¹ Gruen, , RPCC 184Google Scholar.

² There are welcome exceptions. See, for example, Nippel, W.URS 74 [1984] 26Google Scholar) who points out that ‘the crucial weakness’ of the second century populares was their lack of success ‘in winning lasting and reliable support from the plebs urbana.’

³ More than a decade later, in reflective retirement, Cicero was willing to acknowledge that Saturninus was a highly effective speaker if not genuinely eloquent — eloquentissimus visus est — because he moved listeners by such externals as his action and his dress. It is interesting that Cicero characterises Saturninus by his performance but Glaucia by his large following: Brut. 224. On the orator and dress, see Quintil. 11.3.137 ff.; cf. Diod. 36.15.2. On Saturninus’ habit of citing the names of persons of renown in his speeches, see Cie, . Acad. 2.75Google Scholar.

⁴ Sest. 104-105.

⁵ Or at least his mother was, in cooperation with Gaius (Plut, . C. Gracch. 13.2)Google Scholar.

⁶ The image of Saturninus presented at Sest. 37 ff. [vigilante homine et in causa populari si non moderate, at certe populariter abstinenterque versato) is almost favourable. Contrast this with the reference to Clodius only one year later in private correspondence as ilia populi Appuleia [ad Att. 4.11.2). While Cicero is making an additional point with the use of the feminine form, it is clear that he recognises Saturninus as the bench-mark of dangerous activity against which contemporaries (obviously lesser exempta) are measured.

⁷ Lintott, A.W., ‘P. Clodius Pulcher — Felix Catilina’, Greece and Rome 14 (1967) 157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Before an audience composed strictly of his peers Cicero might have found it useful to draw a sharp distinction between the strong rural backing of the earlier populares (which this paper seeks to draw out) and the urban interests which formed Clodius' base. (The urbani never carried the moral weight allowed by Roman nostalgia to the rural peasantry.) But that would have been too dangerous a ploy in the open venues and volatile times in which his mid-fifties' statements were delivered. That is to say that Cicero had been forced to a comparison, initiated (it may be guessed) by the contemporary populares' use of the Gracchi and Saturninus as exempla with which to excite popular sympathy and/or rage — but was unable in a public forum to have recourse to an historical argument which this paper argues was available to him and which would have sprung to his mind if he had been addressing a home-town crowd in Arpinum but which would have been politically-suicidal to one who for all his increasingly-manifest conservatism was still competing with Clodius for urban popular support.

⁹ Cie, . Har. Resp. 43Google Scholar; Cie, . Sest. 39Google Scholar; Diod. 36.12. On the probable dating of his quaestorship to 104, see Sumner, Orators, 119 ff.; Broughton, , MRR 3.20 fGoogle Scholar. The date is accepted by Rickman, (Corn Supply 47Google Scholar) and Garnsey, (Famine and Food Supply 198Google Scholar). Cf. Robinson, (Marius 48Google Scholar) on a possible dating between 108 and 104. Crawford, (RRC 1.75Google Scholar [cf. 70]; 323-324, no. 317) prefers 104 for the date of his moneyership and tentatively assigns his quaestorship to the previous year. Mattingly, H.B. (NC 137 [1977] 205 f.Google Scholar) suggests a possible alternative dating for his coinage to 101 (or even 102: art. cit. n.31) but the evidence he adduces merely provides a terminus ante quern.

¹⁰ Har. Resp. 43.

¹¹ 36.12. This humiliation, exciting Saturninus' dolor, reportedly drove him into the ranks of the populares. See Cie. Har. Resp. 43; cf. Sest. 39. Dolor might be seen as the wounded anger of one who feels robbed of due honour (Judge, E.A., The Mind of Tiberius Gracchus, unpublished paper, University of Sydney, 1966, 20)Google Scholar.

¹² Cicero (Sest. 39) reports the transfer of duties was per ignominiam, an indication that the quaestor had alienated senatorial sympathies. Perhaps he had pursued an ominously independent line during his supervision of the corn supply. The minting of coin as quaestor without special senatorial authorisation may have constituted such a transgression (cf. Crawford, , RRC 2.603Google Scholar and the list on pp. 606-607; also my first appendix).

¹³ In public affairs generally it is fair to speculate that those whose opinions are customarily led take a cue from such judgemental reservations on the part of higher authorities with regard to delegated competencies — even when these withdrawals of commission are not expressed as a direct slight (which Saturninus, Cicero makes it clear, took this to be). Suspicion readily follows what is received as authoritative criticism.

¹⁴ In doing so breaking the rule that magistrates could not present themselves as candidates before their term of office expired. Saturninus may have circumvented the regulation if the tribunician elections were delayed until after the end of his quaestorian year (so Sumner, Orators 119 f.). On the other hand, Sumner adds: ‘It would surely be unsafe to assume that constitutional difficulties would have deterred Saturninus’ (ibid. 120). Diodorus' report (36.12) that Saturninus was successful at the polls after he had left behind his undisciplined life and adopted a more sober lifestyle might indicate that a substantial period of time elapsed after his dismissal from his quaestorian post and his election to the tribunate. Diodorus’ criticism of Saturninus' ‘natural’ lifestyle, however, and even the suggestion that a certain levitas was the reason for his removal from his post, may reflect no more than a hostile tradition which Diodorus found in Poseidonios and which may derive from the memoirs of Rutilius Rufus (see below, appendix 4). If Diodorus' account does indicate that a considerable amount of time elapsed between his quaestorian activities and his election to the tribunate, then it conflicts with Cicero's suggestion that there was a certain urgency in Saturninus' desire for revenge after his ignominious dismissal.

¹⁵ Cie. Sest. 39: dolorem suum magna contentione animi persequebatur.

¹⁶ Saturninus sponsored a law in 103 assigning one hundred iugera allotments in Africa to Marian veterans (de vir. ill. 73.1Google Scholar). Many would have been in Rome awaiting land assignations since the beginning of 104, after participating in Marius' triumph over Jugurtha on January 1st (refs. in MRR 1.558Google Scholar). The author of the de viris illustribus (73.1Google Scholar) claims that it was proposed ut graliam Marianorum militum pararet. It is possible that Saturninus canvassed for the tribunate in 104, promising to sponsor a measure for the veterans' settlement when he entered office. This possibility is even more likely if Saturninus' opponents discredited him with the urban plebs during the electoral campaign by publicly alleging that his mismanagement of the corn supply led to rises in the price of grain in Rome during the year. (Cf. Schneider, ‘Plebs Urbana’ 208, who simply assumes that the city plebs did not hold him responsible for the wheat shortage.)

¹⁷ Gaius Gracchus had proposed his lex frumentaria early in his first tribunate and, according to Appian (BC 1.21Google Scholar), got the leadership of the Siyios-through this one measure. Broughton, (MRR 3.21Google Scholar; cf. 1.575, 578 n.3) now favours 103 as the date. Robinson, (Marius 62 ff.Google Scholar), Last, H. (CAH 9.165 n.3)Google Scholar, Passerini, A. (Athenaeum 12 [1934] 113–115Google Scholar), Badian, (‘CN’ 319 n.9Google Scholar = Studies 63 n.9) and Gruen, E.S. (‘PPN’ 44 n.71)Google Scholar also place the law in Saturninus' first tribunate. Niccolini, (Fasti 199 f.Google Scholar), Rotondi, (Leges 332Google Scholar) and Garnsey, (Famine and Food Supply 198Google Scholar), however, opt for 100. If it was proposed in 100, it is odd that it is not reported amongst the otherwise well documented events of the year. H.B. Mattingly's theory (‘Saturninus' Corn Bill and the Circumstances of his Fall’, CR 19 [1969] 267–270Google Scholar) that the measure was put forward a few days before Saturninus' death on December 10th, 100 has now been invalidated by the dating of the tribune's death to September or October. See Badian, , ‘Sat’ 101–106Google Scholar. (Mattingly's arguments had been successfully refuted on other grounds by Hands, A.R., ‘The Date of Saturninus' Corn Bill’, CR 22 [1972] 12 f.Google Scholar)

¹⁸ Auct, . ad Herenn. 1.21Google Scholar. See Liv. Per. 60 for the Gracchan price of six and one-third asses. It would not be difficult to amend semissibus et trientibus to senis et trientibus in ad Herenn. 1.21Google Scholar, in which case Saturninus would merely have re-introduced the Gracchan price (so Last, CAH 9.165 n.5Google Scholar; Crawford, , RRC 1.73 n.5Google Scholar). This is, however, unnecessary (see the sensible arguments of Rickman, Corn Supply 163; cf. Brunt, IM 377 f.). See also Garnsey (Famine and Food Supply 198 and 212) for acceptance of the price five-sixths of an as per modius.

¹⁹ Corn distributions were often opposed in the late Republic on the grounds that they were a drain upon the treasury. For such a criticism of C. Gracchus’ lex frumentaria, see Cie, . de Off. 2.72Google Scholar; Sest. 103; Tusc. disp. 3.48Google Scholar; Diod. 34/35.25.1. Cf. Crawford, , RRC 2.636Google Scholar, for the belief that the treasury was not in dire straits at this time. See also Crawford (ibid. 638 f., 695) for a similar conclusion about state finances in the fifties and the complaints about the corn dole of P. Clodius Pulcher. Caepio's arguments may have been just as unfounded in 103 (cf. ibid. 636 [referring to 100]). See also Garnsey, (Famine and Food Supply 209Google Scholar) on the antipathy of the conservatives to the grain distribution system and the laws which instituted and extended it.

