Chapter M: Antoninus Caracalla. Macrinus. Elagabalus. Alexander Severus

_M. Bassianus Caracalla_, Geta, 256 Murder of Geta, 256 Caracalla’s journey through the provinces, 257 Massacre at Alexandria, 257 The right of citizenship given to all the subjects of the Roman empire, 257 Fondness of Caracalla for Alexander the Great, 258 War against the Parthians, 258 Murder of Caracalla, 259 _Macrinus_, 259 Julia Domna, 259 Mamæa, 260 Insurrection of Elagabalus, 260 Macrinus conquered and beheaded, 260 _Elagabalus_, 260 Alexander Severus adopted as Cæsar by Elagabalus, 261 Rebellion against Elagabalus. His death, 261 _Alexander Severus_, 261 His rule. Domitius Ulpianus, 262 Advance of the Germans. Downfall of the Parthian dynasty, 263 The Persians headed by one of the race of Sassan, 264 War with the Persians, 264

END OF ALEXANDER SEVERUS. MAXIMIN, GORDIAN, FATHER AND SON. MAXIMUS AND
BALBINUS. GORDIAN III. PHILIP. DECIUS.

Mutiny against Alexander Severus Maximin, 266 Murder of Severus, and of Mamæa, 267 _Maximin_ becomes emperor, 267 Insurrection of the Gordians in Africa, 268 Death of the Gordians, 268 _Maximus_ and _Balbinus_, 269 Murder of Maximin, 269 _Gordian III._, 270 _M. Julius Philippus_, 271 The thousandth anniversary of the city, 271 Of Philip’s having embraced Christianity, 272 Marinus, 272 _Decius_, 272 Spread of Christianity, 273

STATE OF THINGS AT ROME. FINE ARTS. LITERATURE.

Freemen, 274 Difference between imperial and senatorial provinces abolished, 274 Art. Literature, 274 Jurisprudence, Papinian, Ulpian, 275 Curtius. Petronius, 276

INVASION OF THE GOTHS. DEATH OF DECIUS. GALLUS TREBONIANUS ÆMILIAN.
VALERIAN. GALLIENUS. THE THIRTY TYRANTS.

Rising of the Germans in the Roman empire, 277 The Franks. Swabians. Goths, 277 Combat of Decius with the Goths. His death, 278 _Gallus Trebonianus_, 278 Æmilianus. Valerian, 279 P. Licinius Gallienus becomes the colleague of Valerian, 279 War with the German people. In Mesopotamia and Syria. Imprisonment of Valerian, 280 Death of Valerian. The thirty tyrants, 281 Odenathus. Zenobia, 282 The empire of Palmyra, 283

CLAUDIUS GOTHICUS. AURELIAN. TACITUS PROBUS. CARUS.

Death of Gallienus, 284 _M. Aurelius Claudius Gothicus_, 284 Victory of Claudius over the Goths. Claudius dies of the plague, 284 _Aurelian_, 284 Dacia resigned to the Goths, 285 War with Zenobia. Longinus executed, 286 National development of France, 286 Murder of Aurelian, 287 _Tacitus_, 287 _Probus_, 288 _Carus_, 289 _Carinus_, 290

DIOCLETIAN. LITERATURE AND GENERAL STATE OF THE THEN WORLD. MAXIMIAN. HIS SUCCESSORS. CONSTANTINE. _Diocletian_, 291 Outbreak of the plague, 291 Literature. Nemesian. Calpurnius. Lactantius, 292 Arnobius. New-Platonism, 293 Character of Diocletian, 293 Diocletian takes Maximian as his colleague, 293 New plan of administration of Diocletian, 294 _Galerius._ _Constantius_, 295 Revolt of Britain under Carausius, 296 Reduction of Egypt. Campaign of Galerius against Persia, 296 Persecutions of the Christians, 297 Resignation of Diocletian and Maximian, 297 _Severus_, and _Maximus Daza_, appointed Cæsars, 297 Return of Maximian. _Maxentius_, 297 _Constantius_, 298 Licinius, 298 Death of Maximian, 299 War of Constantius with his colleague, 299 Battle near Adrianople, 300 Wars, 300 Oppression of taxes, 301 Change in the monetary system, 301 Character of Constantine, 302 His establishment of the Christian religion, 302 His cruelty in the last years of his life, 303 Constantinople, 303

THE SUCCESSORS OF CONSTANTINE. JULIAN THE APOSTATE. JOVIAN. VALENTINIAN
I. VALENS, GRATIAN. VALENTINIAN II. THEODOSIUS THE GREAT. MAXIMUS.

Constantine’s will declared a forgery, 304 _Constantine_, _Constans_, _Constantius_, 305 Magnentius, 305 Vetranio. Gallus. Julian, 306 Gallus made Cæsar, 306 Julian made Cæsar, 307 His successes in Gaul and Germany, 308 _Julian_ proclaimed emperor by the soldiers, 308 Death of Constantius. The bishop Athanasius, 309 Persecution of the Homoousians, 309 Julian as a writer. His opposition to Christianity, 310 Revolt in Antioch. Misopogon, 312 War against Persia, 312 Julian’s death, 314 _Jovian._ _Valentinian I._ _Valens_, 316 _Gratian_, 316 Breaking in of the Goths and Huns, 317 Reception of the Goths in the Roman empire, 318 Insurrection of the Goths in Marcianopolis, 318 Battle near Adrianople. Fall of Valens, 319 _Theodosius_, colleague of Gratian, 319 Campaigns with the Goths, 320 Murder of Gratian. _Maximus_, emperor of the West, 321 _Valentinian II._ Arbogastes. _Eugenius_, 321 Battle near Aquileia, 321 Rufinus. Division of the empire, 322

LITERATURE, AND FINE ARTS.

