ued by Pompeius.

22. To this Cicero's reproach presumably points (De Off. iii. 12,
49): -piratas immunes habemus, socios vectigales-; in so far,
namely, as those pirate-colonies probably had the privilege of
immunity conferred on them by Pompeius, while, as is well known,
the provincial communities dependent on Rome were, as a rule,
liable to taxation.

23. IV. VIII. Pontus

24. V. IV. Battle at Nicopolis

25. V. II. Defeat of the Romans in Pontus at Ziela

26. V. IV. Pompeius Take the Supreme Command against Mithradates

27. IV. VIII. Weak Counterpreparations of the Romans ff.

28. V. II. Egypt not Annexed

29. V. IV. Urban Communities

Notes for Chapter V

1. V. III. Renewal of the Censorship

2. IV. VI. Political Projects of Marius

3. IV. X. Co-optation Restored in the Priestly Colleges

4. IV. VII. The Sulpician Laws

5. IV. X. Permanent and Special -Quaestiones-

6. IV. VI. And Overpowered

7. IV. VII. Bestowal of Latin Rights on the Italian Celts

8. Any one who surveys the whole state of the political relations
of this period will need no special proofs to help him to see that
the ultimate object of the democratic machinations in 688 et seq.
was not the overthrow of the senate, but that of Pompeius. Yet
such proofs are not wanting. Sallust states that the Gabinio-
Manilian laws inflicted a mortal blow on the democracy (Cat. 39);
that the conspiracy of 688-689 and the Servilian rogation were
specially directed against Pompeius, is likewise attested (Sallust
Cat. 19; Val. Max. vi. 2, 4; Cic. de Lege Agr. ii. 17, 46).
Besides the attitude of Crassus towards the conspiracy alone shows
sufficiently that it was directed against Pompeius.

9. V. V. Transpadanes

10. Plutarch, Crass. 13; Cicero, de Lege agr. ii. 17, 44. To this
year (689) belongs Cicero's oration -de rege Alexandrino-, which
has been incorrectly assigned to the year 698. In it Cicero
refutes, as the fragments clearly show, the assertion of Crassus,
that Egypt had been rendered Roman property by the testament of
king Alexander. This question of law might and must have been
discussed in 689; but in 698 it had been deprived of its
significance through the Julian law of 695. In 698 moreover
the discussion related not to the question to whom Egypt belonged, but
to the restoration of the king driven out by a revolt, and in this
transaction which is well known to us Crassus played no part.
Lastly, Cicer