²⁰ Auct, . ad Herenn. 1.21Google Scholar; cf. 2.17. For similar interference with voting procedures, see Plut, . Ti. Gracch. 11.1Google Scholar (the opponents of Ti. Gracchus removing the apparatus for conducting the lot); Cie, . ad Att. 1.14.5Google Scholar (Clodius' supporters occupying the pontes). Caepio was later tried before the quaestio maiestatis for his violent interference in the proceedings: Auct. ad Herenn. 1.21Google Scholar; 2.17; cf. 4.35; Sail, . Hist. 1.62 MGoogle Scholar; Cie, . Brut. 162, 169Google Scholar.

²¹ So Rickman, , Corn Supply 163Google Scholar (followed by Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply 198). Rickman's observation, however, that there is no further evidence for the price five-sixths of an as in the sources for the following period is not conclusive (cf. Corn Supply 164). Nor is Brunt's conclusion (IM 377 f.), that the bill was passed (in 103 or 100) because ‘Saturninus was so powerful’, convincing. Cf. Rotondi, , Leges 332Google Scholar. Crawford, (RRC 1.73)Google Scholar believes that the frumentary bill was passed in 100, restoring the Gracchan price which had been raised by the lex Octavia shortly before (see Rickman, [Corn Supply 163Google Scholar; cf. Brunt, , IM 377Google Scholar] for the sensible argument that a measure raising the cost of food was unlikely to have gained sufficient popular support to become law).

²² See Crawford, , RRC 1. 330 fGoogle Scholar. (no. 330) on the issue. On the obverse of their denarii is depicted a head of Saturn and a serrated sickle, and, on the reverse, two male figures seated on a bench, at each end of which there is an ear of corn. The reverse is inscribed Ad Fru[rnentum] Emu[ndum] ex S.C., indicating that the Senate had ordered the two quaestors to strike the issue for the purchase of grain.

²³ Crawford, however, believes that Caepio is presumably Q. Servilius Caepio, one of the urban quaestors of 100, and Piso, probably L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the quaestor Ostiensis of that year. He thinks that the Senate decided to abandon its opposition to the grain measure once it was passed and that it ordered the two quaestors to strike coin to finance the law (ibid. 1.73; 330 f.). Crawford notes (ibid. 2.703) that there was extra coinage in 100, part of which he thinks was the special issue ad frumentum emundum. Cf. the more tentative views of Rickman (Corn Supply 163 f., 258) and Garnsey (Famine and Food Supply 198) on an association between the grain bill and the coinage. Although there are now no valid arguments against the possible placing of the two quaestorships in 100, there is still considerable doubt about the dating of the Piso/Caepio denarii to this year. In 1972, before Crawford's confident and generally accepted dating of the issue to 100 (RRC 1.73, 330 f.; 2.703Google Scholar), Hands noted that ‘the numismatists do not seem to speak with a single voice’ on the matter, an observation since borne out by H.B. Mattingly's questioning of Crawford's ordering and dating of the issues between 104 and 90: ‘The hoard evidence is solid down to L. Saturninus and C. Caldus, but between them and D. Silanus there are twenty moneyers on whose order and dating there must now be real doubt.’ (Mattingly, H.B., NC 137 [1977] 205Google Scholar; see generally ibid. 203 ff.) Cf. Hands, A.R. list (CR 22 [1972] 13Google Scholar) of differing views on the date of the Piso/Caepio issue.

²⁴ On Q. Servilius Caepio and his political circle, see Badian, , ‘CN’ 319 ffGoogle Scholar. (esp. 325-329) = Badian, Studies 35 ff. (esp. 39-44). Piso may have been the son of the consul of 112 with whom Scaurus was connected (cf. Gruen, , RPCC 133 f.)Google Scholar.

²⁵ For suggestions of his popularity or actions which might have won him a degree of popularity, see my second appendix.

²⁶ And this was not the only division. Scipio's outburst in 131 indicates demographic shifts (cf. Veil. Pat. 2.4.4). Ethnic groupings were becoming manifest, and the rise in numbers and political importance of liberti ensures that vertical loyalties (as opposed to those allegiances we would call class) were strengthened.

Moreover, C. Gracchus had shown long ago that the equites should be separately courted if change was to be endorsed by the voting public (see, for example, App. BC 1.22Google Scholar). There is no reason to assume that when our Greek sources speak of the demos or plethos they are excluding such a group. Cf. Brunt, FRR 148 and n. 13.

²⁷ For example, with the equites, who were to serve as jurors in the new maiestas court (Cie, . de Orai. 2.199Google Scholar), but who took up arms against him when he attacked the censor Metelius Numidicus (cf. Oros. 5.17.3).

²⁸ Saturninus' gain in this regard (and presumably his desire to maintain the connection) only increased as the people hailed Marius as the third founder of Rome and honoured him in their own homes with offerings and libations (Plut, . Mar. 27.5Google Scholar; cf. Liv, . Per. 68Google Scholar). Marius could use Saturninus but he did not need Saturninus as the latter needed him. The alliance should probably be dated to some time in 104. Marius celebrated a magnificent triumph over Jugurtha on Jan. 1st of that year (cf. MRR 1.558Google Scholar).

²⁹ [Frontinus] (Sir. 4.2.2) reveals that the Jugurthine veterans were not taken by Marius to Gaul, Licinianus (14 F = 21 B) that they may well have been forbidden to leave Italy by Rutilius Rufus' emergency measure of 105. Even if Rutilius' enactment had been lifted by 103, common sense suggests that it is highly unlikely, given the continuance of the threat in the North, that the veterans from an army which had recently proven its worth would have been permitted to leave for foreign shores. Hence, it is quite possible that a pool of ex-servicemen remained in or around the urbs throughout 103 (some may have left for rural districts to find work; cf. App. BC 1.29) either waiting for the settlements which had been authorised to go ahead or for recruitment into an army to fight the northern menace.

³⁰ On Equitius, see Münzer, , RE 6.322–323Google Scholar, ‘Equitius’, no. 3. For the derivation of his name, see Varr. RR 2.1.10Google Scholar. On his freedman status, see de vir. ill. 73.3Google Scholar and below, n.33. Treggiari, (Freedmen 59Google Scholar) considers it more likely that he was the son of a freedman (cf. Wiseman, , NM 16 and n.3,71 and n.3)Google Scholar.

³¹ de vir. ill. 73.3Google Scholar. The sources do not indicate when the two men began their political association.

³² Equitius was to gain great popularity (see App. BC 1.32Google Scholar; Cie, . Sest. 101Google Scholar; Val. Max. 3.8.6, 9.7.2, 9.15.1). Cf. Plut, . C. Gracch. 18.2Google Scholar; Cie, . Rab. Perd. 14Google Scholar.

³³ Valerius Maximus (9.7.2) stresses that the mob was enraged by Numidicus' denial of Equitius' kinship with Gracchus, a denial which led the pseudo-Gracchus to attempt to kill him by stoning. It may have been in response to such tumult that Sempronia, the sister of the Gracchi, was brought out by an unnamed tribune to settle the matter. Cf. Val. Max. 3.8.6; de vir. ill. 73.4Google Scholar. On the date, see Münzer, , RE 6.322Google Scholar, ‘Equitius’, no. 3; cf. Gabba, , Appiani 110Google Scholar. Cf. also Cie, . Sest. 101Google Scholar; de vir. ill. 62.1Google Scholar on the incident. Numidicus' refusal to register Equitius was obviously a major event for it is recorded in his elogium. See CIL I2 p. 196 for the very fragmentary remains of the inscription. The censor's action may also have been associated with Equitius' servile origins (cf. Cie, . Rab. Perd. 20Google Scholar). Appian, (BC 1.32Google Scholar) reveals that there was a belief that he was a runaway slave; Floras (2.4.1) that he was homo sine tribu, sine notare, sine nomine. According to Valerius Maximus (9.15.1) he came ex infimo loco. Cf. Treggiari, , Freedmen 59, 230Google Scholar. The question of Equitius' status may have been further complicated by the fact that he came from the Latin colony of Firmum in Picenum which was not fully enfranchised until 90 B.C. (cf. Val. Max. 9.15.1; Wiseman, , NM 17, 32, 188)Google Scholar.

³⁴ Unless the attack upon Numidicus related at Orosius 5.17.3 was provoked by the announcement of the censor's intention to degrade Saturninus. Orosius does not, however, give any reason for Saturninus' aggression, nor is there any indication that Glaucia was involved (cf. Schneider, ‘Plebs Urbana’ 211). On the attempt to degrade Saturninus and Glaucia, see my discussion in appendix 3. On Glaucia, see below, n.42.

³⁵ His indictment should be dated to 101 (or possibly 102). 101 should be favoured because Diodorus (36.15.3) reports at the end of his account of the episode that Saturninus was again elected to the tribunate.

