TheCatalinarian Conspiracy - Article Example

One of the most widely read accounts of Roman history is the “Catalinarian Conspiracy”, which is a significant event for a number of reasons. This event begins when a politician named Cataline was suspected of creating a plot that would overthrow the Republic, creating a dictatorship in Rome. It was believed that Cataline had gained the support of an army and that this army would do whatever was required to attain its goals. Two other politicians named Sallust and Cicero believed that they could foil this suspected plot. Cicero took an active role in this story and eventually had many of Cataline’s supporters executed and began a violent altercation that led to Cataline’s death. This story, however, contains more than just facts, as the events surrounding this conspiracy are shady. Some believe that Cicero embellished the circumstances in order to remove Cataline from his position within the community, while others believe that Cataline was guilty and that his punishment was just. Whether or not Cataline was guilty, however, is not of the most ultimate importance because Cicero acted in an unjust manner when punishing Cataline and his supporters for their suspected crimes and, therefore, should be looked at as a villain by history. Cicero had motives to desire that Cataline’s power taken away and he acted in a unethical manner during this conspiracy The question of whether or not Sallust and Cicero were justified in their portrayal of Cataline is significant to this story because there are two very distinct possibilities of what happened. One possibility is that Cataline was, in fact, attempting to overthrow the Republic, which would mean that they were justified in their accusations and subsequent punishment. They could have had reason to believe that Cataline was up to no good because they found supplies in his house that could be used to start fires. Also, “Sallusts description of Catalines early devotion to wickedness and fondness for bloodshed closely resembles a comparable sketch of Catalines youth in Cicero” (Sallust and Ramsey, 1984, P. 70). This shows that Sallust and Cicero already had issues with Cataline‘s behavior, giving them motivation to see his power taken away. They also believed that Cataline had the motivation to destroy the Republic because he was a corrupt man who put his own interests first. Cicero even attempted to gain public support by making people scared of Cataline when he said, “The plot they have entered into so that after the universal slaughter there will not be a living person left even to mourn the name of Rome and grieve over the downfall of our once mighty empire” (Cicero and Grant, 1969, P. 132). This is very similar to how the American government has attempted to gain public support in its military operations through invoking fear in its population. Cicero unjustly brought fear into the population’s life in order to gain political support for his campaign against Cataline. It is possible that Cataline was simply a politician who had a differing agenda from Sallust and Cicero and, therefore, they decided that they would do whatever it took to eliminate him. This is a much more likely scenario because they did not wait until sufficient proof was gathered. Cataline, knowing full well that he would be found guilty without a trial because of the power that Sallust and Cicero possessed, decided that he would fight so that he would go down nobly. While it may have been true that Cataline was a corrupt man, he did not have the resources with which to destroy the Republic and, therefore, Sallust and Cicero’s portrayal of him is not justified. Their action could be viewed as a pre-emptive strike, since they believed that they had enough evidence to accuse Cataline, or it could be that they used Cataline as a method of furthering their own political agendas. The later is more likely because there is such a strong lack of evidence and means by which to commit these crimes for Cataline. Also the fact that Cicero “thought it best that Catiline should be punished with death” (Cicero, 1st century B.C.) shows that Cicero simply wanted him out of the picture, without properly examining the evidence. Other individuals were also prominent in this conspiracy, as each person had his own motivation for becoming involved. Crassue, for example, was described as being the wealthiest person in the world. It is possible that he provided the financial backing for Cataline to attempt this overthrow in exchange for political favors in the future. In fact, Crassue was known to have provided financial help to politicians in exchange for favors later on, so it is not far-fetched to think that he was behind it. During this conspiracy, “Crassus was not without some suspicion of being concerned, and one man came forward and declared him to be in the plot; but nobody credited him. Yet Cicero, in one of his orations, clearly charges both Crassus and Caesar with the guilt of it, though that speech was not published till they were both dead. But in his speech upon his consulship, he declares that Crassus came to him by night, and brought a letter concerning Catiline, stating the details of the conspiracy” (Plutarch, 75 A.C.E.). Caesar was originally a supporter of Cataline, but he quickly withdrew his support when it became apparent that Cataline would not be successful. Caesar was never formally punished for his role in this alleged crime, even though “When the conspiracy of Catiline was detected, and all the rest of the senate favoured inflicting the extreme penalty on those implicated in the plot, Caesar, who was now praetor elect, alone proposed that their goods be confiscated and that they be imprisoned each in a separate town. Nay, more, he inspired such fear in those who favoured severer measures, by picturing the hatred which the Roman commons would feel for them for all future time, that Decimus Silanus, consul elect, was not ashamed to give a milder interpretation to his proposal” (Suetonius, P. 19). Therefore, Caesar’s involvement without punishment is further proof that Cicero only wanted to see Cataline punished because of personal issues between the two. The main person behind the accusations against Cataline was Cicero, as he told the Republic that he had a great deal of evidence against Cataline. Cicero claimed, first of all, that two people who were associated with Cataline showed up at his house in order to kill him, but they simply