Citation with stable link: Philip A. Harland, 'Romans: Sallust, Plutarch, and others on human sacrifice and other crimes of Catiline and conspirators (first century BCE on),' Ethnic Relations and Migration in the Ancient World, last modified October 9, 2026, https://philipharland.com/Blog/?p=23473.
Ancient authors: Sallust (42-35 BCE), War of Catiline / Bellum Catilinae 5, 12-16, 21-23, 36-39 (link); Plutarch (early second century CE), Cicero 10-11; Plutarch, Publicola 4 (link); Florus (early second century CE), Epitome of Roman History 2.12 (link); Cassius Dio (early third century CE), Roman History 37.29-30 (link).
Comments: This is the first of a series of posts on intramural accusations of human sacrifice and related customs (e.g. consumption of the sacrificial victim’s flesh or blood) against internal groups or populations from the first century BCE on. Jesus adherents will be among the internal targets, but they are by no means unique in being so, as this broader ethnographic context will illustrate. Let me introduce the topic in these comments.
The accusation that some population engaged in the crime of human sacrifice is older than written ethnography itself, I would suggest. (See the crime of human sacrifice category for many other written ethnographic examples). Along with it came the notion that such people were barbaric and often, if in some contact with the labeler, an appropriate target for violent attack or forced displacement. Both Euripides’ play on Iphigeneia among the Taurians and Herodotos’ roughly contemporary account (5.103 – link) about Taurians regularly sacrificing Greeks offer clear examples of such stories circulating in the fifth century BCE. This was a time when Greeks (Ionians and Milesians in particular) were still actively colonizing territories on the north shore of the Black Sea (in what is now Ukraine and southern Russia) adjacent to or coextensive with the Taurians or with other peoples designated by the broader Greek label “Scythians.” In other words, criminalizing foreign peoples who were considered real threats, enemies, and / or competitors for land and resources was part of ethnographic thinking from our earliest evidence on. I would suggest that we can think of such written cases by the likes of Herodotos as echos of creatively constructed rumours on the ground among Greek, Ionian, or Milesian colonists in some tension with surrounding peoples.
Writing from a Roman perspective in the mid-first century BCE, both Julius Caesar and Cicero show that this technique of criminalizing entire populations of foreigners was alive and well at a later time among Roman elites. Julius Caesar was responsible for the displacement or obliteration of large swathes of populations of Celts, Galatians, or Gauls during his campaigns in the 50s BCE. So it is not very surprising that his very influential written account of Celtic Druids’ customs puts some emphasis on the idea that these targets engaged in the most barbaric practice imaginable, namely human sacrifice (Gallic Wars 16 – link). Cicero shows that rumours of Celtic sacrifice had preceded Caesar’s account (unless these passages were later edits to his speech influenced by Caesar’s writing [cf. Cicero, Brutus 262]): Cicero attempts to undermine any Celtic witnesses as untrustworthy and deadly barbarians in his speech defending Fonteius (69 BCE) against accusations of financial exploitation of the province of Gallia Narbonensis (link).
However, as far as I can tell so far, before the mid-late first century BCE, there is no clear evidence of anyone deploying or repeating this accusation of human sacrifice against members of one’s own community or sub-groups living within one’s own society. (Although one might infer the latter in the case of immigrant minorities based on the idea of transferring accusations of human sacrifice from, say, Judeans in the Jerusalem Temple– link – over to Judean diaspora groups elsewhere). This situation significantly changed. It is precisely in the politically volatile period of Roman civil wars (from the 80s BCE-31 BCE) that this ethnographic technique of criminalizing foreign peoples and foreign enemies came, at times, to be redirected against internal rivals or groups.
It happens to be that Sallust’s story (probably written 42-35 BCE) about the Catiline conspiracy is the earliest literary source to echo local rumours (around 62 BCE) to the effect that a contemporary internal group of Romans engaged in human sacrifice. (Quite different is the recurrent idea that in the very old days one’s own people may have engaged in human sacrifice but quite deliberately stopped that practice, on which see, for instance, Varro’s story of the Pelasgians’ migration to Italy at this link [coming soon]). In the case of the Roman senator Catiline, the idea is that conspirators engaged in human sacrifice and the drinking of the blood (or in later expansions of the rumours eating the innards) as an oath to commit the conspiracy. In addition, this behaviour is placed within a broader pattern of criminal behaviour by Catiline and his associates, including sexual crimes. These local rumours at Rome about Romans and Sallust’s interest in including the rumours in his account of Catiline (even though he doubts their credibility) seems to be a harbinger of a trend for the Roman era, I would suggest. Cicero himself, a direct political rival of Catiline, apparently knows nothing about these rumours, rumours which may well have arisen or become more well-known after Catiline’s death in early 62 BCE.