³⁶ 36.15.1-2. Saturninus was not tried before the Senate itself (as stated in the Loeb translation of F.R. Walton). See Broughton, T.R.S., Phoenix 41 (1987) 55 n.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Gruen, , RPCC 169 n.59Google Scholar. Broughton (art. cit. 54 ff.) has recently revived Mommsen's very plausible suggestion that he was tried before a magistrates' consilium of senators from the college of Fetials (see ibid. p. 57 f. for a less likely possibility involving a decision by the college of Fetials). Cf. Gruen, , RPCC 169 n.59Google Scholar. Broughton (art. cit. 51 ff.) also discusses two other cases (ca. 266 and 188) involving the mistreatment of foreign envoys in Rome. On both occasions the offence is given as hubris and while there is no statement regarding how guilt was determined it is clear that the Fetials played a vital role in carrying out the punishment of the offenders (i.e. extradition).

³⁷ The penalty for Saturninus' crime was capital, namely loss of citizenship and surrender to Mithridates (cf. Broughton, art. cit. 55 f.). Saturninus may have mounted an attack on senatorial corruption in order to secure popular support for his forthcoming candidacy for tribunician office. Diodorus (36.15.3) reports that he was elected to the tribunate after his acquittal. The readiness of the senatorial prosecutors to initiate proceedings against the ex-tribune may indicate that Saturninus was not enjoying a great amount of public support at the time.

³⁸ Diod. 36.15.2-3. Supplication was a normal procedure at a trial but had to be handled in such a way as not to generate ridicule. See Sail, . lug. 33.1Google Scholar (Jugurtha); App. BC 2.15Google Scholar (Cicero). Cf. the entreaties of Metelius Pius on his father's behalf. Orosius (5.17.12) thought Rutilius Rufus' failure to supplicate worthy of comment. Cf. Cie, . Brut. 224Google Scholar on the attention that Saturninus' usual dress commanded.

³⁹ See Diod. 36.15.2-3 for his donning of shabby attire and general degradation, his tearful entreaties to the urban mob and his emphasis upon senatorial victimisation, the injustice of the situation and his concern for the common people.

⁴⁰ See 36.15.3: Cf. Schneider, ‘Plebs Urbana’ 211. See also my appendix 4.

⁴¹ Cf. 36.15.3. On the tribunician elections, see below.

⁴² Glaucia, damningly described by Cicero as the most impudent of men (Brut. 224; see also Cie. loc.cit.: homo simillimus Atheniensis Hyperboli, cuius improbitatem veteres Atticorum comoediae notaverunt [cf. Rep. 4.11]Google Scholar; Rab. Post. 14. But cf. Brut. 224; Rab. Post. 14 where his shrewdness and wit are acknowledged) and by others as stercus curiae (Cie, . de Orat. 3.164Google Scholar; cf. 2.263), seemingly lacked illustrious forebears in recent generations (Cie, . Brut. 224Google Scholar: is ex summis etfortunae et vitae sordibus. Cf. Wiseman, , NM 82 n.4, 206Google Scholar; Sumner, , Orators 121Google Scholar). Evidence on his early career is surprisingly lacking given his later political activity and prominence. Cf. Münzer, , RE 2.2(2). 1796–1798Google Scholar, ‘Servilius’, no. 65, Sumner, (Orators 23Google Scholar) suggests a birthdate around 140. He was a contemporary of C. Sextius Calvinus, the orator (Cie, . de Orat. 2.249Google Scholar; cf. Sumner, , Orators 76 f.Google Scholar). That he had already brought himself to public notice by 102 is nevertheless suggested by Numidicus’ attempt to deprive him of his senatorial status (cf. App, . BC 1.28)Google Scholar. Since he was a senator at the time of the lectio senatus of 102 he must have been enrolled in the Senate by the previous censors (i.e. in 108) and therefore must have held the quaestorship by 109. (On his senatorial status in 102, see App, . BC 1.28Google Scholar. Cf. Gabba, E., Athenaeum 33 [1955] 218 ff.Google Scholar; Appiani 98; MRR 1.546Google Scholar; 3.196.) Although there is no record of any outcry by his followers against Numidicus' attempt to expel him from the Senate, Glaucia must have enjoyed some degree of popular backing, for he was elected to the tribunate for 101. See refs. and discussion in MRR 1.571-572, 573 n.2Google Scholar; 2.619; 3.196; Niccolini, , Fasti 195 ff.Google Scholar; Gruen, , RPCC 167Google Scholar; Sumner, , Orators 121Google Scholar; cf. Münzer, , RE 2.2(2). 1796Google Scholar, ‘Servilius’, no. 65.

⁴³ There has not always been consensus on the date of Glaucia's tribunate (see the discussion and references to modern opinions in Baisdon, J.P.V.D., PBSR 14 [1938] 106 f.Google Scholar). While the relevant passage in Appian (BC 1.28Google Scholar) is confused, his mention of the murder of Nonius and the tribunician candidacy of Saturninus firmly establishes the date as 101. Appian appears to say that Glaucia presided over the tribunician elections as praetor, a function which only a tribune could have performed. (Cf. MRR 1.573 n.2Google Scholar: ‘… such an official must have been a Tribune himself, with considerably more to do than exercise the ‘oversight’ which Mommsen claimed for the Praetor'; 3.196; Taylor, L.R., Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar [Michigan 1966], chart opposite p.5Google Scholar; Staveley, E.S., Greek and Roman Voting and Elections [New York 1972] nn.262 and 422Google Scholar; Twyman, B.L., Athenaeum 54 [1976] 278Google Scholar.) For Mommsen's assumption that Glaucia was a praetor in 101, see StR 1.518 n.4Google Scholar. Cf. Broughton's satisfactory explanation of Veil. Pat. 2.12.6. If, as Twyman (art. cit. 96 f., 271 ff.) has argued, Appian was ignorant of the interval between designation and the beginning of a magistrate's term, it means only that Glaucia was praetor-elect at the time (cf. Niccolini, Fasti 195; Gabba, art. cit. [above, n.42] 218 ff.; Appiani 99 f.; Jones, A.H.M., PCPS 186 [1960] 38Google Scholar). The participial phrase (‘having watched for Glaucia being a praetor’), as Sumner, (Orators 121 f.Google Scholar; cf. MRR 3.196Google Scholar) suggests, could simply mean that Saturninus wanted to be tribune in the year that Glaucia would be a praetor (i.e. in 100).

⁴⁴ Refs. in MRR 1.571–572Google Scholar. Q. Servilius Caepio had removed equestrian privileges in 106. (Cf. MRR 1.553Google Scholar.) Glaucia probably proposed the law in 101, as most leges regulating jury service during this period were tribunician. See Gruen, (RPCC 166 n.53Google Scholar) for modern opinions on the dating. Cf. Jones, , Criminal Courts 53Google Scholar. Cicero, (Brut. 224Google Scholar) reports that Glaucia gained the allegiance of the plebs and the equites through the benefits of his law (the law is presumably the lex repetundarum). Cf. Griffin, M.T. (CQ 23 [1973] 118CrossRefGoogle Scholar) on the great popularity of the measure. Glaucia may even have made the extortion court into a iudicium publicum in the full sense, by extending the right of accusation to all citizens. Cf. Jones, , Criminal Courts 53 f., 61Google Scholar. Glaucia's interest in increasing the effective participation of the ordinary citizen in the political process is demonstrated by Cicero's report (Rab. Post. 14) that he was accustomed to warn the people to mark carefully the opening phrase when a law was being read in order to make sure that they were not made liable to any new inquiry.

⁴⁵ BC 1.28Google Scholar: ‘Accordingly Appuleius, a little later, in order to have revenge on Metelius, became again a candidate for the tribunate, having watched for [just such an occasion as this,] Glaucia being a praetor and presiding over the election of the tribunes.’ (trans. Beness) On the problem of Glaucia presiding over the tribunician elections as praetor, see above, n.43. This is the first indication of political cooperation between the two men, although Appian (BC 1.28Google Scholar) links the two in his account of Numidicus' attempt to expel them from the Senate in 102.

⁴⁶ That Glaucia as presiding magistrate was in a position to manipulate the result is undeniable. Cf. Taylor, op.cit. (above, n.43) 83; Staveley, op.cit. (above, n.43) 210. Staveley (ibid. 214 f.) maintains that an opportunity for fraud on the part of the presiding magistrate would have been restricted to some kind of manipulation of the process of sortition, in itself a very complicated and technically difficult manoeuvre. That this kind of fraudulent practice was nevertheless feasible is indicated by Gaius Gracchus' allegation (Plut, . C. Gracch. 12.4Google Scholar) that the order of announcing the results in a tribunician election (122 B.C.) had been rigged against him.

⁴⁷ Orators 122.

