vexata; laceratae Athenae; Dyrrhachium et Apollonia exinanita; Ambracia direpta; Parthini et Bulienses illusi; Epirus excisa; Locri, Phocii, Boeotii exusti; Acarnania, Amphilochia, Perrhaebia, Athamanumque gens vendita; Macedonia condonata barbaris; Aetolia amissa; Dolopes finitimique montani oppidis atque agris exterminati; cives Romani, qui in iis locis negotiantur, te unum solum suum depeculatorem, vexatorem, praedonem, hostem venisse senserunt. Ad horum omnium judicia tot atque tanta domesticum judicium accessit sententiae damnationis tuae: occultus adventus, furtivum iter per Italiam, introitus in urbem desertus ab amicis, nullae ad senatum e provincia litterae, nulla ex trinis aestivis gratulatio, nulla triumphi mentio: non modo quid gesseris, sed ne quibus in locis quidem fueris, dicere audes. Ex illo fonte et seminario triumphorum quum arida folia laureae rettulisses, quum ea abjecta ad portam reliquisti, tum tu ipse de te FECISSE VIDERI pronuntiavisti. Qui si nihil gesseras dignum honore, ubi exercitus? ubi sumptus? ubi imperium? ubi illa uberrima supplicationibus triumphisque provincia? Sin autem aliquid sperare volueras, si cogitaras id, quod imperatoris nomen, quod laureati fasces, quod illa tropaea plena dedecoris et risus te commentatum esse declarant, quis te miserior, quis te damnatior, qui neque scribere ad senatum a te bene rem publicam esse gestam, neque praesens dicere ausus es? XLI. An tu mihi, cui semper ita persuasum fuerit, non eventis sed

said before, and we have it served up again. - Parthini:'' Parthenii' C. Halm quotes the Fasti triumph. p. clxi, ed. Bait.: "C. Asinius Cn. f. Pollio pro Cos. ex Parthineis." The name is 'Parthini' or 'Partheni.' They were east of Epidamnus, and perhaps partly in the valley of the Drilo.- Bulienses:' G. Bullienses' E. F. M. S. There is also the form Bulidenses,'' Byllini,' and others. Bulis or Byllis is probably on the east side of the Aous, not far from Apollonia.

sententiae damnationis tuae] "ego cum Bakio, p. 313, ut glossema ad verb. accessit adjectum inclusi " (Halm). Cicero says 'domesticum judicium,' and adds these other words. The whole means: To the judgments of every body such and so decisive is added the judgment from your own home in the sentence of your own condemnation.' I see nothing like a glossema, but only a necessary addition to domesticum judicium,' like "fraternum nomen populi Romani" (Caesar, B. G. i. 36), and Juvenal's

This is also a common Greek form of expression.

ex trinis aestivis] in consequence of three campaigns.' Piso was three summers in his province, but he was not there three whole years (c. 33). He went in B.C. 57, in the year after his consulship.-' fonte triumphorum: Macedonia had given triumphs to many generals, as he has said before.

...

fecisse videri pronuntiavisti] 'Pronounced your own judgment,' 'your own fecisse videri,' as Faernus rightly explains it. Videri' is the formal word used in the Condemnatio. (See Verr. ii. 2, c. 38, and the note on 'videri.') Faernus says that in all his 'libri' there was 'videris,' which he altered to videri;' and Latinus Viterbiensis showed him his liber' in which it was so written.

