[194] I believe that I have translated this correctly. I suppose that Plutarch means to say, that if Cæsar had been accused as a member of the conspiracy, he would have been acquitted, and the conspirators would have had a chance of escaping also. There was no chance of securing the condemnation of the conspirators and involving Cæsar in their fate. On the contrary, if Cæsar was accused, all might escape. It was better, therefore, not to touch him. Kaltwasser has made the passage unintelligible. The explanation of Coraës, as corrected by Schäfer, is right.
[195] Sallustius (Bell. Cat. c. 51, &c.) states Cæsar’s proposal to have been the confiscation of the property of the conspirators and their perpetual confinement in the chief municipia of Italy, and that the Senate should make a declaration that any man who proposed to set them at liberty, or to mitigate their punishment, should be considered an enemy of the State. Cicero (In Catilin. iv. 5) states the opinion of Cæsar to the same effect. Cæsar had urged the illegality of condemning Roman citizens to death without a trial, and this was provided by a Lex Sempronia of C. Gracchus. But Cicero replies that Cææar’s measure was as severe.
[196] The speech which he delivered on the occasion is the fourth oration against Catiline. Some critics maintain that it is not genuine. Drumann, who maintains that it is, has a long note on the subject (Tullii, p. 512).
[197] Plutarch likens the feelings of the youth at the sight of the prisoners being led to execution to the solemn ceremonies of initiation in some mysterious rites. The conspirators were taken to the only prison that Rome then had, the Tullianum, where they were strangled. Five men were put to death. Nine had been condemned to death, but four had escaped being seized. Appian (Civil Wars, ii. 6) seems to say that Cicero saw the men put to death. If he did not see the execution, we may safely assume that he took care to see that the men really were dead. Their bodies were delivered to their kinsfolk for interment.
[198] Antonius did not command in the battle. He was ill, or pretended to be ill. His legatus, Petreius, an able officer, commanded the troops. The battle was fought early in B.C. 62, probably near Pistoria (Pistoia) in Etruria. It was a bloody struggle, hand to hand, and the loss on the victorious side was great. Dion says that Antonius sent the head of Catilina to Rome. According to Roman usage, he was entitled to the honour of the victory, because Petreius was his inferior officer.
[199] Metellus Nepos and the other tribunes began to exercise their functions on the tenth of December. The consuls began to exercise their functions on the first of January. The oath that Cicero had to swear was, that he had obeyed the laws. He alludes to the oath that he did swear on the last day of December on giving up his office, in a letter to Q. Metellus Celer, the brother of Nepos (Ad Diversos, v. 2), and in his oration against Piso, c. 3. Manutius (Comment. in Cic. Ep. Ad Divers. v. 2) shows that Bestia was a tribune during Cicero’s consulship, and as he had gone out of office on the ninth of December he could not have acted with Metellus on the thirty-first of December.
As to Metellus Nepos, see the Life of Cato, c. 20.
[200] It is said that this does not occur in the extant letters of Cicero.
[201] In the beginning of his treatise De Officiis, which is addressed to his son, then at Athens (B.C. 44), Cicero speaks of the youth having then been a year under the instruction of Kratippus. Kratippus was a native of Mitylene, and he was living there when Pompeius touched at the island after the battle of Pharsalia (Life of Pompeius, c. 75). Cicero’s son was attached to his master, and in an extant letter to Tiro (Cic. Ad Diversos, xvii. 21) he expresses his affection for him. Kratippus was more than a philosopher: he was a pleasant companion, and perhaps young Cicero liked his table-talk as much as his philosophy.
[202] He is mentioned by Cicero in his Letters to Atticus (xiv. 16, 18, and xv. 16).