Notes on the "First Catilinarian Conspiracy"

Author(s): Erich S. Gruen

Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 64, No. 1 (Jan., 1969), pp. 20-24
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/268006
Accessed: 04-03-2015 00:12 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.147.59.3 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:12:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS
NOTES ON THE "FIRST CATILINARIAN CONSPIRACY"
Scholarly literature on the "first Catilinarian
conspiracy" is voluminous and exasperating.
Perhaps no apology can sufficiently excuse
another addition to that seemingly intermi-
nable list. Few events in ancient history more
sorely need the application of Ockham's razor,
not only to the mendaciousness of the ancient
sources, but to the misguided ingenuity of
modern reconstructions. The present effort
essays only to strip the story to its essentials
and to concentrate on the small amount of
evidence which has real claim to reliability,
without the encumbrance of new or elaborate
hypothesis.
Lengthy doxographical introduction can be
safely eschewed. But a brief account of the
present state of the controversy will place it in
proper context. The consules designati of 66
B.C., P. Autronius Paetus and P. Cornelius
Sulla, found themselves immediately faced with
prosecution de ambitu. The prosecutors were
successful, the electoral results were nullified,
and new elections returned L. Manlius
Torquatus and L. Aurelius Cotta.1 Another
frustrated candidate in that year was L. Sergius
Catilina whose professio had been rejected by
the presiding magistrate L. Volcatius Tullus.2
Evidently, the ousted candidates or their friends
did not take defeat lightly and planned some
kind of demonstration aimed at Torquatus and
Cotta. Such is the situation which forms the
basis of ancient and modern speculation on
the "first Catilinarian conspiracy."
1. Full references in T. R. S. Broughton, MRR, II, 157.
2. That this was the second election at which Catiline
sought to stand seems clear from Sail. Cat. 18. 2-3; see G. V.
Sumner, Phoenix, XIX (1965), 226-31; F. D'Ippolito, Labeo,
XI (1965), 42-46; contra: M. Mello, Par. Pass., LXXXVIII
(1963), 36-54.
3. A resume of earlier opinions can be conveniently found
in H. Frisch, CiMed, IX (1948), 21-29. He might have added,
inter alia, E. G. Hardy, JRS, VII (1917), 160-166, E. T.
Salmon, AJP, LVI (1935), 302-8, and A. Garzetti, Athenaeum,
XX (1942), 22-30. There were, of course, also notable
exceptions who rejected the myth: e.g., J. D. Strachan-
Davidson, Cicero and the Fall of the Roman Republic (London,
1894), pp. 90-91; E. Ciaceri, Cicerone e i suoi tempi2 (Milan,
1939), I, 144-50; H. Strasburger, Caesars Eintritt in die
20
This content downloaded from 193.147.59.3 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:12:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
For a long time scholars took as the touch-
stone of their reconstructions our least
reliable source of information. Suetonius
(Iul. 9) repeats stories from avowed anti-
Caesarian authors who described an elaborate
design by Caesar and Crassus, with Autronius
and Sulla as front men, to disrupt the state,
murder its leaders, and establish themselves
as the heads of government. As a corollary
Caesar arranged with young Cn. Calpurnius
Piso to raise insurrection in Spain and else-
where, thus facilitating a violent coup d'etat.
Catiline here receives no mention. But in view
of his frequent association in the evidence
with Piso, with Autronius and Sulla, or with
Crassus and Caesar, it seemed logical to
include him in that nefarious plot. The roster
of distinguished scholars who subscribed in
some fashion or other to this analysis is
surprising and disconcerting.3 It serves no
purpose to repeat the frequent refutations of
this view.4 Few would now be found to revive
it.5 But though Caesar and Crassus can be
ruled out as the originators of the "con-
spiracy," the supposition that Pompeius
Magnus was its intended indirect object
retains a hold on modern scholarship.
Hypotheses are varied. Catiline, Piso, Autro-
nius, and Sulla may be the agents of Pompey's
enemies; their conflict with Torquatus and
Cotta an attack on "Pompeian consuls." 6
Alternatively, Catiline can be associated with
Torquatus and Cotta and linked to Pompey.7
Geschichte (Munich, 1938), pp. 107-9.
