealt with?
The Law of Caius Gracchus said that no Roman citizen was to be condemned to death without the command of the People.
The democratic exposition of that law was that, given a citizen, no amount of treason short of physically appearing in arms against the State could constitute an enemy.
The view of the Senate was that a man who from inside the walls co-operated with insurgents was really and truly an enemy, and a more dangerous one because he was posted in ambush.
The common-sense answer to the question seems to be that suggested by Cato's speech as reported by Sallust.
If the peril from outside had been over, there would have been no public need for the execution of these men, and under those circumstances their rights as citizens would have revived, as they did in fact in the case of the four criminals [61] who were included in the sentence of the Senate, and who escaped immediate seizure; but while Catiline was still threatening the commonwealth with a dangerous army, his confederates could not justly claim any immunity which conflicted with the public safety.
The determining factor in the decision was the prospect of the effect which either course would produce on the operations in the field.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: CICERO AND THE CATILINE CONSPIRACY
Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
On the ground then of public necessity Cicero would have been justified in putting the Catilinarians to death by his own authority or by the advice of any assessors whom he might select to act with him.
But in view of the fact that no case absolutely parallel had occurred since [62] the Law of Caius Gracchus on which his adversaries mainly relied, he thought it better first to take the advice of the great public council which the constitution had provided for him.
This was, strictly speaking, an innovation.
The Senate had sometimes condemned rebels by name as public enemies, thereby directly advising the consul to put them to death; but such rebels had always been persons at large and in arms (as Fulvius), or supposed to be in arms (as Caius Gracchus), not prisoners under present detention.
The difference however is one of circumstances, not of principle.
In either case the decree of the Senate could make no difference in the legal responsibility of the consul.
The legal justification of his act was, not that the Senate had ordered it, but that it was necessary for the preservation of the State.
He would have been worthy of blame, if in order to carry out this consultation he had dangerously delayed his action.
But when the advice of the Senate could be asked without practical inconvenience, it was clearly wise in the consul to obtain it.
It was important for the sake of the moral impression to be produced, that the execution should appear, not as an act of violence or panic on the part of the magistrate, but as the deliberate judgment of the supreme council of the State, which had seen the proofs of guilt and heard the confessions of the prisoners.
By confirming the action of the consul, the Senate, though it could take no legal responsibility off his shoulders, could yet give him moral support to justify his severity from the charge of cruelty and tyranny. [63]
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
On the ground then of public necessity Cicero would have been justified in putting the Catilinarians to death by his own authority or by the advice of any assessors whom he might select to act with him.
But in view of the fact that no case absolutely parallel had occurred since [62] the Law of Caius Gracchus on which his adversaries mainly relied, he thought it better first to take the advice of the great public council which the constitution had provided for him.
This was, strictly speaking, an innovation.
The Senate had sometimes condemned rebels by name as public enemies, thereby directly advising the consul to put them to death; but such rebels had always been persons at large and in arms (as Fulvius), or supposed to be in arms (as Caius Gracchus), not prisoners under present detention.
The difference however is one of circumstances, not of principle.
In either case the decree of the Senate could make no difference in the legal responsibility of the consul.
The legal justification of his act was, not that the Senate had ordered it, but that it was necessary for the preservation of the State.
He would have been worthy of blame, if in order to carry out this consultation he had dangerously delayed his action.
But when the advice of the Senate could be asked without practical inconvenience, it was clearly wise in the consul to obtain it.
It was important for the sake of the moral impression to be produced, that the execution should appear, not as an act of violence or panic on the part of the magistrate, but as the deliberate judgment of the supreme council of the State, which had seen the proofs of guilt and heard the confessions of the prisoners.
By confirming the action of the consul, the Senate, though it could take no legal responsibility off his shoulders, could yet give him moral support to justify his severity from the charge of cruelty and tyranny. [63]
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: CICERO AND THE CATILINE CONSPIRACY
Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
Cicero's action throughout seems then to have been both righteous and prudent.
He never lost his head though pressed by open enemies without and beset with traitors within the city.
He refrained from striking prematurely, but allowed time for Catiline to appear in the rebel camp and for Lentulus to commit himself by overt acts of treason.