Anvsonius. Epitomes. Grammar. Donatus. Charesius, Diomedes, 323 Servius. Festus. Nonius Marcellus. Macrobius, 323 Ammianus Marcellinus, 323 Rhetoricians. Marius Victorinus Symmachus. Panegyrists, 324 Claudian. Merobaudes, 324 Sidonius Apollinaris. Renatus Profuturus, 325 Christian Literature. St. Jerome. St. Augustine, 325 Sulpicius Severns. Cælius Sedulius. Claudius Mamertus. Salvian Prudentius. Pope Hilary, 326 Pope Leo, 327 Greek literature. Historians, 327 Eunapius. Priscus. Malchus. Candidus, 327 Architecture. Mosaic, 327

DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE. HONORIUS. ARCADIUS. STILICHO. ALARIC. RADAGAISE. ADOLPHUS. CONSTANTINE. GERONTIUS. PLACIDIA. VALENTINIAN III. BONIFACE. AETIUS. GENSERIC. ATTILA. PETRONIUS MAXIMUS. AVITUS. RICIMER. MAJORIAN. SEVERUS. ANTHEMIUS. OLYBRIUS. GLYCERIUS. JULIUS NEPOS. ORESTES. ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS. _Arcadius._ _Honorius._ Stilicho. Rufinus, 328 Alaric, 329 Stilicho conquers Alaric near Pollentia, 330 Restoration of the walls of Rome, 330 _Monte Testaccio_, 330 Radagaise driven back by Stilicho, 331 Weight of taxation in Gaul, 331 _Bagaudæ_, 332 Conspiracy against Stilicho. He is murdered, 333 Alaric appears in Rome. Capitulation. Alaric for the second time turns towards Rome, 333 _Attalus_, 333 Burning of Rome. Death of Alaric, 334 Adolphus. Placidia, 334 Constantine in Britain. Gerontius, 334 Maximus. Constantius, 335 _Theodosius II._ _Johannes_, 335 Valentinian III. Placidia. Boniface. Aëtius, 336 Boniface calls the Vandals into Africa, 337 The Donatists, 337 Genseric makes himself master of Carthage, 337 Piracy of the Vandal fleets. The Huns, 338 Aëtius. Battle in the _Campi Catalaunici_, 340 Attila in Italy. Founding of Venice, 341 Murder of Aëtius. Death of Valentinian III., 342 _Petronius Maximus_, 342 Pillage in Rome by the Vandals, 342 _Avitus._ Ricimer. _Majorian_, 343 Ægidius, Marcellinus, 344 _Anthemius._ _Olybrius_, 345 Ricimer conquers Rome, 346 _Glycerius_, 346 _Julius Nepos_, 346 Orestes. _Romulus Augustulus_, 347 Odoachar. End of the Roman Empire, 347 _Fine arts and literature_, 347

LECTURES ON ROMAN HISTORY.

POLITICAL STATE OF THE WORLD THEN KNOWN. LEGISLATION. THE WAR WITH THE
PIRATES.

The states of Europe at this time were as follows. The Roman empire comprised, besides Italy, Provence and part of Dauphiné, the whole of Languedoc with Thoulouse, and Spain with the exception of Biscay and Asturias, although the more distant peoples there were less under its sway. The war against Sertorius had thus far completed the subjection of Spain: beyond were the free Cantabrians, a numerous nation composed of tribes which were quite independent of each other. In Gaul, the Æduans had the ascendancy; yet most of the peoples were without any bond of union, utterly weak, and already overwhelmed by the German tribes. Dalmatia and Illyria were subject to Rome; but her rule did not reach far into the interior, and in the Bosnian mountains the natives still kept their freedom. Macedon, of which the extent was the same as it had been under its last kings, and Greece were Roman provinces. The inhabitants of Thrace, and the tribes north of mounts Scodrus and Scardus, were free.

In Asia, the Bithynian monarchy had been broken up, the last king, Nicomedes, having left his realms by will to the Romans. Mithridates had in Western Asia, Pontus and part of Cappadocia; and on the shores of the Black Sea, his dominions were still wider: the north of Armenia, the country north of Erzerum, Georgia (Iberia), Imeritia (Colchis), Daghestan, and also the peoples south of the Cuban were tributary to him; the Bosporus and the Greek towns in the Crimea were to all intents and purposes provinces of his empire; his influence was even felt as far as the Dniester, on the banks of which his supremacy was acknowledged, and his connexions moreover reached beyond the Danube into Thrace, even to the Roman frontier. The kingdom of the Seleucidæ had quite fallen to pieces, the disputes about the succession, after the death of Demetrius, having split the country into a number of small principalities which carried on feuds against each other with great fury: at last, Antiochus, a petty prince on the coast who could hardly keep his ground, applies in vain for help to the Romans. The other districts, longing for peace, are glad to acknowledge Tigranes as their king, who rules from the frontier of Erzerum as far as Cœle-Syria, over Great Armenia, Mesopotamia, Northern Syria, Hyrcania, Kurdistan, and part of Cilicia: his empire yielded him very rich revenues. In the East, it bordered on the Parthians, who possessed nearly the whole of modern Persia and Babylonia; in Eastern Persia and part of Khorassan, the kings of Bactria may at that time have been still in existence, unless the Scythians had already conquered these countries. Media also did not perhaps belong to the Parthians even quite down to the breaking out of Pompey’s war. Indeed their empire was very loosely connected; the Parthian sovereigns were in the full meaning of the word kings of kings, the provinces being ruled by their once tributary kings. The towns on the coasts of Phœnicia, and in Cœle-Syria and Judæa, were free: the princes (tetrarchs) of Jerusalem, of the race of the Maccabees, were independent, and even bore the title of kings. In Cœle-Syria, numbers of such tetrarchies had been formed.

Egypt under the Ptolemies was confined to its narrowest bounds, from the river of Egypt to Elephantine; yet it was very rich. Its kings had still a yearly revenue of 12,500 talents, as they were the sole owners of the land. But the state was exceedingly weak and disorganised, being under the most wretched and contemptible government. In Asia Minor, the Romans had of latter years acquired through P. Servilius Isauricus Pisidia, Lycia, and Pamphylia: these countries had until then been free; the first, since the war with Antiochus; the two last, since the settlement of the Rhodian affairs. Part of Cilicia was yet independent, each place by itself: here were the real nests of pirates. Cyprus was a dependency of the Ptolemies, but under kings of its own.

In Africa, after the death of Jugurtha, there was another king of the house of Masinissa on the throne of Numidia. His name, however, is unknown: for the inscription in Reinesius, which is said to have been in existence in the sixteenth century, and in which Gauda is mentioned, has not as yet been found again, and is therefore very doubtful. In Sylla’s time, a Hiempsal was lord of Numidia. The country was certainly confined within much narrower limits than it had been under Micipsa, and before the war with Jugurtha; but, it was still a kingdom. The province of Africa was governed by Roman proconsuls.

The Scordiscans and Tauriscans, those Gallic races which had formerly been so harassed by those who had sprung from the same stock with themselves, were dwelling on the banks of the Danube; higher up were the Boians, who were independent, and also the people of Noricum which was already subject to the supremacy of Rome. The German tribes can at that time have scarcely dwelt farther south than the Mayne; there was probably a line from that river and the Neckar through the Odenwald and the Spessart towards Thuringia. The boundary of the German nation in the east cut deep into Poland.