4. Cf. R. Syme, Sallust (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1964),
pp. 88-102.
5. An exception is C. E. Stevens, Latomus, XXII (1963),
397-435, whose delightfully outrageous reconstruction does
not expect and will not have imitators.
6. Cf. Sumner, op. cit. (n. 2), p. 230. L. R. Taylor, Party
Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley and Los Angeles,
1949), p. 224, n. 23, asserts, on no evidence, "certainly P.
Autronius and P. Sulla ... were Crassus' men." Even Frisch,
op. cit. (n. 3), p. 34, who disbelieves in a conspiracy, affirms
that "it is beyond doubt that Crassus was Catiline's friend,
and that he had supported him all along from 66 to 63."
Similarly, Mello, op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 41-44; 53-54.
7. R. Seager, Historia, XIII (1964), 344-45.
 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 21

Or perhaps Catiline combined with Torquatus paravisse" (Cic. Cat. 1. 15). Finally, in late
against Sulla who was really Pompey's man.8 November, Cicero links Catiline and Piso in
One might indeed dissociate Catiline and Piso what is obviously a reference to the same
from the electoral conflict altogether and events: "omnia quae per hoc triennium
connect them to disturbances at the trial of agitata sunt, iam ab eo tempore quo a L.
C. Manilius, the Pompeian tribune of 66.9 Catilina et Cn. Pisone initum consilium senatus
We hope that the hypotheses will cease to interficiendi scitis esse, in hos dies, in hos
proliferate. It is time to address ourselves to menses, in hoc tempus erumpunt" (Cic. Mur.
the evidence. 81).
As is notorious, the tradition on this affair It is noteworthy that in none of these
is hopelessly muddied by propaganda and instances does Cicero connect the activities of
invective. After the execution of the Catilinari- Catiline and Piso to the electoral struggles
ans in December 63, it was in any politician's of 66 or to the ambitus trials which followed
interest to associate his enemies with Catiline. or to the alleged efforts of Autronius and
And after 59 the episode or episodes took on Sulla to demonstrate against their successful
added significance as a means whereby to dis- rivals. Asconius, who, of course, knew about
credit Caesar and Crassus. The growth of the the electoral scandals and commented on
legend which became the "first Catilinarian them, makes no reference to them in his
conspiracy" need not be catalogued here.10 remarks on the Ciceronian passages quoted
Sound methodology dictates concentration above.12 The two episodes are separate and
on evidence which precedes December 63.11 distinct. Whatever Catiline and Piso were
In the Pro Cornelio of 65 Cicero makes doing, therefore, there is no need to associate
reference to disturbances at the trial of their actions with Autronius and Sulla or
Manilius: "aliis ille in illum furorem magnis with the struggles over the consulship. That
hominibus impulsus est qui aliquod institui there was confusion of the events after
exemplum disturbandorum iudiciorum reip. December 63 is not surprising. Autronius had
perniciosissimum, temporibus suis accom- been unmasked as a conspirator in Catili-
modatissimum, meis alienissimum rationibus narian schemes of 63, and Sulla was prose-
cupiverunt." The men to whom Cicero refers cuted for the same offenses in 62. Moreover, it
are identified by Asconius as Catiline and was remembered that Catiline too had been a
Piso (Asconius 66, Clark). Then in 64, Cicero candidate in 66. After a lapse of more than
addresses Catiline directly: "praetereo nefari- three years it was natural to combine the data.
