This remarkable difference in the revolutionary movements of ancient and modern times cannot but strike every thinking man who will take the trouble to compare them. Nor let it be said that the difference arises solely from the disaffected having been slaves in the times of paganism and freemen in the times of Christianity. Cataline and his co-conspirators were not slaves, nor the friends of slaves: yet they acted precisely upon the same motives and principles as those ascribed to Eunus and Athenio. Cataline did not promise his brother-revolutionists a _régime_ of liberty and equality for all orders of men; quite the contrary. In the first place, he indignantly repudiated all co-operation with slaves; and instead of _equal rights and equal laws for all_, he promised one portion of his followers a cancelling of all their debts; another portion, _magistrates, sacerdotia, rapinas_--i.e. magisterial offices, the preferments and property of the Church, and general plunder; and to all he promised women, wine, horses, dogs, &c., according to their age and tastes. If we are to believe Sallust, he was to begin with setting fire to Rome, proceed with the massacre and spoliation of his enemies during the confusion, and end by putting his associates and friends in the place of the men they wished to get rid of. In other words, Cataline’s doctrine was (to use an old Roman phrase), that every man must be either _prædo_ or _præda_--either the _thief_ or the _spoil_, or, as Voltaire expresses it, either _hammer_ or _anvil_; and he was determined to be the thief, or the hammer. The doctrine of _equality_, at any rate, had no share in his system. What history describes Cataline to have been is equally predicable of the whole of the revolutionary school in which he had had his political training. Sylla and his lieutenants, on the one hand, representing patrician revolutionists, and Marius, Sulpitius, Saturninus, &c., on the other, representing the plebeian revolutionists, had acted, every man of them, upon the principles ascribed to Cataline. Not a chief or demagogue of them all, on either side, said a word or proposed a measure that savoured of justice or legality for all people. Principle was entirely out of the question. It is doubtful, indeed, whether either leaders or people understood anything at all of the matter. There is certainly nothing in history to evidence that they either knew or cared for any other rules or principles of government than those good old-fashioned ones, which the several agencies of gold, intrigue, and the sword resolve themselves into--the right of the strongest. To such republicans as Sylla, Marius, Clodius, Sulpicius, &c., our modern ideas of a _république démocratique et sociale_ would be about as intelligible as a proposal to light old Rome with gas or to communicate _senatus consulta_ by the electric telegraph.