In a case, therefore, where no benefit of choice was allowed to Rome as to
the thing, but only as to the person--where a revolution was certain, and
the point left open to doubt simply by whom that revolution should be
accomplished--Caesar had (to say the least) the same right to enter the
arena in the character of candidate as could belong to any one of his
rivals. And that he _did_ enter that arena constructively, and by
secret design, from his very earliest manhood, may be gathered from this--
that he suffered no openings towards a revolution, provided they had any
hope in them, to escape his participation. It is familiarly known that he
was engaged pretty deeply in the conspiracy of Catiline, [Footnote:
Suetonius, speaking of this conspiracy, says, that Caesar was _nominatos
inter socios Catilinae_, which has been erroneously understood to mean
that he was _talked of_ as an accomplice; but in fact, as Casaubon
first pointed out, _nominatus_ is a technical term of the Roman
jurisprudence, and means that he was formally denounced.] and that he
incurred considerable risk on that occasion; but it is less known, and has
indeed escaped the notice of historians generally, that he was a party to
at least two other conspiracies.
Pages:
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73