, tr. pl. B.C. 57, was
accused of _maiestas_ in B.C. 55, and defended by Cicero. He had become
alienated from the senate by its opposition to his legislation against
usury in the provinces, and the case made a great sensation.]

APPENDIX B

L. VETTIUS (LETTER L, A II, 24)

L. Vettius, a kind of Titus Oates, was like the witness in "Great
Expectations," prepared to swear "mostly anything." The interest
attaching to such a sordid person is confined to the question whether he
was really acting with the connivance of, or under an agreement with,
any of the leading politicians of the day. If the principle of _cui
bono_ is applied, it is evident that the gainers were the party of the
trumvirs, whose popularity would be increased by a belief being created
that their opponents the Optimates were prepared to adopt extreme
measures to get rid of them. It would give them just the advantage which
the Rye House plot gave Charles II. This is Cicero's view, it seems, of
the matter, as insinuated in this letter and in his speech against
Vatinius (Sec.Sec. 24-26; cp. _pro Sest._ Sec. 132). In the letter, however, his
insinuations seem directed against Caesar: in the speech Vatinius is the
scape-goat. But Vettius was not only a liar, but a bad liar. He made
blunders; and when he brought in the name of Bibulus, he was not aware
that Bibulus had got scent of something going on, and had secured
himself by giving Pompey warning. He also did not tell consistent
stories, mentioning names (such as that of Brutus) at one time, and
withdrawing them at another. He was accordingly wholly discredited, and
could therefore expect no protection from Caesar, who had been careful
not to commit himself; and he had nothing for it but suicide, like
Pigott at the time of the Parnell Commission.

Cicero, then, would have us believe that Vettius had been instigated by
Vatinius (acting for Caesar) to name Bibulus, L. Lucullus, Curio (father
and son), L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, L. Lentulus, L. Paullus, Cicero
himself, his son-in-law Piso, and M. Laterensis, as having been all more
or less privy to the plot to murder Pompey and Caesar. That there was
absolutely no such plot, and that Vettius broke down hopelessly when
questioned. That the object was, (1) to irritate Pompey with the
Optimates and so confirm him in his alliance with Caesar, (2) to
discredit the Optimates generally.

It may be well to state briefly the views put forward by our other
auth