Rand Paul and Sallust’s Conspiracy of Catiline

Before I get to the substance of today’s post, a few brief programming notes. First, I’m now back after a two-week hiatus due to the then-impending deadline for my senior thesis (two weeks ago) and then for spring break (last week). Second, this will be the first in a series of several posts, so stay tuned over then next couple weeks for more. And now…

A few weeks ago, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the Senate floor just before noon on Wednesday, March 6th with the intent of filibustering John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee as the next director of the CIA. Paul did not finally yield the floor until around 1 am on Thursday, March 7th, just shy of 13 hours later, although he was (with his own consent) interrupted on numerous occasions for questions by many of his fellow senators.

Paul’s effort was quite impressive. Most recent “filibusters” have been more accurately threats to undertake filibusters. Many past efforts have strayed far from the topic ostensibly under debate, though that is permitted under Senate rules; in one memorable instance, Louisiana Democrat Huey Long read Cajun recipes while protesting a provision of the National Industrial Relations Act. The points Paul made, however, are certainly up for debate; on foreign policy questions, I tend to be far closer to the views of, say, Marco Rubio (R-FL) than those of Paul, although even Rubio expressed his support for the spirit (if not entirely the message) of his colleague’s filibuster.

Others have spoken at greater length and with greater wisdom about the substance of Paul’s message. Rather than join that chorus, I think it may be useful to look back nearly 2100 years to the Roman historian Sallust’s first work, the Conspiracy of Catiline. In short, Catiline was a disgruntled Roman senator who was defeated by Cicero (as well as by a minor figure, Antonius Hybrida) in the election for the consuls of 63 BC. Catiline was again defeated in the next year’s elections, and in response mustered a small force with the intention of attacking Rome. His conspiracy, however, was quickly snuffed out and he, along with many of his co-conspirators, was killed. The event is very well documented, since it is one of the few for which we have multiple contemporary sources (in addition to later depictions): as well as Sallust’s monograph, Cicero’s four speeches denouncing Catiline also survive.

Near the end of Sallust’s work, the historian depicts a debate between Julius Caesar and Cato the Younger over whether Catiline should be put to death without trial. Invented speeches were a tradition of ancient historical writing as old as Thucydides, the debate itself does seem to have taken place, and (in accordance with Thucydides’ prescription in his own work) the speeches Sallust presents are, at the very least, faithful to the general tenor of the arguments actually made. Cato spoke first, and argued in favor of Catiline’s summary execution; Caesar, in response, argued for the use of normal trial procedures. The prima facie similarities between this debate and that implicitly conducted between Rand Paul and his opponent are thus apparent.

Next week: the arguments of Cato and Caesar.