^{page 253 note 1} Cf. also 16 cum omnium nobilium dignitas et salus in discrimen veniret; Quinct. 69 (of a Marian) quem tu a puero sic instituisses ut nobili ne gladiatori quidem faveret.

^{page 253 note 2} i.e. descendants in the male line of consuls, consular tribunes, or dictators (Gelzer, M., Die Nobilität der rbmischen Republik, pp. 22 if.Google Scholar, Afzelius, A. (Classica et Medievalia, vii [1945]. 150–200)).Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 3} e.g. Att. 7. 7. 5–7, 9. 1. 2–4Google Scholar, Fam. 7. 3. 1–4, 16. II. 2Google Scholar; cf. also Lig. 17–19Google Scholar, Deiot, . II.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 4} Att. 9. II. 3f.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 5} Ibid. 8. 3. 2.

^{page 253 note 6} Fam. 6. 6. 12.

^{page 253 note 7} Not veraciously, according to Syme, , Roman Revolution, p. 45, n. 1Google Scholar, who follows Münzer, (R.E. iii. 2762 ff., x. 1367 ff., iv A. 854 ff.)Google Scholar in understanding from Cicero&s language elsewhere that two of those named, M. Marcellus and Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, kept aloof from the theatre of war in lettered retirement and ‘should more honestly be termed neutrals’. Perhaps historical research might not suffer from the assumption as a working axiom that even in rhetorical moments Cicero was not simultaneously a liar and an ass. Every senator must have known perfectly well what Marcellus and Sulpicius did in the war. The former was certainly a Pompeian, however unenthusiastic. Att. 8. 12 A. 4 (properly edited) fixes him at Pompey&s side in Brundisium, and later he was in Greece. When Cicero writes to him there in 46 that he ‘joined in the start of the war from necessity and wisely declined to pursue it to the bitter end’ (Fam. 4. 9. 3; cf. 4. 7. 2), this does not imply that Marcellus gave up before Pharsalus. No evidence suggests that he did, enough (apart from Phil. 13. 29Google Scholar) that he did not. Fam. 4. 7. 2 neque tu multum interfuisti rebus gerendis et ego id semper egi ne interessem equates MarceHus& role with the writer&s own (cf. Att. II. 4.Google Scholar 1 from Pompey&s camp, ipse fugi adhuc omne munus); and Cicero&s statement that he often saw Marcellus cum insolentiam certorum hominum turn etiam ipsiusv ictoriae ferocitatem extimescen-tern (Marc. 16) suggests Marcellus& apprehensions, like Cicero&s, were based on personal observation in the Pompeian army.

Sulpicius wavered at the outset, going further in Caesar&s direction than Cicero was prepared to go. But in May he told Cicero most emphatically that if the exiles were restored he would go into exile himself (Att. 10. 14. 3Google Scholar). He was in Samos in mid-47. (Brut. 156). Had he joined Pompey? It is probable, if not certain. The passages cited by Münzer, (R.E. iv A. 855Google Scholar) do not, as Münzer supposes, disagree with one another, they only disagree with Münzer, . Fam. 4. 3. 2 and 6. 1. 6Google Scholar refer to pacific advice before the outbreak of war or shortly after; and there does not look to me anything ‘tendenziös gefarbt’ in Fam. 6. 6. 10Google Scholar which mentions Sulpicius as a pardoned anti-Caesarian along with Cicero, C. Cassius, M. Brutus, and M. Marcellus. Münzer, ignores Att. 13. 10. 1Google Scholar, where Cicero takes Atticus to task for calling him (Cicero) the only surviving consular after Marcellus& assassination: sed Mud πapá tu praesertim, ‘me reliquum consular em. quid? tibi Servius quid videtur?’ Commentators flounder, but Atticus must have written or implied that Cicero was the only remaining Pompeian consular.

^{page 254 note 1} See pp. 255 f.

