detecta... statuente. Following upon the exposure of Catiline's accomplices at a session of the senate on Dec. 3 (Cic. Cat. 3) the senate met on Dec. 5 to advise Cicero on further procedure. On this debate see especially Cic. Cat. 4; Att. 12. 21; Sall. Cat. 50-3. For modern discussions see Strachan-Davidson, Prob. of R. Crim. Law, i, pp. 240-5; Hardy, Cat. Consp., ch. 9; R. Holmes, R. R. i. 273-82.

solus... censuit. For the substance of Caesar's speech see Sall. Cat. 51. Was the custody to be detentive or penal Plutarch (Caes. 7.2; Cic. 21. 1) and Appian (2. 6) state that the conspirators were to be detained merely pending a regular trial. But Cicero (Cat. 4. 7) speaks of sempiterna vincula, while Sallust (Cat. 51. 43) and Dio (37. 36. 1-2) say that their goods were to be confiscated and their case not to be reopened. The evidence of these three authors is overwhelming. The proposal was abnormal under the Republic; see Mommsen, Strafr., pp. 299, 947, 960, where he denies the use of penal imprisonment, except under the Empire, and then only as an aggravation.

invidia. See especially the veiled threat in Sallust (Cat. 51. 36) ubi hoc exemplo per senatus decretum consul gladium eduxerit, quis illi finem statuet aut quis moderabitur ?

Decimum Silanum. Cos. 62 B. C. As consul elect he was the first to speak and opted for immediate execution. After Caesar's speech Cicero tried to counteract the effect by his Fourth Catilinarian and thus reopened the rogatio sententiarum. Silanus, speaking first again, ate his words and spoke against execution.

§2. Cicerone. fratre. Quintus Cicero was praetor elect, and therefore presumably spoke before Caesar on the first rogatio sententiarum; he now, like Silanus and others, changed his view.

Catonis oratio. Cato, great-grandson of Cato the Censor, showed himself a constant opponent of Caesar (cp. 19. 1; 20. 4; 30. 3; 56. 5). He was now tribune elect. His speech was clear and forcible (cp. Cic. Att. 12. 21; Plut. Cic. 21. 2; Vell. Pat. 2. 35. 3). Sallust (Cat. 52) gives his version of the speech. But he omits the incriminations of Caesar which are recorded by Plutarch (Cat. 23. 1), Velleius (2. 35. 3), and Appian (2. 6), as well as his criticism of Silanus (Plut. 1. c.).

equitum. Cicero's 'special constables'; cp. Cic. Att. 2. 1. 7; Phil. 2. 16 (also adulescentes nobiles) ; Red. Sen. 12; Sall. Cat. 49. 4. Plutarch (Caes. 8. 2) calls them merely Cicero's 'young men'.

vix pauci protexerint. Plutarch (Caes. 8. 2) mentions Curio (probably the younger) and Cicero. Suetonius is wrong when he states that this took place in the senate. Plutarch and Sallust (Cat. 49) are clearly right when they make it happen as he was leaving the senate. sedentem deseruerint is also suspicious, being curiously reminiscent of the similar desertion of Catiline (Cic. Cat. 1. 7; 2. 12). But Suetonius is probably right as against Sallust,

who places the incident on Dec. 4, though Caesar did nothing provocative on that day.

curia abstinuit. But Plutarch (Caes. 8. 3) states that Caesar defended himself at a later meeting of the senate and was protected by Cicero, a statement which he (Čic. 21. 2) more nearly defines by describing the sitting of the senate as one in which the confiscation of estates was discussed. Plutarch's account seems more in keeping with Caesar's character.

CHAPTER XV

Primo praeturae die. Jan. 1, 62 B. C. (Dio 37. 44. 1). Quintum Catulum. Cos. 78 B. C., and now princeps senatus (see note on ch. 13 competitores). He had checkmated the designs of Crassus and Caesar upon Egypt in 65 B. C. (Plut. Crass. 13. 2), had stood against Caesar for the pontificatus maximus in 63 B. C. (Plut. Caes. 7. 1), and had tried to involve Caesar in the measures to be taken against Catiline's accomplices (Sall. Cat. 49. 1). Caesar was now striking back against a personal opponent and one of the leaders of the optimates.

de refectione Capitoli. The temple of Jupiter had been badly damaged in the fire of 83 B. C. (Plut. Sull. 27. 11; App. 1. 83) and the restoration entrusted to Catulus (cp. monumentum Catuli in Cic. Verr. 4. 31. 69), who dedicated the new temple in 69 B. C. (C. I. L. (ed. 1) i. 592; Tac. H. 3. 72; Suet. Aug. 94. 8, etc.), his name being inscribed thereon.