Although the institutions of Sylla could not be overthrown by Lepidus, yet there were many of them, particularly the transfer of the administration of justice to the senate, so hateful from the shameful manner in which they were worked, that even many of the well-meaning among the ruling party abhorred them, and openly declared themselves against them. The venality of the courts of justice was quite glaring: we may learn what their condition was from Cicero’s orations; it was such that honest men were ashamed of the vile abuse. To make the judges independent, was therefore the great question of the day. But while it was wished to wrest the jurisdiction from the grasp of the senate, there was also, on the other hand, some reason to beware of the knights; and therefore an expedient was sought for, to keep that immense privilege from falling entirely into their hands. In such times, the line of demarcation between the different ranks is formed only by landed or by moneyed property; as soon as people want to generalize, there is no other standard but this, although it is a thoroughly false one. Such a classification then becomes unavoidable: Rome was on this wrong road, as France is now. There was in that age, and very likely there had been even as early as the war of Hannibal, a census fixed for the senators; either of 800,000 or 1,000,000 sesterces, being at any rate more considerable than the minimum of the _census equestris_. Now the _Lex Judiciaria_ of Lucius Aurelius Cotta (682) enacted that a number of senators, knights, and _tribuni ærarii_, chosen it would seem by the tribes from people of a lower census than that of the equestrian order, should in about equal proportions constitute the courts as a very numerous jury (Asconius on Cicero).[1] This was a great improvement; the judges indeed were still bad enough; yet they were after all infinitely better than those taken from the senate.

Moreover Pompey during his consulship, with the acquiescence of Crassus, made another great change. He restored the tribuneship to what it had been, so that the tribunes might even again propose laws, it being reserved to the augurs alone to interpose; besides which, the tribunes were to be again allowed to get curule offices when they had served their time, as had been the custom before the days of Sylla. Pompey saw that Sylla had made a blunder, and he wished to root out the evil at once, without being aware that it was only by going too far that the mischief had been done: for it is ever the fault of men of moderate abilities when in power, that they are always for running into extremes, and keeping no bounds. But any essential reform was in fact impossible, the tribuneship being a monstrous nuisance which it was necessary to abate.

This happened during the consulship of Pompey in the year 682; the further changes down to Cicero’s consulship (689), I leave until then.

The war with Mithridates broke out almost instantly after the death of Nicomedes, many provocations having been given on the side of the Romans: its immediate cause was the alliance of Mithridates with Sertorius. He was completely armed for war, as far as could be done by dint of money and great exertions. The rock on which his enterprise was to split, was his having Asiatics under him, he himself also being one; for Mithridates has been overrated in history. Whatever gold in masses could accomplish, he achieved; but it was to little purpose that he was ever sending new armies into the field, a thing which he was enabled to do by spending vast sums: he knew neither how to conduct a campaign nor to fight a battle. He overran Paphlagonia, and burst into Bithynia and Cappadocia, advancing as far as Chalcedon in Bithynia, into which he drove the Roman consul Cotta. His fleet had decided success; for he chased the Roman ships into the harbour, and took them, The Romans had still (it was then the year 678) the old soldiers of Valerius Flaccus, who had now been there for about thirteen years: these men were quite demoralized, their ranks were thinned by death, and their tempers soured by their having been kept as it were in banishment. Mithridates therefore, after taking Chalcedon and Heraclea, had the way before him open to the most wealthy and powerful town of Cyzicus, a place which maintained its fidelity to the Romans with the same determination which it had already displayed in former campaigns. He had posted his troops on the island upon which part of the city is built, being connected with the mainland only by a dyke: from this island and from the sea, he battered the town with all his engines. The people of Cyzicus, alone, and without any help from the Romans, beat off all the attacks of the enemy. In the meanwhile, Lucullus came to Asia. He was a staunch partisan of Sylla, and of melancholy importance in Roman history: more than any other Roman, he transplanted the luxury of Asia to Rome. He was distinguished as a general, and as Cicero thinks so highly of him, he must certainly have had some estimable qualities; but he cannot have gotten his great wealth by fair means. Whilst Mithridates was besieging Cyzicus, Lucullus took a very advantageous position in Phrygia, on the Æsepus; and there, by cutting off his supplies, he put Mithridates to such straits that he was forced to raise the siege, after which he was no longer able to keep his ground any where. Mithridates indeed carried on the siege of Cyzicus too long; yet he ought not to be blamed too harshly for it, since the same thing has happened with generals of higher name. All great generals have made blunders in their turn, with perhaps the solitary exception of the Duke of Wellington. But the king now at once retreats, vanishes entirely from our sight, and is in the heart of Pontus whither Lucullus follows him. Here also Mithridates does not know how to defend himself at all, or to make any sort of stand; nor even how to impede the enemy when it was besieging the towns which, like Amisus, Sinope, and others, bravely held out; nor yet how to relieve a place; but he lets himself be driven out of his country, and throws him self into the arms of Tigranes with whom he was allied by marriage. All his great armaments, his hundreds of thousands of hoplites were dispersed; all the most important towns of Western Pontus, the truly favoured part of the land, were conquered. Lucullus now followed him across the mountains into Armenia, and besieged Tigranocerta in the Arzanene, in the district of Erzerum. The Armenian army was in the first battle scattered like chaff before the wind, and Tigranocerta also was taken after a somewhat better conducted siege, which, however, did not last long. Tigranes fell back before Lucullus. Gibbon very justly remarks, that under circumstances which seem unfavourable, the character of a people will sometimes strikingly change; but that sometimes it will only change in some of its features, and not in others. The Armenians behaved on this occasion, just as cowardly as the troops of Xerxes had done against the Greeks, and they had shown themselves the same at the retreat of the ten thousand; but they afterwards improved so much, that in the times of the Eastern Roman Empire, until late in the middle ages, the Armenian soldiers were among the very bravest, and formed the flower of the Byzantine army. Armenia is a very cold country, so that we can still less account for the former cowardice of the nation, as Gibbon likewise remarks: the Highlands of Armenia are much colder than Germany; in the neighbourhood of Erzerum snow often falls as early as towards the end of September, and quite commonly in October. Yet it seems that other causes exercised their influence. In after days, the Armenians, since the spread of the Christian religion among them, became very important allies to the Christian Emperors against the Magians of Persia; and still later they distinguished themselves by their enthusiasm for the Paulician tenets. Lucullus went on as far as Mesopotamia, and took up his head-quarters at Nisibis, the Zobah of the 2d book of Samuel[2] (in the Vulgate, the 2d book of Kings), the seat of the Syrian kings in that country; which from the times of Diocletian became the border fortress of the Romans against Persia. Here Lucullus seems chiefly to have employed his power as proconsul for the purpose of enriching himself. At Nisibis, a mutiny broke out among his soldiers, headed by his brother-in-law, P. Clodius: (Lucullus had married one of his sisters.) This outbreak originated with the Valerian soldiers, who had obtained a promise at Rome, that those who had served twenty years should have their discharge. The actual period of service was in those days more and more prolonged, whilst in the times of the younger Scipio not more than six years of uninterrupted military service were exacted: the Valerians therefore had a very good right to demand their discharge. Yet Lucullus would not part with them; perhaps because he had not received the necessary reinforcements, and was not able to let them go. Clodius on this occasion played the mutineer, as he did during the whole of his life. Lucullus, thus checked in his progress, was obliged to retreat to Cappadocia: thither Mithridates again broke in, and he routed C. Valerius Triarius, and reconquered the greater part of Pontus. An outcry had already been raised against Lucullus, that he wanted to protract the war for the sake of enriching himself; and now that the campaign was unfavourable, he was compelled to yield the command to Pompey.