⁴⁸ Val. Max. 9.7.3Google Scholar; cf. App. BC 1.28Google Scholar; Flor. 2.4.1Google Scholar; Plut, . Mar. 29.1Google Scholar; Liv, . Per. 69Google Scholar; de vir. ill. 73.5Google Scholar; Oros. 5.17.3. Saturninus' competitor is Nώυιος in Plut, . Mar. 29.1Google Scholar; A. Nunnius in Liv. Per. 69; Val. Max. 9.7.3Google Scholar; de vir. ill. 73.5Google Scholar; Nunius in Oros. 5.17.3Google Scholar; Ninnius in Fior. 2.4.1Google Scholar. Cf. Münzer, , RE 17(2). 1473–1474Google Scholar, ‘Nunnius’, no.l; RE 17(1).863Google Scholar, ‘Nunius’, no.5. I will call him Nonius for convenience. Little is known of the man. Valerius Maximus (9.7.3) nevertheless comments on his virtuous character. Though a conservative source tradition may have played up the man's qualities, the confusion over the name may also indicate his insignificance.

⁴⁹ On the killing, see the list of sources cited above. According to Appian (BC 1.28Google Scholar), Nonius was chased into an inn and stabbed. Valerius Maximus (9.7.3) records that he was pursued in aedes privatas, dragged out and killed. The epitomator of Livy (69) states that Nonius was killed by soldiers, presumably Marian veterans eager for promised land grants. The violence which occurred at the tribunician elections set a new and menacing precedent of interference by the military, one which apparently left Saturninus' opponents with little alternative but to acquiesce.

⁵⁰ BC 1.28Google Scholar.

⁵¹ de vir. ill. 73.2Google Scholar. A similar incident occurred in 115 when the consul Scaurus, after ordering the praetor Decius who remained seated as he passed to rise, ripped his clothing, broke his sella and decreed that no one should go to him to obtain justice (de vir. ill. 72.6Google Scholar; cf. MRR 1.532, 3.81Google Scholar; cf. the incident related at Dio 36.41.2). Broughton, (MRR 1.565 n.2Google Scholar) thinks that the order of notices in the de vins illustribus implies that the incident occurred during Saturninus' first tribunate. A strict chronological treatment need not, however, be expected in the de vir. ill. (See exempli gratia the Life of Appius Claudius Caecus [34]. Of the few certainly historical acts among all those which have been attributed to him, the construction works of 312 are recorded after the military achievements of 296.) Broughton admits the possibility that the incident may have occurred in 100, but would explain it as a by-play between allies to increase the demagogic influence of Saturninus. There is, however, no need to explain away tensions in the radical alliance and Saturninus' nervousness about the size of his popular following. The seeming belief of the author of the de vir. ill. later in the same Life that the Glaucia who was allied with Saturninus was killed before he reached the praetorship (ut satellitem suum Glauciam praetorem [Saturninus] faceret, Memmium competitorem eius … necandum curavit) might be explained by suggesting that the word consularem has simply dropped out of the text (an easy slip), or that the author has misread such an augmented sentence in his source. The former possibility is perhaps the more likely in view of the similar language in the parallel passage in Floras — ut satellitem furoris sui Glauciam consulem faceret, C. Memmium conpetitorem interfici iussit — and in view of the fact that in the entry on Marius (67.3), Glaucia is listed as praetor in 100.

⁵² Greenidge, A.H.J., Roman Public Life (London 1911) 174Google Scholar; cf. Cie, . Sest. 79Google Scholar; also Liv. 43.16.11: C. Claudio diem dixit, quod contionem ab se avocasset.

⁵³ Cie, . Brut. 224Google Scholar. The chair-smashing incident also suggests that Saturninus and Glaucia were very conscious of the independence of their own personal followings. The existence of separate retinues is also suggested by Appian's claim that elected Saturninus to a second tribunate and that supported the lex agraria of 100 (BC 1.28, 30)Google Scholar. Cf. Cie, . Brut. 224Google Scholar on Glaucia's following: et plebem tenebat et equestrem ordinem beneficio legis devinxerat. In this he seems to have been distinctly more successful than Saturninus. Cf. above, n.3.

⁵⁴ There are differing views on whether Appian (BC 1.29Google Scholar) is referring to Cisalpine or Transalpine Gaul. Gabba, (Athenaeum 33 [1955] 225 ff.Google Scholar; followed by Wiseman, T.P., Roman Studies: Literary and Historical [Liverpool 1987] 328 f.Google Scholar; cf. Ewins, U., PBSR 20 [1952] 70Google Scholar) has argued persuasively in favour of Transpadana (i.e. Cisalpine Gaul) which the Cimbri had occupied after the local inhabitants had fled (pace Brant, , IM 198Google Scholar; cf. Brunt, , FRR 279Google Scholar; Badian, , FC 203 n.5)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ It was probably a lex satura (so Gabba, Appiani 102; Pareti, 3.508 n.4; contra: Niccolini, Fasti 199). For refs., see the agrarian and colonial laws listed in Broughton (MRR 1.575–576Google Scholar). Marian veterans were seemingly not the only beneficiaries of the bill. Badian (FC 205) has argued convincingly that the colonies in Sicily and Macedonia-Achaea must have been designed for the settlement of veterans involved in campaigns in these areas.

⁵⁶ BC 1.29Google Scholar. Hardly a comment which should be described as ‘virtually an aside’ (pace Keaveney, RUI 81).

⁵⁷ Appian equates at 1.29 with and at 1.30. His next reference to the at 1.30 is to the country dwellers () who were so eager for the law. Some scholars believe that Appian's reference to means that he has misunderstood a reference in his source to Roman agrestes, since elsewhere he speaks only of the latter supporting Saturninus (Kontchalovsky, D., Revue Historique 153 [1926] 161 f.Google Scholar; Brunt, P.A., JRS 55 [1965] 106)Google Scholar. This is unnecessary (so Gabba, , Appiani 105Google Scholar; Badian, E., Dialoghi di Archeologia 2-3 [1970-1971] 403)Google Scholar. As Cuff, P.J. (Historia 16 [1967] 179 ff.Google Scholar) insists, Appian was not capable of such a mistranslation because he understood the distinction between Italians and Romans of the countryside of this period (cf. Mithr. 22 f.). Further, Appian's focus on the interrelationship of res agraria and the allied problem during this period makes such a mistake practically inconceivable.

⁵⁸ Colonists who joined Roman colonies legally became citizens as soon as they were censi in the colony (cf. Smith, R.E., JRS 44 [1954] 18–20Google Scholar on the gaining of citizenship at the first census). Keaveney, (RUI 78Google Scholar) makes the unlikely suggestion that Italians would have been admitted to these settlements as incolae. Cf. Cornell, T.J. (JRS 78 [1988] 204Google Scholar) who rightly insists that the non-citizen incolae of Antium in 338 are not comparable. See also Salmon, E.T. (Roman Colonisation under the Republic [London 1969] 25-26, 169 n.29)Google Scholar on incolae resident in colonies as the natives of existing towns permitted to remain as inhabitants of the colony without burgess rights. On the probability that the colonies were Roman, not Latin, see Badian (art. cit. [above, n.57] 404) following Gabba (Appiani 102, 105). Cf. Parker, H.M.D., ‘On Cicero, pro Balbo 21,48’, CR 52 (1938) 8–9Google Scholar.

In light of the fact that all colonists would eventually become Roman citizens, the right given to Marius to grant citizenship to a specified number in each colony seems unnecessary. It is, however, clear that he actually exercised his powers in this regard and did so before the colonies were established (i.e. before Roman citizenship was normally conferred at the first census of the colony; cf. Cie, . Balb. 48)Google Scholar. Perhaps Marius wished to be responsible for conferring the beneficia himself, a not unlikely possibility given his generosity in this regard. It is also possible that he desired to legitimise various gifts of the franchise that he had made, most notably to the men from Camerinum, after the battle at Vercellae, the legality of which had been recently and formally challenged (Plut, . Mar. 28.2Google Scholar: cf. Cie, . Balb. 46Google Scholar [two cohorts]; Val. Max. 5.2.8). See Badian, , FC 206, 260 fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Keaveney, , RUI 92–93 n.6, 93 n.15Google Scholar. The assignation of vintane allotments in Gaul would also have necessitated grants of citizenship. Richardson, J.S. (JRS 70 [1980] 6 ff.Google Scholar) has argued convincingly that ager Romanus (and therefore ager publicus) in Roman law formed part of the category of res mancipi and therefore could only be transferred to Roman citizens. Thus if Saturninus intended to distribute ager Romanus in Gaul to Italian veterans (that the land was ager Romanus is explicitly stated by Appian [BC 1.29Google Scholar]), provision must have been made to grant them citizenship before they actually received their allotment.

⁵⁹ The consul C. Fannius, who opposed C. Gracchus’ enfranchisement bill, successfully exploited such selfishness. A fragment of his speech de sociis et nomine Latino contra Gracchum is illuminating: ‘Si Latinis civitatem dederitis, credo, existimatis vos ita, ut nunc constitistis, in contione habituros locum aut ludís et fastis diebus interfuturos. Nonne illos omnia occupaturos putatisT Cf. lui. Vict. 6.4 = ORF (2). 144. The lex Sempronio agraria of 133, like Saturninus’ law, provided that Roman citizenship should be granted to those Italians who received land. It was popular with the rural population, not the city plebs (App. BC 1.13, 14Google Scholar; Diod. 34/5.6.1). Cf. Y. Shochat, ‘The Lex Agraria of 133 B.C. and the Italian Allies’, Athenaeum 48 (1970) 25-45; Richardson, art. cit. (above, n.58) 1-11. Keaveney's assertion (RUI 48 f.) that the Italians enjoyed the right of commercium and that consequently Ti. Gracchus was not compelled to offer citizenship with his allotments is not supported by the evidence he cites (cf. Cornell, art. cit. [above, n.58] 204 f.). Velleius Paterculus (2.2.2) indicates that the lex agraria and Tiberius' offer of citizenship to the Italians were simultaneous: pollicitusque toti Italiae civitatem, simul etiam promulgatis agrariis legibus.