^{page 254 note 2} Syme, , op. cit., c. v.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 3} R.E. ii A. 1799. 39 ff.Google Scholar ‘Beim Ausbruch des Bürgerkrieges stellte sich Servilius im Gegensatz zu dem gröβten Teil der Nobilität auf die Seite Caesars,’ viii A. 9. 41. f. ‘Im Bürgerkriege trat Valerius wie Appius und die Nobilität überhaupt auf Seiten des Pom-peius.’ A Postumius of the old line is ‘schwer-lich auf der Seite Caesars zu erwarten’ (xxii. 896. 39: never mind D. Brutus Albinus!).Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 4} Missing from Broughton&s index (Magistrates of the Roman Republic: references are throughout to vol. ii). Nobilitas (descent from consular Aelii Pacti) is guaranteed by Cic. Mur. 75, Rep. 1. 31, Lig. 27).

^{page 254 note 5} Not in R.E. See Cichorius, Studien, Römische, pp. 244 f.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 1} In Rome in April 49, but seems to have joined Pompey later (cf. Cic. Att. II. 7. 2).

^{page 255 note 2} Nobilitas not directly proved, but to be deduced from his career and prestige.

^{page 255 note 3} Conjectural. See R.E.

^{page 255 note 4} Descent from consular Plautii uncertain.

^{page 255 note 5} Doubtful. If a member of the Malleolus family he may descend from the consul of a 232. Senatorial rank is indicated by his status as legatus pro praetore under Cn. Pompeius the Younger in 46–45.

^{page 255 note 6} Leg. 49, pr. 44, and son of the consul of 61. Despite Syme&s correction (Cl. Phil. [1955], 135Google Scholar), Stein, A. in the new volume of R.E. repeats Broughtori&s misidentification (Mag. p. 269).Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 7} Though probably an eques and perhaps municipalis eques he most likely claimed descent from the consul of 216: cf. Dahlmann, R.E. Suppl. vi. 1173.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 1} The younger Spinther is listed above; he had received the toga virilis and the augurate in 57.

^{page 256 note 2} Three times, if Att. 5. 21.Google Scholar 9 concerns the same man.

^{page 256 note 3} Op. cit., p. 263.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 4} Mus. Helv. xv (1958), 50 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 5} P. 54.

^{page 256 note 6} Syme cites Jordan, H., De Suasoriis quae Ad Caesarem Senem de Re Publica inscribuntur commentatio (Berlin 1868), pp. 26 f.Google Scholar; Meyer, E., Caesars Monarchic, p. 571Google Scholar; Taylor, L. R., Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, p. 156.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 7} Syme's onslaught on this word (pp. 54 ff.) does not allow for a difference which I seem to feel between senatores, ‘senators’, and senatorii, ‘men of (merely) senatorial standing’ as opposed to nobiles.

^{page 256 note 8} Except for D. Brutus Albinus. His adop tion makes it the more likely that the race was dying out.

^{page 257 note 1} Not quite certainly a Caesarian in 49. The evidence (not to be disentangled from Broughton, , p. 285, n. 8Google Scholar) is complex. A coin proves that one Acilius, M. Glabrio was proconsul of Africa in 25Google Scholar (P.I.R., Acilius, 71Google Scholar). In all probability he is the M. Acilius, cos. suff. 33, whose name comes in two epigraphic Fasti (Broughton, , p. 414Google Scholar) without filiation or cognomen. Groag suggests that the ‘M’. Glabrio' who pleaded for his uncle Scaurus in 54 (Ascon. (Clark) 28. 18) was this man's elder brother; but since Asconius' manuscripts give the praenomen as M. and only editors, after Manutius' conjecture, as M'., the two may be identified outright. The difficulty is to distinguish Glabrio from his contemporary M. (M'.?) Caninus, Acilius, Caesar's legate at Oricum in 48.Google Scholar Which was the proconsul of Sicily to whom Cicero wrote letters of recommendation (Fam. 13. 30–39Google Scholar) in 46 and which the Acilius in Graeciam cum Ugionibus missus in 45, whom Cicero had twice defended on a capital charge (Ibid. 7. 30. 3, 7. 31. 1; cf. 13. 50), remains obscure despite Dr. Grant's ingenious arguments (From Imperium to Auctoritas, pp. 17 and 26).Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 2} Another pleader for Scaurus, probably a patrician relative. In 44 he issued coins with Caesar's portrait. Scaurus' condemnation in 53 supplies a motive to both Buca and Glabrio for hostility to Pompey.

