[This is the first of two letters from November 29th.]
On November 26th I received three letters from you; one sent on October 25th, in which you encourage me to be brave and wait for January. You go into detail about the reasons you think I have for hope: about Lentulus’ devotion, Metellus’ good will, and all of Pompey’s thinking.
Another letter unusually for you is undated, but you show when it was written well enough, writing that you sent the letter on the same day that the eight Tribunes of the Plebs promulgated their law, so, October 29th. You go into detail about the use you see in this promulgation. Since by now I have as much hope of being restored as this law has of being passed, then please, if you love me, think me pitiful rather than foolish for my fruitless worrying.1 But if there is any hope, try to ensure that the magistrates who support me can take greater care to defend me in the future.
The bill of the previous2 Tribunes had three clauses; one about my return, written carelessly. For it restores nothing besides my citizenship and rank—which is enough for me in my present state—but it is obvious to you what precautions should have been considered, and how. The second clause, on impunity, is typical: ‘if this law causes any contravention of other laws.’ The third clause, my Pomponius—think who crammed it in, and to what end!
You know Clodius made it an offence for his law to be invalidated, so that it is almost or entirely impossible for the Senate or People to do anything about it. But you can see that such offenses have never been prosecuted when a law is being repealed. If they were, it would be almost impossible to repeal a law; for there is no law that doesn’t wrap itself in difficulty against being repealed. But when a law is repealed, the part that prevents it being repealed is also repealed.
This being the case, a truth that has always been held as such, and with precedent, our eight Tribunes of the Plebs put down the following clause: ‘if there is anything in this law, either promulgation, repeal, restriction, or modification, which is an offence that is not or was not permitted by the laws or plebiscites,’ that is, by Clodius’ law, ‘or which makes anyone responsible for such a promulgation, repeal, restriction, or modification liable for a penalty or fine, then nothing of this sort is enacted by this law.’
Those Tribunes had no reason to fear anything like this, as they are not bound by their own college’s law. This is a greater reason to suspect some sort of malice, since they included a clause that did not affect them at all, but that was against my interest, so that if the new Tribunes of the Plebs were timid, they would feel more like they needed to include that clause. And Clodius did not overlook this. For he said in a public meeting on November 3rd that this clause prescribed what the Tribunes of the Plebs could do.
Still, you will notice that no law contains a clause like this, because if there was a need for one, everyone would use it when repealing laws. Please investigate how this escaped Ninnius and the others, and who introduced this clause, and why the eight Tribunes of the Plebs did not hesitate to bring a motion about me before the Senate, thinking the clause forbidding this would not be observed in their case—but these same men were so cautious in repealing the law that they feared a punishment they had immunity from, and which even those who were bound by the law did not care about.
I really do not want the new Tribunes of the Plebs to put forward this clause. But let them only put forward something! If I am recalled in one clause I shall be content, so long as it actually happens.
I already feel ashamed to be writing so much; for I fear that when you read this, the situation will be beyond hope, and that my worrying will seem pitiful to you and ridiculous to others. But if there is any hope, look at the law that Visellius drafted for Titus Fadius. I think it’s very good. You write that you approve of our friend Sestius’ draft; but I don’t like it.
The third letter was sent on November 12th. In it, you explain sensibly and carefully the things that seem to be holding the matter back; about Crassus, Pompey, and the rest. And so I implore you, if there is any hope or possibility of getting it done through the support of the good men, through influence, through gathering together a crowd—try to force a way through with a single attack. Really apply yourself to this, and get others involved. But if (as I can guess from your predictions and my own) there is no hope at all, please, I beg you, take care of my brother Quintus, whom I miserably abandoned and left miserable. Don’t let him make any serious choice about himself that could harm your sister’s son.3 Protect my little Cicero as far as you can—I leave the poor little thing nothing by the hatred and dishonour of my name. Dutifully support Terentia, the woman who is suffering the most out of all of us.4
I shall set out for Epirus when I have got news of the first few days.5 Please write to me in detail in your next letter about how things have started.
Sent November 29th.
Latin text of Cic. Att. 3.23 | Glossary | Where is Cicero?
Clodius would still be Tribune of the Plebs until December 10th, and would veto any law recalling Cicero. Cicero knew this law had no chance of being passed.
i.e. the Tribunes who were about to leave office. The new Tribunes would take office on December 10th.
Footnote borrowed from Shackleton Bailey: ‘Evidently an allusion to the possiblity of Quintus’ committing suicide. C.’s intention to do so is implied throughout this appeal, especially in what he says about his son.’
Shackleton Bailey notes that the absence of Tullia from this list is unsual.
The first few days of the new Tribunes’ term.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.