propterea quod iste caput petere non desinebat. Iste postulabat ut procurator judicatum solvi satisdaret. Negat Alfenus aequum esse procuratorem satisdare quod reus satisdare non deberet, si ipse adesset. Appellantur tribuni, a quibus quum esset certum auxilium petitum, ita tum disceditur ut Idibus Septembribus P. Quintium sisti Sex. Alfenus promitteret. VIII. Venit Romam Quintius: vadimonium sistit. Iste, homo acerrimus, bonorum possessor, expulsor, ereptor, annum et sex menses nihil petit: quiescit conditionibus hunc quoad potest producit: a Cn. Dolabella denique praetore postulat ut sibi Quintius judicatum solvi satisdet ex formula: QUOD AB EO PETAT, CUJUS EX EDICTO PRAE 66 judicatum solvi] See Vol. I. Ver. ii. 2. c. 25. A procurator was bound to give security that the principal (dominus) would abide by the judgment: procurator vero si agat satisdare jubetur ratam rem dominum habiturum" (Gaius, iv. 98). Alfenus appealed to the Tribuni Plebis, whose 'intercessio' was the 'auxilium.' Cicero does not say what was the subject of the appeal. The tribuni did not reverse the decree (c. 20), and Alfenus was ordered to engage that P. Quintius should appear on the Ides of September. Keller has discussed all this matter at great length (p. 114, &c.). If the law was the same in Cicero's time as when Gaius wrote, it is certain that Alfenus could not act as the procurator of Quintius without giving the security which Naevius demanded. We have in Cicero himself an example of 'procuratores' undertaking to give security 'judicatum solvi' (Vol. I. Verr. ii. 2. c. 24); in Sicily, it is true, but that makes no difference, for it was Roman law. What then can Cicero mean when he makes Alfenus, who was bound as a procurator to give security, refuse because, as he alleged, Quintius would not have been bound to give security? For this is the same as affirming that a procurator was not bound to give security. The matter stands thus: Naevius maintained that Alfenus, as procurator, ought to give the security; and Alfenus refused for the reason above stated. It might be conjectured that the practice was not so well settled as to be free from doubt; but I do not accept that conjecture. The refusal of Alfenus was not founded on the allegation that the property of Quintius had not been seized ex edicto.' He does not say that; he alleges another reason. Keller indeed makes it appear very probable that this refusal of Alfenus took place soon after the alleged seizure, and within the thirty days (cc. 6, 16, 17, 18). The conclusion is that Alfenus was wrong in refusing to give security; and as the Praetor required him to give it, he could not be the procurator of Quintius. The appeal to the Tribuni could not be directly against the Praetor's decree, because the College of Tribuni could not reverse such a decree; and it is also certain that the Praetor was following the usual practice in requiring a procurator to give security. What then did Alfenus apply to the Tribuni for? It is hard to say; but so much may be true, that after having tried to become the procurator of Quintius without complying with the usual terms, and failing in this, he tried the College of Tribuni to see if they would do any thing for Quintius. Alfenus applied for certum auxilium,' whatever that means; and he got something. He consented indeed to promise that Quintius should appear at Rome by a certain day; but he thus gained time, and all proceedings were stayed (see c. 20, note). Keller's long discussion of this matter is very ingenious, and most of it probably is true. It is rather hard to follow him all through, especially as his Latin is far from being easy. 8. conditionibus —-producit:] Terence (Andr. 4. 1. 24) explains this: "Nisi me lactasses amantem et falsa spe produceres." Naevius amused Quintius, as Cicero says, by talking about coming to terms, while he meant nothing. quod ab eo petat,] All the MSS. are said to have "quod ab eo petat quoniam ejus," &c. 