^{page 257 note 3} For his role in the war cf. Att. 10. 12. IGoogle Scholar, a passage ignored by Klebs, (R.E.) and Broughton.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 4} Cf. Broughton, (p. 214, n. 2)Google Scholar: ‘It is extremely improbable that the Quaestor of 61 [sic!] and Tribune of 56 should be identified with the Consul Suffectus of 30, since Caesar made the latter Quaestor (Plut. Cats. 5. 3), a process hardly within his power in 61.’ But Plutarch means that Caesar made Vetus his quaestor, i.e. chose him from among the rest. Selection of quaestors by their chiefs was not unheard of (Mommsen, , Staatsrccht, ii. 533, n. 4Google Scholar), and it is common sense to suppose that the latter could exercise some sort of influence on the lottery when they wished. Plutarch anyway may have supposed so. The Antistii make so good a show in the records as to suggest descent from the early republican family which produced at least one consular tribune, in 379 (R.E. II). A Reginus was tribune in 103, Vetus' father was praetor. Antistius, T. (q. 50, R.E. 22) might be included on Pompey's side, but Cicero says he was a Pompeian malgré lui (Fam. 13. 29. 3).Google ScholarTurpio, Antistius (R.E. 43) is best ignored.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 5} His activities during the war are not on record, but his whole career bespeaks sup port for Caesar.

^{page 257 note 6} See Broughton, , pp. 274, 285, n. 4.Google Scholar Senatorial Appuleii abound from 173 on, and some of them probably claimed de scent from Q. Appuleius Pansa, cos. 300. An augurate in 45 points to nobilitas since, unlike some of Caesar's augurs who lacked it (Vatinius, Cornificius, Hirtius, Pansa), Appuleius seems to have been young and inconspicuous (perhaps related, however, to the husband of Caesar's great-niece Octavia moior, the otherwise unknown Sex. Appuleius). Afzelius goes too far in arguing that the novus homo Saturninus, L. (R.E. 30Google Scholar) was not an Appuleius; Schol. Bob. (Stangl, , p. 153) says he was. He will have been collateral to the praetorian Appuleii Saturnini.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 7} Not in R.E.; see Broughton, , p. 258.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 8} See Austin, R. G., Pro Caelio, p. 154. Catilinarian sympathies, exile in 56, and support of Antony in 43 place him.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 1} Legate of Q. Cassius Longinus in 48, so probably related. Pr. 44.

^{page 258 note 2} Caesar's legate in 58, banished 52. In view of their connexion it seems unlikely that Caesar left him in exile. True, , Cic. Fam. II. 22.Google Scholar I implies that his son owed gratitude to Antony for his restoration, but that does not necessarily mean that it took place in 43: cf. Att. 10. 13. IGoogle Scholar (May 49) hodie in Aenariam transire constituit [sc. M. Antonius] ut exulibus rcditum polliceretur.

^{page 258 note 3} The name is somewhat speculative. Dolabella's tribunate in 47 proves that he had become a plebeian (by adoption) no later than September 48. Dio (42. 9. 1) in fact says that he did diis in order to make himself eligible for the office-the precedents of Clodius and P. Sulpicius Rufus lay to hand. But he may possibly have had a financial motive: cf. Cic. Att. 7. 8. 3 (26 December 50) Dolabellam video Liviae testamento cum duobus coheredibus esse in triente, sed iuberi mutare quantum quasi sit in trientis triente. Dolabella then, as a condition of inheritance, would have had to pass into another family—perhaps that of Livia's husband, since women could not adopt. From Dio's statement, however, it looks as though the adoption did not take place until 48, so perhaps Livia's condition was refused.

