sapientes numquam inviti, fortes etiam saepe libenter oppetiverunt. Vincula vero et ea sempiterna certe ad singularem poenam nefarii sceleris inventa sunt. Municipiis dispertiri jubet. Habere videtur ista res iniquitatem, si imperare velis; difficultatem, si rogare. Decernatur tamen, si placet. Ego enim suscipiam, et, ut spero, reperiam qui id, quod salutis omnium caussa statueritis, non putent esse suae dignitatis recusare. Adjungit gravem poenam municipiis, si quis eorum vincula ruperit; horribiles custodias circumdat et digna scelere hominum perditorum sancit, ne quis eorum poenam quos condemnat aut per senatum aut per populum levare possit : eripit etiam spem, quae sola hominem in miseriis consolari solet. Bona praeterea publicari jubet; vitam solam relinquit nefariis hominibus, quam si eripuisset, multos uno dolore dolores animi atque corporis et omnes scelerum poenas ademisset. Itaque ut aliqua in vita formido improbis esset posita, apud inferos ejusmodi quaedam illi antiqui supplicia impiis constituta esse voluerunt; quod videlicet intelligebant his remotis non esse mortem ipsam pertimescendam.

V. Nunc, patres conscripti, ego mea video quid intersit. Si eritis secuti sententiam C. Caesaris, quoniam hanc is in re publica viam quae popularis habetur secutus est, fortasse minus erunt hoc auctore et cognitore hujusce sententiae mihi populares impetus

it will come.
But this fear and this pain
are removed by death, which ends the
punishment; and death is therefore no
punishment. It is the feeble and the
cowardly to whom the apprehension of death
gives pain and to them only is the fear a
punishment. The wise are always ready to
meet it, as Cicero says; and the brave are
often glad.

The true conclusion is that death is not a punishment; but that it terminates all punishment, whether the punishment consist in bodily and mental pain, or in mental pain only. The penalty of death does not imitate the order of Nature, in which death is no punishment. It deviates from the order of Nature, in which punishment consists in living and suffering. When then death is inflicted as a punishment, it is inflicted in gross error. When it is inflicted in order to remove from the world those who are troublesome, it is inflicted with a clear purpose. The only part of the penalty of death, as I have said, is the mental suffering which precedes the death; and if punishment is the object, this period should be lengthened and not shortened. It should

be extended to the unknown time when death will come to relieve the sufferer from his troubles and to give him the rest which life does not.

There are other reasons why some people do not approve of the penalty of death; but they are reasons with which we have nothing to do here.

Municipiis] Caesar says in Sallust: "Sed ita censeo: Publicandas eorum pecunias, ipsos in vinculis habendos per municipia quae maxume opibus valent; neu quis de is postea ad senatum referat neve cum populo agat; qui aliter fecerit, senatum existumare eum contra rem publicam et salutem omnium facturum."

et digna-sancit,] Halm has it, "et dignas scelere hominum perditorum; sancit ne quis." his remotis:' so the MSS. have; but Halm writes 'iis,' and so spoils it.

5. auctore-cognitore] See Vol. I. Verr. ii. 5. c. 22, and Divin. c. 4. Caesar was the auctor,' the originator of this proposal, and he would be its defender (cognitor); he would maintain the decision of the senate which was founded on his proposal;

pertimescendi; sin illam alteram, nescio an amplius mihi negotii contrahatur. Sed tamen meorum periculorum rationes utilitas rei publicae vincat. Habemus enim a C. Caesare, sicut ipsius dignitas et majorum ejus amplitudo postulabat, sententiam tamquam obsidem perpetuae in rem publicam voluntatis. Intellectum est quid interesset inter levitatem contionatorum et animum vere popularem, saluti populi consulentem. Video de istis qui se populares haberi volunt abesse non neminem, ne de capite videlicet civium Romanorum sententiam ferat. Is et nudiustertius in custodiam cives Romanos dedit et supplicationem mihi decrevit et indices hesterno die maximis praemiis affecit. Jam hoc nemini dubium est, qui reo custodiam, quaesitori gratulationem, indici praemium decrevit, quid de tota re et caussa judicarit. At vero C. Caesar intelligit legem Semproniam esse de civibus Romanis constitutam; qui autem rei

he would represent the senate and defend it as a cognitor' acts for a man in a civil case in his absence.

nescio an amplius] "I am inclined to think that more trouble will be stored up for me." This passage shows clearly that 'nescio an' is affirmative, or expresses the inclination of the speaker's opinion towards the affirmative.