'Cujus' is Lambinus' emendation; and it is probably right. Menardus proposed to read "Quod ab eo petat pecuniam cujus," &c., which reading would show what the demand against Quintius was in respect of which Naevius made this claim. But the insertion of a word in the TORIS BONA DIES XXX POSSESSA SINT. Non recusabat Quintius quin ita satisdare juberet, si bona possessa essent ex edicto. Decernit, quam aequum, nihil dico: unum hoc dico, novum: et hoc ipsum tacuisse mallem, quoniam utrumque quivis intelligere potuisset. Jubet P. Quintium sponsionem cum Sex. Naevio facere: SI BONA SUA EX EDICTO P. BURRIENI PRAETORIS DIES XXX POS SESSA NON ESSENT. Recusabant qui aderant tum Quintio : demonstrabant de re judicium fieri oportere, ut aut uterque inter se aut text is more than we can allow. It is not said what the demand of Naevius was; but as he made some demand against a man whose property had been taken possession of under a decree, and had been held for thirty days, he claimed a right to have from Quintius a "satisdatio judicatum solvi.' possessa non essent.] Non' is omitted by Orelli and others. One Paris MS. (k. in Keller) has 'possessa essent;' all the rest of the Paris MSS. have possessa non essent.' Keller has collected the other reported readings of this passage, and the various opinions of the editors and commentators (p. 27). It is rather singular that most editors have rejected the non,' though the MSS. are in favour of it, and the sense requires it. Quintius did not object to give the required security, if his property had been possessed for thirty days; but he denied this fact. The Praetor accordingly determined to have this fact ascertained, and his order was that Quintius must prove it by becoming the plaintiff in a fictitious action. The form of the action was a Sponsio. Quintius would say to Naevius, as Keller correctly explains it, "Si bona mea ex edicto P. Burrieni Praetoris dies xxx possessa non sunt H. S... dare spondes?" to which Naevius must reply Spondeo.' There was no 'restipulatio,' for this was an 'actio praejudicialis.' Keller quotes a note of Burnouf, which is worth copying out, for this learned Frenchman saw clearly and has clearly explained the state of the case: "Névius promet purement et simplement la somme stipulée, sans exiger de Publius une promesse réciproque (non restipulatur). La raison en est que, s'il perd, il n'est pas tenu de payer la somme, parcequ'elle n'est pas pénale (non poenalis est). Elle est seulement préjudicielle (sed praejudicialis); c'est à dire, qu'elle n'est stipulée que pour servir en quelque sorte de matière et d'objet au jugement (ut per eam de re judicetur) dont l'effet se réduira d'ailleurs à établir, que Névius n'a pas possédé trente jours aux termes de l'édit." It is clear from Cicero that 'non' is required, for he says (c. 10): "Negamus te bona P. Quintii, Sex. Naevi, possedisse ex edicto praetoris. In eo sponsio facta est." The expression 'sponsionem facere' is said both of the stipulator' and of the 'promissor.' It is said of the stipulator,' who is P. Quintius in this passage; in Cicero, Ad Fam. viii. 21; in Verr. ii. 3. c. 57, 59; and Pro Caecina, c. 16. It is said of the promissor,' of him who says 'spondeo,' in Pro Caecina, c. 28; Verr. ii. 5. c. 54; and in this oration, Pro Quintio, c. 14, sponsionem de probro facere maluerit" is said of Naevius. See Vol. I. Ver. ii. 5. c. 54, and the note. de re] The friends and advisers of P. Quintius (qui aderant), attempted to show to the Praetor that the trial or suit ought to be about the real question only (de re); and that either both parties should give security for the payment of any sum that might be found due from one to the other, or that neither party should give security; that there was no occasion for the character or good name of either party to come into question, which would be the case if the issue were tried, whether the property of Quintius had been duly taken possession of or not. And this would have been the right way of proceeding, if it were simply a question about the partnership account; but Naevius maintained that he had taken possession of the property of Quintius pursuant to the Praetor's edict, and that Quintius was bound to give him security for the payment of what might appear due to him on his demand, whatever it might be; or, if he denied that his property had been taken possession of, that question must be tried. Dolabella decided in favour of Naevius, and declared that Quintius must do the one or the other. Quintius accordingly, having chosen to try the question of the possession, became the plaintiff (ex sponso egit); and this was the matter for Aquilius to decide, whether there was a possession (ex edicto) by Naevius or not. neuter satisdaret: non necesse esse famam alterius in judicium venire. Clamabat porro ipse Quintius sese idcirco nolle satisdare, ne videretur judicasse bona sua ex edicto possessa esse. Sponsionem porro si istiusmodi faceret, se (id quod nunc evenit) de capite suo priore loco caussam esse dicturum. Dolabella (quemadmodum solent homines nobiles: seu recte seu perperam facere coeperunt, ita in utroque excellunt ut nemo nostro loco natus assequi possit) injuriam facere fortissime perseverat: aut satisdare aut sponsionem jubet