All the praetors themselves compiled and published the principles according to which they intended to try cases; for all the decrees regarding contracts had not yet been laid down.  Now since they were not in the habit of doing this once for all and did not observe the rules as written, but often made changes in them and incidentally a number of clauses naturally appeared in some one’s favor or to some one’s hurt, he moved that they should at the very start announce the principles they would use, and not swerve from them at all.  In fine, the Romans took such good care about that time to have no bribery, that in addition to punishing those convicted they furthermore honored the accusers.  For instance, when Marcus Cotta dismissed the quaestor Publius Oppius because of bribery and suspicion of conspiracy, though he himself had made great profit out of Bithynia, they exalted Gaius Carbo who thereupon accused Cotta, with consular honors, notwithstanding he had served as tribune merely.  Subsequently the latter himself was governor of Bithynia and erred no less widely than Cotta; he was, in his turn, accused by his son and convicted.  Some persons, of course, can more easily censure others than admonish themselves, and when it comes to their own case commit very readily deeds for which they think their neighbors deserving of punishment.  Hence they can not, from the mere fact that they prosecute others, inspire confidence in their own detestation of the acts in question.

[-41-] As for Lucius Lucullus, he finished his term of office as city praetor, but on being chosen by lot thereafter to serve as governor of Sardinia he refused, detesting the business because of the throng who were fostering corruption in foreign lands.  That he was suited for the place he had given the fullest proof.  Acilius once commanded the chair from which he had heard cases to be broken in pieces because Lucullus seeing Acilius pass by did not rise from his seat:  yet the praetor did not give way to rage, and after that both he and his fellow officials tried cases standing up on account of the consul’s action.

[-42-] Roscius likewise introduced a law, and so did Gaius Manilius, at the time when they were tribunes.  The former received some praise for his,—­for it consisted in marking off sharply the seats of the knights in theatres from the other locations,—­but Manilius came near having to stand trial.  He had granted the class of freedmen, some of whom he got together from the populace on the last day of the year and toward evening, the right to vote with those who had freed them.  The senate learned of it immediately on the following day, the first of the month, the day on which Lucius Tullius and Aemilius Lepidus entered upon the consulship, and rejected his law.

[B.C. 66 (a.u. 688)]

He, then, in fear because the populace was terribly angry, at first ascribed the idea to Crassus and some others; as no one believed him, however, he paid court to Pompey even in the latter’s absence, especially because he knew that Gabinius had the greatest influence with him.  He went so far as to offer him command of the war against Tigranes and against Mithridates, and the governorship of Bithynia and Cilicia at the same time.