Claudian1 seems to have furnished more than a hint for the vigorous lines on the giants' war in 5. 677 ff. Reminiscences of Horace occur, such as in 1. 126 and 4. 30-33. A phrase, 'Kpátel, pélvσe', is taken from Plutarch's Cato Minor (5. 578); Florus' Epitome furnishes 3. 285-288 and 5. 688-691; and Quintus Cicero is quoted in 4. 122–126. Instances might be multiplied, but full references are given in the Notes. 3. Sources of the Choruses Chorus I owes its flavor to the incorporation in it of some eight quotations from the Satiricon of Petronius. While the chorus is by no means entirely a translation, the parts not from Petronius are mainly but amplifications of his thought. Chorus 2 is largely Jonson's own, save for one hint from Horace; Chorus 3 is also practically original. Chorus 4 contains only one direct quotation, but its gist is plainly taken from Sallust, with possibly some aid from Cicero's Pro Murena. The treatment I have here given the sources has been brief, because I shall have more to say about them in the next section and in one taking up Jonson as atranslator. 4. Jonson's Use of Sources The borrowings in Catiline are sometimes rather intangible. Scarcely more than a fourth of the play is actual translation, and yet scarcely more than a fourth is original. This is due to Jonson's method. Take, for instance, the first meeting of the senate in Act 5. Every incident is reproduced from Cicero's own account in 4 Cat., but there is practically no out-and-out quotation. Throughout, Jonson treats Sallust much as a modern playwright would a novel he was dramatizing—a historical 1 Claudian was more widely known in Jonson's day, however, than now. novel, let us say. That is, he follows the outlines of the story pretty closely, taking dialogue where it is given, and where is it not, going to other sources, contemporary preferably, to supply it. If he finds nothing definite there, he at least has learned enough to understand how his characters might speak. So in Catiline Sallust furnishes most of the plot, many of the character-studies, and a fair share of the speeches; Cicero supplies much of the dialogue directly, especially as a great part of his speeches in the play consists of mosaics from his works; and the dialogue which is not directly furnished by Sallust, Cicero, or the minor sources, is almost always developed from them. The striking exception is the second act. For this Jonson had nothing but a few hints as to the character of Sempronia, and a bit from Ovid, and out of this scant stuff he wove one of the most sparkling of all his comic scenes. But this is unusual. Jonson's aim is not to be original. He believes in sticking to his book, and as a result, although he gains in mechanical realism, he loses in dynamism. By reason of Jonson's strict attention to sources, Catiline is a thoroughly Roman drama, far more so than Julius Cæsar: but who would ever consider comparing the two? Despite Jonson's real power, the weight of pedanticism ties him down, and Catiline can never be said to soar. Jonson's attempts to be literally faithful to his authorities sometimes lead him astray. I shall cite a few examples. In Act 1, following the appearance of the ghost, and in direct accord with the atmosphere it has created, Catiline, in his monologue, seems just deciding to plot against his country. The phrase, It is decree'd, would indicate that a mental struggle, with the resolve to revolt as its culmination, has just ended. However, a few lines later, when the conspirators meet, Jonson has his eye upon Sallust so closely that he forgets this phrase, and represents, with Sallust, the plot as already well advanced. Again, Jonson for his own purposes desires to maintain a fictitious unity of time. But he forgets this also, when (again following Sallust) he calls upon Syllanus as Consul next design'd, in Act 5, to give his judgment on the conspirators, notwithstanding that (as it seems to the reader) Cicero has just been elected to the consulship.1 Again, he translates a line from Cicero in Act 4 to make Gambinius Cimber the enginer of all; but in his own account Cimber has been merely a figure-head. In an endeavor to reconcile Plutarch's and Sallust's accounts of the attempts to murder Cicero, the former crediting the whole to Cethegus, he uses them both. The same sort of thing occurs in Act 3 and Act 4, Catiline threatening (in both places) to quench opposition to him with fire and ruin; in the first instance to Cato before the delivery of the first Catilinarian, in the second instance to Cæsar in answer to it. This is because Cicero in Pro Murena 25 and Sallust in Cat. 31 give different accounts. More instances of the sort might be adduced. 