um illum conatum tuum et paene acerbum et The suspicious activities of Catiline and Piso
luctuosum rei publicae diem, cum Cn. Pisone could now be associated with the electoral
socio, ne quem alium nominem, caedem intrigues of Sulla and Autronius. At Sulla's
optimatumn facere voluisti (Asconius 92, trial in 62, the prosecutor talked openly of a
Clark). One may be sure that caedem optimatum prima coniuratio and linked Piso, Catiline,
is typical Ciceronian hyperbole. In early Autronius, and Sulla. Cicero, of course,
November 63, Cicero once more alluded to denied the involvement of his client, but
Catiline's earlier misbehavior: "qui nesciat te implicitly acknowledged the combination of
prid. Kal. Ian. Lepido et Tullo consulibus the others.13 From that point on accretions
stetisse in comitio cum telo, manum consulum upon the tradition grew apace and will not
et principum civitatis interficiendorum causa concern us.14 The Ciceronian evidence of
8. Cf. Syme, Sallust, pp. 91 and 102. ambitus trials, see 75 and 88, Clark.
9. M. Gelzer, RE, IIA (1923), "Sergius," No. 23; Frisch, 13. Cic. Sull. 67-68; cf. 11-12, 81.
op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 32-33; Seager, op. cit. (n. 7), pp. 344-45. 14. E.g., as has long been recognized, Sallust swallowed
10. This was outlined briefly by M. I. Henderson, JRS, Cicero's analysis in the Pro Sulla and listed the conspirators
XL (1950), 13-14, and detailed admirably by Seager, op. cit. as Catiline, Piso, and Autronius, deftly excluding Sulla
(n. 7), pp. 339-43. (Cat. 18. 4-5). That there were two separate plots, one for
11. It does not follow, of course, that even this evidence is January 1, 65 and one for February 5, is not a question on
irrefutably accurate. which prudent scholars will speculate. Only Sallust gives the
12. For Asconius' references to the electoral troubles and latter date (Cat. 18. 6).

This content downloaded from 193.147.59.3 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:12:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 22 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS
65-63 is the only reasonably solid foundation
on which to build. And that makes no reference
to the electoral contest of 66.
The elections are a separable item. They were
heated and bitter. Bribery, prosecution, and
perhaps counterdemonstration were all in-
volved. Was this a struggle between Pompeian
and anti-Pompeian candidates? Torquatus,
it can be urged, was a Pompeian legate in 67.
And his wife, for what that is worth, came
from Picenum. Cotta was the author of a
judiciary measure in 70, promoted and
endorsed by Pompey. He was also the cousin
of Julius Caesar whose connections with
Pompey in this period were close. Hence,
perhaps Cotta and Torquatus were to look
after the home front in the general's absence
and on his behalf.15 On this view, Autronius
and Sulla are to be linked with the rivals of
Pompeius Magnus, notably with M. Crassus.
Money backed their claims; or so one might
infer from the convictions for ambitus. Hence
the hand of Crassus is discerned.16
The analysis is fragile and vulnerable. It is a
common fallacy to suppose that every major
financial transaction in Rome involved the
cash of M. Crassus. There were other men in
Rome with money. Pompey himself was
probably wealthier than Crassus or was soon
to be so. But, more to the point, if the financing
of bribery in 66 requires explanation, one need
look no further than the well-heeled candidate
P. Sulla.17 That Autronius and Sulla were
agents of Crassus should no longer be seriously
maintained. For Autronius, one item in his
subsequent career is relevant and neglected.
In late 63 a charge was trumped up against
Crassus implicating him with the Catilinarians.
Some men believed that the charge was
fabricated by P. Autronius. 18 Such an act
would not likely have been attributed to an
15. Stevens, op. cit. (n. 5), pp. 413-14; Sumner, op. cit. (n.
2), pp. 229-30. For Torquatus' service with Pompey, see
Broughton, MRR, II, 149 and 151, n. 16; for his wife, see
Cic. Sull 25. On Cotta's measure, see Broughton, MRR, II,
127. For the co-operation between Caesar and Pompey, cf.
L. R. Taylor, TAPA, LXXIII (1942), 1-24.
16. See the works cited in n. 6.
17. On Sulla's fortune, cf. Cic. Off. 2. 29; Gell. 12. 12. On
Pompey's wealth, cf. E. Badian, Roman Imperialism in the
Late Republic (Pretoria, 1967), pp. 72-73.
18. Sall. Cat. 48. 3-7: "erant eo tempore qui existumarent
indicium illud a P. Autronio machinatum."
