Letter 68

On the 26th of November I received three letters from you. In one of them, posted on the 25th of October, you exhort me to keep up my courage and wait for January, and you give a full list of all the hopeful signs, Lentulus’ zeal for my cause, Metellus’ good will and Pompey’s policy. One of the others is undated, which is unlike you; but you give a clear clue to the time, for you say you were writing it on the very day that the bill was published by the eight tribunes, that is to say the 29th of October: and you state the advantages you think have resulted from the publication of the law. If my restoration and this law together are long past praying for, I hope your affection will make you regard the trouble I am taking about it with pity rather than amusement. But, if there is still some hope, please see to it that our new magistrates set up a more careful case. For the old tribunes’ bill had three sections, and the one about my return was carelessly worded; it does not provide for the restitution of anything but my citizenship and my position. In my fallen fortunes that is enough for me, but you cannot fail to see what ought to have been stipulated and how. The second clause is the usual form of indemnity: “If in virtue of this law there be any breach of other laws,” etc. But it is the third clause, Pomponius, to which I would call your attention. What is its object, and who put it in? You know that Clodius had so provided that it was almost, if not quite impossible for either the Senate or the people to annul his law; esse observatas sanctiones earum legum, quae abrogarentur. Nam, si id esset, nulla fere abrogari posset; neque enim ulla est, quae non ipsa se saepiat difficultate abrogationis. Sed, cum lex abrogatur, illud ipsum abrogatur, quo modo eam abrogari oporteat. Hoc cum et re vera ita sit, et cum semper ita habitum observatumque sit, octo nostri tribuni pl. caput posuerunt hoc: SI QVID IN HAC ROGATIONE SCRIPTVM EST, QVOD PER LEGES PLEBISVE SCITA, hoc est quod per legem Clodiam, PROMVLGARE, ABROGARE, DEROGARE, OBROGARE SINE FRAVDE SVA NON LICEAT, NON LICVERIT, QVODVE EI, QVI PROMVLGAVIT, ABROGAVIT, DEROGAVIT, OBROGAVIT, OB EAM REM POENAE MVLTAEVE SIT, E. H. L. N. R. Atque hoc in illis tribunis pl. non laedebat; lege enim collegii sui non tenebantur. Quo maior est suspicio malitiae alicuius, cum id, quod ad ipsos nihil pertinebat, erat autem contra me, scripserunt, ut novi tribuni pl., si essent timidiores, multo magis sibi eo capite utendum putarent. Neque id a Clodio praetermissum est; dixit enim in contione a. d. III Nonas Novembres hoc capite designates tribunis pl. praescriptum esse, quid liceret. Tamen in lege nulla esse eius modi caput te non fallit, quod si opus esset, omnes in abrogando uterentur. Ut Ninnium aut ceteros fugerit, investiges velim, et quis attulerit, et quare octo tribuni pl. ad senatum de me referre non dubitarint, scilicet quod observandum illud caput non but, you see, the imprecations attached to laws which are repealed are never regarded, otherwise hardly any law ever would be repealed; for there never is a law which did not hedge itself in with obstacles against its repeal. But, when a law is repealed, the provisions against repeal are repealed likewise. Though this is the case, and always has been in theory and in practice, our eight tribunes have thought fit to insert a clause: “If there be anything contained in this bill, which by law or popular decree,” that is by Clodius’ law, “cannot now or hereafter be brought forward, whether by way of proposal, repeal, amendment or modification, without penalty, or without involving the author of the proposal or amendment in a penalty or fine, no such proposal is made in this law.” And yet these tribunes did not run any risks; as a law made by one of their own body was not binding on them. That increases my suspicion that there is some trickery about it, as they have inserted a