added to the value of Cicero's house. The consuls immediately made a contract for the restoration of the Porticus, and the undertakers, to the great joy of the people, immediately set about demolishing what Clodius had built.

These facts are told in a letter to Atticus (iv. 2), in the oration against Piso, c. 22; and by Dion Cassius (39. c. 11), who says (c. 9) that Cicero after his return thanked the Senate and the people, and proposed the office of looking after the corn being intrusted to Pompeius he then continues (c. 11): Cicero accordingly again recovered his power, and not only the rest of his property, but the ground on which his house had stood, though it had been dedicated to Libertas and consecrated: for Cicero attacked the Lex Curiata by which Clodius had been adopted into a plebeian family, on this ground, that it had not been promulgated for a 'trinundinum,' as custom required, and accordingly he invalidated all the tribunate of Clodius in which he had acted with respect to Cicero's house, for he argued that nothing could be legally done by a tribune who had been illegally adopted into a plebeian family; and so he induced the Pontifices to decide that the site of his house should be restored to him free from all religion. Thus Cicero got the site of his house and money for rebuilding it, and for restoring the rest of his property to which damage had been done.

Cicero says to Atticus (iv. 2) about the oration De Domo: "Diximus apud pontifices pridie Kal. Octobres. Acta res est accurate a nobis: et si umquam in dicendo fuimus aliquid, aut etiam si numquam alias fuimus, tum profecto doloris magnitudo vim quandam nobis dicendi dedit. Itaque oratio juventuti nostrae deberi non potest, quam tibi, etiam si non desideras, tamen mittam cito." Many learned men have thought, and some editors of Cicero still think, that this long, rambling, feeble, tasteless production which we now have under the name of Pro Domo or De Domo, is that which Cicero describes as one of his highest oratorical efforts. Seb. Corradus, a scholar and a man of sense too, quoted by Wolf, declares it to be 'prope omnium pulcherrimam.' But a better judge says that one cannot imagine any thing more barren, insipid, and stale, unless it be the oration De Haruspicum Responsis (Markland); which is a just judgment. The Declamator put all his strength in the last, and there he has surpassed himself.

It is difficult, says Wolf, to give a summary of this speech on account of the wonderful variety of things in it and the want of order. Manutius distributes the matter thus. In the first part the orator replies to Clodius, who had found fault before the Pontifices with what Cicero had said in the Senate about setting Pompeius over the Res Frumentaria. In the second part, he shows that according to the Law of

Rome, no citizen can be driven from the city nor any thing done against his 'caput' and property without the judgment of the Senate, or of the Populus, or of those who are appointed Judices in each case. He also shows why the tribunate of Clodius was no tribunate, his adoption not having been made in legal form. In the third part he says that even if Clodius was legally elected a tribune, he could not propose a Lex to affect the 'caput' of a citizen who was not condemned, for that would be a Privilegium which the Twelve Tables forbid. And this was not the whole of the illegal proceedings, for Clodius had proposed and carried a Lex which touched the 'caput' and the property of a man who had neither been summoned to appear nor had been prosecuted. He shows also that the terms of the Lex were faulty, being these: "Velitis, jubeatis, Quirites, ut M. Tullio aqua et igni Interdictum Sit," instead of the verb being in the present tense Interdicatur.' The charge also against Cicero with respect to a S. C. was false: "Falsum S. C. ab eo relatum esse ;" and the Senate admitted the charge to be false by having restored Cicero.

In the fourth part he refutes the abuse of Clodius, who had called Cicero Exsul, for the name could not be applied to him either in respect of any offence that he had committed, or because of a condemnation. The unanimous consent of all classes by virtue of which Cicero had been restored was a proof that he had done his country service, and had done no wrong. He could not be called Exsul on the ground of a condemnation, for he left Rome untouched and uncondemned; there was no notice to him of any prosecution; and a Roman could not lose either his liberty or his citizenship except by his own act. Further, in the Rogatio of Clodius, there was nothing that deprived Cicero of his Senatorial rank, and the Rogatio of Clodius was not carried by the votes of the Populus, but by a rabble of hired slaves, criminals and needy people. In the fifth part he answers Clodius' charges against him of boasting of his services to the State; and he answers those who made his leaving Rome a ground of charge against him. In the sixth place he shows how Clodius had acted contrary to all justice and all regard to religious ceremonial in the dedication of the ground on which Cicero's house stood. The dedication is proved to be irregular by the fact that the College of Pontifices was not present, but one Pontifex only, an 'affinis' of Clodius, a young man of no experience, induced by his sister's prayers, and his mother's threats, and that he performed the ceremony in a disordered state of mind and with faltering tongue. In the seventh and last place the orator appeals to Jupiter and the other gods, and prays that if he had saved their temples from ruin, and in defence of their sanctity had exposed himself to the fury of abandoned citizens, they will permit him to be reinstated in the possession of the

ground on which his house stood; and in like terms he intreats the Pontifices to restore him to the possession of his house as he had been restored to his country.