41. non eventis] Abrami compares Pro Rabirio Post. c. 1: "quamquam hoc plerumque facimus ut consilia eventis ponderemus," &c., and the wise speech of Fabius in Livy (xxii. c. 39): "nec eventus modo hoc docet; stultorum iste magister est :

factis cujusque fortunam ponderari, [dicere audes] neque in tabellis paucorum judicum, sed in sententiis omnium civium famam nostram fortunamque pendere, indemnatum videri putas, quem socii, quem foederati, quem liberi populi, quem stipendiarii, quem negotiatores, quem publicani, quem universa civitas, quem legati, quem tribuni militares, quem reliqui milites, qui ferrum, qui famem, qui morbum effugerunt, omni cruciatu dignissimum putent? cui non apud senatum, non apud ullum ordinem, non apud equites Romanos, non in urbe, non in Italia, maximorum scelerum venia ulla [ad ignoscendum] dari possit? qui se ipse oderit, qui metuat omnes; qui suam caussam nemini committere audeat, qui se ipse condemnet? Numquam ego sanguinem expetivi tuum: numquam illud extremum, quod posset esse improbis et probis commune, supplicium legis ac judicii; sed abjectum, contemptum, despectum a ceteris, a te ipso desperatum et relictum, circumspectantem omnia, quidquid increpuisset pertimescentem, diffidentem tuis rebus, sine voce, sine libertate, sine auctoritate, sine ulla specie consulari, horrentem, trementem, adulantem omnes, videre te volui; vidi. Quare si tibi evenerit, quod metuis ne accidat, equi

sed eadem ratio quae fuit futuraque, donec eaedem res manebunt, immutabilis est." When Cicero says neque in tabellis paucorum judicum,' he is again making his lame apology for not prosecuting Piso, and tacitly admitting that Piso would not be convicted. Is the judgment of a whole people better than the judgment of a few men, selected by some good rule, who hear all the evidence and then give their verdict? [dicere audes] ] These words are in the MSS., but Faernus, Manutius, and Lambinus rejected them. They spoil the sentence. I have omitted the 'te' usually printed before ' indemnatum,' Garatoni having discovered it to be a glossema. The sentence generally stands thus in the editions: An tu mihi... ponderari dicere audes, neque... pendere? te indemnatum :' but te' is inconsistent with 'quem socii ... qui se ipsum oderit,' &c.

non apud ullum ordinem] Garatoni thinks that these words should follow non apud equites Romanos;' Halm thinks that non apud equites Romanos' are a glossema, as well as the words 'ad ignoscendum.' I am inclined to prefer Garatoni's suggestion.

qui se ipse oderit . . . qui se ipse condemnet] Abrami collects matter which

is useful, though not always wanted for the occasion. For instance Tiberius' famous letter to the Senate (Sueton. Tib. c. 67), which Tacitus has also preserved; a letter which expresses with true Roman energy the old villain's perturbed state. To this the learned commentator adds Aristotle's true remark (Eth. ix. 4): oraσιážeι yàp (rмv μоxonoжv) ux. Aristotle concludes, οὐ δὴ φαίνεται ὁ φαῦλος οὐδὲ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν φιλικῶς διακεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ undèv ëxeiv pidηróv. Unhappy indeed is the man who finds nothing in himself to love. Cicero would still have us think that Piso's self-condemnation would be his severest punishment.

improbis et probis commune] He is at the old matter again; conviction in a trial may happen either to the good or the bad. But is punishment less a punishment to the bad, because it sometimes falls unjustly on the good? Must the guilty be excused punishment because the innocent are sometimes unjustly punished? In place of 'quod posset,' the MSS. reading, Halm has 'quod potest,' which is Bake's suggestion.

quidquid increpuisset] fearing every noise,' as In Cat. i. 7: "quidquid increpuerit Catilinam timeri."

dem non moleste feram; sin id tardius forte fiet, fruar tamen tua indignitate; nec minus libenter metuentem videbo ne reus fias quam reum, nec minus laetabor, quum te semper sordidum quam si paullisper sordidatum viderem.

PRO CN. PLANCIO

ORATIO.

INTRODUCTION.

CICERO in this oration (c. 11) has given a sketch of the life of his client Cn. Plancius. In his youth Plancius was with A. Torquatus in Africa; and he afterwards served in Crete under Q. Metellus Creticus in the Cretan war, which began in B.C. 69 and ended in B.C. 67. He served in Macedonia as tribunus militum, and he was afterwards quaestor under L. Apuleius in the same province, while Cicero was in exile (B.C. 58, 57; Pro Plancio, c. 11, 41).