This post gathers together Sallust’s story of Catiline’s oath (along with other criminalizing portions of Sallust’s account), as well as subsequent retellings and expansions by Plutarch, Florus and Cassius Dio. (I also include Plutarch’s projection of a very similar human sacrifice and blood oath onto the story of the final Roman king in the old days, Tarquinius). In this way, one can witness how this story of Catiline’s human sacrifice and blood oath was retold, expanded, changed, and redirected over time in order to criminalize supposed conspirators.
It is not only the act of human sacrifice itself that is drawn from ethnographic discources about foreign peoples and projected on internal enemies, but also the notion of making an oath using human blood. For instance, as early as Herodotos we have ethnographic accounts picturing Lydians and Medes making oaths involving the licking of human blood, but without human sacrifice (Histories 1.74.6 – link); we have Arabians described as mixing the human blood of two oath-takers (3.8 – link); and, we have Scythian oath-taking imagined to involve the mixing of wine and human blood (4.70.1 – link; cf. Lucian, Toxaris 35-40 – link). So the rumours about Catiline are combining such stories of unusual or barbaric foreign customs and directing them internally at other Romans. Among the passages offered below, Florus most clearly refers to the ethnographic analogy of foreign peoples in casting Catiline as worse than Hannibal the Carthaginian.
Series on ethnographic discourses of human sacrifice directed at internal rivals or threats (first century BCE on):
- Sallust (ca. 42-35 BCE) on the Roman senator Catiline (died 62 BCE) and his associates (link)
- Diodoros (ca. 36 BCE) on the Greek tyrant Apollodoros of Kassandreia (link)
- Livy (ca. 9 BCE) on Roman and Greek devotees of Dionysos Bacchos at Rome (link)
- Justin of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine (ca. 153 CE) on Jesus adherents (link)
- Athenagoras of Athens (175-178 CE) on Jesus adherents (link)
- Tatian of Assyria (ca. 176 CE) on Jesus adherents (link)
- Theophilos of Antioch (ca. 180s CE) on Jesus adherents (link)
- Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 197 CE) on Jesus adherents (link)
- Minucius Felix (ca. 200 CE) on Jesus adherents (link)
- Origen (ca. 244 CE) on Jesus adherents (link)
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Sallust, War of Catiline (42-35 BCE)
[Introduction of Cataline as a criminal figure]
(5) Lucius Catiline [ca. 106-62 BCE], offspring of a noble family, had great vigour both of mind and body, but an evil and depraved nature. From his youth onwards, he revelled in internal wars, murder, pillage, and civic dissension, and he spent his early manhood amid these things. His body could endure hunger, cold and lack of sleep to an incredible degree. Catiline’s spirit was reckless, cunning, treacherous, and capable of any form of pretence or concealment. Covetous of others’ possessions, he freely spent his own. His emotions were violent. He possessed a certain amount of eloquence, but little discretion. Catiline’s disordered mind always craved the monstrous, incredible, and gigantic.
After the domination of Lucius Sulla [dictator at Rome ca. 82-79 BCE], Catiline had been seized with a strong desire to control the government, caring little about what methods he used to achieve it, provided he made himself supreme. Catiline’s arrogant spirit was more and more every day spurred on by poverty and a sense of guilt, both of which he had augmented by the practices which I just outlined. He was spurred on, also, by the corruption of the public morals, which were being ruined by two great evils of an opposite character, extravagance and avarice.
[Broad framework of moral decline since 146 BCE for the entire discussion of Catiline]
Since the occasion has arisen to speak of the morals of our city, the nature of my theme seems to suggest that I go farther back and give a brief account of the institutions of our ancestors during peace and war, how they governed and then left the community to us, and how by gradual changes our city transformed from the most noble and excellent into the worst and most disgraceful. . . [omitted sections recounting the origins and gradual decline of the Roman people].