ad disquisitionem populi. This does not necessarily imply a popular iudicium. It is true that Caesar accused Catulus of embezzlement (Dio 37. 44. 1) and demanded an account of his expenditure, but it is possible that he proposed no more than a bill transferring the work to Pompey (cp. ad alium below) on the ground of Catulus' malpractices. The actual punishment of Catulus would have been left to the quaestio de rebus repetundis.

novorum consulum officio, 'attendance on the new consuls'; who went, escorted by the senators, on their first day of office to pay their respects to Iupiter Capitolinus, whose temple was under reconstruction.

actionem deposuit, 'dropped his proceedings'. Apparently he did no more than denounce Catulus to the people on Jan. 1, and pave the way for the rogatio which he promulgated. An interval of 24 days was necessary between the promulgatio and actual rogatio; Mommsen, Staatsr. iii, pp. 375-6 (Botsford, R. Assemblies, pp. 25960, makes the interval 17-24 days). The assembly for the rogatio never took place, and such indictment of Catulus, as may have been contemplated, was likewise dropped. actio suggests legal proceedings, but may be used in a more general sense.

CHAPTER XVI

§ 1. Metello. Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos, Tr. Pl. in 62 B. C. in the interests of Pompey (Plut. Cat. 20; Hardy, Cat. Consp., ch. 10; R. Holmes, R. R. i, pp. 466-7). He was consul in 57 B. C.

leges. Only one such law is recorded, namely, that in which Metellus proposed the recall of Pompey to restore order and crush Catiline (Dio 37. 43. 1) or to overthrow Cicero's duvaσreía (Plut. Cic. 23. 2; see also Cat. 26. 2). He had on the last day of 63 B. C. refused to let Cicero address the people on the ground of his execution of the conspirators. Cicero had denounced him in the senate on Jan. 1, 62 B. C., and Metellus had returned to the attack on Jan. 3 (Cic. Fam. 5. 2. 6-9). But there is no evidence that he proposed to bring forward a lex on the subject (cp. Dio 37. 42. 3).

collegarum intercessionem. More especially by Cato and Minucius Thermus (Plut. Cat. 26-9). The proceedings were attended with violent rioting.

decreto patrum. Suetonius is alone among our authorities in saying that Caesar was suspended by a decree of the senate. Dio (37. 43. 3) says that the senate passed the decretum ultimum, and that as a result Metellus took refuge with Pompey, after which Caesar lay low for fear a decree should be passed against him as had been passed against Metellus. It is not clear whether Dio means this latter decree to be identical with the decretum ultimum (which was perfectly general in terms) or with an earlier decree which he describes (37. 42. 3) as being passed after Metellus' attack on Cicero, to the effect that any person attacking those responsible for the execution of the conspirators should be regarded as a public enemy. Plutarch likewise is silent as to the infliction of any penalty on Caesar, and says that after the flight of Metellus, when it was proposed to deprive Metellus of his office, Cato intervened and persuaded the senate to take no action (Cat. 29. 2). It is, however, possible that Caesar's activities as praetor were suspended by the declaration of a iustitium, as was done in the case of Sulpicius (88 B. C.; see Plut. Sull. 8. 6), or that a special senatus consultum was directed against Caesar and Metellus between the two decrees mentioned by Dio (see above). In this case we may compare the decree suspending Cinna in 87 B. C. (Vell. Pat. 2. 20; App. 1. 64). See also note on in integrum restituit below.

ius dicere. Presumably he was in charge of one of the quaestiones perpetuae, as he is nowhere spoken of as praetor urbanus or peregrinus. Cp. for ius dicere 43 n.

vi ac per arma. Perhaps in virtue of the ultimum decretum, see above.

§ 2. in integrum restituit.

Suetonius again is our only

authority. It may refer to the removal of a iustitium (see above), if a iustitium had really been proclaimed, or of the special decree suspending both Metellus and Caesar. Or it may again have occurred on the occasion when Cato intervened to prevent Metellus being deprived of his office (Plut. Cat. 29. 2; see above). In any case the suspension was only for a few days, as is clear from biduo post (above).

CHAPTER XVII

§ 1. socios Catilinae. For previous attempts to incriminate Caesar and suspicions about his complicity see p. xxi, and cp. Sall. Cat. 49. I and Plut. Caes. 7-8; Cic. 20. 3; Cat. 23. I.

Novium. . . quaesitorem. The MSS. give quaestorem. But there is no evidence that quaestors had any jurisdiction in the quaestiones perpetuae (Mommsen, Staatsr. (ed. 3) ii, pp. 543-4; Strafr., p. 156). Novius must have been a quaesitor, or president of a quaestio (in this case probably the quaestio de vi). In that case Novius must have been at least of aedilician standing and cannot be identical with L. Novius, tr. pl. in 58 B. C. (Ascon., p. 47, Cl.).

