and such men were soon found
to have been embarked upon the ludicrous enterprise of 'catching a
Tartar;' following and seeking those

'Quos opimus
Fallere et effugere est triumphus.'

ADDITIONAL NOTES FOR CICERO.

I.

Bribery was it? which had been so organized as the sole means of
succeeding at elections, and which, once rendered necessary as the organ
of assertion for each man's birthright, became legitimate; in which
Cicero himself declared privately that there was '[Greek: exoche] in
nullo,' no sort of pre-eminence, one as bad as another, _pecunia
exaequet omnium dignitatem_. Money was the universal leveller. Was it
gladiators bought for fighting with? These were bought by his friend
Milo as well as his enemy Clodius, by Sextus Pompey on one side as much
as by Caesar on the other. Was it neglect of _obnunciatio_? And so far as
regards treating, Cicero himself publicly justified it against the
miserable theatrical Cato. How ridiculous to urge that against a popular
man as a crime, when it was sometimes enjoined by the Senate with
menaces as a duty! Was it the attacking all obnoxious citizens' houses?
That was done by one side quite as much as by the other, and signifies
little, for the attack always fell on some leading man in wealth; and
such a man's house was a fortress. Was it accepting provinces from the
people? Cicero would persuade us that this was an unheard of crime in
Clodius. But how came it that so many others did the same thing? Nay,
that the Senate abetted them in doing it; saying to such a person, 'Oh,
X., we perceive that you have extorted from the people.'

II.

Then his being recalled; what if a man should say that his nephew was
for it, and all his little nieces, not to mention his creditors? The
Senate were for it. But why not? Had the Senate exiled him? And,
besides, he was their agent.

III.

It was 'an impious bargain' are the words of Middleton, and Deiotarus
who broke it was a prince of noble character. What was he noble for? We
never heard of anything very noble that he did; and we doubt whether Dr.
Conyers knew more about him than we. But we happen to know why he calls
him noble. Cicero, who long afterwards came to know this king personally
and gave him a good dinner, says now upon hearsay (for he had then never
been near him, and could have no accounts of him but from the wretched
Quintus) that _in eo multa regia fuerunt_. Why yes, amputating