us:

non neminem,] Somebody, he does not say who. The scholiasta Gronovianus tells 'Quintum Metellum dicit.' He means Q. Metellus Nepos, who was tribunus pl. in B.C. 62. Is et nudiustertius:' in Orelli's second edition Halm has "sententiam ferat; sed nudiustertius;" on the authority of one MS.

gratulationem,] This word represents 'supplicationem: it means the honour that was done to him by declaring the 'supplicatio.' Cicero of course was not properly a 'quaesitor' (see Vol. I. Verr. Act. 1. c. 9) on the occasion, nor was the affair before the senate properly a Judicium; but the application of both these words to the case is justified by the likeness of Cicero to a 'quaesitor,' and by the likeness of the senate to a judicium.'-'decrevit:' 'decrerit,' Halm. legem Semproniam] Caesar had spoken of the Lex Porcia aliaeque' (Sallust, Cat. c. 51). Cicero says: "But in fact C. Caesar knows that the Lex Sempronia was intended to apply to citizens; and that if a man has been declared an enemy of the state, he cannot be a citizen." Cicero adds that C. Gracchus himself, who carried the Lex Sempronia, was put to death as an enemy to the state, and by the sentence of the people. The story of the death of C. Gracchus is told by Plutarch (C. Gracchus, c. 16,

66

17). The people did not protect him when the Senate had empowered the consul Opimius "to save the state in such way as he could, and to put down the tyrants" (Plutarch, C. Gracchus, c. 14). Caius fled before his pursuers, and there was no man to help him. He just escaped into a sacred grove of the Furies, and there he fell by the hand of Philocrates, who killed himself on the body of his master" (Plutarch). Drumann, in his tedious way (Röm. Gesch. v. p. 521), explains how Cicero could venture to pervert the story. If we knew no more of the matter than Cicero tells us here, we should say that the Sempronia Lex (ne de capite civium Romanorum injussu populi judicaretur) only applied to citizens; that a man who was declared an enemy to the state could not claim the protection of the Lex; and that the man who proposed the Lex was punished by the Populus (jussu populi); from which we ought to conclude that there was a formal condemnation. But this was not so. Yet this misstatement of Cicero is no ground for doubting the genuineness of the oration. If we make errors in fact or misstatements of facts an argument against the genuineness of Cicero's works, we must condemn a great many passages. Nobody who has read the writer without prejudice, and with a simple desire to understand him, finds any difficulty in understanding why under different circumstances he gives a different version of a story. (See Vol. II. In Rullum, ii. c. 5, note on the Gracchi.) Two critics have proposed to alter jussu' in this passage into 'injussu;' and Madvig has retained this very absurd alteration even in the third edition of his Select Orations, as Halm says.

publicae sit hostis, eum civem nullo modo esse posse; denique ipsum latorem legis Semproniae jussu populi poenas rei publicae dependisse. Idem ipsum Lentulum, largitorem et prodigum, non putat, quum de pernicie populi Romani,; exitio hujus urbis tam acerbe tamque crudeliter cogitarit, etiam appellari posse popularem. Itaque homo mitissimus atque lenissimus non dubitat P. Lentulum aeternis tenebris vinculisque mandare, et sancit in posterum, ne quis hujus supplicio levando se jactare et in perniciem populi Romani posthac popularis esse possit: adjungit etiam publicationem bonorum, ut omnes animi cruciatus et corporis etiam egestas ac mendicitas consequatur.

VI. Quamobrem, sive hoc statueritis, dederitis mihi comitem ad contionem, populo carum atque jucundum; sive Silani sententiam sequi malueritis, facile me atque vos [a] crudelitatis vituperatione defendetis; atque obtinebo eam multo leniorem fuisse. Quamquam, patres conscripti, quae potest esse in tanti sceleris immanitate punienda crudelitas? Ego enim de meo sensu judico. Nam ita mihi salva re publica vobiscum perfrui liceat, ut ego quod in hac caussa vehementior sum non atrocitate animi moveor-quis enim est me mitior?-sed singulari quadam humanitate et misericordia. Videor enim mihi videre hanc urbem, lucem orbis terrarum atque arcem omnium gentium, subito uno incendio concidentem: cerno animo sepulta in patria miseros atque insepultos acervos civium : versatur mihi ante oculos aspectus Cethegi et furor in vestra caede bacchantis. Quum vero mihi proposui regnantem Lentulum, sicut ipse ex fatis se sperasse confessus est, purpuratum esse huic Gabinium, cum exercitu venisse Catilinam, tum lamentationem matrumfamilias, tum fugam virginum atque puerorum ac vexationem [virginum] Vestalium perhorresco; et quia mihi vehementer haec