clause which does not apply to themselves, but is against my interest; and as a result the new tribunes, if they should happen to be rather timid, would suppose that clause still more indispensable. Nor did Clodius overlook the point: for in the meeting on November the third he said that this clause defined the powers of the tribunes elect. Yet you know quite well that no such clause is ever inserted in a law: and, if it were necessary, everybody would use it when repealing a law. Please try to find out how this clause escaped the notice of Ninnius and the rest, also who inserted it, and why the eight tribunes, after showing no hesitation about bringing my case before the House—which proves they did not think putabant, eidem in abrogando tam cauti fuerint, ut id metuerent, soluti cum essent, quod ne iis quidem, qui lege tenentur, est curandum. Id caput sane nolim novos tribunos pl. ferre; sed perferant modo quidlubet; uno capite, quo revocabor, modo res conficiatur, ero contentus. Iam dudum pudet tam multa scribere; vereor enim, ne re iam desperata legas, ut haec mea diligentia miserabilis tibi, aliis irridenda videatur. Sed, si est aliquid in spe, vide legem, quam T. Fadio scripsit Visellius. Ea mihi perplacet; nam Sesti nostri, quam tu tibi probari scribis, mihi non placet. Tertia est epistula pridie Idus Novembr. data, in qua exponis prudenter et diligenter, quae sint, quae rem distinere videantur, de Crasso, de Pompeio, de ceteris. Quare oro te, ut, si qua spes erit posse studiis bonorum, auctoritate, multitudine comparata rem confici, des operam, ut uno impetu perfringantur, in eam rem incumbas ceterosque excites. Sin, ut ego perspicio cum tua coniectura tum etiam mea, spei nihil est, oro obtestorque te, ut Quintum fratrem ames, quem ego miserum misere perdidi, neve quid eum patiare gravius consulere de se, quam expediat sororis tuae filio, meum Ciceronem, cui nihil misello relinquo praeter invidiam et ignominiam nominis mei, tueare, quoad poteris, Terentiam, unam omnium that section need be taken seriously—yet when it came to repealing the law, became so cautious that they feared a rule, which even those who are bound by the law do not regard, though they themselves were not bound by it. That clause I would rather the new tribunes did not propose; but do let them pass something—anything. I shall be quite contented with a single clause of recall, if only the matter can be settled. For some time past I have been ashamed of writing such long letters. For by the time you read this I am afraid that there may be no hope left, and that all my trouble may serve only to make you pity and others laugh. But, if there is any hope left, look at the bill which Visellius has drawn up for Fadius: it takes my fancy very much, whereas our friend Sestius’ proposal, which you say has your approval, does not please me at all. The third letter is dated November 12, and in it you go through the reasons which you think are causing delay in my case, thoughtfully and carefully, mentioning Crassus, Pompey and the rest. Now, if there is the least chance of getting the matter settled by the good offices and authority of the conservatives and by getting a large mass of supporters, for heaven’s sake try to break the barrier down at a rush: devote yourself to it and incite others to join. But if, as I infer from your guesses as well as mine, there is no hope left, then I beg and pray you to cherish my poor brother Quintus, whom I have involved in my own ruin, and not to let him pursue any rash course which would endanger your sister’s son. Watch over my poor little boy, to whom I leave nothing but the hatred and the disgrace of my name, so far as you can, and support Terentia with your kindness in her aerumnosissimam, sustentes tuis officiis. Ego in Epirum proficiscar, cum primorum dierum nuntios excepero. Tu ad me velim proximis litteris, ut se initia dederint, perscribas. Data pridie Kal. Decembr.

