Page:EB1911 - Volume 05.djvu/553

 execution of which was deferred till the 5th of February—failed in consequence of the impatience of Catiline, who gave the signal too hastily. Soon after, Catiline, having bribed both judges and accuser, was acquitted in the trial for extortion. His scheme was forthwith immensely widened. The city was to be fired, and those who opposed the revolution were to be slain; all debts were to be cancelled; and there was to be a proscription of all the wealthy citizens. Among the conspirators were many men of the first rank and influence. Arms and money were collected, soldiers were enlisted, and the assistance of the slaves was sought. But Catiline’s hopes were again disappointed; once more he failed to obtain the consulship (64); and, moreover, it soon became apparent that one of the new consuls, Cicero, was mysteriously able to thwart all the schemes of the conspirators. He was, in fact, informed of every detail, through Fulvia, the mistress of Curius, one of the plotters, who was himself soon persuaded to turn informer. The other consul, C. Antonius, in whom Catiline hoped to find a supporter, was won over and got out of the way by Cicero, who resigned the province of Macedonia in his favour. Before the next comitia consularia assembled, the orator had given so impressive a warning of the danger which was impending, that Catiline was once more rejected (63), and the consuls were invested with absolute authority. Catiline now resolved upon open war; preparations were set on foot throughout Italy, especially in Etruria, where the standard of revolt was raised by the centurion C. Manlius (or Mallius), one of Sulla’s veterans. A plan to murder Cicero in his own house on the morning of the 7th of November was frustrated. On the next day Cicero attacked Catiline so vigorously in the senate (in his first Catilinarian oration) that he fled to his army in Etruria. Next day Cicero awoke the terror of the people by a second oration delivered in the forum, in consequence of which Catiline and Manlius were declared public enemies, and the consul Antonius was despatched with an army against them. Meanwhile the imprudence of the conspirators in Rome brought about their own destruction. Some deputies from the Allobroges, who had been sent to Rome to obtain redress for certain grievances, were approached by P. Lentulus Sura, the chief of the conspirators, who endeavoured to induce them to join him. After considerable hesitation, the deputies decided to turn informers. The plot was betrayed to Cicero, at whose instigation documentary evidence was obtained, implicating Lentulus and others. They were arrested, proved guilty, and on the 5th of December condemned to death and strangled in the underground dungeon on the slope of the Capitol. This act, which was opposed by Julius Caesar and advocated by Cato Uticensis (and, indirectly, by Cicero), was afterwards vigorously attacked as a violation of the constitution, on the ground that the senate had no power of life and death over a Roman citizen. Thus a heavy blow was dealt to the cause of Catiline, who, in the beginning of 62, saw his legions, only partially armed and diminished by desertion, shut in between those of Metellus Celer and C. Antonius. Near Pistoria he hazarded battle with the forces of the latter, but was completely defeated in a desperate encounter. He himself, fighting with the utmost bravery, rushed into the ranks of the enemy and met his death.

Such was the conspiracy of Catiline and the character of its author, as we find them in the speeches of Cicero, and the histories of Sallust and Dio Cassius (see also Plutarch, Cicero; Vell. Pat. ii. 35; Florus iv. 1; Appian, B.C. ii. 6; Eutropius vi. 15). It must not be forgotten, however, that our authorities were all members of the aristocratic party. Some of the incidents given as facts by Dio Cassius are manifest absurdities; and Cicero paid more regard to the effect than to the truthfulness of an accusation. We find him at one time admitting that Catiline had almost persuaded him of his honesty and merit, and even seeking a political union with him; at another, when his alliance had been rejected and an election was at hand, declaiming against him as a murderer and a profligate. Lastly, though Sallust’s vivid narrative is consistent throughout, it is obvious that he cherished very bitter feelings against the democratic party. Nevertheless, we cannot regard Catiline as an honest enemy of the oligarchy, or as a disinterested champion of the provincials. It is held by some historians that there was at the time on the part of many of the Roman nobles a determination to raise themselves to power, despite the opposition of the senate: others with greater probability maintain that Catiline’s object was simply the cancelling of the huge debts which he and his friends had accumulated. Catiline, by his bravery, his military talents, his vigorous resolution, and his wonderful power over men, was eminently qualified as a revolutionary leader. He is the subject of tragedies by Ben Jonson and P. Crébillon, and of the Rome sauvée of Voltaire.

 CATINAT, NICOLAS (1637–1712), marshal of France, entered the Gardes Françaises at an early age and distinguished himself at the siege of Lille in 1667. He became a brigadier ten years later, maréchal de camp in 1680, and lieutenant-general 1688. He served with great credit in the campaigns of 1676–1678 in Flanders, was employed against the Vaudois in 1686, and after taking part in the siege of Philipsburg at the opening of the War of the League of Augsburg, he was appointed to command the French troops in the south-eastern theatre of war. In 1690 he conquered Savoy, and in 1691 Nice; the battle of Staffarda, won by him over the duke of Savoy in 1690, and that of Marsaglia in 1693, were amongst the greatest victories of the time. In 1696 Catinat forced the duke to make an alliance with France. He had in 1693 been made a marshal of France. At the beginning of the war of the Spanish Succession, Catinat was placed in charge of operations in Italy, but he was much hampered by the orders of the French court and the weakness of the forces for their task. He suffered a reverse at Carpi (1701) and was soon afterwards superseded by Villeroy, to whom he acted as second-in-command during the campaign of Chiari. He died at St Gratien in 1712. His memoirs were published in 1819.

 CATLIN, GEORGE (1796–1872), American ethnologist, was born at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1796. He was educated as a lawyer and practised in Philadelphia for two years; but art was his favourite pursuit, and forsaking the law he established himself at New York as a portrait painter. In 1832, realizing that the American Indians were dying out, he resolved to rescue their types and customs from oblivion. With this object he spent many years among the Indians in North and South America. He lived with them, acquired their languages, and studied very thoroughly their habits, customs and mode of life, making copious notes and many studies for paintings. In 1840 he came to Europe with his collection of paintings, most of which are now in the National Museum, Washington, as the Catlin Gallery; and in the following year he published the Manners, Customs and Condition of the North American Indians in two volumes, illustrated with 300 engravings. This was followed in 1844 by The North American Portfolio, containing 25 plates of hunting scenes and amusements in the Rocky Mountains and the prairies of America, and in 1848 by Eight Years’ Travels and Residence in Europe. In 1861 he published a curious little volume, in “manugraph,” entitled The Breath of Life, on the advantage of keeping one’s mouth habitually closed, especially during sleep; and in 1868, Last Rambles amongst the Indians of the Rocky Mountains and the Andes. He died in Jersey City, New Jersey, on the 22nd of December 1872.