Pompey, in the meanwhile, after the conclusion of the war against Sertorius, had conducted that against the pirates. These must have been a nuisance of long standing; for the rough inhabitants of the coasts of Cilicia had been sea-rovers for ages: even as early as the Macedonian time, they are mentioned as such; so that they must already have had their strongholds there. The coast of Cilicia was also very well suited for this; for although there were some important and thriving towns, like Tarsus, there, the people mostly dwelt in small fortified places as at Maina. Formerly this coast land had been subject to the Syrian rule; but when the power of the Seleucidæ was broken up in the year 630, Cilicia became independent, and many robbers by land and by sea settled there, especially in Κιλικία τραχεῖα. In the war of Mithridates, they were encouraged by the latter to make prizes, and their daring was beyond belief: Cicero in his oration _de imperio Cn. Pompeii_ (thus, and not _de lege Manilia_ it is called in all the MSS,) gives an idea of the extent of this pest. From the coast of Syria to the pillars of Hercules, no man was safe anywhere; all the seas were swarming with the ships of the pirates. Those whom they took prisoners they dragged into their fastnesses, obliging them to ransom themselves; or else they sold them, or tortured them to death and threw them into the sea. In Italy itself, they sacked and conquered towns: they once even landed at Ostia whence they carried off Romans of rank who were walking about the shore, even prætors with all the state attached to their office. Rome depended on supplies from Sicily and other agricultural countries, and as these were very often intercepted, the city was in constant dread of a famine. Allied with the pirates were the Cretans, who had, at all times, been robbers like them by sea and land. The naval force of the Romans had much decayed; whereas the pirates had a countless number of boats, which, though small, were too strong for a merchantman. Pompey now received the command against this enemy, and this is the most brilliant period of his life. The fame which he acquired on this occasion is well earned: his plan of operations is quite excellent. He surrounded them as with a net in a battue, and hunted them out of the most distant spots; then, more and more closely contracting his own fleet until he drove them to Cilicia, he overpowered them in a battle, took their ships, and reduced their towns, transferring the inhabitants to other places; partly into larger Cilician towns and fruitful districts, where they might gain their livelihood, and at the same time be well watched; partly also into Greece, especially into the neighbourhood of Dyme, into Achaia and the wasted countries of the Peloponnesus.

This was a benefit to the world itself: for this Pompey deserved the everlasting thanks of all who dwelt on the coasts of the Mediterranean. Standing higher than ever in public opinion, he was in consequence of this popularity intrusted with the war against Mithridates. Nor had the Romans ever reason to rue this decision, though indeed they made victory much more easy for him than it had been for Lucullus, as he received considerable reinforcements. Mithridates lost in one battle all that he had regained, without the Roman arms having any great honour from it: he fled to Colchis, and from thence along the roots of mount Caucasus to the Bosporus. Pompey followed close at his heels, by what is now Erzerum, as far as Georgia and the neighbourhood of Tiflis, and the princes of that country did homage to Rome: one of the sons of Mithridates, named Machares, who held the kingdom of Bosporus as a fief, made a separate peace with the Romans; but when he heard that his father was approaching, he laid hands on his own life. Mithridates, who in his misfortunes, with eastern fury, freely vented his passions upon those around him, now became an object of hatred; his servants and children (of whom he had very many) trembled before him. Moreover, he had formed boundless plans: having still a great deal of money, he now conceived the vast design of going to Italy; and he wanted to stir up the Bastarnæ and other peoples on the banks of the Danube, to league themselves with him. When his soldiers heard of this, they could not but remark, that as yet none of his undertakings had been successful; and so they broke out into a mutiny at Panticapæum, being joined by Pharnaces the king’s son. The outbreak displayed all the dreadful features of an eastern insurrection; and therefore Mithridates put an end to his own life, thinking perhaps that his son would not rest until he knew his father to be dead. Pharnaces now made peace with Pompey, and he was not ashamed to send him his father’s body: Pompey, however, had it buried with kingly pomp. Pharnaces got the kingdom of the Bosporus and the neighbouring lands, as well as the country of the Cubanians; and this he kept until the later times of Cæsar: when, however, he ventured to mix himself up with the civil wars (_se inserere armis Romanis_ as Tacitus expresses it), he met with his ruin. Pompey now turned his arms against Tigranes, who was glad to obtain a shameful peace by paying a large sum of money, and by giving up all his possessions with the exception of Armenia: even of this he had to yield a part to a rebellious son, but it soon came back to him. Syria he had to renounce altogether: it was reduced _in formam provinciæ Romanæ_. Pompey went as far as Egypt, and made himself master of Syria and Phœnicia: one of his generals even reached the country of the Nabathæan Arabs, where he received the homage of the Arab king Haret. In Judæa, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus were contending for the throne: Pompey declared for the former. Aristobulus was made prisoner, and led a captive in his triumph; the town of Jerusalem fell into the power of the Romans; the temple was held against them for nearly three months, and then it was taken and pillaged, but not destroyed.