facere; et interea recusantes nostros advocatos acerrime submoveri. IX. Conturbatus sane discedit Quintius: neque mirum, cui haec optio tam misera tamque iniqua daretur ut aut ipse se capitis damnaret, si satisdedisset, aut caussam capitis, si sponsionem fecisset, priore loco diceret. Quum in altera re caussae nihil esset quin secus judicaret ipse de se, quod judicium gravissimum est; in altera spes esset ad talem tamen virum, judicem, veniendi, unde eo plus opis auferret quo minus attulisset gratiae, sponsionem facere maluit: fecit. Te judicem, C. Aquilli, sumpsit: ex sponso egit. In hoc summa judicii caussaque tota consistit. Judicium esse, C. Aquilli, non de re pecuniaria, sed de fama fortunisque P. Quintii vides. Quum majores ita constituerint, ut nostro loco natus] Cicero was not 'nobilis; and he speaks of the 'nobiles' as a man in his station would do. He has something to the same purpose in the Verrine orations (Vol. I. Verr. ii. 3. c. 4; ii. 5. c. 70), though when he wrote that, he was 'aedilis designatus,' and had a prospect of attaining the highest honours. He does not speak in these terms of the 'nobiles' after he was consul.-' submoveri :' the friends of Quintius persisted in urging his case, and would not stop. The Praetor ordered them to be removed (submoveri) by his lictors. This is the word used to signify the putting of people on one side, moving them out of the way; and it is often used: (Liv. iii. 48), "I, inquit, lictor, summove turbam." Compare Horace, Carm. (ii. 16) and Juvenal i. 37 and Heinrich's note. aut satisdare] aut satisdaret:' twelve of Keller's MSS.; and it may be the true reading. The Berne MS. has 'satisdari.' for denying it. Terence says (Phorm. ii. 1. 42): "non caussam dico quin quod meritus sit ferat," which means, I urge nothing against his suffering what he has deserved.' judicem,-sumpsit:] The issue to be tried was now settled, and it remained to find a Judex who had to hear the evidence and to decide. The plaintiff, who is here Quintius, had a right of proposing a Judex (judicem ferre;' Cic. De Orat. ii. 70; Vol. I. Verr. ii. 3. c. 60, and the note). Cicero proceeds to say that the trial before Aquillius was not about any matter of money (res pecuniaria), for the sum mentioned in the Sponsio was nominal; but it was to be decided whether the property of Quintius had been possessed, which was a thing discreditable to a man and affected his character. The issue being thus framed by the Praetor's order, it followed as a matter of course that Quintius must be the plaintiff and must begin, and Cicero's complaint on this head is absurd. Some editions have ex sponsu,' a form which is genuine (Gaius, iv. § 22).-'in jus adducerent:' Naevius had again applied to the Praetor to compel Aquillius to limit the time that the advocates should speak, for 'in jus' is before the Praetor. qui pro capite diceret is posteriore loco diceret, nos, inaudita criminatione accusatorum, priore loco caussam dicere intelligis. Eos porro, qui defendere consuerunt, vides accusare: et ea ingenia converti ad perniciem, quae antea versabantur in salute atque auxilio ferendo. Illud etiam restiterat, quod hesterno die fecerunt, ut te in jus adducerent, ut nobis tempus quam diu diceremus praestitueres; quam rem facile a praetore impetrassent, nisi tu quod esset tuum jus et officium partesque docuisses. Neque nobis adhuc praeter te quisquam fuit, ubi nostrum jus contra illos obtineremus; neque illis umquam satis fuit illud obtinere quod probari omnibus posset. Ita sine injuria potentiam levem atque inopem esse arbitrantur. X. Verum quoniam tibi instat Hortensius ut eas in consilium; a me postulat ne dicendo tempus absumam; queritur priore patrono caussam defendente numquam perorari potuisse; non patiar istam manere suspicionem, nos rem judicari nolle; nec illud mihi arrogabo me posse caussam commodius demonstrare quam antea demonstrata sit: neque tamen tam multa verba faciam, propterea quod et ab illo, qui ante dixit, informata jam caussa est, et a me, qui neque excogitare neque pronuntiare multa possum, brevitas postulatur, quae mihimet ipsi amicissima est. Faciam quod te saepe animadverti facere, Hortensi: totam caussae meae dictionem certas in partes dividam. Tu id semper facis, quia semper potes. Ego in hac caussa faciam, propterea quod in hac videor posse facere. Quod tibi natura dat ut semper possis, id mihi caussa concedit ut hodie possim. Certos mihi fines terminosque constituam, extra quos egredi non possim, si maxime velim; ut et mihi sit propositum de quo dicam; et Hortensius habeat exposita ad quae respondeat, et tu, C. Aquiili, jam