convivium; non habere domum clausam pudori et sanctimoniae, patentem atque adeo expositam cupiditati et voluptatibus: contra sibi ait officium, fidem, diligentiam, vitam omnino semper horridam atque aridam cordi fuisse. Ista superiora esse ac plurimum posse his moribus sentit. Quid ergo est? non usque eo tamen ut in capite fortunisque hominum honestissimorum dominentur ii qui relicta bonorum virorum disciplina et quaestum et sumptum Gallonii sequi maluerunt, atque etiam, quod in illo non fuit, cum audacia perfidiaque vixerunt. Si licet vivere eum quem Sex. Naevius non vult; si est homini honesto locus in civitate invito Naevio; si fas est respirare P. Quintium contra nutum ditionemque Naevii; si, quae pudore ornamenta sibi peperit, ea potest contra petulantiam te defendente obtinere; spes est et hunc miserum atque infelicem aliquando tandem posse consistere. Sin et poterit Naevius id quod libet, et ei libebit quod non licet; quid agendum est? qui Deus appellandus est? cujus hominis fides imploranda est? qui denique questus, qui maeror dignus inveniri in calamitate tanta potest?

XXXI. Miserum est exturbari fortunis omnibus; miserius est injuria. Acerbum est ab aliquo circumveniri; acerbius a propinquo. Calamitosum est bonis everti; calamitosius cum dedecore. Funestum est a forti atque honesto viro jugulari; funestius ab eo cujus vox in praeconio quaestu prostitit. Indignum est a pari vinci aut superiore; indignius ab inferiore atque humiliore. Luctuosum est tradi alteri cum bonis; luctuosius inimico. Horribile est caussam capitis dicere; horribilius priore loco dicere. Omnia circumspexit

Quid ergo est? non usque &c.] Manutius explains this: 'Quid ex eo sequitur? non usque eo tamen superiora esse sentit ut,' &c.—' Gallonius.' This noted 'praeco' was not forgotten even in Horace's time, who uses him as an example (Sat. ii. 2. v. 47):

-Haud ita pridem Galloni praeconis erat acipensere mensa Infamis."

This Gallonius lived as far back as the time of Lucilius, who attacks him in his rough verses (Cic. De Fin. ii. 8):

"O Publi, O gurges Galloni, es homo miser, inquit.

Caenasti in vita numquam bene, quum om

nia in ista Consumis squilla atque acipensere cum decumano."

aliquando tandem] Some editions have aliquando tamen,' but I do not know what MSS. authority there is for 'tamen.' 'Tandem' and 'tamen' are sometimes confounded. Either might do here.-' quod non licet: this is explained by Cicero, Phil. xiii. 6: "Licet autem nemini contra patriam ducere exercitum; si quidem licere id dicimus quod legibus, quod more majorum institutisque conceditur."

31. quaestu prostitit.] There is a reading 'quaestum praestitit' or 'praestitit quaestum,' which Manutius was acquainted with, but he judiciously preferred what is in the text. Klotz has praestitit quaestum,' and he has not noticed the reading 'quaestu prostitit.' 'Prostitit' expresses Cicero's contempt for the occupation of Naevius, whose 'vox' may be said 'prostare;' as Juvenal says (ix. 24) "quo non prostat femina templo ;" and Sat. i. 47.

Quintius, omnia periclitatus est, C. Aquilli; non praetorem modo a quo jus impetraret invenire potuit atque adeo ne unde arbitratu quidem suo postularet, sed ne amicos quidem Sex. Naevii; quorum saepe et diu ad pedes jacuit stratus, obsecrans per Deos immortales, ut aut secum jure contenderent, aut injuriam sine ignominia sibi imponerent. Denique ipsius inimici vultum superbissimum subiit: ipsius Sex. Naevii lacrimans manum prehendit in propinquorum bonis proscribendis exercitatam: obsecravit per fratris sui mortui cinerem, per nomen propinquitatis, per ipsius conjugem et liberos, quibus propior P. Quintio nemo est, ut aliquando misericordiam caperet; aliquam, si non propinquitatis, at aetatis suae, si non hominis, at humanitatis rationem haberet ; ut secum aliquid, integra sua fama, qualibet dummodo tolerabili conditione transigeret. Ab ipso repudiatus, ab amicis ejus non sublevatus, ab omni magistratu agitatus atque perterritus, quem praeter te appellet habet neminem ; tibi se, tibi suas omnes opes fortunasque commendat: tibi committit existimationem ac spem reliquae vitae. Multis vexatus contumeliis, plurimis jactatus injuriis, non turpis ad te, sed miser confugit: e fundo ornatissimo dejectus, ignominiis omnibus appetitus, quum illum in suis paternis bonis dominari videret, ipse filiae nubili dotem conficere non posset, nihil alienum tamen vita superiore commisit. Itaque te hoc obsecrat, C. Aquilli, ut quam existimationem, quam honestatem in judicium tuum prope acta jam aetate decursaque attulit, eam liceat ei secum ex hoc loco efferre; ne is, de cujus officio nemo umquam dubitavit, sexagesimo denique anno dedecore, macula turpissimaque ignominia notetur; ne ornamentis ejus omnibus Sex. Naevius pro spoliis abutatur: ne per te ferat, quo minus

invenire potuit] One of Keller's MSS. has non potuit;' and other MSS. too, it seems. Klotz has 'non potuit.' Lallemand has the usual explanation, that 'non modo' is often put for non modo non.' It is possible that there was some confusion in the use of the negative in such expressions. But if we observe the sense of the passage, and the contrast of the words, it will be plain that non potuit' is not right. Non praetorem' is opposed to 'ne amicos quidem,' and 'modo' qualifies' praetorem,' as in the form tantum modo.' Cicero says 'not so much as a praetor to get justice from could he find, nay not one from whom he could even obtain the kind of action that he wished; not even the friends of Naevius.' The sentence is evidently defective, and Cicero may have left it so, for there is no verb

in the clause 'sed ne amicos quidem Naevii,' and there is nothing in the preceding part of the sentence from which the proper verb can be supplied. The Latin cannot be expressed in English with any great accuracy, unless we entirely alter the form of the expression, and when the form is entirely altered it is not a translation. Arbitratu quidem suo' means that the praetor would not allow him to choose his own way of settling the dispute between himself and Naevius. P. Quintius wished to try simply the question of debt between himself and Naevius: 'de re pecuniaria contendere cupio,' as Cicero makes him say.

