law), _it is not lawful without incurring penalty, now or
heretofore, whether to publish, repeal, amend, or supersede, or whereby
he who has so published or amended would be liable to penalty or
fine--such provision is not enacted by this law_. And observe that this
contingency did not touch the case of those eight tribunes, for they
were not bound by a law emanating from their own body.[365] Which makes
one the more suspicious of some evil intention, since they have added a
clause which did not affect themselves, but was against my interests: so
that the new tribunes, if they happened to be somewhat timid, would
think it still more necessary to employ the clause.[366] And Clodius did
not fail to notice this. For he said in the public meeting of November
the third, that by this clause a limit to their legal powers was laid
down for the tribunes-designate; and yet it cannot escape your notice
that in no law is there a clause of the sort: whereas, if it had been
necessary, everybody would have employed it in repealing a law. How this
point came to escape Ninnius[367] and the rest, pray find out, and who
introduced the clause, and how it was that the eight tribunes did not
hesitate to bring my case before the senate--which implies that they did
not think that clause of the law binding--and were yet so cautious in
their proposal for its repeal, as to be afraid (though not personally
liable) of what need not be taken into consideration, even by those who
are bound by the law. This clause I would not have the new tribunes
propose; however, let them only carry something, no matter what: I shall
be content with the single clause recalling me, so long only as the
business is done. I have for some time been feeling ashamed of writing
at such length; for I fear by the time you read this it will be all up
with any hopes, so that this minute criticism of mine may seem pitiable
to you and ridiculous to others. But if there is any ground for hope,
pray look at the law which Visellius[368] drafted for T. Fadius. I like
it very much: for that of our friend Sestius, which you say has your
approbation, I don't like.

The third letter is dated 12th of November, in which you explain with
wisdom and care what the circumstances are which seem to cause a
postponement of my affair, and about Crassus, Pompey, and the rest.
Accordingly, I beg you, if there is any hope that the matter can be
settled by the zeal of the loyalists, by the exertion of