ante animo prospicere possis quibus de rebus auditurus sis. Negamus te bona P. Quintii, Sex. Naevi, possedisse ex edicto praetoris. In eo sponsio facta est. Ostendam primum, caussam non fuisse cur a praetore postulares ut bona P. Quintii possideres : 10. eas in consilium;] When the case was heard, the Judex retired to deliberate with his assessors, who in this case were three. Hortensius, says Cicero, urged him to give judgment. We see from what follows that the case had been heard before, but the advocates had never finished their speeches. Advocates will always talk more about a matter than any sensible man can see a reason for. Cicero says that the former advocate of Quintius, M. Junius, had already stated the case, put it in outline and form (informata), so that Cicero could be brief.— 'faciam quod te, &c. :' see Vol. I. Divin. c. 14. Negamus possedisse] Here he states the issue, which was whether the property of Quintius had been possessed or not lawfully (ex edicto praetoris). All that Cicero had to prove was that Naevius had not taken possession of the property of Quintius, or that he had not taken possession in such way as the edictum required. See the Argu ment. deinde, ex edicto te possidere non potuisse: postremo, non possedisse. Quaeso, C. Aquilli, vosque, qui estis in consilio, ut quid pollicitus sim diligenter memoriae mandetis. Etenim rem facilius totam accipietis, si haec memineritis; et me facile vestra existimatione revocabitis, si extra hos cancellos egredi conabor, quos mihi ipse circumdedi. Nego fuisse caussam cur postularet: nego ex edicto possidere potuisse: nego possedisse. Haec tria quum docuero, perorabo. . XI. Non fuit caussa cur postulares. Qui hoc intelligi potest? Quia Sex. Naevio neque ex societatis ratione, neque privatim quidquam debuit Quintius. Quis huic rei testis est? Idem qui acerrimus adversarius. In hac re te, te, inquam, testem, Naevi, citabo. Annum et eo diutius post mortem C. Quintii fuit in Gallia tecum simul Quintius. Doce te petiisse ab eo istam nescio quam innumerabilem pecuniam; doce aliquando mentionem fecisse, dixisse deberi debuisse concedam. Moritur C. Quintius, qui tibi, ut ais, certis nominibus grandem pecuniam debuit. Heres ejus P. Quintius in Galliam ad te ipsum venit in agrum communem; eo denique, ubi non modo res erat, sed ratio quoque omnis et omnes litterae. Quis tam dissolutus in re familiari fuisset, quis tam negligens, quis tam tui, Sexte, dissimilis, qui, quum res ab eo quicum contraxisset recessisset et ad heredem pervenisset, non heredem quum primum vidisset certiorem faceret, appellaret, rationem afferret, si quid in controversiam veniret, aut intra parietes aut man. existimatione] 'By your character, by the influence that your character has.' It is here not the opinion that a man has of others, but the opinion that others have of a Cicero (Pro Flacco, c. 22) describes a man as 'sine honore, sine existimatione;' and Pro Quintio, c. 15, 'dum existimatio est integra.' In fact existimatio' had a legal signification. It is defined (Dig. 50. 13. 5) thus: "existimatio est dignitatis illaesae status."-cancellos:' 'limits.' See Vol. I. Verr. ii. 3. c. 59. 11. certis nominibus] See Vol. I. Verr. ii. 1. c. 38. Certis nominibus' means on certain, well ascertained, heads of account. 'Nomen,' says Passeratius correctly, is "quidquid in tabulas accepti et expensi refertur, certains articles du conte." Cicero says (Verr. ii. 3. c. 58): "ex omni pecunia quam aratoribus solvere debuisti certis nominibus deductiones fieri solebant." In the Senatusconsult. Macedonianum (Dig. 14. 6. 1) it is said, “qui pecuniam ne quid amplius diceretur incertis nominibus crederet," where 'incertis nominibus' means money lent without any entry being made of the particulars. In Horace (Ep. ii. 1. v. 105) "Cautos nominibus rectis expendere nummos," rectis seems to be the best MSS. reading (Macleane's Horace); but 'certis' in the sense of 'sure' would be correct also. literae.] All the writings and accounts. See Vol. I. Verr. ii. 4. c. 16. quicum contraxisset] The verb 'contrahere,' which contains the notion of bringing together, is the origin of the Roman word 'contractus,' as already explained. The Roman forms of expression are obligationes contrahuntur,' emptio et venditio contracta,' and so on (Gaius iii. 135, 139). But contractus' has a technical meaning in Roman law, and means an agreement, which is not a mere 'pactum,' but is founded on a 'caussa' and produces a 'civilis obligatio,' that is, a right of action. 'Societas' or partnership was one of these 'contractus.' intra parietes] 'Privately, at home,' that |