The death of Mithridates happened in the year of Cicero’s consulship, the conquest of Syria in the following one: it is not certain whether Pompey’s triumph was at the end of the year 690, or in the beginning of 691. Pompey’s behaviour after the conclusion of the war was praiseworthy. He showed an _animus civilis_, and dismissed the whole of his army: he might have tried to do just what Sylla did, and made himself the tyrant of the republic. Of the extravagantly flattering honours bestowed upon him, he only once took advantage, and that was at the Circensian games. Thus far he behaved sensibly enough; but in other respects, his conduct in peace was soon such as to belie the name of Magnus, which had been conferred upon him by Sylla in war. His triumph was magnificent: among the trophies, there was a list of the tributes which the commonwealth had gained from the conquered countries. The numbers of these, however, as given in Plutarch, seem to me rather too small than too great: if we bear in mind the immense land-taxes which in the time of the Maccabees came in from Judæa and other districts in Syria, we cannot believe that these numbers can have been correct. It is true that the amount of the new revenue was larger than the sum total of all that had been levied until then; but it is also to be taken into account, that Syria was one of the finest and richest countries in the world.

CATILINE; CICERO.

We now come to Catiline, who, as an English writer says of Cromwell, is “damned to everlasting fame;” a saying which is far more applicable to him, as even Cromwell was an angel when compared with Catiline. In Italian tales (in Malespini, for instance), he is so much the hero of crime, and become such a popular character, that the vulgar corruption of his name, which indeed is but a slight one (_Catellina_), has found its way into the Latin manuscripts. I refer you for his history to Sallust, who has written it with great truthfulness, giving every one his due, and doing full justice even to Cicero, without heeding the silly gossip of the people. He was himself, at that time, already a young man and capable of observation; and he also became very soon afterwards acquainted with the first men, such as Cæsar and Crassus.

Catiline, according to Cicero and Sallust, was indeed an extraordinary being, endowed with all the qualities of a great man in such times: he was of unequalled bravery and daring, and of giant strength of body and mind; yet so thoroughly Satanic a creature, that his like is hardly to be found in history, even though his oath, in taking which he drank the blood of a child mixed with wine, and caused his conspirators to do the same, may be but an idle tale. He had been a soldier of Sylla, and had greatly distinguished himself in his days: he therefore found himself in the same condition as the _Terroristes_ and the _Septembriseurs_ were under the consulship, after the eighteenth of Brumaire. After terrible civil wars, there remains for many persons who have allowed themselves the greatest excesses, nothing but to return to bloodshed, even though they have nothing particular to gain by it. It is altogether a doubtful question, and one concerning which I have not been able to form any positive opinion, what Catiline had in view. If we suppose that he had a definite purpose, to attain which his crimes were only as means, his object cannot be made out; but if crime itself was his object, then we may understand his character. We have only to represent to ourselves clearly the utter demoralization of that age: the anarchy of Athens which is so much spoken of, was nothing in comparison to that of Rome; it had settled down into forms of its own, and Athens was but a small state. But in Rome there were some hundreds, or at most some thousands of men, who were the masters of the world: these were divided among themselves, recognising no law, no order, and striving by hook or by crook to get their own ends, whilst the republic was a mere name and no one paid any regard to the existing laws. There were, for instance, heavy penalties denounced against bribery at elections, which moreover had often been re-enacted and increased; and yet every body knew that, except in extraordinary cases, as in that of Cicero, no one could be consul at Rome unless he spent huge sums. The _Romani rustici_ had no weight whatever: besides the men of rank, the rabble alone had still some importance left; and it was employed by the leading citizens to fight their battles against each other. In such times, even a man like Catiline might in the eyes of very ambitious people seem to be a useful tool; and the accusation against Crassus, a man of most middling abilities, that he wanted to use him for his own ends, is to me not at all unlikely, although Catiline, had he been successful, would have certainly trampled him under his feet. If Catiline had any object at all, it was perhaps to become a second Sylla, a perpetual dictator with absolute power; and then he would not have troubled himself for anything more. Two years before Cicero’s consulship, he had already intended to murder those who were consuls at that time, and to make himself master of the republic. We know him in his most brilliant light from Cicero himself, the very man whom he hated above all others: for he says of him, that he had a magic power by which he fascinated and enslaved all who came near him; that it was not uncommon for young people, having been attracted by his gigantic qualities, to attach themselves to him; and that whoever had once been within his reach, had never been able to get out of his clutches. Cicero himself had defended Catiline before a court of justice. Catiline had been an officer of high rank under Sylla, and afterwards prætor, and an action (_repetundarum_) was brought against him from which he had a very narrow escape: it may have been on this occasion that Cicero was his advocate. On the whole, people had their eyes upon him, and his designs were dreaded, though no one had the courage to face him: it was believed that he would burn and pillage, if he once got into power. The most opposite characters, even many of Sylla’s partisans, were convinced that they, just as well as any one else, would fall his victims.

Cicero now stood for the consulship. Yet though his integrity and his transcendent talents commanded general esteem, his prospects were but poor. With the people indeed, he was a great favourite; but the men of rank opposed him as a _homo novus_; prætor he had been already. The well-grounded news, however, that Catiline and the conspirators meant to murder the candidates for the consulship, and the belief that there was no preventing the election of C. Antonius, an uncle of the triumvir, who was greatly suspected of a connexion with Catiline, induced the nobles to declare for Cicero. Thus he became consul in the year 698.

Cicero was born on the 3rd of January, in the year 647 according to Cato (649, according to Varro, which is easier to remember, as it reminds one of the year of Goethe’s birth);[3] he was a native of the municipal town of Arpinum, from which Marius also had come. Arpinum was by no means a small place; on the contrary, for a provincial town in the interior of the country, it was very large and important, and it was also one of those which are called the Cyclopian towns: now indeed it is only a poor place. All the men of Arpinum undoubtedly were proud of Marius, an impression which Cicero had shared from a youth, especially as there was some kind of relationship between his family and that of Marius. His own family was very respectable; in a petty feud in his town, his grandfather was on the side of the _optimates_. His father and grandfather were acquainted with the first families in Rome, and indeed with the enemies of Marius, with Scævola and others of the aristocratical party; so that the discord which runs through the whole life of Cicero, takes its beginning even then. To Marius Gratidianus he was also akin.

