NOTE A.
The above sketch follows in the main the traditional account of the Catilinarian conspiracy, which has been generally accepted by later historians. It is fair to add that some writers have adopted a different view, which may be thus briefly stated. They believe that historians have been mistaken in regarding Catilina as the leader of a mere band of desperadoes; that his so-called 'conspiracy' was really an act of revolt against the authority of the Senate on the part of the whole democratic party, of which he was the recognized leader (a similar movement, in fact, to those which had been organized by Gaius Gracchus in 123 b.c., by Saturninus in 100 b.c., by M. Lepidus in 78 b.c., and others); that he was driven to use force by the opposition of the Optimates to his schemes, and that Cicero, as the spokesman of the latter, purposely misrepresented him as the leader of an anarchist conspiracy, whose sole object was confiscation and plunder.
The received account is derived almost entirely from two sources; the speeches and writings of Cicero; and the 'History of the Catilinarian Conspiracy' by Sallust, written probably about 44 b.c. The former is undoubtedly a prejudiced witness, and statements resting on his authority alone must be received with caution. Sallust, however, was a partisan of Caesar, and a member of the democratic party. He had consequently no motive to represent the character of Catilina as worse than it really was, especially as his patron Caesar was commonly supposed to have been implicated in the first conspiracy (66 b.c.)[14], if not the second also. He certainly hints that the worst charges against Catilina, which he repeats, rested on very doubtful authority; but as to the main features of the conspiracy, he confirms Cicero on every point; and this is a strong argument in favour of the received account. The question is too large to be fully discussed within the limits of this book; those who wish to see the contrary view maintained with great spirit and ability should read the very interesting article in 'Catiline, Clodius and Tiberius,' by Professor E. S. Beesly[15].
FOOTNOTES:
[14] See page 8.
[15] See also the criticism on this in the Introduction to Capes' Sallust, pp. 24-27.
NOTE B.
On the Legality of the Execution.
On account of his action in this matter, Cicero was afterwards attacked by Clodius, who, as tribune in 58 b.c., carried a law enacting that 'any one who had put Roman citizens to death without trial should be forbidden fire and water.' As Clodius was supported by Caesar and Pompeius, Cicero did not make any resistance, but retired temporarily into exile.