⁶⁰ App. BC 1.29Google Scholar; cf. Cie, . Balb. 48Google Scholar. Saturninus' dependence on the rustics is reminiscent of Ti. Gracchus' reliance upon supporters from the country to secure the passage of his lex agraria. See Diod. 34/5.6.1; App. BC 1.13Google Scholar; cf. 1.14. Note that it was in country districts around Rome that Gaius Gracchus sought votes for the bill against Popillius Laenas (Gell. 1.7.7= ORF 184). Not long before his death it could be taken for granted that ‘reapers’ would be his supporters (Plut, . CG 13.2)Google Scholar. Gabba, (Appiani 104Google Scholar) appears to think that the agrarian bill was voted upon in June of 100. This is unlikely as Marius was presiding over the Senate when the question of the oath was being discussed on the day of the passage of the law (cf. App. BC 1.30Google Scholar). As he was maior consul, the month must have been an odd numbered one (cf. Taylor, L.R. and Broughton, T.R.S., Historia 17 [1968] 166 ff.Google Scholar; esp. 167 for the pre-Sullan period). An earlier date than the summer of 100 is anyway preferable given the fact that Marius' veterans had already been waiting a number of months for settlement at the beginning of the year. This consideration, coupled with the probability that agricultural workers would have been involved in the harvest during the summer (cf. App. BC 1.14Google Scholar; CIL 6.2305Google Scholar = ILS 8745), would suggest that Saturninus' call to the rustics for assistance came earlier in the year, probably in January, possibly even in March. Robinson, (Marius 134Google Scholar) places the voting on the lex Appuleia agraria in January. So too Ferrary, J.L. (MEFR 89 [1977] 652CrossRefGoogle Scholar) who draws an analogy with Clodius' initial legislation passed on 4 Jan. 58.

⁶¹ See App. BC 1.29 ff.Google Scholar; cf. 1.13 for the mood in the urbs after the passage of the lex Sempronio agraria. Schneider (‘Plebs Urbana’ 216), whilst rightly drawing attention to the role of clients and dependants of the optimates in the opposition to the bill, overstresses it. The anti-Italian prejudices of the city plebs outside the patronage of the great noble houses were no doubt also aroused by the arguments of Saturninus' noble opponents, much as they had been against C. Gracchus by Fannius in 122. Cf. ibid. 217; Keaveney, , RUI 79 fGoogle Scholar.

⁶² 1.30. The author of the de vir. ill. (73.7) claims that the nobiles were responsible for the cry. Appian's account should perhaps be preferred (pace Schneider, ‘Plebs Urbana’ 203) on the grounds that the text of the de vir. ill. is confused at this point; the agrarian law is amalgamated with the law concerning the aquae et ignis interdictio of Metelius. In any case, both the city (citizen) crowd and the optimates clearly opposed the rogatio.

⁶³ de vir. ill. 73.7Google Scholar: lam, inquit, nisi quiescetis, grandinabit. On Saturninus' threat, see Linderski, J., Rivista di Filologia 3 (1983) 452 ffGoogle Scholar. Gabba, (Appiani 106)Google Scholar, like Linderski, suggests the obnuntiatio against the lex agraria.

⁶⁴ App. BC 1.30Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ The rural voters did not dominate the votes of the rural tribes in Rome and therefore a large body of country people had to be specifically assembled to overpower the urban voters in these tribes. See Brunt, P.A., Past and Present 35 (1966)7Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ App. BC 1.30Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Cf. Brunt, , ‘Army and the Land’ 72, 79 f.Google Scholar; Wood, N., Cicero's Social and Political Thought (Berkeley 1988) 37Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ It may have been behind his involvement in the trials of miscreant generals (cf. appendix 2).

⁶⁹ On the rural origins of late Republican armies (particularly in the post-Marian period) and their need for land after service, see Brunt, , ‘Army and the Land’ 69 fi.Google Scholar; Gabba, E., Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies (trans. Cuff, P.J.) (Oxford 1976) 24 and esp. n.32Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Velleius Paterculus (2.15.2) claims that before 90 two-thirds of Roman armies were recruited from the allies. See Brunt, , IM 677 ff.Google Scholar; esp. 685 f. (defending Velleius’ estimate for the end of the second century); cf. Harris, W.V., “The Italians and the Empire’ in Harris, W.V. (ed.), The Imperialism of Mid-Republican Rome (Rome 1984) 99 fGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ Numidicus was exiled for his refusal to swear the oath attached to the lex agraria. See App. BC 1.29–31Google Scholar; Plut, . Mar. 29.4–6Google Scholar; Liv, . Per. 69Google Scholar; Cie, . Sest. 37, 101Google Scholar; Veil. Pat. 2.15.4; de vir. ill. 73.8Google Scholar. His refusal to swear may have been on the grounds that the law was passed per vim (Cie, . Sest. 37Google Scholar; Liv, . Per. 69Google Scholar; de vir. ill. 62.2Google Scholar) or because he judged it to have been illegally proposed (Cie, . Sest. 101Google Scholar). Though it is unlikely that the sanctio was inserted into the lex for the specific purpose of removing Numidicus (cf. Robinson, , Marius 75 ff.Google Scholar; Passerini, A., Athenaeum 12 [1934] 270 ff.Google Scholar), there can be little doubt that Marius, Saturninus and Glaucia saw that the moment was opportune to effect the political ruin of a long-term and consistently troublesome political opponent. See above, n.34 and appendix 3. Tension between Marius and Numidicus was no doubt exacerbated by the consul's efforts to keep Metelius out of the consulship of 100 and to secure the election instead of his supporter, L. Valerius Flaccus. See Plut, . Mar. 28.5Google Scholar and the discussion in Badian, ‘Sat’ 121 f. On the long-lasting rancour between Marius and Numidicus, see Plut, . Mar. 8Google Scholar; Sail. Iug. 64ff., 86.

Though the holding of the trial apud populum (see Liv, . Per. 69Google Scholar; Oros. 5.17.4; cf. Cie, . leg. 3.26Google Scholar; Gruen, E.S., Latomus 24 [1965] 578Google Scholar; Jones, , Criminal Courts 4Google Scholar) must have entailed the probability of further violent disturbances, Saturninus seems to have calculated that a conviction would more likely be secured than if the defendant was impeached before the maiestas tribunal (cf. Oros. 5.17.3 for the alienation of the equites). The continuing presence of Saturninus' rural supporters, particularly the veterans, meant that the tribune had the support in a popular trial to encourage a conviction, as well as the kind of supporters well suited to intimidating opponents. See App. BC 1.31Google Scholar and especially Plut, . Mar. 28.5Google Scholar; Cie, . Sest. 37Google Scholar; Pis. 20 on the threatening presence of the Marian veterans. Cf. Liv, . Per. 69Google Scholar.

⁷³ App. BC 1.31Google Scholar. Though the optimate tradition tends to paint Metelius as a martyr, the violent events surrounding his exile would suggest that his early withdrawal was intended to prevent further strife. On this concern, see also Cie, . Sest. 37Google Scholar; Pis. 20Google Scholar; Plane. 89; Liv. Per. 69; cf. Plut. Mar. 29.7 where it is alleged that Saturninus' supporters were ready to put Metelius to death.

⁷⁴ It should be noted that the rural citizenry could not be relied upon to sustain an active politician for any length of time. Many rural voters had to travel long distances over difficult terrain, a costly and time-consuming exercise. Casson, L. (Travel in the Ancient World [Toronto 1974] 189Google Scholar) estimates that a Roman traveller on relatively flat terrain might hope to cover up to thirty two kilometres a day on foot, up to forty eight in a carriage: ‘[Sixty four], even [seventy two], was possible but it meant an exhaustingly long and hard day's travel’ (cf. ibid. 178 ff. on the arduous nature of land travel.) Many travellers must also have had to sustain themselves in Rome, unless politicians undertook the mammoth task of feeding and providing accommodation for their supporters. Cf. Nagle, D.B. (‘The Failure of the Roman Political Process in 133 B.C.’, Athenaeum Part I 48 [1970] 372–394Google Scholar; Part II 49 [1971] 1 line) who argues that as the attempt to implement Ti. Gracchus' program dragged on it became difficult for him to get his rustic supporters to stay on in Rome or return to it.

⁷⁵ to plethos is most likely to be read in this instance as mob (cf. below, n.76). Cf. Passerini (art. cit. [above, n.71] 281) who assumes an alliance: ‘Ad Appiano non è sfuggita l’importanza di tale unione, che doveva ottenere a Saturnino il favore della plebe cittadina.’ On Equitius’ popularity, see above, n.32.