[General overview of crimes of Catiline and accomplices]
(12) As soon as riches came to be held in honour [among Roman predecessors] and when glory, dominion, and power followed, virtue began to lose its lustre, poverty to be considered a disgrace, and blamelessness to be termed malevolence. Therefore as a result of riches, luxury, greed, and insolence took possession of our young men. They pillaged and squandered. They set little value on their own kind and coveted the goods of others. They disregarded modesty, chastity, and everything human and divine. To put it briefly, they were completely thoughtless and reckless.
It is worth your while, when you look at houses and villas built to the scale of cities, to pay a visit to the temples of the gods built by our ancestors, the most reverent men. But they adorned the shrines of the gods with piety, their own homes with glory, while from the conquered they took nothing except their power to do harm. On the contrary, today the lowest creatures with supreme wickedness are robbing our allies of everything those heroes in the hour of victory had left them. They act as though the one and only way to rule were to do wrong to others.
[Sexual and other crimes]
(13) Why should I recount those incredible achievements – incredible to everyone beyond those who have witnessed them – by a host of private men who have levelled mountains and built upon the seas? It seems to me that such men have treated their riches as a plaything. For while they might have enjoyed them honourably, they hurried to squander them shamefully. No even more than that: the passion which arose for perverted sex, over-eating, and the other things that come along with luxury was equally strong. Men taking on the passive role of women in sex. Women offering their chastity for sale. They scoured land and sea to gratify their appetites. They slept before they needed sleep. They did not wait until hunger or thirst arrived, of cold or of weariness, but all these things their self-indulgence anticipated. Those were the sort of vices that incited the young men to crimes (facinora), as soon as they had used up their property. Their minds, which were accustomed to evil practices, could not easily refrain from sexual self-indulgence. So they abandoned themselves even more recklessly to every means of gain as well as of extravagance.
(14) In a city so great and so corrupt Catiline found it a very easy matter to surround himself – as if surrounded by a bodyguard – with troops of criminals and reprobates of every kind. Catiline’s closest associates and friends consisted of every shameless person, over-eater, or dice-player who had wasted his inheritance in play, feasting, or debauchery; everyone who had built up an immense debt, seeking to buy immunity from disgrace or crime; everyone from everywhere who had been convicted of murdering family members or of sacrilege, or who feared prosecution for their crimes; everyone whose tongue engaged in perjury or whose hand spilled the blood of their fellow citizens; and, finally, everyone who was harassed by disgrace, poverty, or an evil conscience. And if any innocent man did happen to become his friend, daily social interaction and the allurements of vice soon made him as bad or almost as bad as the rest of them.
But most of all, Catiline pursued the intimacy of young people. Readily moulded and with pliable minds, they were easily ensnared by his tricks. Carefully taking note of the sexual passion which burned in each person in keeping with that person’s stage of life, Catiline found prostitutes for some or bought dogs and horses for others. To put it briefly, he spared neither expense nor his own decency so long as he could make them submissive and loyal to himself. I am aware that some have believed that the young men who frequented Catiline’s house had little regard for chastity [in the first place?]. However, that report became common for reasons [outlined below] other than anyone having direct evidence.
(15) Even when he was young, Catiline had committed many unspeakable sexual violations, including those with a virgin of noble rank, with one of the Vestal priestesses, as well as other affairs that are equally unlawful and impious. Finally, he was seized with sexual passion for Aurelia Orestilla. No good man ever spoke positively about her except with regard her beauty. When she hesitated to marry him because she was afraid of his stepson, then a grown man, it is generally believed that he murdered the young man in order to make an empty house for this criminal marriage. In fact, I think that this was his special motive for speeding up his plot: his guilt-stained soul, at odds with gods and men, could find rest neither waking nor sleeping, because his conscience cruelly ravaged his agitated mind. This was the source of his pale complexion, his bloodshot eyes, and fast and slow walking. To put it briefly, his face and his every glance displayed a madman.
(16) Catiline taught many types of crimes (facinora) to the young men whom he had ensnared, as I have described. From their number he supplied false witnesses and forgers; he ordered them to make light of honour, fortune, and dangers; then, when he had drained their good reputation and modesty, he called for still greater crimes. If there was no immediate motive for wrong doing, he nevertheless ambushed and murdered innocent as well as guilty people. Actually, he preferred to be needlessly vicious and cruel rather than to allow their hands and spirits to grow weak through lack of practice.
