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, 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 inculpatory character of these writings of his in the background, proves, not that they are not partisan treatises, but that they are good ones.