Ferratius adds to these an eighth part, the most weighty of all (c. 49), which is this: that the consecration or dedication of Cicero's house was made contrary to an old Lex Papiria, which provided, "Ne quis injussu plebis aedes, terram, aram consecraret;" and as Clodius had not proposed a Rogatio to the Populus about the consecration of Cicero's house, the consecration was illegally made. Ferratius thinks that this was the only argument which could move the Pontifices to decide in favour of Cicero; and a passage in the letter to Atticus (iv. 2) supports this opinion. The passage is this: "Quum pontifices decressent ita, Si neque populi jussu neque plebis scitu, is qui se dedicasse diceret, nominatim ei rei praefectus esset, neque populi jussu aut plebis scitu id facere jussus esset, videri posse sine religione eam partem areae mi restitui-mihi facta statim est gratulatio, nemo enim dubitabat quin domus nobis esset adjudicata."

Wolf thought it best to add the remarks of Ferratius, which I have copied from him and in the original Latin, as a specimen of the good sense and easy style of one of the old commentators.

"Interpretes in enumerandis argumentis omittunt illud, quod praecipuum est; quodque unum maxime Pontifices movit, ut ipsi causam adjudicarent. Domus, inquiunt, consecrationem explodit, quia Clodius neque jure adoptatus fuerat, neque Tribunus pl. esse potuerat. Audio: hoc vero semel admisso jam et leges de Consulum provinciis, de Byzantinis, frumentariam, de Catonis in Cyprum expeditione, omnia denique ipsius acta rescindi oportebat. Haec tamen valebant et rata erant: nam, referente Plutarcho in Cic. c. 34, Ciceronem tabulas disjicere cupientem in quibus Clodii rogationes scriptae servabantur, Cato prohibuit, tum ne, quae ipse in Cypro gesserat, irrita judicarentur, tum etiam, quod jure ac salvis auspiciis de iis omnibus latum fuisse contenderet. Atque adeo, quum cetera probarent, hanc unam legis particulam de consecratione domus eo nomine, quod non fuerit legitima adoptio, privato consilio abrogare Pontifices non poterant. Secundo loco subjiciunt commentatores: tulerat de Cicerone Clodius per vim et contra leges, ac proinde per se irrita rogatio erat. Fac, non mentiri oratorem: sed in primis, ex tot illius legibus an ea tantum per vim et contra leges lata fuerat? nonne aliae multae eodem modo? Cur, si omnium eadem conditio est, non de omnibus pariter idem debet esse judicium? Deinde quod Cicero sine teste, sine tabulis ac literis, denique extra causam dicebat in hominem inimicum, nequaquam tantum ponderis apud sapientissimos viros habebat, ut de religione temere judicarent. Postremo, utcunque lex aliqua lata esset, non poterat a judicibus vel a collegio Pon

tificum abrogari. Hoc judicium ad Senatum spectabat, qui de abrogandis legibus decernebat, in quibus aliquid peccatum fuisset. Tertio, argumentum ab adjunctis desumptum debile atque infirmum est. An impietas Clodii dedicantis impedimento erat, ne rata putaretur dedicatio? At de sacris Bonae Deae pollutis absolutus fuerat judicio publico, et in dedicando rite omnia peregerat. An sanctitas et religio cujuslibet privatae domus? At Fulvii Flacci aliorumque aedes dedicatae videbantur. An adolescentia Pontificis, quem in dedicatione adhibuerat? At eum populus comitiis tributis creaverat, et collegium cooptaverat. An, quia consecratio facta in perniciem civium nulla est, nulla quoque erit dedicatio? At Cicero non erat civis incolumis, lege Clodia pulsus in exsilium: si non fuisset exsul, frustra consules ex S. C. centuriatis comitiis de illo in patriam restituendo tulissent."

Wolf remarks that this may be considered as said not only against the commentators, but against the writer of this speech. And the remark is just; for it is not easy to believe that Cicero should have spoken of such a speech as this as one of his best; a speech in which it is so difficult to discover the chief argument, and in which so much is said that is easily answered or refuted, and so much which is totally unconnected with the case.

This oration is edited by Baiter in the second edition of Orelli's Cicero. The following are the MSS. abbreviations :

Р Cod. Parisiensis num. 7794 ab Halmio collatus.

G

=

=

=

Cod. Gemblacensis, nunc Bruxellensis num. 5345, a me collatus.

M Cod. Mediceus Plut. xlviii. cod. 8, post Lagomarsinium, qui eum numero 8 signavit, ab Henr. Schaeppio collatus.

Cod. Vaticanus num. 1525, Palatinus nonus Gruteri, a Tychone
Mommsenio collatus.

C Codices nostri omnes.

The title of the oration is De Domo sua, in P., Priscianus, Arusianus Messius, Servius, Grillius; De domo sua contra Clodium, in Aquila Romanus; De Domo sua apud Pontifices, in Rufinianus; Pro Domo sua ad Pontifices, in M.: In Clodium, G. V. The best title is In Clodium, for the abuse of Clodius is the chief thing in it.

I have given the substance of some of Klotz's notes on this oration. He has said more on it than on the two orations Quum Senatui, and Quum Populo; and some of his remarks may be useful. I have given his meaning as well as I could, wherever I have thought that he explained a difficulty; and sometimes for another reason.

Though I think that this oration is a miserable piece of composition, a student who is well acquainted with Cicero may find it worth reading. His critical faculty may be awakened or sharpened by comparing it with the genuine orations, and by weighing the objections made against it and the answers to the objections. I have said a great deal against it, but not all that can be said.