⁷⁶ BC 1.32Google Scholar: ‘On [Metelius’ exile] Apuleius was tribune for a third time; a certain individual thought to be a runaway slave, [but] proclaiming the elder Gracchus to be his father was his colleague and the mob supported him in the election because of a yearning for Gracchus.’ (trans. Beness) The statement that Saturninus became a tribune for the third time is obviously a mistake. Appian has either rendered what he found as tribune designate in his source as tribune or he was ignorant of the interval between election and entry into office. See above, n.43. Cf. Flor. 2.4.3; Dio 37.26; de vir. ill. 73.9Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Gaius Memmius was the noisy popularis tribune of 111, whom Sallust (lug. 27.2) labelled vir acer et infestus potentiae nobilitatis. Cf. Appian, (BC 1.32Google Scholar): Orosius (5.17.5): virwn acrem et integrum. On his tribunate, see Niccolini, Fasti 178. On his career and political activities, see Münzer, , RE 15(1) 604–607Google Scholar, ‘Memmius’, no. 5; MRR 2.590Google Scholar, 3.141; Sumner, Orators 85 ff. Memmius' political affiliations in 100 are unknown. On his murder, see App. BC 1.32Google Scholar; Flor. 2.4.3-4; Liv. Per. 69; de vir. ill. 73.9Google Scholar; Oros. 5.17.5. Appian's Statement that the murder took place in the midst of the comitia in the sight of all need not be discounted as ‘no more than dramatic embroidery’ (so Badian, ‘Sat’ 108; cf. 116). Only the year before, Nonius had been cut down in the middle of the tribunician elections in just as dramatic a way. Cf. Veil. Pat. 2.12.6. on the electoral violence: et gladiis quoque et caede comitia discutientium. Even if the weapons used in the murder were makeshift, ‘a sudden riot disrupting the comitia, no doubt unexpectedly’ can be confidently ruled out (pace Badian, ‘Sat’ 117).

Glaucia's disqualification should be placed after the murder. Cicero's claim, that he would have been elected consul if rationem eius haberì licere iudicatum esset, need not indicate that Glaucia's candidacy was disallowed from the outset (cf. Brut. 224; pace Badian, ‘Sat’ 106 ff.). The accounts of Appian and the Livian tradition reveal that Glaucia was a candidate until the time that Memmius was murdered. It was Glaucia's violent conduct at the comitia which resulted in his disqualification not the extraordinary nature of his petition, even allowing, as Badian argues, that the registration of Glaucia's death by public fiat is an addendum to the recording of his disqualification. Cicero's account should be reconciled with the strong tradition of Appian and Livy, not used to prove it wrong.

⁷⁸ BC 1.32Google Scholar; cf. Plut, . Mar. 30.3Google Scholar; Liv, . Per. 69Google Scholar; Flor. 2.4.5. Valerius Maximus' report (3.2.18) that no one except Scaurus dared oppose Saturninus, Glaucia and Equitius because of the excited populus, should not be used as evidence to disprove Appian's version of events (cf. Schneider, ‘Plebs Urbana’ 197 f.). Not only might populo concitato refer to the country supporters of Saturninus but Valerius Maximus at this point is grossly exaggerating the courage and fortitude of the princeps senatus (cf. Badian, ‘Sat’ 119 n.43) and is likely to have overstated (or perhaps even deliberately distorted) the amount of popular support which the radical coalition commanded. That Saturninus recruited Roman citizens from the countryside seems to be confirmed by Cie. Rab. Perd. 22 (cf. Gabba, E., Athenaeum 29 [1951] 17 n.2)Google Scholar.

While Valerius Maximus' report (8.6.2) that Saturninus offered freedom and arms to slaves probably reflects conservative rhetoric against troublesome populares (see, for example, the charges levelled against Gracchus, C. [App. BC 1.26Google Scholar] and Sulpicius [BC 1.58]Google Scholar; cf. the discussion of Schneider, ‘Plebs Urbana’ 201 f.), if it contains a kernel of truth it may be a reflection of Saturninus' desperation (significantly, it is compared with Marius' similarly desperate offer when Sulla marched on Rome in 88) or simply, as allegation, have been intended to serve as an observation of his desperate position. That Saturninus succeeded in gaining the slaves' support is not necessarily proven by Floras' report (2.4.4; cf. Oros. 5.17.6) that Saturninus was hailed as rex by his followers (cf. Schneider, , ‘Plebs Urbana’ 202)Google Scholar. The charge of regnum was a common one against those who were accused of attempting a monopoly on power and particularly common against populares (so Hellegouarc'h, J., Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la république [Paris 1963] 560 f,Google Scholar; cf. Achard, G., Pratique rhétorique et idéologie politique dans les discours «optimates» de Cicerón [Leiden 1981] 319 ff.)Google Scholar. Tiberius Gracchus had been so accused (Cie, . Lael. 41Google Scholar; Plut, . Ti. Gracch. 14.2Google Scholar). Saturninus could still have called together his country supporters even if he did try to enlist the support of slaves (cf. Schneider, , ‘Plebs Urbana’ 202)Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ BC 1.32Google Scholar: This was also after the occupation of the Capitol (cf. Cie, . Rab. Perd. 35Google Scholar). As Badian (‘Sat’ 117 ff.) rightly points out, Marius' hesitation to act can be explained by the fact that he had to set a precedent, to take action for which there was no solid constitutional justification. On the role of Scaurus, the aging princeps senatus, in overcoming Marius' hesitation, see Val. Max. 3.2.18; de vir. ill. 72.9.

⁸⁰ Orosius (5.17.6) says that Marius, after joining the consensus bonorum, calmed the aroused plebs: commotamque plebem leni oratione sedavit. Cf. the view of Badian (‘Sat’ 108; shared by Seager, R., CQ 27 [1977] 387)CrossRefGoogle Scholar who believes that the commota plebs was on the side of Saturninus: ‘The contrast with the consensus bonorum leaves no room for doubt on this’. Orosius does not distinguish between urban and rural plebs so his failure to mention the rustic character of the plebs at this point is not significant. The possibility that Marius won over a significant number of Saturninus' rural supporters (some of whom may have been his own veterans) would in part account for the speed with which Saturninus and his associates were quashed. Some of the rural plebs who changed sides were probably the men from Picenum mentioned by Cicero at Rab. Perd. 22 who chose to follow the consuls rather than respond to Saturninus' call to the Capitol. Precautions seem to have been taken by Marius to prevent the entry of more of Saturninus' rustic supporters into the city (cf. Oros. 5.17.7). Marius' probable organisation of the rustics in the city into fighting units may reflect his anticipation that their new loyalties would be confirmed by enlisting their aid in an organised and senatorially approved operation to suppress Saturninus: Marius manipulatim plebe descripta (cf. Oros. 5.17.7).

See Badian (‘Sat’ 108) for the belief that the same plebs calmed by Marius were armed by him. On popular participation in the effort to suppress Saturninus and his supporters, see also Cie. Rab. Perd. 20, 22, 27, 31 (allowing for exaggeration). Cf. Caes, . BC 1.7Google Scholar; Val. Max. 3.2.18, Cicero's failure to mention the plebs specifically in the Rab. Perd, does not mean that they were not involved in the operation against Saturninus (cf. the discussion of Schneider, ‘Plebs Urbana’ 205 f.). On the arming of the mob, see also Brunt, art. cit. (above, n.65) 10 n.28; Lintott, A.W., Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford 1968) 200Google Scholar. Cie. Rab. Perd. 21; Badian, ‘Sat’ 119 f. On the S.C.U., see Cie. Rab. Perd. 20–21; Cat. 1.4; Phil. 8.15; Brut. 224; App. BC 1.32; de vir. ill. 73.10; Caes. BC 1.7; Ascon. 5C; cf. Cie. Cat. 3.15.

⁸¹ App. BC 1.32Google Scholar; Flor. 2.4.6; cf. Cie, . Rab. Perd. 31Google Scholar; Plut, . Mar. 30.3Google Scholar; de vir. ill. 73.10Google Scholar; Oros. 5.17.7 where Marius is responsible for the action. Cf. Badian, (‘Sat’ 109Google Scholar) who attributes Appian's failure to assign responsibility to Marius for the cutting of the water-pipes to the extreme anti-Marian bias of his source. Gabba, (Appiani 112Google Scholar) suggests that senatorial elements were involved. The water conduits must have been severed on the Quirinal where Flaccus was probably stationed (Oros. 5.17.7).

⁸² Marius had made a promise of safety to Saturninus and his allies before their surrender (Cie, . Rab. Perd. 28Google Scholar; Plut, . Mar. 30.3–4Google Scholar; de vir. ill. 73.10Google Scholar; App. BC 1.32Google Scholar; cf. Schol. Bob. 113 St.; Veil. Pat. 2.12.6) but was unable to keep it. Cf. Lee, G.M. (‘Marius and Saturninus’, Studii Clasice 13 [1971] 157Google Scholar) translating in Plut, . Mar. 30.4Google Scholar as: ‘although he went to every shift (literally, became every kind of man) in order to save them he (was not able to) help them.’ Cf. the view of Carney, T.F., A Biography of C. Marius [PACA Suppl. 1] (Salisbury 1961) 43 f.Google Scholar; Gabba, , Appiani 113Google Scholar.