Anyone prepared to adopt so active a Caesarian in 49–48, especially for a political reason, was in all probability a Caesarian himself. But the identity of the adoptive parent has always been a puzzle. Until his death Dolabella was ordinarily called by his former name (so always by Cicero), but Asconius (Clark, , p. 5. 10Google Scholar) calls him, anachronistically as it would seem, Lentulus, P. (Cicero filiam post mortem Pisonis generi P. Lentulo collocavit), Plutarch (Cic. 41. 4Google Scholar) and Macrobius, (Sat. 2. 3. 3Google Scholar) call him Lentulus, Cicero calls his and Tullia's son Lentulus (puer (Att. 12. 28. 3, 12. 30. I)).Google Scholar Accordingly, it is and must be supposed that the plebeian who adopted him was a Lentulus; an explanation which Munzer (R.E. iv. 1302Google Scholar) calls unsatisfactory, ‘zumal da sicher plebeische Lentuli nicht nachweisbar sind’, while adding that no better has been found. It is true that Willems’ theory about the plebeian status of Lentulus Spindier and Lentulus Marcellinus (coss. 57 and 56) has been thoroughly exploded, nor would either be a possible adoptive father for Dolabella. But look at Cic. Q.. Fr. 2. 3. 5Google Scholar which Mr. Watt prints thus: a. d. IIII Id. Febr. Sestius ab indice Cn. Nerio Pupinia <de> ambitu est postulatus … sed idem Nerius index †edidit ad allegatos† Cn. Lentulum Vatiam et C. Comelium †istaei†. eodem die etsqq. MS. variants suggest that the archetype had staei. Watt thinks this a locus desperatus, though tentatively suggesting that archetype had sesti. Far more probable, indeed convincing, are two emendations recorded in his apparatus. The first is Turnebus’ edidit alligatos, ‘named as witnesses’ (the rare word alligati is explained by Isidore, , Orig. 5. 23Google Scholar). The second is Stellatina et (or rather stā et; cf. Rev. des Éludes Lat. xi [1933], 138 ff.Google Scholar)—one of Constans' occasional flashes. The unwonted mention of the informer Nerius' tribe is to be explained by its relevance to die accusation of bribery and calls for similar mention in the case of the supporting witnesses. Furrner corroboration comes from an inscription revealing that one C. Cornelius of the tribe Stellatina (R.E. 17) was a senator in or about 104, die fadier it may be of the C. Cornelius mentioned by Cicero. It is not impossible mat this latter Cornelius was the anti-optimate tribune of 67. At any rate bodi he and Lentulus Vatia must have been populares to attack that staunch champion of die boni, Sestius, P., in 56.Google Scholar Also they will have been plebeians; for only plebeians elected tribunes, and the bribery charged against Sestius must have concerned die tribunician elections in 58. Lentulus' name adds to die evidence, Vatia being die cognomen of die leading plebian family in the Gens Servilia, borne by the elder Isauricus and by others before and after him. No other gens, except the Cerrinii at Pompeii, is known to have used it—H. Gundel's statement (R.E. viii A. 489)Google Scholar, that the Cornelii did so, rests (errors of reference corrected) only on the case of this Lentulus, which is clearly one of adoption. The elastic practice of the period allowed an adopted son to keep his former name in ordinary use with the new cognomen attached (cf. D. Junius Brutus Albinus), though he could also (and usually did) attach the old cognomen to the new nomen, like Metellus Scipio or Caepio Brutus. So far then as the name goes Lentulus Vatia might be a patrician Cornelius adopted by a plebeian Servilius or vice versa, but reason has now been seen to believe the former. His adoptive father may have been Vatia, C. Servilius (R.E. 91Google Scholar). Münzer's suggested identification with of Plut. Crass. 8. a (= Cn. Lentulus of Oros. 5. 24. I), who owned a school of gladiators at Capua in 73, is extremely plausible. There would be nothing surprising in a nobleman's holding such a property—Caesar had a school in Capua in 49 and was planning to build anodier (Suet. ltd. 31. I).Google Scholar

