head, possibly under that of remissions or bad debts or something of the kind: and he may have trusted to the general feeling that an inconsiderate bargain had been made, that the State had not really lost by the transaction, but had obtained a fair price in what had been already paid by Volusius (cum populus suum servaret), that the sureties were friends of his own and Roman citizens (civium), and that it was hard that they should be sued for the money (cum praesertim non deberent esse obligati) — just as we consider it hard that a man who backs a bill for a friend should have to pay up-that no one would be inclined to press the case of the State and insist on its getting the full amount of its too favourable contract. Possibly the sureties in this case gave their guarantees from friendliness and good-nature; but we cannot but suppose that very often such sureties could only have been secured for a substantial consideration, and that the abuse prevailed whereby, in case their principal made default, they were able to use influence to prevent their having themselves to pay up the guarantee which they had given. Cicero does not by any means wish to hide what he did quite the reverse, he takes credit for it. The State was not really injured, and good friends of his own who were Roman citizens were freed from a heavy amercement (multa). It may not have been strict business; but contracts and estimates are not always enforced to the letter even in our own days.

non est id rationum] that has nothing to say to the accounts.' Volusius was quite free from the transaction now: there was no need that his name should appear at all in the accounts; no remission had been made to him. Another error on the part of Rufus was in the sum remitted; it was only 1,900,000 sesterces, not

3,000,000. Valerius had paid up most of the sum due, but there remained 1,900,000 sesterces as arrears. This is an incidental matter to which Cicero refers, so we have put it in a parenthesis.

Cicero

C. Camillus] a lawyer friend of Cicero: Att. v. 8. 3 (193); Fam. xiv. 14. 2 (309). Erat enim] It is Valerius and his sureties who are liable; for the money was paid us in the name of Valerius as the purchaser; the balance, or arrears, I have duly returned in my accounts.' does not say under what head (see note above). There was a term residuae pecuniae for balances in the hands of contractors, the non-payment of which was an indictable offence (Dig. xlviii. 13. 2: cp. Cic. Clu. 94); but it can hardly have been under this heading that Cicero entered the deficit, as that would still leave the parties in the transaction liable to be sued. More probably he entered the deficit in some such way as we would write off' a bad debt. Manceps is applied to purchasers of State-contracts, Fest., p. 151, Müll.

Manceps dicitur qui quid a populo emit conducitve, quia manu sublata significat se auctorem emptionis esse: qui idem praes dicitur quia tam debet praestare populo quod promisit quam is qui pro eo praes factus est'; also Pseudo-Ascon. on Div. in Caecil, § 33, p. 113 (= 196 Stangl). In rationes referre, 'to make an entry in the accounts'; in rationibus referre, to return (to the Treasury) in the accounts.'

4. Q. Leptam] As it is not in G, perhaps this name is to be omitted. Rufus knew the persons who were involved in the whole transaction, so there was no necessity for Cicero to specify the names. Wesenberg (Em. 76) thinks that, so far from cutting out Q. Leptam, we should add the name of one or other of Cicero's four legati, e.g. M. Anneium, after meum: cp. Att. v. 4. 2 (187).

non deberent esse obligati] as being only praedes, not principals, in the transaction, who may possibly have gone surety from friendship, and not from any pecuniary consideration. Hence the sum for which they have become liable is called multa below.

de tanto periculo] in a matter wherein my duty was so much involved, and I ran such risk,' viz., of being called to account by the urban quaestors for the unbusiness-like conduct of the whole transaction. We can hardly suppose that meorum has been lost after periculo, and that the reference is to the danger of serious pecuniary loss which his friends would have sustained if the full amount of their guarantee had been exacted.

quod] so we read with Lamb., instead of Mss cum, both for the sake of symmetry (for quod is used after liberalitatis and diligentiae), and because cum would require the subjunctive.

ne cogitatam] evinced no thought at all.' This is the admirable addition of the early editors. Rufus had attributed the whole remission to Cicero's clerk: and, in criticizing the remission, said that it showed a complete absence of thought. Cicero now takes credit for the whole transaction, and says that Rufus has, o all intents and purposes, accused him of want of ordinary intelligence (prudentiae), for the plan had been most carefully thought out (excogitatam), and just the one person who was displeased at it was Cicero's clerk. For cogitare and excogitare -contrasted, cp. Att. ix, 6, 7 (360).