⁸³ App. BC 1.32. On popular fury, see also Flor. 2.4.6. Gruen (RPCC 183) claims that the ‘oligarchic enemies’ of Marius arranged the murders. This is hardly required by the evidence. That some senators, however, joined the lynch mob when the radicals had been captured is suggested by the fact that Rabinus could later be plausibly charged with Saturninus' murder. No doubt many of their clients and dependants also participated (so Schneider, ‘Plebs Urbana’ 219 f.). According to Cicero (Rab. Perd. 31), a certain Scaeva, a slave of Quintus Croton, was responsible for the killing of Saturninus. In Orosius (5.17.9) equites are named as the killers. Cf. Liv, . Per. 69Google Scholar; de vir. ill. 73.11Google Scholar; Plut, . Mar. 30.4Google Scholar; Schol. Bob. 113, 174 St.; Veil. Pat. 2.12.6. At the time of the general massacre some, such as Equitius, managed to escape (see below, n.84).

⁸⁴ 5.17.10. Orosius' reference to the end of the sedition should be placed after his mention of the activity of Cato, Pompeius and Furius, tribunes in 100. The stasis ended when Equitius was killed on Dec. 10, 100, the first day of the new tribunician year (see Beness, J.L. and Hillard, T.W., ‘The Death of Lucius Equitius on 10 December 100 B.C.’, CQ 40 [1990] 269–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar, suggesting that Equitius' greater popularity might explain his escape from the earlier general lynching; cf. Twyman, B.L., “The Day Equitius Died’, Athenaeum 67 [1989] 493–509)Google Scholar. A strict chronological rendering of events need not be expected in Orosius at this point. In the same passage and in the midst of his description of the flight and deaths of a number of Saturninus' followers, he places Furius' decree confiscating the property of the ‘seditiosi’.

⁸⁵ Schneider (‘Plebs Urbana’ 198) unwisely uses Plutarch's statement (Mar. 30.4Google Scholar) that Marius' failure to save Saturninus et al. caused him to fall into bad odour to argue for the urban popularity of Saturninus in 100. Now, it is difficult to determine which group is described by (presumably both urban and rural plebs). Moreover, there are signs of careless exaggeration in Plutarch whose attention is fixed on Marius. His claim that the nobles were antagonistic toward Marius for his failure to save the radicals is likely to be inaccurate in the light of their participation in the lynching. Plutarch's statement most likely reflects the anti-Marian sentiments which he found in the memoirs of Rutilius Rufus and should not be used as evidence for the popularity of Saturninus after his death.

⁸⁶ Crawford, (RRC 1.331 f.Google Scholar; 2.629 f.) has argued on the basis of the numismatic evidence that there was viritane settlement of veterans in Gaul after 100. Cf. Plut, . Crass. 2Google Scholar for Marius' involvement in land distribution to his veterans (not necessarily in Italy — pace Brunt, , FRR 279Google Scholar) and Suet, . Aug. 17Google Scholar on the connection between the family of Antonius, the consul of 99, and the city of Bononia. Cf. the updating of 1M 198,412-413 in Brunt, , FRR 279 fGoogle Scholar. Wiseman (Roman Studies [above, n.54] 329 ff.) believes the circumstantial evidence is strongly in favour of settlement, claiming that by the time Pompeius Strabo gave the Transpadane centres the status of ‘Latin colonies’ in 89 they contained a mixture of native Gauls, immigrant Romans and Italians, some of whom were ex-servicemen who could be called upon again in an emergency. If Crawford and Wiseman are right then either the Senate authorised the viritane settlement of veterans under the lex Appuleia agraria or it was carried out under another law. If the former was the case, then the Senate probably only enacted those parts of the measure which met with its approval (cf. Cie, . Balb. 48Google Scholar indicating that Saturninus' colonisation program was not carried out).

⁸⁷ Val. Max. 6.3.1. Flaccus, M. Fulvius (cos. 125Google Scholar), who had also addressed the Italian question, received the same treatment.

⁸⁸ Oros. 5.17.10. Orosius actually places the measure between the killing of Glaucia and the capture and deaths of Dolabella and Giganius. While common sense suggests that Orosius is in error, his recall of his source was obviously that the events all happened pretty much at the same time. Clearly, the bill was promulgated immediately after the general lynching, thus firmly establishing Furius' tribunate in 100. Cf. Badian (‘Sat’ 132 f.), who argues convincingly against Seager's dating. For Furius' desertion of his former allies, Saturninus and Glaucia, see Dio 28, fr. 95.3. Furius’ election to the tribunate as the son of a libertus (App. BC 1.33Google Scholar; cf. Cie, . Rab. Perd. 24Google Scholar; Val. Max. 8.1.damn.2) may indicate that he was backed by a powerful patron such as Marius, with whom he later co-operated (Oros. 5.17.11). On the question of Furius' entry into the Senate, see Wiseman, , NM 71, 98Google Scholar; cf. Treggiari, , Freedmen 59Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ BC 1.33Google Scholar:

⁹⁰ The bill of the two tribunes, Cato and Pompeius, to recall Numidicus from exile was opposed by Marius and vetoed by Furius (Oros. 5.17.11; cf. Dio 28, fr. 95.1-3; Plut, . Mar. 31.1)Google Scholar. See also Badian's discussion (‘Sat’ 134 ff.) on a corrupt passage of the Bobiensian scholiast (176 St.) which may refer to these events. Furius, like Saturninus and Glaucia, had contracted an inimicitia with Numidicus; as censor Numidicus had deprived Furius of his equestrian status (Dio 28, fr. 95.2). Appian reports (BC 1.33Google Scholar) that Furius resisted the calls of the Senate and the people, not even being moved from his course by the pleas of the son of Metelius, who besought him in the presence of the people with tears in his eyes and threw himself at Furius' feet. On the efforts of Metelius' son, who later received the agnomen Pius, see also Dio 28, fr. 95.1; cf. Schol. Bob. 176 St.

⁹¹ It is clear that Canuleius' prosecution was brought before a iudicium populi. See App. BC 1.33Google Scholar; Dio 28, fr. 95.3; cf. Jones, , Criminal Courts 4Google Scholar. Like Decianus, Canuleius must have been tribune in the year after Furius’ tribunate (i.e. in 99; see below, n.95). On the dating, see Münzer, , RE 3.1500Google Scholar, ‘Canuleius’, no. 3 and Wiseman, , NM 221Google Scholar; cf. MRR 2.5, 542Google Scholar. Niccolini, (Fasti 209 f.Google Scholar) argues that the word Canuleius is a mistake on Appian's part for Appuleius (BC 1.33Google Scholar). This is highly implausible (so Badian, , ‘Sat’ 131Google Scholar; Gruen, , ‘PPN’ 34 f.Google Scholar; Gabba, , Appiani 115Google Scholar). It can be safely conjectured that Canuleius was supported by the boni (cf. Badian, , ‘Sat’ 132)Google Scholar. On Furius' vetoing of Metelius' return as an offence moribus, see Jones, , Criminal Courts 18Google Scholar.

⁹² App. BC 1.33Google Scholar; Dio 28, fr. 95.3. It is perfectly conceivable that the populace murdered Furius because of his veto of Metelius' recall (pace Gruen, , ‘PPN’ 36 n.24)Google Scholar.