He made the guilt of the conspirators so manifest, that even Cæsar was obliged to concur in the verdict of "Guilty," and to sanction it by proposing an alternative sentence as on convicted criminals.
He baffled all attempts within the city by his vigilance, and finally blasted the hopes of Catiline by the execution of his confederates.
He acted throughout with the calmness and indifference to personal danger proper to the chief magistrate of the Imperial State.
He carried the Senate and people with him at each step, and so when the crisis came he could adopt the stern measures which led up surely to success, and yet at the same time could avoid any division in the government and enable it to present an united front to the enemy.
There appears not a single false step to mark from the day when Cicero detached his fellow-consul from Catiline to the day when he broke the back of a formidable conspiracy by the death of five most guilty persons.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., continued ...
Cicero's action throughout seems then to have been both righteous and prudent.
He never lost his head though pressed by open enemies without and beset with traitors within the city.
He refrained from striking prematurely, but allowed time for Catiline to appear in the rebel camp and for Lentulus to commit himself by overt acts of treason.
He made the guilt of the conspirators so manifest, that even Cæsar was obliged to concur in the verdict of "Guilty," and to sanction it by proposing an alternative sentence as on convicted criminals.
He baffled all attempts within the city by his vigilance, and finally blasted the hopes of Catiline by the execution of his confederates.
He acted throughout with the calmness and indifference to personal danger proper to the chief magistrate of the Imperial State.
He carried the Senate and people with him at each step, and so when the crisis came he could adopt the stern measures which led up surely to success, and yet at the same time could avoid any division in the government and enable it to present an united front to the enemy.
There appears not a single false step to mark from the day when Cicero detached his fellow-consul from Catiline to the day when he broke the back of a formidable conspiracy by the death of five most guilty persons.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: CICERO AND THE CATILINE CONSPIRACY
Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., concluded ...
Cicero was a man of mild temper and of constitutional timidity, but of honest heart and sincere purpose.
On this occasion, in the presence of danger and under the stimulus of great responsibilities, he rose above himself and exhibited unexpected resources of strength and courage.
Transformed by the exigencies of his duty into a man of action, he played his part with coolness, with vigour, and with marked practical success.
His own conscience fully approved the deed.
Nowhere, even in periods of the darkest depression and suffering, when all the world seems to have turned against him, do we find the least hint of a doubt that he has been in very truth the saviour of his country; nor do the personal misfortunes which his act entailed upon him ever lead him to regret the act itself.
"For these two mighty generals," he writes [64] of Cæsar and Pompey at the beginning of the Civil War, "so far from setting their achievements above my own, I would not change my battered fortunes for theirs which seem so glorious."
"For what man can be happy when his country is enslaved by him or deserted by him?"
". . . I am sustained by the proud reflection that, when I had the power, I did the State good service, or at any rate never had an intention that was not loyal, and that the Republic has foundered in the very storm which I foresaw fourteen years ago."
"I take this approving conscience with me as a companion in my flight."
by James Leigh Strachan-Davidson
CHAPTER V.
CICERO AND CATILINE. 63 B.C., concluded ...
Cicero was a man of mild temper and of constitutional timidity, but of honest heart and sincere purpose.
On this occasion, in the presence of danger and under the stimulus of great responsibilities, he rose above himself and exhibited unexpected resources of strength and courage.
Transformed by the exigencies of his duty into a man of action, he played his part with coolness, with vigour, and with marked practical success.
His own conscience fully approved the deed.
Nowhere, even in periods of the darkest depression and suffering, when all the world seems to have turned against him, do we find the least hint of a doubt that he has been in very truth the saviour of his country; nor do the personal misfortunes which his act entailed upon him ever lead him to regret the act itself.
"For these two mighty generals," he writes [64] of Cæsar and Pompey at the beginning of the Civil War, "so far from setting their achievements above my own, I would not change my battered fortunes for theirs which seem so glorious."
"For what man can be happy when his country is enslaved by him or deserted by him?"
". . . I am sustained by the proud reflection that, when I had the power, I did the State good service, or at any rate never had an intention that was not loyal, and that the Republic has foundered in the very storm which I foresaw fourteen years ago."
"I take this approving conscience with me as a companion in my flight."