The Letters of Cicero Part 27

From your first, or at most, your second letter, I shall be able to decide what I must do. Only be sure you tell me everything with the greatest minuteness, although I ought now to be looking out for some practical step rather than a letter. Take care of your health, and a.s.sure yourself that nothing is or has ever been dearer to me than you are. Good-bye, my dear Terentia, whom I seem to see before my eyes, and so am dissolved in tears. Good-bye!

29 November.

[Footnote 370: Either the _libera legatio_ or the acting _legatio_ in Gaul, both of which Caesar offered him.]

Lx.x.xIV (A III, 24)

TO ATTICUS (AT ROME)

DYRRACHIUM, 10 DECEMBER

[Sidenote: B.C. 58, aeT. 48]

When, some time ago, I received letters from you all stating that with your consent the vote for the expenses of the consular provinces had been taken, though I was nervous as to the result of the measure, I yet hoped that you saw some good reason for it beyond what I could see: but when I was informed by word of mouth and by letters that this policy of yours was strongly censured, I was much disturbed, because the hope which I had cherished, faint as it was, seemed completely destroyed. For if the tribunes are angry with us, what hope can there be? And, indeed, they seem to have reason to be angry, since they, who had undertaken my cause, have not been consulted on the measure; while by your a.s.senting to it they have been deprived of all the legitimate influence of their office: and that though they profess that it was for my sake that they wished to have the vote for the outfit of the consuls under their control, not in order to curtail their freedom of action, but in order to attach them to my cause:[371] that as things stand now, supposing the consuls to choose to take part against me, they can do so without let or hindrance, but if they wish to do anything in my favour they are powerless if the tribunes object. For as to what you say in your letter, that, if your party had not consented, they would have obtained their object by a popular vote--that would have been impossible against the will of the tribunes.[372] So I fear, on the one hand, that I have lost the favour of the tribunes; and on the other, even supposing that favour to remain, that the tie has been lost by which the consuls were to be attached. Added to this is another disadvantage, the abandonment of the weighty resolution--as, indeed, it was reported to me--that the senate should pa.s.s no decree until my case had been decided, and that, too, in the case of a measure which was not only not urgent, but even contrary to custom and unprecedented. For I think there is no precedent for voting the provincial outfit of magistrates when still only designate: so that, since in a matter like this the firm line[373] on which my cause had been taken up has been infringed, there is now no reason why any decree should not be pa.s.sed. It is not surprising that those friends to whom the question was referred a.s.sented, for it was difficult to find anyone to express an opinion openly against proposals so advantageous to two consuls. It would in any case have been difficult not to be complaisant to such a warm friend as Lentulus, or to Metellus after the exceedingly kind way in which he put aside his quarrel with me. But I fear that, while failing to keep a hold on them, we have lost the tribunes. How this matter has occurred, and in what position the whole business stands, I would have you write to me, and in the same spirit as before: for your outspoken candour, even if not altogether pleasant, is yet what I prefer.

10 December.

[Footnote 371: The phrase _ornare provincias, ornare consules_, etc., means the vote in the senate deciding the number of troops, amount of money, and other outfit that the magistrates going to their provinces were to have. The provinces to be taken by outgoing consuls were decided before the elections--in this case they were Cilicia and Spain. But the _ornatio_ usually took place after the consuls had entered on their office, _i.e._, after the 1st of January. For this year, however--we don't know why--it had taken place before the 1st of December, B.C. 58.

The result of this would be that the new tribunes for B.C. 57--entering on their office 10th December, B.C. 58--would have no voice in the matter, and would thus lose a great hold on the consuls. Most of these tribunes were supporters of Cicero, while he was doubtful as to one of the consuls--Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos. He thinks, therefore, that his cause has lost by this measure, for the tribunes will have less power of putting force on the consuls to do anything for him, and yet the same power of stopping them should they wish to do anything of their own accord. Besides, the new tribunes may be alienated by what they may think a measure derogatory to their position. These fears came to nothing; the tribunes were loyal to Cicero, and the consul Piso forwarded his recall.]

[Footnote 372: Because the tribunes could have vetoed any measure brought before the people, and so could have forced the consuls to come to terms.]

[Footnote 373: _I.e._, that the senate would pa.s.s no decree prior to one recalling Cicero.]

Lx.x.xV (A III, 25)

TO ATTICUS (? IN EPIRUS[374])

DYRRACHIUM (DECEMBER)

[Sidenote: B.C. 58, aeT 48]

After you left me I received a letter from Rome, from which I see clearly that I must rot away in this state of disfranchis.e.m.e.nt: for I can't believe (don't be offended at my saying so) that you would have left town at this juncture, if there had been the least hope left of my restoration. But I pa.s.s over this, that I may not seem to be ungrateful and to wish everything to share my own ruin. All I ask of you is what you have faithfully promised, that you will appear before the 1st of January wherever I may be.

