sustinuit, re, [fortuna,] fide, hodieque sustinet; nec amicum prudentem corruere patitur, nec illius animi aciem praestringit splendor sui nominis, nec mentis quasi luminibus officit altitudo fortunae et gloriae. Sint sane illa magna, quae re vera magna sunt: de judicio animi mei ut volet quisque sentiat; ego enim hanc in tantis opibus, tanta fortuna, liberalitatem in suos, memoriam amicitiae reliquis virtutibus omnibus antepono. Quam quidem vos, judices, ejus in novo genere bonitatem, inusitatam claris ac praepotentibus viris, non modo non aspernari ac refutare, sed complecti etiam et augere debetis, et eo magis quod videtis hos quasi sumptos dies ad labefactandum illius dignitatem, ex qua illi nihil detrahi potest, quod non aut fortiter ferat aut facile restituat. Amicissimum hominem si honestate spoliatum audierit, nec sine magno dolore feret, nec id amiserit quod posse speret recuperari.

XVII. Satis multa hominibus non iniquis haec esse debent, nimis etiam multa vobis, quos aequissimos esse confidimus. Sed ut omnium vel suspicioni vel malevolentiae vel crudelitati satis fiat, "occultat pecuniam Postumus, latent regiae divitiae." Ecquis est ex tanto populo qui bona C. Rabirii Postumi nummo sestertio sibi addici velit? Sed, miserum me! quanto hoc dixi cum dolore! Hem, Postume, tune es C. Curti filius, C. Rabirii judicio et voluntate filius, natura sororis filius? Tune ille in omnes tuos liberalis,

dentem' codd. Perhaps we should read 'imprudentem,' one of Halm's suggestions.

6

illius animi] Illius' is Caesar: 'The splendour of his own name does not dazzle Caesar's visual power, nor does the elevation of his fortune and his glory intercept the view, if I may so express it, from the windows of his mind.' He does right to apologize for the expression by quasi.' The metaphor is legal, and derived from the rules of law about not obstructing or damaging a neighbour's lights. See De Harusp. Resp. c. 15, and the note. He has the metaphor again in the Brutus, c. 17: "sic Catonis luminibus obstruxit haec posteriorum quasi exaggerata altius oratio." refutare] To throw back,' 'reject' (Index).' quasi sumptos:' the time of Rabirius' trial seemed to be purposely selected to damage Caesar's character or reputation. 'posse speret:' the reading of G. The other MSS. have posse non speret;' which would spoil the sense.

17. occultat... divitiae"] The supposed objection of the prosecutor, or of the enemies of Rabirius.-'addici :' knocked down to him at auction. Cicero is playing the 'praeco,' or crier. See Vol. iii. Index.

Pro P. Quintio, c. 15, and the note.

Curti] codd. See c. 2.-' condemnetur a vobis: these words are omitted by Halm on the advice of Madvig, as being inserted by somebody who was very far from the meaning. It certainly seems inconsistent to say that Rabirius wishes to be condemned. A difficulty has also been raised about the sale. Cicero speaks as if the creditors might be paid if there was a sale, and this implies that there was property. It is suggested that after a sale and payment there would be nothing left, and, of course, if a man bought Rabirius' property with the charge of debts, it would be worth no more than a

sestertius.' We are imperfectly acquainted with the law under which Rabirius fell. It is easy to see that there is a difficulty here, and nothing is easier than to strike out the words which cause the difficulty. But that is a feeble kind of criticism under the guise of boldness. After all, as the text stands, Rabirius is supposed to wish to discharge his obligations by the sale of his property (nihil jam aliud nisi fidem curat); which was a great calamity itself, as we learn from the oration Pro P. Quintio. (Vol. ii.)