A. d. v Kal. Decembr. tris epistulas a te accepi, unam datam a. d. viii Kal. Novembris in qua me hortaris ut forti animo mensem Ianuarium exspectem, eaque quae ad spem putas pertinere de Lentuli studio, de Metelli voluntate, de tota Pompei ratione perscribis. in altera epistula praeter consuetudinem tuam diem non adscribis sed satis significas tempus; lege enim ab octo tribunis pl. promulgata scribis te eas litteras eo ipso die dedisse, id est a. d. iiii Kal. Novembris, et quid putes utilitatis eam promulgationem attulisse perscribis. in quo si iam nostra salus cum hac lege desperata erit, velim pro tuo in me amore hanc inanem meam diligentiam miserabilem potius quam ineptam putes, sin est aliquid spei, des operam ut maiore diligentia posthac a nostris magistratibus defendamur. [2] nam ea veterum tribunorum pl. rogatio tria capita habuit; unum de reditu meo scriptum incaute; nihil enim restituitur praeter civitatem et ordinem, quod mihi pro meo casu satis est; sed quae cavenda fuerint et quo modo te non fugit. alterum caput est tralaticium de impunitate, SI QVID CONTRA ALIAS LEGES EIVS LEGIS ERGO FACTVM SIT. Tertium caput, mi Pomponi, quo consilio et a quo sit inculcatum vide. scis enim Clodium sanxisse ut vix aut ut omnino non posset nec per senatum nec per populum infirmari sua lex. sed vides numquam esse observatas sanctiones earum legum; quae abrogarentur. nam si id esset, nulla fere abrogari posset; neque enim ulla est quae non ipsa se saepiat difficultate abrogationis. sed cum lex abrogatur, illud ipsum abrogatur quo modo eam abrogari oporteat. [3] hoc quom et re vera ita sit et quom semper ita habitum observatumque sit, octo nostri tribuni pl. caput posuerunt hoc: SI QVID IN HAC ROGATIONE SCRIPTVM EST QVOD PER LEGES PLEBISVE SCITA, hoc est quod per legem Clodiam, PROMVLGARE, ABROGARE, DEROGARE, OBROGARE SINE FRAVDE SVA NON LICEAT, NON LICVERIT, QVODVE EI, QVI PROMVLGAVIT, <ABROGAVIT>, DEROGAVIT, <OBROGAVIT>, OB EAM REM POENAE MVLTAEVE SIT, E. H. L. N. R. [4] atque hoc in illis tribunis pl. non laedebat; lege enim collegi sui non tenebantur. quo maior est suspicio malitiae aliquoius, cum id quod ad ipsos nihil pertinebat erat autem contra me scripserunt, ut novi tribuni pl. si essent timidiores multo magis sibi eo capite utendum putarent. neque id a Clodio praetermissum est; dixit enim in contione a. d. III Nonas Novembris hoc capite designatis tribunis pl. praescriptum esse quid liceret. tamen in lege nulla esse eius modi caput te non fallit, quod si opus esset, omnes in abrogando <uterentur&gtr;. Vt Ninnium aut ceteros fugerit investiges velim et quis attulerit et qua re octo tribuni pl. ad senatum de me referre non dubitarint, <sive> . . . sive quod observandum illud caput non putabant, eidem in abrogando tam cauti fuerint ut id metuerent soluti cum essent, quod ne iis quidem qui lege tenentur est curandum. id caput sane nolim novos tribunos pl. ferre; sed perferant modo quidlibet; uno capite quo revocabor, modo res conficiatur, ero contentus. iam dudum pudet tam multa scribere; vereor enim ne re iam desperata legas, ut haec mea diligentia miserabilis tibi, aliis inridenda videatur. sed si est aliquid in spe, vide legem quam T. Fadio scripsit Visellius. ea mihi perplacet; nam Sesti nostri quam tu tibi probari scribis mihi non placet. [5] Tertia est epistula pridie Idus Novembr. data, in qua exponis prudenter et diligenter quae sint quae rem distinere videantur, de Crasso, de Pompeio, de ceteris. qua re oro te ut, si qua spes erit posse studiis bonorum, auctoritate, multitudine comparata rem confici, des operam ut uno impetu perfringantur, in eam rem incumbas ceterosque excites. sin, ut ego perspicio cum tua coniectura tum etiam mea, spei nihil est, oro obtestorque te ut Quintum fratrem ames quem ego miserum misere perdidi neve quid eum patiare gravius consulere de se quam expediat sororis tuae filio, meum Ciceronem quoi nihil misello relinquo praeter invidiam et ignominiam nominis mei tueare quoad poteris, Terentiam, unam omnium aerumnosissimam, sustentes tuis officiis. ego in Epirum proficiscar quom primorum dierum nuntios excepero. tu ad me velim proximis litteris ut se initia dederint perscribas. data pridie Kal. Decembr.