sancit in posterum,] The sanctio' or penalty contained in Caesar's proposal is expressed by the words 'ne quis,' &c. The word 'sancire' is explained Vol. I. Verr. ii. 1. c. 42.- publicationem:' Caesar proposed that all the property of the conspirators should become public; but when the majority voted for the capital punishment, and would have added confiscation to it, Caesar would not consent that they should reject the mild part of his proposal and take the severest part (Plutarch, Cicero, c. 21).

6. defendetis ;] Vos crudelitatis vituperatione populus Romanus exsolvet," Halm, following Madvig's emendation. The emendation is by no means certain. The text as it stands above is probably corrupt.

sepulta in patria] The other reading, sepultam patriam,' is a variation or corruption which is easily explained, if we assume the reading in the text to be the genuine words; and the antithesis sepulta in patria' and 'insepultos acervos is thus more complete. Halm compares Tacitus (Hist. iii. 35), sepultae urbis ruinae.'

huic Gabinium,] The other reading is hunc,' for which there is the authority of more MSS.; but Halm has done right in preferring huic,' which means that Gabinius is a 'purpuratus' to Lentulus, who is supposed to be a king. A 'purpuratus' is a man dressed in purple, a great personage about a king: "Sopatrum ex purpuratis et propinquis regis esse." Livy, 30. c. 42.

videntur misera atque miseranda, idcirco in eos qui ea perficere voluerunt me severum vehementemque praebeo. Etenim quaero, si quis paterfamilias, liberis suis a servo interfectis, uxore occisa, incensa domo, supplicium de servis non quam acerbissimum sumpserit, utrum is clemens ac misericors an inhumanissimus et crudelissimus esse videatur? Mihi vero importunus ac ferreus qui non dolore ac cruciatu nocentis suum dolorem cruciatumque lenierit. Sic nos in his hominibus, qui nos, qui conjuges, qui liberos nostros trucidare voluerunt, qui singulas unius cujusque nostrum domos et hoc universum rei publicae domicilium delere conati sunt, qui id egerunt ut gentem Allobrogum in vestigiis hujus urbis atque in cinere deflagrati imperii collocarent, si vehementissimi fuerimus, misericordes habebimur; sin remissiores esse voluerimus, summae nobis crudelitatis in patriae civiumque pernicie fama subeunda est. Nisi vero cuipiam L. Caesar, vir fortissimus et amantissimus rei publicae, crudelior nudiustertius visus est, quum sororis suae, feminae lectissimae, virum, praesentem et audientem, vita privandum esse dixit, quum avum suum jussu consulis interfectum filiumque

si quis] Such things happened sometimes. A master fell by the hand of his slave, or in his absence the house was burnt to the ground and the man's family massacred. The man's feeling of his wrong, his love to his family, is measured by the vengeance which he takes for the crime. By punishing without mercy he sustains the character of a mild and merciful man, and soothes his anguish by the pain inflicted on those who have robbed him of all. If one slave killed his master or committed the crime which Cicero mentions, all the slaves in the house were liable to be tortured and

punished. In such a case, says Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 42), "it was an old custom for all the slaves who had been under the same roof to be led to punishment." This custom was confirmed by a Senatus consultum under Augustus, and there was another to the same effect in Nero's time, A.D. 57: "Factum et Senatus consultum ultioni juxta et securitati: Ut si quis a suis servis interfectus esset, ii quoque qui testamento manumissi sub eodem tecto mansissent inter servos supplicia penderent" (Tacit. Ann. xiii. 32). When Marcellus was assassinated before his tent at Athens, the slaves except a few ran away through fear (Cicero, Ad Fam. iv. 12).-'de servis:''de servo,' Halm.