Of Cicero’s youth, we only know that he very early showed activity of: intellect, and soon began to write. His first tastes were poetical, the first things he wrote being poems in the old Roman form: (his “Pontius Glaucus” was written _versibus longis_.) In his poetry, he had all his life long the old Roman tinge, whereas his prose was altogether ahead of that of his age. What the first teaching then given in the schools was, one cannot quite tell: thus much only is certain, that instruction in the Greek literature and language was one of the earliest subjects in which youthful minds were trained; just as in Germany, in my time, children had first to learn French. Cicero came to Rome shortly before the outbreak of the Italian war, in his fourteenth or fifteenth year; the reason why his father sent him to Rome, was perhaps because Arpinum lay on the borders of the Italians. At Rome, he was much with Greek philosophers and rhetoricians, and with the most distinguished men of the republic: he was like one of the family in the house of both the Scævolas, and was connected with Crassus and others. He came in a time of the greatest excitement, which is one of the lucky circumstances of his life. It is very doubtful whether he was what we would call _aide de camp_ to Sylla: he does not mention the fact himself; at any rate, it can only have been for a short time, and this military career of his had no influence upon the rest of his life, as his was anything but a warlike mind. He also studied civil law with the great lawyer Scævola: young men would get leave to be present in the _Atrium_ of a jurisconsult, to listen to the legal decisions and advice which he gave there; just as in England one still learns the law to this day, and as was formerly done in France, a way of studying which is of infinite advantage for able minds. Although Cicero has been reproached with not having a systematic knowledge of the law, it was not an empty word of his when he said, “If I wished to get up the law, it would cost me only a few months;” for he knew an endless number of cases in point.

If we compare Cicero’s veneration for his high born patrons, with his affection for P. Sulpicius, whose political views were diametrically opposed to those of his older friends, we are somewhat startled; but he follows up the truth wherever he finds it, and we may recognise in this the inward struggle of his mind. Those old gentlemen were very respectable; but they had not highly intellectual minds: P. Sulpicius was full of intellect, and as he was a partisan of Marius, there was a closer bond between him and Cicero, who felt a patriotic enthusiasm for Marius, and, when a youth, even sang of him in a poem. When the revolutions began, he was in no danger from either of the parties, as he was true-hearted and friendly to both; that of Marius protected him with good will, and that of Sylla was not fierce against him: he was grieved to see that the wrong was on both sides. Thus, although the distracted state of his country well nigh broke his heart, he worked by himself, making shift with a sort of neutrality. When the time of Sylla’s rule began, he was in his twenty-seventh year, and had already pleaded several _causæ privatæ_. The earliest of his orations is the one _pro Roscio comœdo_, which is much older than is generally thought, being several years earlier than the oration _pro Quinctio_, as Garatoni has proved. The oration _pro Quinctio_ seems first to have drawn much attention to him, owing to the boldness with which he defended his persecuted client: still more did he gain the high esteem of the public by the oration _pro Sexto Roscio Amerino_, whom Chrysogonus, a freedman of Sylla, wanted to send out of the world. It needed a truly heroic courage for a young man not to be afraid of this dangerous favourite of Sylla, especially for one who was himself connected with the Marian party. He carried his point; but his friends advised him to leave Rome, that Chrysogonus might forget him. Thus he went to Rhodes and Asia, and completed his study of Greek. What he was deficient in, was the knowledge of mathematics, of which he had very little, whereas the Greeks at that time regularly made them a part of their education. Moreover, he never systematically studied Roman history, and its writers were not to his taste. He was fond of poetry, yet only in a limited style: his chief favourites in literature were the Greek historians Herodotus and Thucydides; he was also well read in Theopompus, Timæus, and the rest of these: he enthusiastically admired the Athenian orators, in reading whom he felt called upon to vie with them. He had the greatest facility for work, an excellent memory, readiness and richness of expression, all the talents of a speaker. The predominant faculty of his mind was wit, in which he was not equalled by any man of ancient times: it was striking, easy, lively and inexhaustible, what we should perhaps call the French manner.

As to his personal connexions, he seems in his youth to have been without any bosom friend: it was only in his later years that there sprang up that pure fine friendship with Atticus which was a true and sincere union. His brother, for whom he had indeed much brotherly affection and love, was a worthless man, and in no way whatever to be compared with him. Nor was he happy in his married life, having allied himself, chiefly at the instigation of his friends, to Terentia, a domineering disagreeable woman, who exercised an influence over him which strangely contrasts with the fact of his never having really loved her; for on the whole, owing to his affectionate nature, he was easily led by those around him. She egged him on to the most dangerous enmities, as for instance, that of Clodius. The men of the oldest standing all looked upon him with great esteem, but none of them had any hearty love for him.

On his return from Asia, Sylla was dead, the troubles caused by Lepidus were over, and a reaction against the tyranny of the oligarchs had begun. Such a reaction has in its outset a peculiarly refreshing and conciliatory influence; the most different persons agree, and become friends. An example of this was seen in France, from the year 1795 to 1797, when men of the most opposite kind united in their endeavours; and also in Germany, at the time when the people rose against French tyranny: of ten who had then been sworn allies, there are now perhaps not two together. The general feeling at Rome was against Sylla, although his party had still the ascendency. This shows how they lost their power: they resigned it themselves, being tired of it; just as the national convention did, after the death of Robespierre. Very likely, people at Rome felt at that time much more comfortable than they had any reason for being: the danger without from Spartacus was so great, that it was necessary to keep close together.