Relying on friends and associates like these, Catiline formed the plan of overthrowing the government, both because his own debt was enormous in all parts of the world and because the majority of Sulla’s veterans, who had squandered their property and now thought with longing of their former pillage and victories, were eager for civil war. There was no army in Italy; Gnaeus Pompeius was waging war in distant parts of the world; Catiline himself had high hopes as a candidate for the consulship; the senate was anything but alert; all was peaceful and quiet; and this was his golden opportunity. . . [omitted sections].
[Catiline’s techniques in aiming to become consul]
(21) These words [of Catiline’s supposed speech, set in June 64 BCE, during the so-called first conspiracy] were communicated to men who had faced an excess of all kinds of misfortunes but neither had material resources nor any hope of gaining honour, even though disorder alone seemed to be plenty of reward for them. Many of them still called upon Catiline to explain the conditions under which war would be waged, what the prizes of victory would be, and what resources or prospects they would have and in what area. At that point, Catiline promised the abolition of debts, the proscription of the rich, as well as official positions, priesthoods, plunder, and all the other spoils that war and the license of victors can offer. He added that Piso was in Hispania Citerior [i.e. closer, or eastern, Iberia / Spain] and Publius Sittius of Nuceria was in Mauretania with an army, both of whom were partners in his plot. He also added that Gaius Antonius was a candidate for the position of consul [63 BCE] and, he hoped, would be his colleague. This was an intimate friend of his and who was faced with every kind of need. As consul with Catiline, Antonius would launch his plan. At that point, Cataline heaped curses on all the good citizens [of Rome] and praised each of his own followers by name. Catiline reminded one person of his poverty, another person of that person’s ambition. He reminded several others of their danger or humiliation, many others of the victory of Sulla, which they had found a source of plunder. When he saw that their spirits were all on fire, he dismissed the meeting, urging them to have his candidacy [for consul of Rome] at heart.
[Rumours of an oath using blood from a human victim]
(22) At that time, there were those who said that when Catiline, after finishing his speech, forced the participants in his crime to take an oath, he passed around bowls of human blood mixed with wine. They said that, after cursing traitors, everyone had tasted the blood mixed with wine and, as is customary in solemn rites, Catiline disclosed his project. They say his aim in doing this was that they might be more faithful to one another because they shared the guilty knowledge of so dreadful a deed.
[Doubt about the rumours]
Others thought that these and many other details were fabricated by people who believed that the hostility which arose later on against Cicero would be mitigated by exaggerating the atrocity of the crime (scelus) committed by the men who had been punished [by Cicero]. In my case, I have too little evidence to make a statement on something so important.
[Crimes of some accomplices, including Curius, and exposure of the conspiracy]
(23) Now one of the members of the conspiracy (coniuratio) was Quintus Curius, not a man of obscure birth but still a man guilty of many shameful crimes (flagitia). The censors had expelled Curius from the senate because of his disgrace. This man was as untrustworthy as he was reckless. He could neither keep secret what he had heard nor conceal even his own misdeeds. He completely did not care what he did or said. Curius had a long-standing affair with Fulvia, a woman of quality, and when he began to lose her favour because poverty forced him to be less lavish, he suddenly started boasting and began to promise her seas and mountains. He also sometimes began to threaten his mistress with the sword if she did not bow to his will. To put it briefly, he demonstrated much greater assurance than before. But Fulvia, when she learned the cause of her lover’s overbearing conduct, had no thought of concealing such a peril to her homeland. Instead, without mentioning the name of her informant [i.e. Curius], she told a number of people what she had heard of Catiline’s conspiracy from various sources.
It was this discovery in particular which inspired a general desire to confer the position of consul on Marcus Tullius Cicero. Before that, most of the nobles were consumed with jealousy and thought the office would be defiled, so to speak, if a “new man” attained it, no matter how excellent that man was. But when danger came, jealousy and pride fell into the background. . . [omitted many sections].
[Return to the broader decline narrative, with Catiline as the depths of decline]
(36.4-5) It seems to me that, at no other time has the empire of the Roman people been more pitiful. The whole world, from the rising of the sun to its setting, was subdued into obedience by Rome’s weapons. At home there was peace and an abundance of wealth, which men consider the most important of blessings. Yet there were citizens who from sheer perversity were bent upon their own ruin and that of their community. For in spite of the two decrees of the senate not one man of all that great number was led by the promised reward to betray the conspiracy, and not a single one deserted Catiline’s camp. Such was the potency of the disease which, like a plague, had infected the minds of many of the citizens.
