A Note on the Policy of Clodivs

L. G. Pocock

doi:10.1017/S0009838800015822

A Note on the Policy of Clodivs

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

L. G. Pocock

Show author details

L. G. Pocock: Affiliation:
University College, London

Article contents

Abstract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Other
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 19 , Issue 3-4 , July 1925 , pp. 182 - 184

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800015822 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1925

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 182 note 1} De har. resp. 48. Cf. Pro Sest. 67–68.

^{page 182 note 2} Att. III. 8. 3.

^{page 182 note 3} Pro Sest. 67, etc.

^{page 182 note 4} De har. resp. 48–49, ‘longius processit; in ipsum Cn. Pompeium … inuehi coepit,’ et seq.

^{page 182 note 5} Ascon. 47 (ed. Orelli).

^{page 182 note 6} De domo 40, ‘Tu tuo praecipitante iam et debilitato tribunatu auspiciorum patronus subito exstitisti.’

^{page 182 note 7} Ib. ‘quod si fieret,’ etc.

^{page 182 note 8} De har. resp. 48.

^{page 182 note 9} Ib. 48–49.

^{page 182 note 10} Whose particular policy it had been to attack the auspices. Cf. In Vat. 14–15; Pro Sest. 33, etc.

^{page 182 note 11} Cf. Att. II. 9. 1, ‘qui omnia remedia reipublicae effuderunt, etc.’

^{page 182 note 12} Cf. Pro Sest. 33, etc.

^{page 182 note 13} Att. III. 8. 3.

^{page 182 note 14} Ib. Ascon. 47.

^{page 182 note 15} Pro Sest. 67, etc.

^{page 182 note 16} Cf. Pro Sest. 71; Att. III. 18. 1.

^{page 182 note 17} Cf. Ad fam. I. 9. 14; De prou. cons. 25.

^{page 182 note 18} Cf. De domo 40, ‘praecipitante iam et debilitato tribunatu.’ De har. resp. 50, ‘cuius initia furoris dissensionibus eorem qui turn a uobis seiuncti uidebantur sustentata sunt. Reliqua iam praccipitantis tribunatus … obtrectatores eorum atque aduersarii defenderunt.’ Cf. also Heitland, Vol. III., pp. 173–174; De domo 34–39; De prou. cons. 45–46; Dio 3g. 21.

^{page 183 note 1} De domo 40.

^{page 183 note 2} Cf. De har. resp. 50; vide n. 18, supra.

^{page 183 note 3} De domo 40.

^{page 183 note 4} The Senate might exercise its discretion in such a case. Cf. Willems, , Droit public romain, p. 155Google Scholar; Cic. De leg. II. 12, 31.

^{page 183 note 5} De har. resp. 48.

^{page 183 note 6} Ib., ‘Ferebant in oculis hominem quidam boni uiri … inibat gratiam a nonnullis.’ Cf. ib. 50.

^{page 183 note 7} ‘Become a good Optimate and restore the father of his fatherland on his own shoulders’ (De domo 40). Cicero's suggestion that he did not realize that his own position was involved (De har. resp. 48, ‘quam caecus amentia non uidebat’) need not be taken seriously.

^{page 183 note 8} The question of the agrarian laws and the ‘donations’ of the eastern kingdoms (cf. Fam. I. 9. 7, and Att. II. 9. 1).

^{page 183 note 9} Cf. Pro Sest. 73. His measure against Cicero was subsequently attacked on fresh grounds: ‘etiamsi iure esset rogatum, tamen uim habere non posset.’

^{page 183 note 10} Cf. De har. resp. 48, ‘Ferebant in oculis quidam boni uiri,’ et sqq. Ib. 50, ‘Volo’ in quiunt ‘esse qui in contione detrahat de Pompeio.’ Cf. Q. jr. II. 2. 2 and 3, where Bibuius, Favonius, Curio, and Servilius join him again in attacks on Pompey.

^{page 183 note 11} De har. resp. 42.

^{page 183 note 12} Att. II. 12. 2.

^{page 183 note 13} Ib.

^{page 183 note 14} Correspondence of Cicero, ad loc.

^{page 183 note 15} De domo 65, ‘quasi per beneficium.’ Cf. Dio 39. 22.

^{page 183 note 16} De domo 22, 65; Pro Sest. 60.

^{page 183 note 17} De domo 22; Pro Sest. 60.

^{page 183 note 18} Cf. Pro Sest. 60, ‘splendorem maculare’.

^{page 184 note 1} Cf. Dio 39. 23. 3.

^{page 184 note 2} De domo 22.

^{page 184 note 3} Dio 39. 23. 4.

^{page 184 note 4} Cf. In Vat. 41.

^{page 184 note 5} Cf. In Vat. 13, 15, 38; Pro Sest. 132, 135.

^{page 184 note 6} See C.Q., April, 1924.

^{page 184 note 7} Dio 39. 23. 4.

^{page 184 note 8} Att. III. 8. The first of Cicero's letters which refers to the Tigranes' episode also contains the news that Varro and Hypsaeus, friends of Pompey, had been active on his behalf.

^{page 184 note 9} Cf. Pro Sest. 69; De domo 67; De har. resp. 49; Ascon. 47.

^{page 184 note 10} Cf. Di har. resp. 48, 50, etc.

^{page 184 note 11} Q. fr. II. 3. 2 and 3; C.Q., April, 1924.

^{page 184 note 12} Pro Sest.71.

^{page 184 note 13} Ib. 72, 73.

^{page 184 note 14} Ib. 74.

Article contents

A Note on the Policy of Clodivs

Abstract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests