During its first five centuries ancient Rome was ruled, sort of democratically, by the Roman Senate.

Rome was sort of democratic (“sort of” as in “less so”) because the Senate represented only the richest families, Senators were appointed for life, most of the population was dirt poor, men who were dirt poor but “free” had very few rights in practice, women had even fewer rights, slaves had no rights, and Gladiators were lucky if they survived the day while cheering crowds watched them hack each other to the death.

Yet, Rome was also sort of democratic (“sort of” as in “more so”) because Rome had an abundance of lawyers. Imagine that. If you can’t vote, sue. And Romans did. The richest families monopolized the best lawyers. (Of course.) The rich also had their own spies. (Of course.) The rich needed spies in order to stay rich, and sometimes to stay alive. Once, on the Senate floor, a bunch of Senators stabbed Julius Caesar to death. That was the Roman version of an impeachment trial. Earlier that same day, Caesar’s own spies tried to warn him about the plot.

“Sorry I’m late. I was talking to Plautus.”

“Plautus? You mean the famous comedy playwright?”

“Yes, a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum. But I have an urgent message for Caesar. My name is Sidney Too-tardi.”

“Oh. Sorry, Sid. Caesar is seriously indisposed. Come back tomorrow. Bring a towel.”

But the spies of another redoubtable Roman did save him from assassination. His name was Cicero. His enemy was Catiline. Both were Senators. Catiline wanted the Senate to elect him Consul, the co-ruler of Rome. Cicero, already a Consul himself, repeatedly thwarted Catiline’s efforts. This got Catiline so upset that he raised an army and plotted to assassinate Cicero and a slew of pro-Cicero Senators. And then, just to emphasize what a great Consul he would have been, Catiline planned to torch the city of Rome.

Catiline would have been a good candidate for anger management. The word candidate, by the way, comes from the Latin word candidus, which means white. White is the color of purity and honesty. Which is why Roman Senators wore white togas, or so they said. Later on, politicians aspiring to elected office became known as candidates, meaning they aspired to offices that required purity and honesty. Or so they said. (But were they being candid?)

For luck, Catiline’s cronies included a guy named Quintus Curius. A former Senator, Curius had a solid reputation for being, in the words of one Roman historian, “deeply involved in unethical and criminal activity.”

In other words, Curius was an aristocratic thug — the perfect guy for the bloody business Catiline was plotting. And to Curius’ credit, Curius was candid enough to stop wearing white. The inclusion of Curius in Catiline’s plot did fetch the two of them a bit of luck. But it was bad luck, for according to an historian, Curius was “as foolish as he was bald. He had not the slightest care about keeping quiet about what he had heard, or about hiding his criminal deeds. Actually, he would say or do anything.”

And say so to almost anybody, including to his pretty lady friend, a mistress named Fulvia. Fulvia saw Curius as a pretty cute guy, albeit a psychopath. But she thought she could change him. Guess how well that went? So, when Curius’ money suddenly dried up, Fulvia suddenly got very uptight about abetting mass murder and city-wide arson. She tipped off Cicero. Cicero then posted extra guards around his house, saving his life. Then, after consulting a few other spies, Cicero managed to unravel the entire Catiline conspiracy.

History records that Cicero was a master orator. On the Senate floor his speeches were so eloquent, so engrossing, and so devastated Catiline’s reputation, including that part about deflagrating Rome into ashes, that Catiline fled Rome. The only fire Catiline managed to set was metaphorically under his derrière. Ultimately Catiline was killed, fighting bravely in a battle that his army utterly lost.

Was Catiline a good guy or a bad guy? Believe it or not, historians still wonder — because most of what we know about Catiline comes from Cicero’s speeches and a few other biased sources. Even in ancient times a few Roman historians wondered whether Catiline was really guilty of every crime his enemies claimed that he was, such as cannibalism. Yet not even his enemies could deny that Catiline did advocate a law that would have required Rome’s richest families to forgive the crushing debts owed to them by a great many Roman poor people, especially farmers. The richest families ran the Senate. Was Cicero, in opposing Catiline, really protecting Rome? Or was Cicero just spreading lies about Catiline to protect the Roman rich?

That raises another question: Was Cicero really such a good guy? No doubt he was a great orator. And he had great spies, which I really admire. But if we put aside all of his wonderful rhetoric and spies and examine what’s left, was Cicero really such a good guy?

All we know for certain is that Cicero, and Catiline, were human beings.

Nobody’s perfect.

Respectfully (because all my readers deserve respect),

Reginald Dipwipple

Secret Agent Extraordinaire