(37) This insanity was not confined to those who were implicated in the plot, but the whole body of the common people (plebs) through desire for change favoured the plans of Catiline. In this particular way, they seemed to act as the common people usually does. For in every community those who have no material means envy the good, exalt the base, hate what is old and established, long for something new, and from disgust with their own condition desire a general upheaval. Amid turmoil and rebellion, they maintain themselves without difficulty, since poverty is easily provided for and can suffer no loss. But the city’s common people in particular acted with desperation for many reasons. To begin with, everyone who was especially conspicuous for their shamelessness and arrogance, those too who had squandered their patrimony in riotous living, finally everyone who had been forced to leave home by disgrace or crime, had all flowed into Rome as if it was a cesspool. Many, too, who recalled Sulla’s victory, when they saw common soldiers risen to the rank of senator and others become so rich that they feasted and lived like kings, hoped to gain similar benefits of victory if they took up weapons. Besides this, the young men who had maintained a wretched existence by manual labour in the country, tempted by public and private doles had come to prefer idleness in the city to their hateful toil. These people, like all the others, profited from the community’s disaster. Therefore, it is not surprising that men who were beggars and without character, with boundless hopes, should respect their community as little as they did themselves. Moreover, those to whom Sulla’s victory had meant the proscription of their parents, loss of property, and curtailment of their rights, looked forward in a similar spirit to the issue of a war. Finally, all who belonged to another party than that of the senate preferred to see the government overthrown rather than be out of power themselves. Such, then, was the disaster which after many years had returned to the citizens.
(38) For after the tribunician power had been restored in the consulship of Gnaeus Pompeius and Marcus Crassus, various young men, whose age and disposition made them aggressive, attained that high authority. They then began to excite the community by attacks upon the senate and to inflame their emotions still more by doles and promises, thus making themselves conspicuous and influential. Against these men, the majority of the nobles strove with might and main, ostensibly on behalf of the senate but really for their own aggrandizement. For, to tell the truth in a few words, all who after that time assailed the government used specious pretexts, some maintaining that they were defending the rights of the community, others that they were upholding the prestige of the senate. However, under pretence of the well-being of the community each was in fact working for his own advancement. Such men showed neither self-restraint nor moderation in their strife, and both parties used their victory ruthlessly.
(39) When, however, Gnaeus Pompeius had been dispatched to wage war against the pirates and against Mithridates (ca. 67-66 BCE), the power of the common people was lessened, while that of the few increased. The latter possessed the magistracies, the provinces and everything else. Being themselves rich and secure against attack, they lived without fear and by resort to the courts terrified the others, in order that while they themselves were in office they might manage the people with less friction. However, as soon as the situation became doubtful and offered hope of a revolution, then the old controversy aroused their emotions once again. If Catiline had been victor in the first battle, or had merely held ground, beyond a doubt great bloodshed and disaster would have fallen upon the community. Nor would the victors have been allowed for long to enjoy their success. Rather, when they had been worn out and exhausted, a more powerful adversary would have taken the supreme power from them and with it their freedom. Yet even as it was, there were many outside the ranks of the conspiracy who, when hostilities began, went to join Catiline. Among them was Fulvius, a senator’s son, who was brought back and put to death by order of his father. . . [omitted remainder of the account].
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Plutarch, Cicero (early second century CE)
[Cicero as consul and rivalry with Catiline]
(10) Yet Cicero was advanced to the position of consul just as much by the common people as by the aristocrats. In the interests of the city, both parties seconded his efforts for the following reasons: The change which Sulla had made in the constitution at first appeared absurd. However, after the passing of time and the people’s familiarity with it, to the majority of people it now seemed to finally offer a kind of settlement which was not to be despised. However, there were some who were agitating and changing the existing status for the sake of their own gain and not for the best interests. Meanwhile, Pompey was still carrying on war with the kings in Pontus and Armenia and there was no power in Rome which was able to cope with the revolutionaries.
[Catiline’s criminality]
The revolutionaries had for their leader a man of bold, enterprising, and versatile character, Lucius Catiline. In addition to other great crimes (adikēmata), Catiline had once been accused of having sexual intercourse with his own virgin daughter and of killing his own brother. Fearing prosecution for this murder, he persuaded Sulla to put his brother’s name in the list of those who were to be put to death under proscription, as though his brother was still alive.