Vettio. An agent of Cicero's in 63 B. C. (Att. 2. 24. 2); of equestrian standing, but a rogue (cp. Dio 37. 41. 2). See note on induxit... praemiis (20. 5).

Quinto Curio. An accomplice who turned against his fellowconspirators (Sall. Cat. 23; 26; 28. 2). Sallust, like Suetonius (cp. primus... detexerat), makes him the first to give information of the plot. He was a senator (Sall. 17. 3) and was in a position to raise the subject by an egressio relationis.

constituta praemia. At a special meeting of the senate on Dec. 4 (Cic. Cat. 4. 5; 10).

chirographum, an autograph undertaking'. Autographs played a large part in the detection of the accomplices on Dec. 3, 63 B. C. (Cic. Cat. 3. 10, 12). The document produced by Vettius was clearly regarded as a forgery. Cp. the forged letters by which Sertorius was decoyed (Plut. Sert. 26. 3).

§ 2. Ciceronis. Cicero had helped to save Caesar on Dec. 5 (see note on pauci . . . protexerint in 14. 2). But cp. also Cicero's letter to Axius quoted in 9. 2; also p.

ultro... detulisse. Probably about the same time as Crassus (for which cp. Plut. Cic. 15; Dio 37. 31. 1), i. e. shortly before Oct. 21, when the senatus decretum ultimum was passed (Cic. Cat. I. 4, 7). See Hardy, Cat. Consp., p. 58.

pignoribus captis. Not as security, but as a penalty. Cp. Lex Quinctia de aquaeduct. 1. 18 tum is praetor... multa pignoribus cogito coercito. The pignora were sometimes destroyed in conspectu populi Romani. Cp. direpta supellectile and Cic. de Or. 3. 1. 4; also Phil. 1. 5. 12. See Greenidge, op. cit., pp. 336-7.

coiecit in carcerem. In virtue of his authority as praetor. Imprisonment might be (i) preventive custody in order to secure the presence of a prisoner at a trial; (ii) coercitio, i. e. imprisonment for contumacy on a magistrate. Instances of the use of coercitio save by tribunes are rare, but Caesar in his consulship ordered, if he did not carry out, the same penalty in the case of Cato (see note on 19. 4). In the case of Novius, the exercise of coercitio is clear from the language used by Suetonius; and it is almost equally certain in the case of Vettius. He might no doubt have been indicted for calumnia, but the promptness of Caesar's action suggests penal rather than preventive procedure. See Greenidge, Legal Procedure, p. 333; Mommsen, Strafr., p. 48; also next note. For further examples cp. the coercitio of Tarquinius (63 B. C.) by order of the consul Cicero (Sall. Cat. 48. 6); of Vettius himself by the tribune Vatinius (59 B. C.; see below on 20. 5); of Metellus Celer by the tribune Flavius (60 B. C.; see Dio 37. 50).

minorem potestatem: i. e. he challenged the right of Novius as quaesitor (see above) to summon him, a praetor, before his court. Cp. Mommsen, Staatsr. (ed. 3) i, 153.

CHAPTER XVIII

§1. sortitus Hispaniam. His province also as quaestor (see 7. 1).

sponsorum, 'sureties'. Crassus stood surety for 830 talents (Plut. Caes. II. I; Crass. 7. 7). Appian (2. 8) says that his debts amounted to 25 million sesterces. Cp. also note on 13. I aeris alieni.

=

ornarentur, a necessary correction for the MSS.' ordinarentur. The ornatio provinciae the vote of funds and appointment of staff. Cp. Cic. Pis. 5; Att. 3. 24. 1; Sall. Jug. 27. 5). Meyer (Caesars Monarchie, p. 56) suggests that Caesar did not even wait for the lex curiata conferring the imperium. For a possible parallel cp. App. Claudius, cos. 54 B. C. (Cic. Fam. 1. 9. 25).

metune iudicii. Probably an actio civilis. Later on he became liable to criminal charges (cp. 23. 1; 30. 3), but in 61 B. C. he had for the time being made his peace with the optimates (cp. 16. 2 and 17).

privato: i. e. in the interval between the expiry of his praetorship at Rome and the conferment of the imperium on him as pro praetore.

pacataque provincia. His campaigns are described thus: Plutarch (Caes. 1.2):-Caesar raises 10 new cohorts in addition to the existing 10, defeats the Lusitani and Callaeci (Portugal and Galicia), reaches the 'outer sea', and is acclaimed imperator (cp. Liv. Epit. 103 Lusitanos subegit). Dio (37. 52-3):-He is wilfully aggressive, chases the people of the Herminian mountains (between the lower Tagus and Douro) to the Ocean, sails from Gades to