ordinary intercourse of life, the main thing is to judge
of the character of those with whom we deal by compulsion or choice,
to know how far we can trust what they say, how far their future
conduct may be predicted from present indications. But to show what
these indications are, belongs, as Plutarch says, to another inquiry
than the present. The general rule of old was Distrust, which the
crafty Sicilian, as Cicero (_Ad Attic._ i. 19) calls Epicharmus, was
always whispering in his ear. Epicharmus has well expressed his maxim
in a single line:

[Greek: Naphe kai memnas' apistein: arthra tauta ton phrenon.]

Wakeful be thou and distrustful: sinews these are to the mind.

This is the rule for the timid, and for them a safe one. But he who is
always suspicious must not expect to be trusted himself; and when the
bold command, he must be content to obey.]

[Footnote 283: This is not a Roman name. The nearest name to it is
Aufidius. But it is conjectured that one Fufidius is meant here (see
the note of Sintenis), and also in the Life of Sertorius (c. 26, 27).
This is probably the Fufidius (Florus, iii. 21, where the name is
written incorrectly Furfidius in some editions) who said, that "Some
should be left alive that there might be persons to domineer over."]

[Footnote 284: A Proscriptio was a notice set up in some public place.
This Proscription of Sulla was the first instance of the kind, but it
was repeated at a later time. The first list of the proscribed,
according to Appian (_Civil Wars_, i, 55), contained forty senators
and about sixteen hundred equites. Sulla prefaced his proscription by
an address to the people, in which he promised to mend their
condition. Paterculus (ii. 28) states that the proscription was to the
following effect:--That the property of the proscribed should be sold,
that their children should be deprived of all title to their property,
and should be ineligible to public offices; and further, that the sons
of Senators should bear the burdens incident to their order and lose
all their rights. This will explain the word Infamy, which is used a
little below. Infamia among the Romans was not a punishment, but it
was a consequence of conviction for certain offences; and this
consequence was a civil disability; the person who became Infamis lost
his vote, and was ineligible to the great public offices. He also
sustained some disabilities in his private rights. Sulla therefore put
the chil