L. Caesar,] He was consul B.C. 64. His sister Julia married M. Antonius Creticus, one of the two sons of M. Antonius the

orator; and she had by him three sons, one of whom was M. Antonius, afterwards one of the Triumvirate with C. Octavius and Lepidus. After the death of Creticus, Julia married the conspirator P. Lentulus Sura. See Cicero, Phil. ii. c. 6.

avum suum] L. Caesar was the son of L. Julius Caesar, consul B.C. 90, and of Fulvia, the daughter of M. Fulvius Flaccus, consul B.C. 125, and the conqueror of the Ligurian Salyes. Flaccus was leagued with C. Gracchus, and he and his two sons lost their lives at the same time as Gracchus. Cicero speaks here of a son who was sent by his father on a mission, was imprisoned and put to death. It is hard to understand why L. Caesar should speak of this cruel execution of the youth. He not represented as saying that he was justly put to death; but as he speaks of the death of the father, which he certainly did not disapprove, for he proposed that Lentulus should be treated the same way, and as he mentions the son and the father together, and just in the same terms, the true conclusion is that he meant to say that they both deserved the same fate. Plutarch's story is, though it is not very clearly told, that the father and the elder son perished together, and we may infer that both of them had taken up arms (Plutarch, C. Gracchus, c. 16). Again Plutarch says (c. 17) of the enemies of Gracchus: "But their conduct was most

ejus impuberem, legatum a patre missum, in carcere necatum esse dixit. Quorum quod simile factum, quod initum delendae rei publicae consilium? Largitionis voluntas tum in re publica versata est et partium quaedam contentio. Atque illo tempore hujus avus Lentuli, vir clarissimus, armatus Gracchum est persecutus: ille etiam grave tum vulnus accepit, ne quid de summa re publica minueretur hic ad evertenda rei publicae fundamenta Gallos arcessit, servitia concitat, Catilinam vocat, attribuit nos trucidandos Cethego, ceteros cives interficiendos Gabinio, urbem inflammandam Cassio, totam Italiam vastandam diripiendamque Catilinae. Vereamini, censeo, ne in hoc scelere tam immani ac nefando nimis aliquid severe statuisse videamini: multo magis est verendum ne remissione poenae crudeles in patriam quam ne severitate animadversionis nimis vehementes in acerbissimos hostes fuisse videamini.

VII. Sed ea quae exaudio, patres conscripti, dissimulare non possum. Jaciuntur enim voces quae perveniunt ad aures meas eorum qui vereri videntur, ut habeam satis praesidii ad ea quae vos

cruel to the younger son of Fulvius, who had neither raised up his hand against them nor been among the combatants; for he was seized before the battle, when he came to treat of terms, and was put to death after the battle." Cicero only mentions one son here, and he speaks of the son who was cruelly murdered. In another oration (Phil. viii. c. 4) he says, "P. Lentulum, principem senatus, complures alios summos viros, qui cum L. Opimio consule armati Gracchum in Aventinum persecuti sunt, quo in praelio Lentulus grave vulnus accepit, interfectus est Gracchus et M. Fulvius consularis ejus. que duo adolescentuli filii." Here two sons are killed in fight, and Gracchus killed; and yet Gracchus killed himself. Again he speaks in another place somewhat vaguely of this affair (In Cat. i. 2). Halm has a way of removing the difficulty, which is not to my taste, but I state it that others may judge. He is inclined to assume that Caesar only said, "avum filiumque jussu consulis interfectos esse," and that Cicero confounded the elder son who fell with his father in the fight with the younger son whose fate was better known.

Largitionis voluntas] The Gracchi had no designs like Catilina and his men. They merely wished to give the common folks something at the expense of the state; corn for nothing or at a low price; and land, which they would have taken from the

possessors. Vol. II. In Rullum.

hujus avus Lentuli,] In Cat. iii. 5.-' minueretur:' diminueretur,' Halm.

Vereamini,] 'Veremini,' which is in some editions, is a corruption introduced by Ernesti.-'videamini;' there is better authority for this than for the reading in the common editions, 'videamur.' Halm properly remarks that we should not take offence at the repetition of the same termination, 'vereamini-videamini,' which was probably used purposely, as in this oration and in this chapter, 'dixit-dixit;' in iii. c. 2, ' provideretis-videretis;' and in many other examples. For want of attending to this the critics have taken in hand the mending of many passages, which the authors evidently intended to be as they are.

7. exaudio,] 'I hear clearly,' says Halm; but the context shows that this is not the meaning. He refers to the passage in the oration Pro Sulla, c. 10, which also proves his explanation to be wrong. There is a passage quoted by Forcellini, which is very clear (Cic. Ad Att. xiii. 48): "Heri nescio quid in strepitu videor exaudisse, quum diceres te in Tusculanum venturum.' "" Compare Livy, ii. 27; and Caesar, B. G. vi. 39. (See In Cat. i. c. 8, note.) There are other passages from which the meaning of 'exaudire' appears: Caesar, B. G. v. 30; vii. 47; and Cicero, De Legg. i. 7.