Conspiracy Narratives in Roman History

Chapter One: Sallust: The Catilinarian Conspiracy

one sallust The Catilinarian Conspiracy Cicero’s invitation to Lucceius towrite an individual monograph about his consular year and its most famous event, the Catilinarian conspiracy, indicates that such a narrow topicwas considered a suitable subject for a shorter historical monograph: So you may also likewise isolate the domestic conspiracy from the external foreign wars. Indeed I see it matters little to my reputation, but it does matter to my impatience, that you not wait until you come to that place but immediately seize that event in its entirety. And likewise, if all your attention is turned toward one plot and one character, I already detect how much the more everything will be luxuriant and highly wrought.1 Of course, Cicero himself was willing to meet the need for a history glorifying his consulship. Based on his four speeches In Catilinam, it is not difficult to imagine the connections Cicero would have drawn between causes and effects, and the way he would have achieved narrative continuity. Lucceius did not answer the call to write about the year 63 b.c.e.;2 but two decades later, the Catilinarian conspiracy proved irresistible to Sallust. The first part of this chapter traces the political background and sketches the story of the Catilinarian conspiracy. The second part dissects some of the rhetorical devices Sallust uses in the Bellum Catilinae to achieve narrative continuity. Some of these devices stand outside the narrative; others are embedded within. The third part of the chapter surveys the way Sallust creates suspense in the monograph. Digressions and character sketches, for example, impede the progress of the narrative. But the results of two episodes in particular impel the narrative forward: the affair of Fulvia and Curius and the skirmish at the Mulvian Bridge. betrayed conspiracies political background Our picture of theyears 66–62 b.c.e. relies especiallyon two sources, Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae and Cicero’s no-doubt revised speeches In Catilinam.3 Thus, from a historiographical standpoint, the Catilinarian conspiracy is unique; the rest of our conspiracy narratives are written by later historians, removed from the events by as much as two hundred years. Social, economic, and political factors each contributed to the climate of unrest in the 60s. In Cicero’s time, according to Plutarch, the situation in Rome was such that ‘‘matters needed only a slight impulse to disturb them, and it was in the power of any bold man to overthrow the commonwealth, itself in a diseased condition’’ (Cic. 10.5). The incipient cause of this corruption is traditionally traced to the destruction of Carthage and the subsequent conquests of the East that expanded the geopolitical scope of the empire and overburdened a system of government designed for a localized city-state.The vast amount of wealth that poured into Rome was concentrated in the hands of only a few who used it to their political and social advantage, bestowing rather than electing magistracies and military commands. With the rise of latifundia (extensive estates resulting from an aggregation of properties too large to manage according to traditional slave-staffed methods), the number of small farmers decreased, while the urban population steadily increased. Too much wealth in the hands of too few aristocrats contributed to an eventual polarization within the aristocracy. Some strove to consolidate power in the hands of an élite oligarchy, while others attempted to establish personal supremacy.4 In addition to these general conditions of fierce aristocratic competition and extreme financial distress, Yavetz points to two immediate political factors that contributed to Catiline’s insurrection. In 70, during the consulship of Pompey and Crassus, the senate list was revised. For the first time since 86, censors were appointed. Gellius Publicola and Lentulus Clodianus carried out their task with unmitigated severity, expelling no fewer than sixty-four members. Although Sulla had packed the senate with unworthy nominees, it is assumed that the censors made their selection under the guidance of the consuls Pompey and Crassus. Then in 65, the lex Papia legislated the expulsion from Rome of all aliens who were not permanently domiciled in Italy.5 Economically, the wars against Mithridates, first conducted by Sulla, Murena , Lucullus, and finally ended by Pompey, had profoundly lowered credit facilities, while increased activities of pirates in the Mediterranean raised the cost of shipping and therefore the cost of grain.6 28 sallust: the catilinarian conspiracy Within this climate of political rivalry and economic disaster, Pompey and Crassus emerged as bitter rivals...