[174] It appears from Cicero’s oration for Murena, c. 19, that his name was Lucius Roscius Otho, and he was not Prætor, but Tribunus Plebis. This Lex Roscia was enacted B.C. 67, in the consulship of M. Acilius Glabrio and C. Calpurnius Piso (Don Cassius, 36. c. 25). His law gave to the equites and those who had the equestrian census a select place of fourteen rows at the public spectacles, which were next to the seats of the senators. This unpopular measure was that which Cicero now spoke in favour of (Ad. Attic. ii. 1). Cicero’s oration is lost, but a passage is preserved, says Kaltwasser, by Macrobius (Saturnalia ii. 10). Some also suppose, as Kaltwasser says, that Virgil alludes to it in the passage in the Aeneid (i. 152). There is no extract from this oration in Macrobius, who appears to suppose that Cicero made an oration to rebuke the people for making a disturbance while Roscius, the player, was acting.
[175] As to the conspiracy, see the Lives of Cæsar and Cato, and the notes.
[176] His name was C. Manlius Acidinus. There is no reason for saying that his true name was Mallius: that was merely a Greek form of Manlius. He fell in the battle in which Catiline’s troops were defeated.
[177] Cicero has recorded this answer of Catiline in his oration for Murena, c. 25: “duo corpora esse in republica, unum debile, infirmo capite, alterum firmum, sine capite: huic, cum ita de se meritum esset, caput se vivo non defuturum.” Cicero makes Catiline say that the weak body had a weak head. Cicero’s version of what he said is obviously the true one.
[178] Decimus Junius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena were consuls for the year B.C. 62. As to the trial of Murena for bribery at the elections (ambitus), see the Life of Cato, c. 21.
[179] This affair is not mentioned by Sallustius in his history of the conspiracy of Catiline. The usual form in which the Senate gave this extraordinary power is mentioned by Sallustius (c. 29): “dent operam consules nequid Res Publica detrimenti capiat.”
[180] The assassins, according to Sallustius, were C. Cornelius and L. Vargunteius. See the note of Drumann, Tullii, p. 457: “Plutarch hunted in his authorities only after anecdotes and traits of character in order to paint his heroes: the names of the subordinate persons were indifferent to him; with such frivolous and one-sided views he could not fail to confound persons.” “Frivolous,” is perhaps hardly the translation of Drumann’s “leichtsinnig,” but it comes pretty near to it. And yet the fact of the design to assassinate is the main feature in the history: the actors in the intended assassination are subordinate to the design. A painstaking compiler is entitled to grumble at such a blunder, but Plutarch does not merit reproach in these terms.
[181] She was a mistress or something of the kind of one Q. Curius. Whether Curius sent her to Cicero or she went of her own accord is doubtful. Perhaps she expected to get something for her information. Sallustius, c. 23. 28, speaks of this affair; and Cicero, Catilin. i. c. 9.
[182] Plutarch, as Kaltwasser observes, appears to refer to the words of Cicero (Catilin. i. c. 5): “magno me metu liberabis, dum modo inter me atque te murus intersit.” Catiline left Rome on the night of the 8th of November.
[183] L. Cornelius Lentulus Sura was consul B.C. 71. He had been put out of the Senate by the censors for his irregular life. His restoration to his rank and the matter of the prætorship are mentioned by Dion Cassius (37, c. 30, and the note of Reimarus). The meaning of the story about the ball is obvious enough; but Lentulus was not the first who had the name Sura, and Plutarch’s story is so far untrue. See Drumann’s note on the name Sura, Cornelii, p. 530.