substituting exile in its place, and for this reason Caesar does not
refer to any such law. He supports his view only by the circumstance
that, in all the more recent laws, especially in the criminal law of
Sulla, exile (_interdictio aquae et ignis_) was fixed upon as the
extreme penalty; and that according to the usual indulgence (not
sanctioned by any law), accused persons, if they denied being guilty,
and were defended by some one, remained in the enjoyment of their
freedom until the sentence was passed. Thus it happened that a
person, foreseeing his condemnation, might quit the Roman territory,
and take up his abode within the territory of some town or city where
the Roman law was not in force, and where the Roman state placed no
obstacles in his way.
[262] 'How is it consistent?' Respecting _qui_ for _quomodo_ or _quo
pacto_, see Zumpt, S 133, note. The _minus negotium_ is the
scourging, and the _majus negotium_ the execution.
[263] _At enim_ introduces an objection raised by the orator himself.
_At_ represents the objection, and _enim_ introduces an explanation
of it. See Zumpt, S 349.
[264] Caesar means to say that the present senate, which, as he
flatteringly says, consists of worthy men, will not abuse the power
of putting Roman citizens to death; but that a subsequent senate,
taking such an example as a precedent, might abuse its power. It
must be observed that the Roman senate possessed the power over the
life and death of citizens, not by virtue of legal enactments, but
only by ancient custom. This power legally belonged only to the
people assembled in the Comitia Centuriata, or to those to whom the
people expressly intrusted it--namely, the ordinary and extraordinary
courts of justice. It may seem surprising that Caesar does not
express himself more energetically against the right claimed by the
senate; but he would certainly have spoken in vain, for it was