cujus multos bonitas locupletavit, qui nihil profudisti, nihil ullam in libidinem contulisti? Tua, Postume, nummo sestertio a me addicuntur? O meum miserum acerbumque praeconium! At hoc etiam optat miser ut condemnetur a vobis, ita bona veneant ut solidum suum cuique solvatur. Nihil jam aliud nisi fidem curat : nec vos huic, si jam oblivisci vestrae mansuetudinis volueritis, quidquam praeterea potestis eripere. Quod, judices, ne faciatis oro obtestorque vos, atque eo magis, si adventitia pecunia petitur ab eo cui sua non redditur; nam in eum, cui misericordia opitulari debebat, invidia quaesita est. Sed jam, quoniam spero fidem quam praestiti, Postume, reddam etiam lacrimas quas debeo, quas quidem ego tuas in meo casu plurimas vidi. Versatur ante oculos luctuosa nox meis omnibus, quum tu totum te cum tuis copiis ad me detulisti. Tu comitibus, tu praesidio, tu etiam tanto pondere auri, quantum tempus illud postulabat, discessum illum sustentasti: tu numquam meis me absente liberis, numquam conjugi meae defuisti. Possum excitare multos [reductos] testes liberalitatis tuae, quod saepe audivi patri tuo cui id magno adjumento fuisset in judicio capitis fuisse. Sed jam omnia timeo: bonitatis ipsius invidiam reformido; jam indicat tot hominum fletus quam sis carus tuis, et me dolor debilitat includitque vocem. Vos obsecro, judices, ut huic optimo viro, quo nemo melior umquam fuit, nomen equitis Romani et usuram hujus lucis et vestrum conspectum ne eripiatis. Hic vos aliud nihil orat nisi ut rectis oculis hanc urbem sibi intueri atque ut in hoc foro vestigium facere liceat; quod ipsum fortuna eripuerat, nisi unius amici opes subvenissent.

adventitia] Such money as is supposed to have come to his hands, and such as he is liable to refund, if he has got it.-'quoniam... praestiti:' codd. Something has been lost. There is no doubt about the meaning. Different attempts have been made to patch up the passage.

[reductos]] 'codd. et edd.' (Halm.) The simplest cure is to strike it out, as Madvig does; the simplest cure of all, if the text is intelligible after the erasure.'cui id . . . fuisse:' codd. The cure is the change of cui id' into Curtio and the omission of fuisset,' which operation is performed by Madvig, with Halm's approval.-'jam indicat:' 'nam indicat,' Halm's

correction; he has also 'intercludit,' Lambinus' correction of 'includit,' and the correction may be right.

usuram hujus lucis] The enjoyment of the light of the sun, and at Rome. So he says Pro Quintio, c. 23, "verum etiam communi luce privaret."-rectis oculis :' "ut aspicere sibi hanc urbem praesenti non respicere liceat absenti" (Manutius), whose explanation is approved by Patricius. But I think that a simpler thing is meant,' with a steady and open countenance,' like a man who has nothing to be ashamed of.-' rectis oculis' and 'recto vultu' (Juv. x. 189), and ' recta facie' (Juv. vi. 401), are easily understood by looking to the context.

PRO T. ANNIO MILONE

ORATIO.

INTRODUCTION.

T. ANNIUS MILO PAPIANUS, the son of C. Papius Celsus and his wife Annia, was adopted by his maternal grandfather, T. Annius Luscus. It is not known in what year he was Quaestor. He was Tribunus plebis in B.C. 57, the year of Cicero's return from exile, and he exerted himself in favour of Cicero's restoration. In B.C. 55 Milo married Fausta, the daughter of the dictator L. Sulla, who is said to have had an intrigue with C. Sallustius, the historian and preacher of morality.

From the time when Milo became a partizan of Cicero there was a deadly feud between him and P. Clodius, Cicero's great enemy. The reason of Milo's attaching himself to Cn. Pompeius, and aiding him in the restoration of Cicero, seems to have been merely a matter of personal interest. He was in debt, and wished to get the consulship and a province, which in those days was the readiest way to repair a ruined fortune. Milo resisted Clodius' violence by violence. Both of them surrounded themselves with armed men, and Rome was filled with their bloody brawls.