This content downloaded from 193.147.59.3 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:12:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
adherent of Crassus. As for P. Sulla, associa-
tion with Pompey's inimici is even less likely.
Sulla was married to the sister of Pompeius
Magnus, and the latter's connections with the
house of Sulla the dictator were close and
manifold. 19
Logic compels a devastatingly obvious
conclusion. The rival candidates in 66 were
simply contesting for the consulship. Like all
consular elections, it was a matter of ambition
and dignitas. Perhaps there was a little more
bribery, perhaps a little more bitterness than
usual. The defeated candidates brought
ambitus charges and reversed the electoral
decision. Their frustrated rivals sought re-
taliation, or at least overt manifestation of their
discontent. That is all that can or should be
said. There is no need to imagine murky plots
with "big men" in the background and "straw
men" in the forefront-much less, conspiracy,
murder, or revolution. That Pompeius Magnus
was an issue in the elections of 66 is entirely
unattested and rendered unlikely in the extreme
by the identity of the consuls.
Another affair at this same time, however,
will have captured the attention of Pompey.
The trial of Manilius, undertaken in December
66, postponed and brought to a conclusion
in 65, was an attack on the tribune who had
promoted Pompey's Mithridatic command.
The four Ciceronian passages quoted earlier
are all consistent with a theory connecting
them not to the electoral troubles but to the
trial or trials of Manilius. We know from
other sources that there were disturbances at
those hearings. And it is suggestive that Cicero
reports Catiline's armed presence in the
comitium and dates it to December 29th, 66.
Manilius' case was to be heard on the last day
of December-also the last day of Cicero's
benevolent presidency of the court.20 Hence,
19. For P. Sulla as Pompey's brother-in-law, see Cic.
Ad Q. Frat. 3. 3. 2; noted by Syme, Sallust, p. 102, n. 88. For
a fuller analysis of Pompey's ties to the house of Sulla, see
Gruen, "Pompey, the Roman Aristocracy, and the Conference
of Luca" (forthcoming).
20. Cicero's reference to Catiline's armed posture on
December 29 is in Cat. 1. 15. Disturbances attending Manilius'
hearing in December: Plut. Cic. 9. 3-6; Dio 36. 44. 1-2. The
disturbances alluded to by Asconius appear to have been at
the renewed trial of 65: Asconius 60, 66, Clark; so also Schol.
Bob. 119, St.
 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS
it can be argued, the activities of Catiline and
Piso in late 66 and perhaps again in early 65
were part of the political upheavals surround-
ing the trial and retrial of C. Manilius.21
The argument is plausible and it may even
be right. On that question judgment should
probably remain suspended. The point to be
stressed, however, is the flimsiness of the
information. Despite mountainous modern
literature on the subject, strict attention to the
pertinent evidence is rare. Cicero nowhere
overtly connects the schemes of Catiline and
Piso with Manilius' hearing. It is Asconius,
in commenting on the Pro Cornelio, who
brings the items together. The orator asserted
only that magni homines caused chaos at the
trial. Identification with Catiline and Piso is
Asconius' own conjecture. He admits as
much: "L. Catilinam et Cn. Pisonem videtur
significare" (Asconius 66, Clark). In 65 B.C.,
Catiline was patricius but only praetorius; his
family had not distinguished itself in previous
generations. Piso was a young man who had
just entered upon his quaestorship. Is Cicero
likely to have described them as magni
homines? Scholars who seek to connect them
with the trial of Manilius should ponder that
question. There is no further evidence.
The matter can be pursued. Pompeius
Magnus was certainly concerned about the
fate of Manilius. Cicero, in protecting
Manilius in 66 and defending him in 65, knew
that he would win the approval of Pompey.22
If Catiline and Piso were demonstrating at
Manilius' hearings, whose side were they on?
The old view that Catiline was a tool of the
combination of Caesar and Crassus or of the
"popular party" or of both can now be safely
consigned to oblivion. Scholarly opinion has
21. This case is argued now by Seager, op. cit. (n. 7), pp.
338-47.
