Scr. Dyrrachi pr. K. Dec. a. 696
A. d. V Kal. Decembr. tres epistulas a te accepi, unam datam a. d. VIII Kal. Novembres, 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. Novembres, 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. 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
XXIII
CICERO TO ATTICUS, GREETING.
Dyrrachium, Nov. 29, B.C. 58
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[[104]] quod observandum illud caput non
[104]. scilicet Lallemand; sive MSS.
but, you see, the imprecations[[105]] 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