is a fruitful theme for speculation, and modern writers have expended much ingenuity in discussing it. The evidence is so inconclusive, and the story, as told, contains so many contradictions and improbabilities, that I prefer to pass it over as wholly or almost wholly apocryphal. An assassination or a massacre, more or less, makes no great difference in our estimate of Catiline or even of Crassus; but it is satisfactory not to be obliged to fix this stain on the great name of Cæsar.
Having served the prætorship in 66 B.C. Cicero was eligible for the consulship of the year 63 B.C. For a year before the election, that is to say from about Midsummer 65 to Midsummer 64 B.C., his thoughts and efforts were constantly directed to the attainment of this great prize. From his own letters, and from his speeches on behalf of clients, and likewise from the "canvasser's pocket-book" of instructions (Commentariolum Petitionis), which Quintus Cicero[1] wrote out for his brother's use, we get a vivid picture of a contested election at Rome.
Questions of party or policy hold but a small place in these contests. There is nothing answering to the modern "caucus," and it is rarely that we hear of the selection of candidates who are to forward the interests of a party or can claim its united support. It was not even expected that a competitor for office should put forth any political creed or announce what "platform" he adopted; rather it seems to have been considered proper for the aspirant to office,
- ↑ The genuineness of this little treatise has been questioned, but not, to my mind, on sufficient grounds.