22. [Q. Cic.] Comm. petit. 51; Plut. Cic. 9. 4-6; cf. Dio
36. 43. 2-44. 2.
23. Cf. Stevens, op. cit. (n. 5), pp. 421-23. Seager, op. cit.
(n. 7), p. 344, rightly maintains "it accords ill with what we
know of Catiline's character to regard him as any man's
tool." But he proceeds to dwell on the connection with
Magnus and even to claim "there is no evidence militating
against this" (p. 345).
24. For Catiline's service with Pompeius Strabo, see A.
Degrassi, ILLRP, II, 32, No. 515; cf. C. Cichorius, Rom. Stud.
(Stuttgart, 1922), pp. 172-74. For Cicero's intended defense,
Cic. Att. 1. 2. 1. for Torquatus' defense, Cic. Sull. 81.
This content downloaded from 193.147.59.3 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:12:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
23
more recently pointed to his connections with
Pompey.23 The evidence is not very compelling.
Catiline can be discovered among the tirones
serving under Pompey's father in 89 B.C. In 65
Cicero considered defending Catiline de
repetundis in order to secure his support for
the consulship. And finally L. Torquatus, the
former Pompeian legate, did in fact serve as
Catiline's defense counsel in 65.24 Nothing
more can be offered in support of the hypothesis.
That Catiline, as a very young man, served
in the army of Pompeius Strabo would carry
little weight a quarter of a century later.
Cicero's willingness to collaborate with him
counts as no evidence at all in this context.
The orator needed support from all sides for
his prospective consular canvass. Among those
whose backing he reckoned upon was C.
Piso, the consul of 67, an embittered and
outspoken enemy of Pompey.25 Defense by
Torquatus is more interesting. But Catiline
had the support of several consulares at his
trial. There was as yet no hint of conspiracy.
Nobiles came to the aid of one of their own.26
By contrast, the evidence which associates
Catiline with the inimici of Pompey has
received little attention but is considerably
more telling. Not that one should revive the
old notion of Catiline as Crassus' agent.27
There is more decisive testimony. Co-operation
with Cn. Piso should be sufficient in itself to
end speculation on Catiline as a "Pompeian."
Evidence is consistent and undisputed that
Piso was an infestus inimicus of Pompeius
Magnus. He had denounced Pompey openly
in the criminal courts, and his murder in
Spain was ascribed, perhaps rightly, to clients
of Pompey.28 An associate like Cn. Piso
would not endear Catiline to Magnus. And
25. Cic. Att. 1. 1. 2; on Piso's relations with Pompey, see
esp. Plut. Pomp. 25. 4; 27. 1; Dio, 36. 37. 2.
26. Cic. Sull. 81. This passage need not imply that Torquatus
in 65 had actually heard something about a conspiracy; see
Stevens, op. cit. (n. 5), p. 432.
27. Asconius 83, Clark, does say that Crassus and Caesar
backed Catiline for the consulship in 64. But this is probably
based on Cicero's scandalous and unreliable de consiliis suis
and hence can carry no authority; see P. A. Brunt, CR,
LXXI (1957), 193-95.
28. For Piso's verbal attack on Pompey, see Val. Max.
6. 2. 4. It may have been this that brought him to the attention
of Crassus, who was behind the appointment to Spain (Sall.
Cat. 19. 1). On the murder of Piso, see Sall. Cat. 19. 4-5;
24 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS
Catiline had other friends. One of them
was the distinguished senior consularis Q.
Lutatius Catulus who led senatorial opposition
to Pompey's eastern commands in 67 and 66.
Catulus had earned Catiline's gratitude by
defending him on a charge of incestum in 73.
The connection did not lapse. A decade later,
in the last year of his life, Catiline wrote to his
benefactor expressing confidence in his con-
tinuing loyalty and entrusting to Catulus' care
his own wife.29 Equally revealing is Catiline's
trial in 64 inter sicarios for actions committed
under the Sullan regime. The prosecutor in
that case was L. Lucceius, close confidant and
adviser of Pompey the Great.30 A final item
warrants mention, if only because it has
escaped the attention of scholars. The man
who disallowed Catiline's candidature in 66
was the presiding consul, L. Volcatius Tullus.
