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, Cicero after the conference of Luca was not at all in
a position seriously to oppose one of the triumvirs.

11. V. IV. Pompeius Proceeds to Colchis

12. V. III. Attacks on the Senatorial Tribunals, V. III. Renewal
of the Censorship

13. The -Ambrani- (Suet. Caes. 9) are probably not the Ambrones
named along with the Cimbri (Plutarch, Mar. 19), but a slip of
the pen for -Arverni-.

14. This cannot well be expressed more naively than is done in
the memorial ascribed to his brother (de pet. cons. i, 5; 13, 51, 53;
in 690); the brother himself would hardly have expressed his mind
publicly with so much frankness. In proof of this unprejudiced
persons will read not without interest the second oration against
Rullus, where the "first democratic consul," gulling the friendly
public in a very delectable fashion, unfolds to it the "true democracy."

15. His epitaph still extant runs: -Cn. Calpurnius Cn. f. Piso
quaestor fro pr. ex s. c. proviniciam Hispaniam citeriorem optinuit-.

16. V. V. Failure of the First Plans of Conspiracy

17. V. III. Continued Subsistence of the Sullan Constitution

18. IV. XII. Priestly Colleges

19. IV. VII. Economic Crisis

20. V. V. Rehabilitation of Saturninus and Marius

21. Such an apology is the -Catilina- of Sallust, which was
published by the author, a notorious Caesarian, after the year 708,
either under the monarchy of Caesar or more probably under
the triumvirate of his heirs; evidently as a treatise with a political
drift, which endeavours to bring into credit the democratic party--
on which in fact the Roman monarchy was based--and to clear
Caesar's memory from the blackest stain that rested on it; and with
the collateral object of whitewashing as far as possible the uncle
of the triumvir Marcus Antonius (comp. e. g. c. 59 with Dio,
xxxvii. 39). The Jugurtha of the same author is in an exactly
similar way designed partly to expose the pitifulness of
the oligarchic government, partly to glorify the Coryphaeus of
the democracy, Gaius Marius. The circumstance that the adroit author
keeps the apologetic and incu