Cicero, writing to his brother (Ad Q. Fr. ii. 1) in the month of December B.C. 57, mentions Racilius and Cn. Plancius among the tribunes elected for the following year; and in another letter to Quintus (ii. 6), written the next year, he speaks of Racilius as one of the tribunes (Pro Plancio, c. 11 and 32). Accordingly the tribunate of Plancius was in the year B.C. 56; and he could not be a candidate for the aedileship before B.C. 55, nor exercise the office of aedile before B.C. 54.

This explanation is necessary for the purpose of showing in what year Cicero delivered this oration. In B.C. 54 Cicero defended P. Vatinius against a charge made under the Lex de Sodaliciis (L. Domitio Ahenobarbo Appio Claudio Pulchro Coss., Ascon. Ad Scaur. p. 121), and as he delivered the oration for Plancius after the oration for Scaurus, this oration must have been delivered either in B.C. 54 or after that year, and not in B.C. 55, as some critics have said. Cicero, in a letter to his brother (Ad Qu. Fr. iii. 1. iv.), says, "I have finished the orations which you have demanded of me Pro Scauro and Pro Plancio." This letter was written in B.C. 54, as the contents clearly show, and either at the end of September or the beginning of October. Further, we know that Cicero spoke for P. Vatinius in August B.C. 54, and that Scaurus' trial was to come on immediately after (Ad Q. Fr. ii. 16). The conclusion then is,

that this speech was delivered either in the latter part of August or the beginning of September B.c. 54, while C. Caesar and Cicero's brother Quintus were in Britain.

The aediles for the year B.c. 54 ought to have been elected in B.C. 55; but we might affirm that they were not elected in B.c. 55, if we had no other evidence than the fact of this speech being delivered in B.C. 54; for if Plancius had been elected in B.C. 55, he would have been prosecuted while he was Aedilis designatus.

It appears from this oration (c. 22) that a consul, M. Licinius Crassus, as we may assume, attempted to hold the comitia in B.C. 55 for the election of aediles for the following year. We do not know what prevented the elections of B.C. 55 from being held in due form, but it is certain that Cn. Plancius and A. Plotius were not elected aediles curules until B.C. 54. As Plancius was prosecuted in August or September, we may assume that his election had just taken place, and that he had not entered on his office. A letter of Cicero to his brother Quintus (ii. 15), written in June, shows that the comitia had not yet been held: Cicero says there is some hope that they will be held. The prosecutor was M. Juventius Laterensis, who had lost his election when Plancius was elected.

Cicero has two orations in defence of his friends who were prosecuted for bribery at elections (ambitus), L. Murena (Vol. iii. p. 89) and Cn. Plancius. A Lex passed in B.C. 55, the Lex Licinia de Sodaliciis, contained some new provisions about the law of bribery at elections, and it is necessary for the reader to know what these provisions are, an‹l generally to know the history of the Roman laws against bribery, before he can understand this oration.

The history of bribery at Rome is instructive for those modern nations in which bribery is practised. The elections came on yearly, and thus the Romans had plenty of opportunity for becoming sharp in election practice. It was the fashion to solicit votes, to go about (ambire) to ask the voters, to shake hands, say civil things, and the like. This was the original 'ambitio,' not quite so mischievous as the modern Ambition. An early attempt was made to check this mean practice of going about to beg. The tribunes in B.c. 432 proposed and carried a Lex which forbade a man to "add any white to his dress for electioneering purposes" (Livy iv. 25). He was not allowed to make himself conspicuous by his dress, to be 'candidatus.' This small matter made a great disturbance at the time, the Patricians being much opposed to the Lex, for they were the canvassers for votes, and they both solicited and threatened the voter.

A Lex Poetelia (Liv. vii. 16) was directed chiefly against the canvassing by novi homines,' by men whose ancestors had never filled the higher offices in the state. These men were perhaps more active can