The Romans felt the same indifference toward affairs in the provinces that we show in this country, unless their investments were in danger.  They were wrapped up in their own concerns, and politics in Rome were so absorbing in 53 B.C. that people in the city probably paid little attention to the doings of a quaestor in the far-away province of Asia.  But, as the time for Curio’s return approached, men recalled the striking role which he played in politics in earlier days, and wondered what course he would take when he came back.  Events were moving rapidly toward a crisis.  Julia, Caesar’s daughter, whom Pompey had married, died in the summer of 54 B.C., and Crassus was defeated and murdered by the Parthians in 53 B.C.  The death of Crassus brought Caesar and Pompey face to face, and Julia’s death broke one of the strongest bonds which had held these two rivals together.  Caesar’s position, too, was rendered precarious by the desperate struggle against the Belgae, in which he was involved in 53 B.C.  In Rome the political pot was boiling furiously.  The city was in the grip of the bands of desperadoes hired by Milo and Clodius, who broke up the elections during 53 B.C., so that the first of January, 52, arrived with no chief magistrates in the city.  To a man of Curio’s daring and versatility this situation offered almost unlimited possibilities, and recognizing this fact, Cicero writes earnestly to him,[128] on the eve of his return, to enlist him in support of Milo’s candidacy for the consulship.  Curio may have just arrived in the city when matters reached a climax, for on January 18, 52 B.C., Clodius was killed in a street brawl by the followers of Milo, and Pompey was soon after elected sole consul, to bring order out of the chaos, if possible.

Curio was not called upon to support Milo for the consulship, because Milo’s share in the murder of Clodius and the elevation of Pompey to his extra-constitutional magistracy put an end to Milo’s candidacy.  What part he took in supporting or in opposing Pompey’s reform legislation of 52 B.C., and what share he had in the preliminary skirmishes between Caesar and the senate during the early part of 51, we have no means of knowing.  As the situation became more acute, however, toward the end of the year, we hear of him again as an active political leader.  Cicero’s absence from Rome from May, 51 to January, 49 B.C., is a fortunate thing for us, for to it we owe the clever and gossipy political letters which his friend Caelius sent him from the capital.  In one of these letters, written August 1, 51 B.C., we learn that Curio is a candidate for the tribunate for the following year, and in it we find a keen analysis of the situation, and an interesting, though tantaizingly brief, estimate of his character.  Coming from an intimate friend of Curio, it is especially valuable to us.  Caelius writes:[129] “He inspires with great alarm many people who do not know him and do not know how easily he can be influenced, but judging