Si non-at] See Vol. I. Verr. ii. 3. c. 4.— 'at sermone,' &c. ' per te ferat :' Passeratius says "non possum ferre verbum ferat: suspicor legendum esse, ne per te fiat." There

quae existimatio P. Quintium usque ad senectutem perduxit, eadem usque ad rogum prosequatur.

is no variation in the MSS. Ferre' sometimes means to get,' 'to obtain,' as 'suffragia tulisse' (Pro Cn. Plancio, c. 22). The nominative to 'ferat' then is 'Naevius;' and the meaning is, that Naevius may not get

such a judgment from you as will prevent the good name, which has accompanied P. Quintius to his old age, from following him even to the funeral pile.'

PRO SEX. ROSCIO AMERINO

ORATIO.

INTRODUCTION.

THE facts of this case are stated clearly in the oration. It is a speech of Cicero, his first in a Publica Caussa, in defence of Sex. Roscius Amerinus, who was tried for the murder of his father. It does not appear from this speech what the evidence was against S. Roscius, the son, or that there was any evidence; for Cicero does not argue against any evidence. He says in one passage that the evidence had not been heard. But it is a defence, and a reply to Erucius, who was the accusator of S. Roscius, at the instigation of Chrysogonus, as we are told. Erucius then had opened the case with a statement of the charge against Roscius, and some matters, we must suppose, that he would try to prove in support of the charge.

Plutarch's story is (Cicero, c. 3) that Chrysogonus laid an information about the property of S. Roscius, the father, as being one of the proscribed, and that the property being accordingly sold, he bought it for a small sum. He adds: " Roscius, the son and heir of the dead man, complained of this, and showed that the property was of the value of two hundred and fifty talents, on which Sulla being convicted, was angry, and with the assistance of Chrysogonus instituted a prosecution against Roscius for parricide." This is not exactly Cicero's story, but it may contain some truth. Cicero could not venture to affirm that Sulla was privy to all the villainy of which he speaks. Plutarch says that Roscius was acquitted; which we might infer from a passage of Cicero (Brutus c. 90); and in another passage he distinctly affirms it (De Off. ii. 14). He has himself in his Orator (c. 30) passed a judgment on this juvenile production. It appears that Cicero left it as he wrote it, though it was his fashion to work up and improve his speeches. He was still a young man when he made this speech, fresh from the rhetorical schools, and twenty-seven years of age, as Gellius shows (xv. 28),

for this oration was delivered in the consulship of L. Sulla Felix and Q. Metellus Pius, B. c. 80, and in the year after the oration Pro P. Quintio.

After being engaged two years as an orator, Cicero visited Athens and Asia (Brutus c. 90). It appears then that he left Rome after delivering this speech, for the purpose of his health and improvement, as he says; but, as Plutarch found somewhere (Cicero c. 3), for fear of Sulla.

Among the numerous Leges enacted during the power of L. Cornelius Sulla, was a Lex Cornelia De Sicariis et Veneficis (Dig. 48. Tit. 8). There is no evidence that a Lex de Parricidiis was enacted during Sulla's time. The Title of the Digest which treats of this crime, is Lex Pompeia de Parricidiis (Dig. 48. Tit. 9). The Lex Pompeia, which was enacted B.C. 55, declared that the murderer of a father, mother, and so forth, should be liable to the penalties of the Lex Cornelia De Sicariis (Marcianus, Dig. 48. 9. 1); and in another excerpt under this Title (1.9) it is said that the punishment of Parricidium (more majorum) was the culleus or sack. This punishment existed under the empire. It was an old punishment, and not enacted by the Lex Pompeia, for it is stated that the penalty of Parricidium, as defined by the Lex Pompeia, was that which was fixed by the Lex Cornelia De Sicariis. Now this is ambiguous. We might infer that the punishment of assassins and poisoners by the Lex Cornelia was the sack; but we know that the punishment was different (Dig. 48. 8. 3. § 5: "Legis Corneliae de sicariis et veneficis poena insulae deportatio est, et omnium bonorum ademptio"). The best solution of the difficulty seems to be the assumption that there was a chapter (caput) in the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis, which treated of Parricidium, and that the Lex Pompeia only defined Parricidium more exactly. Or, as Schrader expresses it in one of the notes in his learned edition of the Institutes of Justinian (Inst. iv. 18. § 5, 6. p. 768): "Lex Cornelia de sicariis, quae homicidis solum vertere permisit, parricidas manifestos ita excepit, ut more majorum culleo insuerentur. Lex Pompeia eam confirmans, multorum propinquorum caedem parricidio aequiparavit." Other explanations, which however are worth nothing, are mentioned by Rein (Das Criminal-recht der Römer p. 455, note). Schrader has collected in his notes all the learning about the sack; and more than most people would care to know.

The trial of Roscius was a Judicium Publicum, the nature of which has been explained (Vol. I. Judicia, Excursus); and he was probably tried under the Lex Cornelia De Sicariis.