Ten years later Volcatius appears again in our
records, as a vocal advocate of Pompeius
Magnus.31 The accumulation of all this
testimony permits only one conclusion. If
Catiline and Piso engaged in demonstrations
at the trial of Manilius, these can hardly have
been to the advantage of Manilius or Pompey.32
It will be useful to sum up our results,
meager though these may be. That there was
Asconius 92, Clark. Description of Piso as Pompey's infestus
inimicus in Sall. Cat. 19. 1; cf. Asconius 83, Clark. For more
detailed discussion, see Gruen, "Pompey and the Pisones"
(forthcoming).
29. For Catulus' defense of Catiline in 73, see Orosius
6. 3. 1; for the letter in 63, see Sall. Cat. 34. 3-35. 6.
30. Asconius 91-92, Clark. For Lucceius' friendship with
Pompey, see Cic. Fam. 13. 41 and 42.
31. Cic. Fam. 1. 1. 3; 1. 2. 1-2; 1. 4. 1. For the rejection of
Catiline's candidacy, see Sall. Cat. 18. 3; Asconius 89, Clark.
CATULLUS AND CATO (c. 56)
This short and puzzling poem of Catullus
has attracted three varieties of comment.
Commonly, the language is analyzed, the
troublesome grammar justified, various refer-
ences heavily annotated, and obscene activities
described in disparaging, if decorous, prose;
1. Representatives of the first type of commentary are
Joseph Scaliger, Ellis, Merrill, and Baehrens; of the second
type, Kroll, who refers to Strato's small poem in the Greek
Anthology 12. 222; of the third type, Macnaughten and
Ramsay and also Fordyce. A recent article by V. Buchheit,
"Catull an Cato von Utica (c. 56)," Hermes, LXXXIX (1961),
This content downloaded from 193.147.59.3 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:12:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
anything which merits the designation "con-
spiracy" in 66-65 remains dubious. Given the
state of our evidence, scholars would be well
advised to refrain from speculation, not to
mention dogmatism, on that score.33 Cicero-
nian testimony from 65 to 63, the only
reasonably reliable guide, makes no connection
between the machinations of Catiline and
Piso and the electoral contests of 66. The
latter have been too hastily seen in terms of
Pompeian and anti-Pompeian politics. Identity
of the individuals involved suggests merely
personal competition for honores. The hy-
pothesis that Catiline and Piso engaged in
disruption at the trial of Manilius remains
possible. But the evidence on which it rests is
minimal and insecure. Finally, if the two men
are to be associated with that trial, they were
almost certainly not promoting the interests of
Pompey or his supporters.
These results, it must be confessed, are
essentially negative. But in an issue infected
with ancient propaganda and beclouded by
excessive modern ingenuity and elaborate
conjecture, a plea for caution may be the most
salutary enterprise.
ERICH S. GRUEN
UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA,BERKELEY
32. That the disturbances adversely affected Cicero's
defense of Manilius is, in any case, clear from Cicero's own
account; Asconius, 66.
33. Cf. Frisch, op. cit. (n. 3), p. 32. "Conspiracy" is
probably a misleading term in any event. Perhaps it was no
more than a planned demonstration by the ousted consules
designzati to question the credentials of their victorious rivals.
A bodyguard, at least, was voted by the senate to Cotta and
Torquatus (Dio 36. 44. 4-5).
alternatively, the poem is dismissed as a
fantasy creation or genre piece which is
regarded as thoroughly lightweight and trivial
-a true representative of Catullan nugae; or,
finally, the poem is neglected through embar-
rassment or exasperation.' Regardless of the
345-56, is a refreshing literary examination of the poem; I
shall refer to it by the name of the author in this article.
Much of my commentary is based on his conclusion that there
were three persons concerned; however, I disagree with this
interpretation of protelo and believe that he misses the allusion
in the last two lines.