⁹³ Cie, . Rab. Perd. 24–25Google Scholar; Val. Max. 8.1.damn.2; cf. Schol. Bob. 95 St.; Cie, . Flacc. 11Google Scholar. For the belief that it was a iudicium populi, see Gruen, , ‘PPN’ 36 n.23Google Scholar (though it should be noted that App. BC 1.33Google Scholar and Dio 28, fr. 95, cited by Gruen, do not refer to this particular trial). See also Badian, , ‘Sat’ 132 n.64Google Scholar; Jones, , Criminal Courts 4Google Scholar; cf. Carney, T.F., RhM 105 (1962) 308Google Scholar. Perhaps the charge was based on Furius' opposition to Metelius' recall (so Jones, , Criminal Courts 4)Google Scholar. Furius' frustrating of the popular desire to restore Numidicus could have been considered contrary to mos maiorum, and therefore an offence (cf. ibid. 18). That the prosecutions launched by Decianus and Canuleius were separate actions should no longer be questioned. See the convincing arguments of Badian, ‘Sat’ 131 f.; MRR 2.6 n.5Google Scholar (summarising some older treatments). Cf. Gruen, , ‘PPN’ 34 fGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁴ Whether Decianus chose to abandon the case or whether he in fact lost it is not known. See Val. Max. 8.1.damn.2: C. autem Deciano spectatae integritatis viro vox sua exitium attulit: nam cum P. Furium, inquinatissimae vitae pro rostris accusaret, quia quadam in parte actionis de morte L. Saturnini, queri ausus fuerat, nec reum damnavit; cf. Cie, . Rab. Perd. 24–25Google Scholar. There is no need to doubt Valerius Maximus' evidence here even if he is giving us his own inference from Cicero (cf. Gruen, , ‘PPN’ 35 n.22)Google Scholar. See especially the discussion by Badian, (‘Sat’ 131 f.)Google Scholar on the outcome of the case. Cicero's claim (Rab. Perd. 24) that the prosecution was eagerly supported by all the boni (accusaret summo studio bonorum omnium), men eager to retaliate against the individual responsible for obstinately blocking the recall of Numidicus, suggests that they may have been behind the prosecution. See Badian, ‘Sat’ 132 and esp. n.64; cf. Gruen, , ‘PPN’ 35 n.16Google Scholar. Decianus' words of regret for the fate of Saturninus most likely convinced the boni to withdraw their support (cf. Badian, , ‘Sat’ 132)Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Cf. Schol. Bob. 95 St.: multa improbe seditioseque committeret. Cicero (Rab. Perd. 24) states that Labienus often quoted Decianus. This was perhaps due to the latter's integrity [Val. Max. (8.1.damn.2) calls him spectatae integritatis vir] or because Decianus described the circumstances of Saturninus' demise (so Tyrrell, W.B., A Legal and Historical Commentary to Cicero's Oratio Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis [Amsterdam 1978] 126)Google Scholar. With Furius' tribunate now placed in 100, Decianus' tribunician year must be moved back to 99. It cannot be any later as Appian (BC 1.33Google Scholar) clearly states that Furius died in the year after his tribunate. On the dating see Gabba, , Appiani 114Google Scholar; Gruen, , ‘PPN’ 35Google Scholar; Badian, , ‘Sat’ 132 f.Google Scholar; MRR 3.23Google Scholar; Klebs, , RE 2.259–260Google Scholar, ‘Appuleius’, no. 21; cf. MRR 2.4–5, 532Google Scholar; Niccolini, , Fasti 205 ff.Google Scholar; Tyrrell, op. cit., 125. According to Badian (JRS 46 [1956] 95 f.Google Scholar; cf. stemma in Sumner, Orators 120 and Gruen, , ‘PPN’ 35Google Scholar), Decianus was adopted by a kinsman of Saturninus, being the natural son of P. Decius Subulo who as tribune in 120 had indicted L. Opimius for executing citizens without trial and was himself probably prosecuted the following year (cf. Gruen, , RPCC 102 ff., 109 ff.Google Scholar, 305 on the prosecutions; on the tribune of 120, cf. Badian, , JRS 46 [1956] 91 ff.)Google Scholar. While it is likely enough that Decianus was adopted by a relative of Saturninus (or even Saturninus himself), such speculation (hardly treated as such by Badian) on the identity of his father must remain suggestion only.

⁹⁶ See Cie, . Flacc. 11; Rab. Perd. 24–25Google Scholar; Schol. Bob. 95 St.; Val. Max. 8.1 .damn.2. At least we hear of no public outcry. Jones, (Criminal Courts 119 n. 18)Google Scholar thinks it is possible that Decianus was prosecuted before the people. There is no need to maintain with Gruen, (‘PPN’ 38Google Scholar) that ‘it is natural to expect that their opponents will have brought them [i.e. Titius and Decianus] before the maiestas tribunal, staffed with equites, rather than before the people.’ On Titius, see the discussion below. The Bobiensian scholiast (95 St.) might say that Decianus was condemned for his seditious and tumultuous tribunate but this is not evidence proving that the charge was maiestas. Nor is the observation that the scholiast's language closely parallels that of the treason trial of Norbanus (tr.pl. 103). Bauman, (CM 48Google Scholar) notes that Cicero (Rab. Perd. 24) does not mention equites Romani as he does in the case of Titius, admitting the possibility that there was no basis for a charge of sedition against the former tribune and that he was consequently tried apud populum. Cf. Badian, , JRS 46 (1956) 96Google Scholar. After his banishment Decianus went to Asia (Schol. Bob. 95 St.; Cie, . Flacc. 71)Google Scholar. See Wiseman, (NM 201) on his son's negotia in AsiaGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁷ Titius' tribunate is securely dated to 99 by Obsequens (46) and Cicero, (de Orat. 2.48)Google Scholar. See MRR 2.2, 626Google Scholar; Niccolini, , Fasti 204 f.Google Scholar; Münzer, , RE 2.6.2.1563–1565Google Scholar, ‘Titius’, no. 23 on his tribunician year. Sumner (Orators 23) estimates a birthdate of 127 B.C. Cicero claims that he was a loquacious speaker, apparently vigorous and with a sharp turn of phrase but at the same time so effeminate in his gestures that a dance was named after him (Brut. 225; Quintil. Inst. Or. 11.3.128). Conservative opposition to his legislation indicates that he was no friend of the establishment. He described himself as a Cassandra (Cie, . de Orat. 2.265Google Scholar), a possible allusion to a conservative refusal to give credence to his past warnings or his predictions of future developments. According to Cicero, Antonius (cos. 99) labelled Titius seditiosum civem et turbulentum and claimed that he had withstood him in defence of the State on a number of occasions (cf. de Orat. 2.48Google Scholar; cf. 2.265).

⁹⁸ Cie, . Rab. Perd. 24–25Google Scholar; Val. Max. 8.1.damn.3; cf. Cie, . Brut. 225Google Scholar. Antonius, his opponent in the preceding year, gave evidence at the trial (Cie, . de Orat. 2.48Google Scholar; cf. 265). Gruen, (‘PPN’ 38Google Scholar) carelessly assumes that he was the prosecutor. The tribune of 99 may be the Titius referred to in the de Oratore (2.253Google Scholar) who was under suspicion of mutilating the holy statues by night.

⁹⁹ The evidence of Cicero (Rab. Perd. 24) that he was tried by a quaestio of équités should be preferred to Valerius Maximus’ suggestion (8.1.damn.3) that he was tried before the people (so Bauman, , CM 47 f.Google Scholar; MRR 2.3 n.7)Google Scholar. Titius' popular appeal before the trial (cf. Val. Max. 8. l.damn.3: erat agraria lege lata gratiosus apud populum) would explain why he was prosecuted before an equestrian panel of iudices rather than apud populum. Cf. Jones, , Criminal Courts 119 n. 18Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ 8.1.damn.3: quod Saturnini imaginem domi habiterai, suffragiis eum tota contio oppressit. It may be significant that no public outcry against Titius' condemnation is recorded. In fact no more is heard of him.

¹⁰¹ It was not the charge itself. Bauman, (CM 47 f, 54)Google Scholar plausibly suggests that the charge was sedition or disregard of tribunician intercessio.

¹⁰² In discussing his condemnation, Valerius Maximus (8.1 .damn.3) stigmatises Titius' possession of the bust as irrelevant. This suggests that it was either irrelevant as far as the charge was concerned or that Titius had not emphasised his links with Saturninus by his comments or activities during his tribunician year. Cicero does not state at Brut. 225 that Titius was a political supporter of Saturninus and Glaucia. He may well be noting that Titius followed them chronologically or that he merely tried to imitate their oratorical styles. Nor does Cicero say at Rab. Perd. 24-25 that Titius actively promoted the cause of Saturninus as tribune (though admittedly he was really concerned with citing the case to lend point to his criticism of Labienus for displaying a similar image at the trial of Rabirius).

¹⁰³ See esp. Plut, . Mar. 31.1Google Scholar; App. BC 1.33Google Scholar; Veil. Pat. 2.15.4, 2.45.3; Liv, . Per. 69Google Scholar; Val. Max. 4.1.13. Claudius Quadrigarius (fr. 76 P) may be relevant (see Badian, , ‘Sat’ 140 n.87)Google Scholar. Aulus Gellius (13.29.4) cites Fronto as saying that the use of mortales for homines has the force of stating that the crowd which greeted Numidicus included everyone in the state of every ordo, age and sex. The influence of pro-Metellan memoirs on the source tradition should, however, be noted at this point. Most of our sources treat the recall of Numidicus as a celebrated case and probably exaggerate his popularity in their accounts of his return. The fact, however, that Furius had been lynched for his opposition to the recall clearly indicates that his stand was not a popular one. Cicero's failure to emphasise the public eagerness for Metelius' recall can be explained by his desire to let nothing overshadow his own account of his glorious return from exile in 57. It is interesting to note that Diodorus (36.16) suggests that the was not very eager to recall Numidicus, a likely reflection of the independence of his account or of one of his sources. See below, appendix 4.

The pleas of Metelius Pius and others before the people do not indicate a lack of popular enthusiasm for Numidicus' return. Such efforts were routine (in all but their extravagance in the case of Pius) and were no doubt intended to put pressure on tribunes such as Furius vetoing the recall of the ex-censor. Memory of Furius' bloody demise coupled with continuing popular pressure may have ultimately persuaded any other tribune or tribunes vetoing the measure to desist, paving the way for the ratification of the bill (cf. Badian, , ‘Sat’ 133)Google Scholar. It was probably passed before the consular elections in 99 (ibid. 136).

¹⁰⁴ Schol. Bob. 95 St.; Cie, . Flacc. 71Google Scholar. Cf. Carney, op. cit. (above, n.82) 47. Marius had opposed the senatorial decree preceding the passage of the bill recalling Numidicus. Cf. Plut, . Mar. 31.1Google Scholar. It is clear that Plutarch's source referred to a senatus consultum and a plebiscitum respectively. See Mason, H.J., Creek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto 1974) 32, 39Google Scholar. On the date of Numidicus' return, see Badian, , ‘Sat’ 137Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Pace Schneider, ‘Plebs Urbana’ 214 f.

¹⁰⁶ Cie, . Cluent. 110Google Scholar.