Here then is a plebeian Lentulus, the only one of whose existence we have any trace, of the right political colour (add that his presumptive connexion, P. Servilius Isauricus the younger, was a leading Caesarian). The fact that Lentulus was by birth a patrician of Dolabella's own gens might in itself account for the choice. For a similar reason Dolabella will have preferred to use the first of his new father's two cognomina—Lentulus, rather than the plebeian Vatia—and to pass it on to his son.

^{page 259 note 1} Presumably his son (R.E. 387) also followed Caesar.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 2} Leg. 46. The name is so rare under the Republic that his descent from T. Didius, cos. 98, is probable.

^{page 259 note 3} Curio's, praefectus equitum in 49. That he was an Ahenobarbus and/or praetor in 54 remains conjectural.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 4} Münzer's objections to identification seem to me wholly inconclusive.

^{page 259 note 5} Author of the Annates Belli Gallici: cf. Skutsch, , R.E. vii. 321 f.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 6} Apparently deserted Pompey in March 49 (Cic. Att. 9. II. 3).Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 7} No reason that I can see to distinguish between Caesar's legate in 53 and Lepidus' in 43 (cos. 25). Both positions indicate support for Caesar in between.

^{page 259 note 8} See below, p. 12, n. 8.

^{page 259 note 9} Commanded a fleet for Dolabella in 43, so probably a Caesarian.

^{page 259 note 10} Support for Caesar in the senate (Caes. B.C. I. 6. 4) and a praetorship in 44 show where he stood.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 11} See Broughton, , p. 289.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 12} Cf. Cic. Att. 9. 9. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 13} Condemned for extortion in 59; but Cicero's phrase (Fam. 9. 21. 3) de hoc amico meo implies that he was back in Italy by 46, so presumably reinstated by Caesar.

^{page 259 note 14} No direct evidence for the Civil War; but Caesar's grandnephew and heir, placed by Antony in command of a legion in 42. Cf. his coheir Q. Pedius.

^{page 260 note 1} Nothing known for certain after his con demnation in 52, but Münzer's proposed identification with the senator P. Plautius mentioned by Josephus as witness to the Jewish decree of 44 is satisfactory. Caesar will have reinstated him. Hypsaeus had particularly good reasons for hostility to his former patron Pompey (Val. Max. 9. 5. 3Google Scholar, Plut. Pomp. 55. 5).Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 2} Born 73, son of L. Calpurnius Bestia. A leading adherent of Antony after Philippi (cos. suff. 34). Caesarian proclivities follow.

^{page 260 note 3} Tr. pl. 44.

^{page 260 note 4} Tr. pl. 43. That one Casca was of Caesar's party is clear from Appian, , B.C. 2. 113Google Scholar for the other. Their nobilitas appears thus: Casca, C. Servilius (R.E. 51)Google Scholar figures as tribune in 212 in an episode narrated by Livy, (25. 3. 14–18).Google Scholar Miinzer very plausibly suggests that he is identical with Geminus, C. Servilius (R.E. 60Google Scholar). 60), cos. 203-all the more plausibly because a plebeian Servilius other than the sons of C. Geminus, cos. 220, would be hard to account for at this time. But his inference that the cognomen Casca, which occurs three times in Livy, is ‘eine unberechtigte Zutat’ is altogether improbable, and needless to boot. Geminus, C., cos. 203Google Scholar, whose name appears in the Fasti Capitolini simply as C. Servilius, could have been called Casca as his brother Marcus, , cos. 202 (R.E. 78)Google Scholar, was called Pulex (a fact known only from the Fasti): cf. the Cornelius Scipio brothers, Hispallus and Nasica, or the Postumius Albinus brothers, Tempsanus and Magnus. The cognomen Geminus is not afterwards attested in either line of descent. Our Cascae then will have descended from C. Servilius Casca Geminus, cos. 203, through his son, Servilius, C. (Casca), aed. pl. 173 (R.E. 9)Google Scholar, and, probably, the adulescens Casca of Varro, L.L. 7. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 5} His sons (conjectured), Servius (R.E. 20, monet. 54?) and Gaius (R.E. 52), were pre sumably on the same side.