[Footnote 374: There is no indication in the letter as to where Atticus is. He left Rome late in B.C. 58, and apparently did not return till after Cicero's recall. The most natural explanation is that he was in Epirus, or somewhere in Greece, and that he had visited Cicero at Dyrrachium on his way. I do not quite see how this should be thought impossible in view of the last sentence of Lx.x.xV or the next letter.

Cicero asks Atticus to join him, but he might do so whether Atticus were at Buthrotum, or Rome, or anywhere else.]

Lx.x.xVI (A III, 26)

[Sidenote: B.C. 57. Coss., P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos.

The new year found Cicero still at Dyrrachium, waiting for the law to pa.s.s for his recall, which (owing chiefly to the riotous opposition of Clodius) did not pa.s.s till the 5th of August. We have no letters in the interval between January and August, but a few lively ones recounting the nature of his return (4th of September), and four speeches dealing with his position and that of his property. He seems at once to have attached himself to Pompey, and to have promoted his appointment as _praefectus annonae_.

TO ATTICUS (? IN EPIRUS[374])

DYRRACHIUM, JANUARY

[Sidenote: B.C. 57, aeT. 49]

I have received a letter from my brother Quintus inclosing the decree of the senate pa.s.sed concerning me. My intention is to await the time for legislation, and, if the law is defeated, I shall avail myself of the resolution of the senate,[375] and prefer to be deprived of my life rather than of my country. Make haste, I beg, to come to me.

[Footnote 375: On 1st January, B.C. 57, P. Lentulus brought the case of Cicero before the senate. The prevailing opinion was that his _interdictio_ having been illegal, the senate could quash it. But Pompey, for the sake of security, recommended a _lex_. One of the tribunes, without actually vetoing the _senatus consultum_, demanded a night for consideration. The question was again debated in succeeding meetings of the senate, but on the 25th was not decided. Technically an _auctoritas_ was a decree that had been vetoed by a tribune, and Cicero (_pro Sest._ -- 74) implies that such a veto had been put in, and at any rate the _noctis postulatio_ was equivalent to a veto.]

Lx.x.xVII (A III, 27)

TO ATTICUS (? AT ROME)

DYRRACHIUM (AFTER 25 JANUARY)

[Sidenote: B.C. 57, aeT. 49]

From your letter and from the bare facts I see that I am utterly ruined.[376] I implore you, in view of my deplorable position, to stand by my family in whatever respect they shall need your help. I shall, as you say, see you soon.

[Footnote 376: Perhaps he has just heard that the sitting of the senate on the 25th of January had been interrupted by Clodius's roughs. But other similar events happened, and there is no certain means of dating this note. The difficulty, as it stands, is that it implies Atticus's temporary return to Rome.]

Lx.x.xVIII (F V, 4)

TO Q. METELLUS THE CONSUL (AT ROME)

DYRRACHIUM (JANUARY)

[Sidenote: B.C. 57, aeT. 49]

A letter from my brother Quintus, and one from my friend t.i.tus Pomponius, had given me so much hope, that I depended on your a.s.sistance no less than on that of your colleague. Accordingly, I at once sent you a letter in which, as my present position required, I offered you thanks and asked for the continuance of your a.s.sistance. Later on, not so much the letters of my friends, as the conversation of travellers by this route, indicated that your feelings had undergone a change; and that circ.u.mstance prevented my venturing to trouble you with letters. Now, however, my brother Quintus has sent me a copy which he had made of your exceedingly kind speech delivered in the senate. Induced by this I have attempted to write to you, and I do ask and beg of you, as far as I may without giving you offence, to preserve your own friends along with me, rather than attack me to satisfy the unreasonable vindictiveness of your connexions. You have, indeed, conquered yourself so far as to lay aside your own enmity for the sake of the Republic: will you be induced to support that of others _against_ the interests of the Republic? But if you will in your clemency now give me a.s.sistance, I promise you that I will be at your service henceforth: but if neither magistrates, nor senate, nor people are permitted to aid me, owing to the violence which has proved too strong for me, and for the state as well, take care lest--though you may wish the opportunity back again for retaining all and sundry in their rights--you find yourself unable to do so, because there will be n.o.body to be retained.[377]

[Footnote 377: This intentionally enigmatical sentence is meant to contain a menace against Clodius, who is hinted at in the word _omnium_, just as he is earlier in the letter in the word _tuorum_. Clodius was a connexion by marriage of Metellus (through his late brother, the husband of Clodia), and Cicero a.s.sumes that Metellus is restrained from helping him by regard for Clodius. He knows, however, by this time, that one of the new tribunes, Milo, is prepared to repel force by force, and he hints to Metellus that if he countenances Clodius's violence he may some day find that there is no Clodius to save--if that's his object. In Letter Lx.x.xIX he shews how early he had contemplated Clodius being killed by Milo (_occisum iri ab ipso Milone video_).]