Page:Loeb Classical Library L205N (1958).djvu/269

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Epistulae ad Familiares, III. xi.

pass unpunished) is an ambiguous term;^[1] whereas "bribery and corruption" is so definite in meaning that either the prosecution or the defence must be scandalously false. For how can it fail to be proved whether an act of bribery was or was not committed? But who has ever suspected your successive public promotions? How sorry I am that I was not there! How I should have made them laugh!

³ But in your letter about your trial on the charge of maiestas there are two passages which pleased me exceedingly. One is your writing that your defence was undertaken by the Republic herself; and certainly, even if there were an abundant supply of honourable and courageous citizens, it would be her duty to protect such men, but all the more at the present time, because so great is the dearth of such men in every official rank, and at every stage of life, that, in her destitution the State should make the most of such guardians as yourself. And the second passage is your glowing tribute to the loyalty and friendly feeling of Pompey and Brutus. I rejoice that they have been so honourably fair and courteous to you; for not only are they your relatives and my very dear friends, but one of them is the chief man of every age and nation, and the other has long been the chief of our younger men,^[2] and will soon, I trust, be the chief of the state. As to the public disgracing of the venal witnesses by their several states, unless something has already been done through the agency

↑ Laesa or minuta maiestas (usually maiestas alone) being a vague comprehensive term, including any act whatever derogatory to the dignity, or prejudicial to the interests of the Roman people, was a charge easily made and admitting of no very positive defense. Sulla, however, in his Cornelian Laws intended it to be at least definite enough to check indiscriminate public vituperation. About ambitus on the other hand, there was no vagueness at all; it could be proved or disproved; "and who," says Cicero, "has ever impugned your political party?" As a matter of fact Appius was first accused of maiestas, and, on being acquitted, was shortly afterwards accused of ambitus, and again acquitted.

Appius implies by his question that he does not care whether he is charged with ambitus or maiestas, but Cicero thinks his chance of acquittal would be stronger if he was charged with ambitus.
↑ During the Republic the chief of the equites held the title of princeps iuventutis.

235

[1] Laesa or minuta maiestas (usually maiestas alone) being a vague comprehensive term, including any act whatever derogatory to the dignity, or prejudicial to the interests of the Roman people, was a charge easily made and admitting of no very positive defense. Sulla, however, in his Cornelian Laws intended it to be at least definite enough to check indiscriminate public vituperation. About ambitus on the other hand, there was no vagueness at all; it could be proved or disproved; "and who," says Cicero, "has ever impugned your political party?" As a matter of fact Appius was first accused of maiestas, and, on being acquitted, was shortly afterwards accused of ambitus, and again acquitted.

Appius implies by his question that he does not care whether he is charged with ambitus or maiestas, but Cicero thinks his chance of acquittal would be stronger if he was charged with ambitus.

[2] During the Republic the chief of the equites held the title of princeps iuventutis.

[1]

[2]