[Accomplices and the oath involving human sacrifice and eating human flesh]
Taking this person as their leader, then, the evil men (ponēroi) gave various pledges (pisteis) to one another, one of which was the sacrifice of a man and the tasting of his flesh. Moreover, Catiline had corrupted a large portion of the young men in the city, supplying them continually with entertainments, banquets, and women lovers, and continually supplying money to spend on these things. In addition, all of Etruria was inspired to revolt, as well as most of Cisalpine Gaul. Rome was most dangerously disposed towards change because of the irregularity in the distribution of property: men of the highest reputation and spirit had made themselves poor by spending on shows, on feasts, on the pursuit of official positions, and on buildings; and, riches had streamed into the coffers of low-born and unimportant men. The result was that only a slight occurence was needed to disturb them and it was in the power of any bold man to overthrow the communal organization, which was itself in a diseased condition.
(11) However, Catiline first wanted to obtain a strong base of operations, and so he campaigned for the position of consul. He had bright hopes that he would share the consulship with Caius Antonius. By himself, Antonius would probably not take the lead either for good or for bad, but would add strength to another person who took the lead. Most of the better class of citizens were aware of this, and therefore put forward Cicero for consul. Since the people readily accepted Cicero, Catiline was defeated, and Cicero and Caius Antonius were elected. Yet Cicero was the only one of the candidates who was the son of a knight, rather than a senator.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Plutarch, Publicola (early second century CE)
[Human sacrifice and a conspiratorial oath by the Aquillian and Vitellian youths supporting Tarquinus, legendary final king of Rome placed in the sixth century BCE]
(4) Therefore, when the youths [of the Vitellian family who supported the exiled king of Rome, Tarquinius] had been persuaded and held conference with those from the Aquillian family, it was decided that they should all swear a great and dreadful oath (orkos), pouring in libation the blood of a slaughtered man, and touching his innards. For this purpose, they met at the house of the Aquillian family.
Now the room in which the ceremony was to be held was, as was natural, dark and somewhat desolate. Without their [the conspirators] knowing it, therefore, a slave named Vindicius had hidden himself inside, but not with any plan and without having any sense of what was going to happen there. He just happened to be there. When they anxiously rushed in, Vindicius was afraid to be seen by them and hid himself behind a chest that was lying there. The result was that he saw what they did and heard what they resolved to do. Their decision was to kill the consuls. When they had written letters to Tarquinius regarding this decision, they gave the letters to his envoys, who were living there as guests of the Aquillian family. They were then present at the swearing together (synomōsia).
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Florus, Epitome of Roman History (early second century CE)
[Criminality of Catiline and his accomplices compared to Hannibal the Carthaginian, with reference to an oath involving the drinking of human blood]
(2.12) What led Catiline to entertain the criminal (nefaria) plan to overthrow his homeland was, first of all, his personal extravagant spending and then his consequent lack of resources. This was combined with the favourable opportunity offered by the absence of the Roman armies, which were located in the farthest regions of the world. And what men were his associates – oh, the criminality (nefas)! – in his attempt to murder the senate, to assassinate the consuls, to set fire to the city in various places, to plunder the treasury and, in a word, utterly to overturn the whole community and entertain every kind of plan that even Hannibal [the Carthaginian] did not seem to have conceived! Catiline himself was a patrician [senator], but that was a minor consideration. Catiline had all the following as accomplices in his atrocious crimes (nefas): Curians, Porcians, a Sulla, a Cethegus, an Autronius, a Vargunteius and a Longinus. What men of family and high senatorial distinction! There was Lentulus, too, when he was actually holding the office of praetor. Human blood, which they handed around in bowls and drank, was used as a pledge to bind the conspirators together. This in itself was an act of the utmost wickedness, if the object for which they drank was not still more wicked. There would have been an end of our glorious empire, had not the conspiracy happened to take place in the consulship of Cicero and Antonius, of whom the former by his diligence exposed the plot, while the latter suppressed it by use of force. 6 Information about the outrageous crime came to light through Fulvia, a worthless prostitute, but less blameworthy than her patrician associates. 7 The consul, having called the senate together, made a speech against the accused, who was present; but the only result of his action was that his enemy left Rome, and as he went, threatened openly and without disguise that he would extinguish the flames which he had kindled in general ruin. 8 He set out for the army which Manlius had already prepared in Etruria, intending to march upon the city. Lentulus, prophesying for himself the kingship which the Sibylline verses foretold should belong to his family, disposed throughout the city men, torches and arms ready for the day prearranged by Catiline. 