T. Mario] We do not know anything of this man, or how he was liable to loss.

5. The difficulty in this and the following section is that there are two sums of money, one deposited by Cicero's order and used by Pompey, another deposited by Rufus's order and used by Sestius: while both sums appear to be referred to as ista pecunia. The only explanation we can offer is that Sestius, who was on State service in Asia (possibly as propraetor in Cilicia), took the latter sum for his own expenses, while he took over the former sum in trust for Pompey. This is probable, as Pompey had not yet left Italy. Rufus, however, in handing the money over to Sestius, acted under Cicero's orders, as Cicero readily acknowledges he did not enter in his accounts that he had given these orders to Rufus, for he considered it unnecessary to do so, as the matter was so very well authenticated. This passage (cp. § 9) is very interesting, as showing that Pompey and the other Optimates had been already making preparations in the East for the conflict with Caesar, which they considered very probable, if not inevitable (ep. Att. vii. 4. 2 (295), de rep, autem ita mecum locutus est quasi non dubium bellum haberemus). It is noteworthy, too, as this passage shows us, that actual decrees of the senate authorizing such appropriations as this appear to have been made in the latter half of the year 50, before anything like a crisis had become imminent.

As to the explanation of the whole passage, we offer the following with the greatest hesitation, leaving the ultimate interpretation, whatever it may be found to be, to better manuscripts or clearer insight for its establishment. At the

direction of Pompey, Cicero had ordered a certain sum of money in dispute between one Lucceius and the State to be deposited in a temple. 'I acknowledge that I ordered it to be deposited,' says Cicero, and that Pompey took that sum for State purposes, just as Sestins took a similar sum which you deposited. I am sorry I did not add that this latter sum was deposited by my orders, but I have no reason to deny it. The handing over of the money to Sestius was so very well authorized, and the documents in the transaction so formal and regular, that I never dreamed that there could be any difficulty in the matter, nor thought that it could affect you at all.' But why then did Rufus find any fault with Cicero ? The whole letter shows that the grievances of Rufus were not altogether imaginary; but this does seem to have been a somewhat trivial matter, and as being trivial, Cicero yields to the request of Rufus with a great deal of circumstance. The point appears to have been that odium naturally attached to the appropriating by the State of money which had been lodged in a temple as still awaiting adjudication; and Rufus naturally did not wish to bear personal responsibility for the lodgment of this money in a temple whence it would be possible for the Optimates to withdraw it, or indeed for any part of a transaction which was somewhat highhanded and contrary to ordinary procedure. That the Optimates took money from municipalities and temples at the outbreak of the Civil War is stated by Caesar (B. C. i. 6. 8, pecuniae a municipiis exiguntur, e fanis tolluntur).

Cicero continues-The case is quite different about the 900,000 sesterces: that entry was authorized by you, or at any rate by your cousin ; so you should not

evade the responsibility of it now. But while in the former matter I, for my part, shall see what can be done to alter the accounts, you, on your part, certainly ought not in the account of money raised (or collected') to disagree so widely with my accounts already sent in-governor and quaestor ought not in their accounts to exhibit such a wide discrepancythough of course I may be in error. be assured I shall do everything I can for you.

But

Nam] For this use of nam, introducing a transition to a new subject, Manutius compares § 6; also Fam. i. 9. 19 (153) Nam de Appio; Att iii. 10. 2 (67); iii. 15. 2 (88). Still there is no doubt that iam would be more natural.

in fano poneretur] For the lodgment of disputed money in a temple cp. Att. v. 21. 12 (250).

Sestius] was praetor in 53, and may have been propraetor of Cilicia for some time during the latter part of 49. He was certainly in Italy, and composed a manifesto for Pompey in the spring of this year: cp. 315. 2. But he was more probably sent out by Pompey as a kind of commissioner to see after affairs in the East, and try to raise money for the aristocratic war-chest. In later times we find him sent to take command of some soldiers in Pontus (Bell. Alex. 34. 5). animadvertisse ut adscriberem] 'take care to add a note': cp. Liv. iv. 45. 4, adverterent animos ne quid novi tumultus Labicis oreretur.

tot vestigiis impressa]' ear-marked with such a number of clues (as to its origin and allocation) that no error was possible.' For tot... ut cp. 542. 1, tot rusticos: Stoicos regeram ut Catium Athenis natum esse dicas.