^{page 103 note 1} Mommsen, , History of Rome (1894 ed.), Vol. V., p. 124Google Scholar; Watson, , Select Letters of Cicero (4th ed.), p. 140Google Scholar; Tyrrell, and Purser, , The Correspondence Cicero (2nd ed.), Vol. II., p. 53Google Scholar(note to letter 106, § 1); , Ferrero, The Greatness and Decline Rome, Vol. II., p. 42Google Scholar; Sihler, , Cicero of Arpinum, p. 232Google Scholar; Meyer, , Caesar's Monarchic, p. 136Google Scholar.

Ihne, (Römische Geschichte V., p. 387)Google ScholarFowler, Warde (Julius Caesar, p. 181)Google Scholargo no farther than to say that Caesar's legislation was to ‘considered’.

Strachan-Davidson, (Cicero, pp. 260–2)Google Scholar and Heitland, (The Roman Republic III., pp. 181–2)Google Scholarsuggest that Cicero desired, not to annul, but to suspend, Caesar's act.

^{page 103 note 2} Ad Atticum II. 19. 2.

^{page 103 note 3} Plutarch, Cato Minor, ch. 33.

^{page 103 note 4} Ibid., chs. 31–2; Cassius Dio, bk. 38, chs. 3, 6.

^{page 103 note 5} Ferrero (op. cit.) denies this. But he quotes no evidence insupport. In fact, the evidence goes against him.

^{page 103 note 6} Post Red. ad Senatum, § 29; Pro Sestio, § 19. Pro Milone, § 39; Caesar, Bell. Ciu. I. 14. 4.

^{page 103 note 7} Cicero, Philippic II., § 101.

^{page 103 note 8} In Legem Agrariam II., § 84; Ad Familiares XIII. 4. 2.

^{page 103 note 9} Ad Atticum I. 19. 4.

^{page 104 note 1} Mommsen, Watson, Sihler, Ihne, Meyer, loc. cit.; Drumann, , Geschichte Roms III., pp. 238–9, IV., p. 521Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 2} Ad Familiares I. g. 7.

^{page 104 note 3} See especially §§ 46–50. The date of this speech has recently been fixed by Meyer, (op. cit., p. 138, n. 2)Google Scholar at the beginning or middle of April, i.e. very close to the motion on the Lex Campana.

^{page 104 note 4} Ad Familiares I. 9. 8.

^{page 104 note 5} Ad Quintum Fratrem II. 3. 3(written in February, 56).

^{page 105 note 1} Ad Atticum II. 16. 2.

^{page 105 note 2} The double game which Pompey played ever since 54 B.C. is described with great clearness by Meyer, pp. 193 sqq.

^{page 105 note 3} Ad Familiares I. 9. 9.

^{page 105 note 4} Philippic II. 23.

^{page 105 note 5} Ad Quintum Fratrem II. 1. 1.

^{page 105 note 6} Pauly-Wissowa, , s.v. Rutilius, No. 27Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 7} Ad Familiares I. 1. 3; I. 2. 2.

^{page 105 note 8} Ibid. I. 9. 9.

^{page 105 note 9} Ibid. I. 9. 8.

^{page 105 note 10} Pompey had a decided penchant for acting the part of the heavy father. Witness his tragic gestures when he was commissioned to exercise command against Mithridates (Plutarch, Pompey, ch. 30), and when he decided on hostilities against Caesar (Appian, , Bell. Ciu. II. 31)Google Scholar. It is notorious that Cicero was frequently puzzled to discover Pompey's real feelings behind his ῥᾑσεις and his poses.

^{page 106 note 1} This is implied in De Haruspicum Responses, §31 (April, 56), and roundly asserted in De Prouinciis Consularibus, §11 (June, 56) and Pro Balbo, § 61 (summer 56).

^{page 106 note 2} Ad Quintum Fratrem II. 5. 1. In 61 B.C. the Roman revenues amounted to 340 million sesterces (Plutarch, Pompey 48). They had sincebeen diminished by the loss of rents in Campania.

^{page 106 note 3} This is the conclusion which Strachan-Davidson and Heitland (loc. cit.) have reached alter a more summary review of the case.

^{page 106 note 4} Suetonius, , Diuus Iulius 20,Google Scholar § 3; Appian II. 10. In view of the fact that the land distribution under the law of Tiberius Gracchus was far from completein 129 B.C., i.e. four years after the enactment of the law (Appian I. I9), we may assume that a good many of the applicants under Caesar's land legislation were still waiting for their allotments in 56 B.C.

^{page 106 note 5} In 56 B.C. it was Cicero's belief that the Gallic War would end in one or two years' time (De Prou. Cons., § 34).

^{page 106 note 6} Ad Familiarcs VIII. IO, 4.

^{page 107 note 1} It is probable that Lupus' motion in December 57 was a kite flown to ascertain how the wind was blowing in the Senate, and that the motion was withdrawn because the Senate gave it no hearty support. It is well known that Cicero bitterly complained of the Optimates' failure to play up to him (Ad Fam. I. 9. 10 sqq.; Ad Att. IV. 5. 1).

^{page 107 note 2} Ad Att. IV. 5. 3.