Context: In the controversy following the rout of Catiline, informers are suggesting that Julius Caesar himself
was one of the conspirators. Caesar needs to squelch this incipient McCarthyism.
id uero Caesar nullo modo tolerandum existimans, cum inplorato Ciceronis testimonio quaedam se de coniuratione ultro ad eum detulisse docuisset, ne Curio praemia darentur effecit;
1. At first, reversing the point of view in the indirect discourse clause, I got so confused I had to consult the translation. "se de coniuratione ultro ad eum": I wrongly put down se=Cicero, eum=Caesar. I saw by the end of the sentence that I was confused. But I've got pronoun problems.Translation:
Caesar, thinking this must not be endured, when he implored Cicero for his testimony that Caesar had voluntarily passed on to him certain things concerning the conspiracy, he (Caesar) blocked the reward for Curius.
2. I don't understand how to fit docuisset here. Is this a cum-temporal clause, enclosing indirect discourse? Something like this:
After he had demonstrated, by appealing to Cicero's testimony, that he had passed on to Cicero information about the conspiracy, Caesar blocked the reward for Curius.