left of their own accord when they were not permitted access to the house. This does not make much sense because if they had been hired to kill him, they would not stop simply because they were not allowed in the house. This could be used as evidence that Cicero was out to get Cataline, as he is making up stories to make him seem worse off than he is. Also, Cicero claims that Cataline attacked him with a knife, but he does not have an injury and says that he simply side-stepped the attack in order to avoid it. This, once again, does not hold any proof against Cataline and could be entirely made up. Cicero is also responsible for Cataline’s supporters being executed very quickly, so that they could not speak out against him and could not have a fair trial. Also, when letters containing information on who Cataline’s fellow conspirators are, Cicero claims that it was the Gods who made the conspirators unintelligent enough to send the letters with their identities. This is not a believable scenario by today’s standards and, therefore, it should not have been believable back then. Cicero did not save the Republic because the Republic was not necessarily in the danger that he made people believe it was in. While Cataline did have his supporters, there was no real evidence that these supporters had the means with which to destroy the Republic or have the desire to do so anyway. Cicero helped his own reputation along, but he did not save the Republic from destruction. Cicero reaped some benefits because of his role in this, as, first of all, he eliminated himself of Cataline. Cataline was a very popular person during this time period, as he would throw parties and enjoyed the accompaniment of many different women. Cicero did not have this popularity, which could be one of the reasons why he wanted Cataline gone. Cicero was also able to portray himself as a hero after this event, making himself look like he had saved the Republic. The disadvantage of his role was that Cataline was a very popular man and this made Cicero even more unpopular. There has always been doubt surrounding Cicero’s actions because he did not wait for a fair trial, so he was never able to receive full credit for saving the Republic. Sallust portrays Cataline slightly different than Cicero, as he is more sympathetic to some of Cataline’s traits. For example, while Cicero constantly degrades and slanders Cataline in his text, Sallust goes out of his way to mention that Cataline has many noble traits that are the reason why he was so successful in Rome. He also mentions that Cataline fought bravely in his final battle that led to his death, rather than simply focusing on all the bad things that Sallust believed Cataline had done. Sallust does still make it very clear that he thinks Cataline is a horrible person, but he also points out that he was not all bad and that he did have some positive traits to him. Cicero, on the other hand, only speaks poorly of Cataline. When he is not mentioning the crimes that Cataline committed against the Republic, he is assassinating Cataline’s character by speaking of his wild parties and carefree lifestyle. By this, it is obvious that Cicero had personal issues with Cataline that were very deep-rooted, while Sallust simply had a political agenda against him. Much of this could be because of Sallust’s close ties with Caesar, who could have been a supporter of Cataline at some point and also because he “comprehends the desire for revolution that sparks men and women of particular circumstances“ (Wilkins, 1994, P. 138). The term “concordia ordinum” means an alliance between the senatorial and equestrian orders. This is something that Cicero had worked his entire political career in order to achieve, but he was unsuccessful. One of the reasons why it was unsuccessful was because he argued that it would lead to a more peaceful Rome. Shortly after, however, he led a violent slaughter of Cataline’s supporters, which went against what he had previously said. It could be argued that the reason behind Cicero’s persecution of Cataline was that he wished to further his ideal of “concordia ordinum” and Cataline was against it and would stop at nothing to prevent it. (Eagle, 1948, PP. 15-30) Sallust portrays Sempronia as a woman with considerable talents who was born into a rich and powerful family, but squandered these inherent gifts through her actions. She became a criminal, even at some point an accessory to murder, and she threw away her money and her reputation. She would sleep around with a variety of different men, including Cataline. (Sallust, 1st century B.C., PP. 24.3-25) While it is clear that Cataline is not a moral character and that he probably did not deserve to have the high stature that he did, it is possible to have doubts about whether or not be committed the crimes that he was suspected of. His morality is not what should have been questioned, but rather his actions are what are on trial. Since Cicero acted without gaining the proper knowledge of the situation, the world will never know what truly happened. That being said, there is enough doubt to state that Cataline should not have been punished right away and, therefore Cicero’s actions were wrong in this particular case. While Cataline may have been guilty, he had not been proven guilty, nor is there enough reason to believe his guilt today and, therefore, Cicero was wrong in his actions. Sources Cicero. 1st cent. B.C. “First Oration Against Catiline”. Rome. Cicero, Marcus Tullius and Grant, Michael. 1969. Cicero: Selected Political Speeches. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc. Eagle, E.D. 1948. “Catiline and the ’Concordia Ordinum’.” Phoenix 3 Everitt, Anthony. 2001. Cicero: The Life and Times of Roman’s Greatest Politician. New York: Random House. Grant, Michael. 1989. Selected Political Speeches of Cicero. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin Books. Plutarch. 75 A.C.E. "Crassus". Rome. Viewed 25 September 2007. http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/crassus.html Sallust. 1st cent. B.C. Conspiracy of Catiline. Rome. Sallust and Ramsey, J.T. 1984. Sallusts Bellum Catilinae. New York: American Philological Association. Suetonius. "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars". Rome. Viewed 26 September 2007. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html Wilkins, Ann Thomas. 1994. Villain or Hero: Sallust’s Portrayal of Catiline. New York: Peter Lang. Read More