Although Cicero was a _homo novus_, and had not distinguished himself in war, he yet resolved to obtain the highest offices. One step after another was given him with the greatest goodwill of the people; and he acquitted himself in the most creditable manner, not for the sake of mere show, but from the bent of his noble disposition. He was thoroughly a man of honour, far above even the thought of anything like meanness: to put forth all his powers, and to display them most brilliantly, was his generous ambition. The necessity of making himself conspicuous in order to rise, was the source of that boastfulness with which he has been so often reproached, and which perhaps he would not have had under other circumstances. He distinguished himself by his accusation of Verres, but yet more by his defences; whereas the other great orators were always engaged as accusers. It is quite striking, how many he undertook to defend; but he also pleaded for people for whom I could not have said one word, but rather would have accused them. This was in many cases to be accounted for by his kindliness of soul; as for instance, there was in the defence of M. Æmilius Scaurus, the son, an apostrophe to the father, that deep hypocrite, who, in his later years, it is true, was really the worthy man that he had wished to seem in his earlier ones. Cicero had personally much admiration for him, having been kindly received by him when a youth; and it might perhaps have immensely flattered him to be noticed by such a man. Scaurus was a _grand seigneur_, the first man of the republic as _princeps senatus_ and censor, and Cicero did not know him from history as we do. Thus I confess that a certain great statesman, in whose house I almost lived in my youth, appears to me in quite a different light from what he would if I had not personally known him. Cicero may after all have been chiefly led by the feeling, that he was sparing the manes of a man, who as it were had inaugurated him for life, the grief of having his son condemned. Vatinius he also defended, after having once pleaded against him. Vatinius, however, was not that bad man which he would seem from Cicero’s passionate speech; the latter had dealt his blows too hard. Cicero had forgiven him, as he could not but pity him when he was in such distress; and his gratitude to Cicero, as expressed in his letters, shows him to have been no villain. Cicero thought it a dispensation of providence, that he had power to take his part: the consciousness of being able to give protection by his talent, was the highest delight of his life. For having pleaded for Gabinius, he is indeed to be blamed; but this was a sacrifice which he made to the republic in order to gain Pompey over to the good cause, and it was very hard for him to do. For it was the misfortune of that age, that to do good, one had to be friendly to very bad people. It is a sad pity that this defence has been lost; but the oration _pro Rabirio Postumo_ being a close continuation of the same arguments, we may form some notion of that _pro Gabinio_; he surely did not make out Gabinius to be innocent. The courts indeed at that time were not juries, whose business is only to find out whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, and where a higher authority may step in and grant a pardon or commute the punishment; but the _quæstiones perpetuæ_ had come into the place of the former popular tribunals, and combined both of these functions: they gave a verdict as to innocence or guilt, and also had the right of pardoning. This latter power must not be wanting in any state, _summum jus_ being only too often _summa injuria_: as no one else had it in Rome, the courts of justice themselves had to be invested with it. This is the point of view from which we are to judge the tribunals and advocates of that time. When Kant in his _Kritik der Urtheilskraft_ (Critical Enquiry into the Faculty of Judgment) assails the eloquence and the profession of advocate, he is in some measure in contradiction with himself; for even on this occasion, he has written with the greatest eloquence when inveighing against political, and still more against forensic eloquence. Before our (German) tribunals, eloquence indeed is not allowable: the question in our mode of administering justice being “guilty or not guilty,” the Judge has to throw aside anything that might beguile or mislead him. If, as has been often proposed, but cannot be carried out, there were a board which had to inquire whether there be room for pardon, a generous orator pleading for mercy would be very much in his place.[4]

Cicero having thus passed through the quæstorship, ædileship, and prætorship, was now, in his forty-third year, unanimously chosen consul. It cannot be denied that, at the end of his consulship, he became giddy; but he entered upon it with cheerful confidence, and the circumstances in which he was placed were exceedingly difficult. The tribunes everywhere abused their recovered power. The speeches against Rullus are some of the most brilliant examples of eloquence, when he demanded a small sacrifice from the people, and induced them not to accept the bounty which was proffered them in the scheme for the division of the lands. Moreover, when the sons of the proscribed (some of whom were of the first families, and had become impoverished, inasmuch as Sylia had deprived them of all prospect of office), had by the motion of a tribune been given to hope that they might recover their honours, he persuaded them _concordiæ causa_ to renounce them. The person who from the very first withstood him, was Catiline. How Cicero was to be murdered; how he discovered those plots; how he saw into the secrets of the conspirators, without being seen himself; you may read in his own writings, and in Sallust. Matters came to such a pass, that Cicero found it necessary to attack Catiline in the senate; whereupon the latter left Rome, which was considered a great advantage. He betook himself to Tuscany where one of his partisans had gathered together some thousands of armed men, a number of vagabonds and outcasts, part of them Etruscans driven from their homes, others military colonists and such like. The accomplices, however, who had remained behind in Rome were men of the highest standing: among others was the prætor Lentulus, who had already been consul, but had been struck off from the list of the senate _ambitus causa_; so that he had once more to pass through all the offices, beginning at the lowest, to be able again to come into the senate. As to him, Cicero knew of his guilt for certain; in other cases, the connexion was very probable, though it was never proved; in that of M. Crassus, it was very likely. Julius Cæsar was also mentioned; yet Cicero believed him innocent: it is my conviction, that he could not have engaged in anything of the kind, the conspiracy being such, that this is not to be thought of. To get such evidence that the crime might, according to the Roman law, be _delictum manifestum_, Cicero made use of a stratagem. The envoys of the Allobroges, who since Pompey’s return from the war with Sertorius, were Roman citizens, and just then were present at Rome to negotiate a loan, and to obtain relief, he persuaded to disclose to him the offers made them by the conspirators: they were also to get the letters of these to Catiline, and then to give them up to him. The envoys being thereupon arrested, for the sake of appearance, by the prætor Valerius Flaccus, those letters were found among their papers. The punishment to be inflicted, was the question now mooted in the senate. According to the Roman law, there was no doubt but that, the identity of the signatures being proved, the culprits might be condemned to death, and this was moved by Dec. Silanus: but Cæsar argued that this would be a highly dangerous step; that great odium would be incurred by it, as one would have to return to the former mode of wholesale executions; that one should rather disperse the men, and keep them imprisoned for life in different places. I believe that, if in later years the question had been put to Cicero, what would have been best for the republic, he himself would have wished that Cato had not spoken, however honest a man Cato was: it was a misfortune for the republic that those men were executed. That the events are here very much crowded, must not surprise us; for the greatest things may happen within a few weeks. On the other hand, it startles us when Cicero in the oration for Sextius says, “what would have happened, if the conspiracy had been discovered later, if Catiline had had time during the winter, and thrown himself into the mountains?” This seems enigmatical; for those familiar with Cicero’s writings, are aware that he designates his triumph as _Nonæ illæ Decembres_, and in Tuscany it is certainly winter in December. Yet this comes from the derangement of the calendar; just as Cæsar also once betakes himself into winter-quarters in February.

Catiline had joined C. Manlius in Etruria. Cicero adopted the most excellent arrangement. Q. Metellus Celer, who was posted with an army in the _ager Gallicus Picenus_, marched to the northern slope of the Apennines, to cut off the passes which lead from Fæsulæ to Rome. C. Antonius, whom Cicero with wonderful cleverness had detached from the conspirators, and had quite neutralized by giving up all sorts of advantages to him, had likewise the command of an army; but whilst he was ill, Petreius, his lieutenant, led the troops into action. Catiline, as all retreat from Etruria to Gaul was cut off from him, was obliged to accept the battle. He died as he had lived, like a valiant soldier: the whole band fought like lions; they fell like the soldiers of Spartacus.