Clodius was elected Aedile for the year B.C. 56. In B.C. 53 Milo was a candidate for the consulship and Clodius for the praetorship. In January B.C. 52 these two disturbers of the public peace met near Bovillae, each attended by a band of armed men. The meeting was probably accidental. A quarrel ensued, and Clodius was killed. The circumstances are told by Cicero, and no doubt in the way most favourable to Milo, for Cicero's answer to the charge against Milo is that he acted in self-defence.

The Introduction of Asconius states all the facts which are necessary to enable a reader to understand this oration.

The domestic history of Rome from Cicero's return to the death of

P. Clodius consists in a great degree of the quarrels of P. Clodius and Milo. In B.C. 57 Milo gave notice that he should prosecute Clodius for having driven away the workmen who were working at Cicero's house, for throwing stones and firebrands against Q. Cicero's house, and for attacking Milo's house. The prosecution however was never commenced, owing to the activity of Clodius' friends in the senate. Clodius repaid Milo in the beginning of B.C. 56 by giving notice that he should prosecute him De vi, and for the very acts which Milo alleged that he had done in self defence. Milo was also charged with keeping armed men in his service. The accuser and the accused appeared in court accompanied by armed men, and a fight took place, in which Clodius' men were beaten. This stopped further proceedings.

In B.C. 52 Milo was again charged under the Lex Pompeia De vi; and this time for the murder of his old enemy. The trial differed from the usual form of procedure in the witnesses being examined first. After the examination of the witnesses, the prosecutor, App. Claudius, spoke, and his two subscriptores, M. Antonius and P. Valerius Nepos. Cicero spoke in defence of Milo, who was convicted and went into exile. The passage of Asconius in which he speaks of the result of the trial is printed at the end of the oration.

This oration is edited by Baiter in the second edition of Cicero's orations. The following are the MSS. to which he refers:

=

P Palimpsestus Taurinensis apud Peyronum.

T cod. olim Tegernseensis, nunc Monacensis (Cod. Lat. 18787), a me collatus.

E = cod. olim Erfurtensis, nunc Berolinensis, e quo Freundius hanc orationem lithographico opere describendam curavit Vratislaviae, 1838. Scod. quondam Salisburgensis, nunc Monacensis Lat. num. 15734, cujus selectas lectiones mihi exscripsit Halmius.

B = Scholiasta Bobiensis apud Ang. Maium Classicorum Auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum T. ii. p. 87.

There is an edition of this oration by C. Halm, 1853, in the Sammlung Griechischer und Lateinischer Schriftsteller, &c., which I have used.

M. TULLII CICERONIS

PRO

T. ANNIO MILONE ORATIO

AD JUDICES.

Q. ASCONIUS PEDIANUS IN M. TULLII CICERONIS
ORATIONEM PRO MILONE.

HANC dixit Cn. Pompeio III. consule a. d. vi. Idus April. Quod judicium quum ageretur, exercitum in foro et omnibus in templis, quae circum forum sunt, collocatum a Cn. Pompeio fuisse, non tantum ex hac oratione et annalibus, sed etiam ex libro apparet, qui Ciceronis nomine inscribitur De optimo genere oratorum.

ARGUMENTUM.

T. Annius Milo et P. Plautius Hypsaeus et Q. Metellus Scipio consulatum petierunt non solum largitione palam profusa, sed etiam factionibus armatorum succincti. Miloni et Clodio summae erant inimicitiae, quod et Milo Ciceronis erat amicissimus in reducendoque eo enixe operam rei publicae dederat, et P. Clodius restituto Ciceroni erat infestissimus, ideoque summe studebat Hypsaeo et Scipioni contra Milonem. Ac saepe inter se Milo et Clodius cum suis factionibus Romae depugnaverant, et erant uterque audacia pares, sed Milo pro melioribus partibus stabat. Praeterea in eundem annum consulatum Milo, Clodius praeturam petebat, quam debilem futuram consule Milone intelligebat.

De optimo genere] "Sed si eodem modo putant, exercitu in foro et in omnibus templis quae circum forum sunt collocato,

dici pro Milone decuisse," &c., De Opt. gen. orat. c. 4.