9 Not content with a conspiracy in which only Romans were involved, he incited the representatives of the Allobroges, who happened to be in Rome at the p265 time, to take up arms. The rage for conspiracy would have passed beyond the Alps had not a letter from the praetor2 been intercepted by another betrayal, this time on the part of Volturcius. By Cicero’s orders the barbarians were immediately arrested, and the praetor was openly proved guilty in the senate. 10 When the question of punishment was discussed, Caesar expressed the opinion that the conspirators ought to be spared on account of their position; Cato thought that they ought to be punished in accordance with their crime. 11 There was a general agreement in favour of the latter course, and the traitors were strangled in prison. Though part of the conspiracy was thus put down, Catiline did not abandon his plans; but, as he was marching against the city from Etruria with hostile intent, he was surprised by the army of Antonius. 12 The result of the battle showed how desperate was the fighting; not a single one of the enemy survived, and each man’s lifeless body covered the spot at which he had taken his post in the battle. Catiline was discovered far in front of his fellows amid the dead bodies of his foes, thus dying a death which would have been glorious if he had thus fallen fighting for his country.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Dio Cassius, Roman History (early third century CE)
[Story of Catiline’s fall]
(37.29) As for Catiline, his ruin was brought about in the manner and for the reasons which I shall now narrate. When he was again seeking the position of consul at this time [63 BCE] and contriving in every way possible to be elected, the senate decreed, chiefly at the instigation of Cicero, that banishment for ten years should be added by law to the penalties established for bribery. Catiline, accordingly, believed that this decree had been passed on his account, as was actually the case. And so, after collecting a small group, Catiline attempted to slay Cicero and some others of the foremost men on the very day of the election, in order that he might immediately be chosen as consul. But he was unable to carry out his plot, because Cicero learned about at the appropriate time and informed the senate about it, delivering a severe arraignment of Catiline. However, as Cicero was unsuccessful in persuading them to vote any of the measures he asked – his announcement was not regarded as credible and he was suspected of having uttered false charges against the men because of personal enmity – Cicero became frightened now that he had given Catiline additional provocation. Cicero did not venture to enter the assembly alone, as had been his custom, but took his friends along prepared to defend him if any danger threatened. Partly for his own safety and partly to arouse prejudice against his foes, he wore a breastplate under his clothing, a breatplate which he was careful to allow people to see. For this reason and because in other ways, too, some report had spread of a plot against him, the people became very indignant and the fellow-conspirators of Catiline in their fear of Cicero kept quiet.
[Supposed sacrifice of a boy and oath over his innards]
(30) In this way new consuls were chosen, and Catiline no longer directed his plot in secret or against Cicero and his adherents only, but against the whole community. Catiline assembled from Rome itself the lowest characters and those who were always eager for a revolution and as many as possible of the allies, by promising them the cancelling of debts, distribution of lands, and everything else by which he was most likely to tempt them.
Catiline imposed the obligation of taking a monstrous oath on the foremost and most powerful of them, including Antonius the consul. For Catiline sacrificed a boy, and after administering the oath over his innards, ate these innards in company with the others. Those who cooperated with him most closely were: in Rome, the consul and Publius Lentulus, who, after his consulship, had been expelled from the senate and was now serving as praetor, in order to gain senatorial rank again; at Faesulae, where the men of his party were collecting, one Gaius Manlius, who was experienced in warfare, having served among Sulla’s centurions, and also the greatest possible wasteful spender. It was certainly the case that he had run through all that he had gained in that period – even though it was a vast sum – by his evil practices, and was now eager for other similar exploits. . . [omitted remainder of details surrounding the failure and death of Catiline].
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Source of translations: J.C. Rolfe, Sallust, LCL (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1921); B. Perrin, Plutarch’s Lives, 11 volumes, LCL (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1914-1926); E.S. Forster, Lucius Annaeus Florus, Epitome of Roman History. Cornelius Nepos LCL (Cambridge, MA: CUP, 1929); E. Cary and H.B. Foster, Dio’s Roman History, 9 volumes, LCL (Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1914-27); all public domain, adapted by Harland.