5. Historical Accuracy of Catiline A strange anomaly in the case of Catiline is that, closely as it follows sources, it is not in the main true to history. This inaccuracy, however, is no fault of Jonson's. He lived in an uncritical age. Sallust's account was undoubtedly considered beyond reproach then, especially as Plutarch, Dio Cassius, Appian, Florus, and the other authorities agreed so substantially with it. But to us of today that very agreement is suspicious. As Merimée2 points out, the accounts are so painstakingly alike that 1 But see Buland, Presentation of Time in the Elizabethan Drama, chap. 1, Double Time. At best the time-problem is here handled but poorly by Jonson, however. 2 Etudes sur l'Histoire Romaine. the conjecture at once arises that they have all been drawn in the main from one common source. Then, too, Sallust and Plutarch, the two principal authorities, as Merimée further observes, were both stylists, fonder of beautiful phrases than of plain facts. Sallust, moreover, had cause to be prejudiced, as he was a violent partisan of Cæsar. Indeed, Dr. Speck1 considers the Catilina as nothing more than a campaign-document ('Parteischrift') for Cæsar. Plutarch is equally untrustworthy In his Lives he always paints his characters in high lights and deep shadows, striving for contrasts, and so brightens the virtues of Cicero and blackens the vices of Catiline. for another reason. We have every reason to believe that Catiline, while certainly far from a 'model young man,' was not so bad as he has been depicted. Profligate he was, but profligacy was the gentlemanly vice of the age. Even the partial Plutarch admits his favorite Cato to have been entangled in adulterous liaisons. That Catiline murdered his son, forced a vestal, or corrupted his daughter, would seem to be improbable, in view of the fact that he was twice able to stand for the consulship. He had been rather closely connected with the régime of Sulla, but many noteworthy citizens had also taken part in its horrors a highly developed sense of mercy and pity was not a common Roman attribute. Above all, he was ambitious but so was Cæsar; and there is no evidence that Catiline was any more ambitious or unscrupulous than he. I hold no brief for Catiline. His course was doubtless pernicious, and he had in him over-much of the demagogue; yet I do think that he was no unusual monster, but merely a logical product of his age. The seeds of decadence had long been sown, and Catiline was one of the first 1 Katilina im Drama der Weltliteratur. 2 Mommsen thinks only once. fruits. He was but the natural link between Marius and Sulla on the one hand, and Cæsar and Augustus on the other. There were real abuses in Rome, many of them glaring, and the steadily increasing concentration of wealth had produced a deep unrest and a growing protest for more equal distribution. Especially did there seem to be injustice in the debtors' laws, which, we are led to believe, lay heavily upon Catiline himself, until his fortunate union with the rich Aurelia relieved him. Smarting from real or fancied personal wrongs, and fired with ambition, Catiline readily mistook his own cause for that of the public a mental procedure by no means without parallel. By nature he was peculiarly fitted to be the leader of a discontented faction. All authorities, even Cicero, agree as to the dignity of his birth, his rare intellectual equipment, and the persuasive charm of his personality. At first, his intentions were to seek reform through legitimate channels. He offered himself for the consulship twice, and his second candidacy seemed sure of success. However, a very unusual turn of circumstances, an unexpected combination of interests, defeated him, although it carried in Antonius, whom he had planned to have as colleague. The other new consul, Cicero, was a man of great abilities, but, as Ferrero terms him, a 'notorious political trimmer'—a professional advocate, not over-consistent in his acceptance of cases, who had even numbered Catiline among his clients. Further, he was of mean birth, a novus homo. This defeat was too much for the proud patrician Catiline, and he at once set on foot plans for an active revolution, which he seems to have thought could be rather easily accomplished. Cicero, however, inordinately vain of his new honor, and desirous at all costs of making a name for himself, forced the hand of Catiline. In a fiery speech in the senate he brought to bear all the tricks |