For this consulship, Cicero indeed got thanks for the moment; but instead of gaining for him lasting gratitude, it only brought upon him enmity and detraction. This is one of the saddest lessons taught us by the observation of human affairs. It is quite natural for a distinguished man to put forth his claims to acknowledgment; just as the striving after truth is a deep-rooted impulse of our nature:—a true saint, like Vincent de Paul, could alone have raised himself above such a weakness. Plato justly says, “the last garment which the pure man doffs, is the love of fame;” and when he does cast it off, he generally stands on most dangerous ground. When I bethink myself of the crying evil of our age, then I see with pain that there are so few who are bent upon seeking deathless fame: this wretched unsatisfying life, which is all for the present moment, leads to no good. He who yearns after glory from posterity, is sure to be a good man; and even his own age also must acknowledge, and must honour him. The only poetical genius among the Germans now living, Count Platen, has a painful longing after renown, and often speaks of his not being appreciated by the men of his day. Cicero was of a morbid sensibility: if it is in the power of a great man always to command and to act, he cares less whether he is honoured or not; but if he is only able to command the souls of men, and not their bodies, he is much more susceptible with regard to such matters. Cicero was keenly, and even morbidly alive to anything like a slight; any injury, or ill-will, any kind of envy upset him. Unhappily, he tried to overcome this by putting himself forward to show to the people what he was, sometimes chiding, and at other times remonstrating with them. They were certainly the vainest of all men, who in the most highly edifying language forsooth! have written on Cicero’s vanity: I am grieved at it, as I love Cicero as if I had known him, and also feel hurt by the scoffs which even the ancients already uttered against him. A source of great heart-burning to him, was the mortification which he suffered from Pompey’s indifference. He must have known very little of the latter before he went to Asia, and they can only have met during Pompey’s first consulship; on what terms of friendliness they were, cannot be known: at that time, Cicero was ædile. Afterwards, Pompey was for the most part absent, whereas Cicero was always at Rome. Pompey, full of his victories over Mithridates, thought of no one in all the republic but himself; and when Cicero wrote an unfortunate letter to him in Asia, in which he told him of the events in Rome, to make him aware of what he himself had done for the good of the country, he answered coldly: he took it as an offence, that Cicero should have presumed, in the face of his own achievements, to speak of what he too had done for his country. Another motive were the aristocratical airs which Pompey was pleased to give himself towards a _homo novus_ like Cicero, although his own ancestor was but a low musician.

Hardly was Cicero’s consulship at an end, when he met with enmity. The whole college of tribunes in the following year, with the exception of Cato, was seditious: party names had no longer any meaning, and Metellus and Bestia, who belonged to the plebeian nobility, were playing the part of demagogues, and attacking him with the greatest impudence. His oration for Murena breathes the inward quiet joyfulness, which, just after his victory, made him happy for some time: it is by no means appreciated as it ought to be, and least of all by those jurists who have taken up the gauntlet as knights errant for the great lawyer Servius Sulpicius. People never bethink themselves of the state of mind in which the speaker is, but they are offended by trifling expressions; a thing which has often been the case with myself. This went on for centuries; no one understood how innocently Cicero here laughs at the Stoic philosophy as well as at the lawyers.

In his later years, Cicero displayed much kindliness towards younger men, whom he took by the hand and attached to himself; which was quite different from what most of his contemporaries did, Hortensius especially. Thus he behaved to Brutus, thus also to Cælius Rufus, a very opposite character; Catullus he likewise knew, and was most kind to; nor did he repel young men whom he found astray in evil paths, and whom he mourned over: such was the highly gifted Curio, a man whom he tried by every means to lead to better ways. In the epistles of M. Aurelius to Fronto, the Emperor says, “We have no word for φιλοστοργία, nor have we the thing itself.” This tenderness of heart which very few Romans had, this fatherly and friendly affection Cicero possessed, and therefore he was ridiculed as unmanly and soft: his mourning for the death of his daughter, arose from this inward depth of feeling. He was not a weak character; on the contrary, he showed in great emergencies a very decided strength of will: but he was a most impressible being, and easily upset; he needed “a nice and subtle happiness,” as Milton calls it, and thus the _indignum_ utterly overpowered him. Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi was reproached with vanity, irritability, and weakness; he was just such a character, and in him Cicero often becomes clear to me.

The event soon happened which gave rise to the misfortunes of his whole life. The root of the conspiracy was torn up; but many fibres of it had still remained in the ground, and grew up again. P. Clodius was descended in the direct line from old Appius Claudius, being the youngest of the three sons of one Appius Claudius. The eldest of these, who bore the hereditary name of Appius, was a good-natured man, very superstitious, narrow-minded, and commonplace, though on account of his high rank he was raised to the first dignities. There were also two sisters, one of whom was married to Lucullus. Thus Clodius belonged to the very noblest aristocracy: but mere nobility was no longer thought of, and power was all that men cared for. In that profligate age, P. Clodius was among the most abandoned: he is one of those persons who have had most to do with the ruin of Rome. At the festival of the _Bona Dea_, which, like the Thesmophoriæ, was celebrated only by women in the house of the pontifex maximus, he smuggled himself in, in disguise, that he might meet with Pompeia, the wife of Julius Cæsar; but he was discovered, and tried for it. According to the true Roman law, the trial ought to have been before the spiritual court of the pontiffs, where he would undoubtedly have been condemned: but we see from this instance that the real jurisdiction, except in cases which were strictly ceremonial, must have been taken away from them. Clodius wanted to prove an alibi, and had the impudence to call in Cicero as a witness. The latter is said till then not to have had any quarrel with him, and the fellow was so dangerous that he ought to have contented himself with declining to give evidence; but Cicero, as we are told, to clear himself with his domineering wife of all connection with that family, not only bore true witness, but also gave free vent to his wit: he said things of Clodius in open court which put him in a ridiculous light, and could not but have caused his conviction. But Clodius had bought himself off from the condemnation of the Judges; he had actually lodged the money for his acquittal. For this day’s work, Clodius never forgave Cicero, and he thirsted for revenge.

Pompey now came back to Rome, where he renewed his former behaviour to Cicero, treating him not only with indifference but with scorn; and he encouraged Clodius to undertake something against him. Clodius, having now got a plebeian to make a show of adopting him, stood for the tribuneship, and was returned. Such _transitiones ad plebem_ were quite lawful: even in former times, no adoption would have been needed at all; for one had only to go over to the _plebs_, as many patricians did, when all that was required was that the censor admitted them. But people had now no longer any clear notions in these things, and Cicero himself impugns the validity of that tribuneship.

One of the atrocities of the age was now perpetrated. Ptolemy Auletes, who on account of his utter worthlessness had been driven from Alexandria, came to Rome; and there he bargained with those who were in power about the price of his restoration. The people of Alexandria sent a counter embassy with the most bitter complaints, to prove his guilt; but Ptolemy was powerful enough, with the connivance of the leading men at Rome, to have those who were of highest rank in that Alexandrine embassy assassinated: Clodius had a hand in all this. His tribunate took place in the year after Cæsar’s consulship.