^{page 260 note 6} Sent by his father (cos. 51) to Caesar's camp in March 49 ad effligendum Cn. Pompeium aut certe capiendum (Cic. Att. 9. 19. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 7} Q. 46, tr. pi. 43. Presumably persona grata to Caesar since Cicero made him his messenger in 48 (or 47; Fam 13. 10. 3).

^{page 260 note 8} Hisson, (R.E. 254), monet. 53, probably died young, since he adopted No. 260.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 9} Pr. 46, cos. 33, and son of the homonymous consul of 66, sent by him to join Caesar in 49 (Cic. Alt. 10. 3 a 2).Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 10} Though at first Pompeian in sympathy, he remained in Italy and attended Caesar's senate in April 49 (Cic. Att. 8. 15. 2, 9. 1.2).Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 11} Allegedly bought by Caesar in 50. Not mentioned in the war.

^{page 260 note 12} Related to Caesar's mother and seemingly for that reason passed over, along widi L. Philippus, in the Senate's allocation of commands in January 49 (Caes. B.C. 1. 65).Google Scholar For his adherence to Caesar in 44 cf. Klebs, , R.E.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 13} Caesar's father-in-law and an advocate of peace.

^{page 261 note 1} Alive in 51, but no doubt too old for active politics.

^{page 261 note 2} Married Caesar's great-niece. For his unheroic attitude see Münzer (who, how ever, misled by corruptions in the text of Cic. Att. 8. 12A. 4Google Scholar, confuses him with his cousin Marcus, (R.E. iii. 2735. 60 ff).)Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 3} Caesar's legate 52–49 and Antony's uncle. Despite Münzer (R.E. x. 469. 66 ff.Google Scholar) there is nothing to be said for the idea that he joined Pompey in 49. In view of his nomination by Antony as praefectus urbis in 47 he should perhaps rather be reckoned a Caesarian.

^{page 261 note 4} Husband of Caesar's niece. For his neutrality in 49 cf. Cic. Att. 10. 4. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 5} Died early in 49, allegedly aged 98.

^{page 261 note 6} About 85 years old in 49.

^{page 261 note 7} Münzer deduces a neutral attitude from Caes. B.C. 3. 19. 3.

^{page 261 note 8} A supporter of Clodius.

^{page 261 note 9} Cos. suff. 34. Probably either a ‘neutral’ like his father (cos. 50) or a Caesarian.

^{page 261 note 10} Nothing known after his exile in 53, which gave him good reason to hate Pompey.

^{page 261 note 11} Pr. 43. Praenomen suggests descent from consular Aquillii.

^{page 261 note 12} Opposed Pompey and Crassus in 55. Nobilitas not quite certain.

^{page 261 note 13} A hireling of Clodius in 57.

^{page 261 note 14} Mention in 57.

^{page 261 note 15} Last mentioned in 54.

^{page 261 note 16} Lost to view after his praetorship.

^{page 261 note 17} Alive about 57 (Varro, , R.R. 3. 2. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 18} Not in R.E. Cos. suff. 35 ? See Broughton, , p. 406.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 19} Stepson (or adopted son ?) of A. Gabinius (cos. 58): see Münzer, R.E. Presumably a Caesarian if he lived.

^{page 261 note 20} A supporter of Milo in 57. But the nomen is far from certain.

^{page 261 note 21} Exiled in 54. Possibly the ‘Furnius’ of Att. II. 8.Google Scholar 2 (cf. Towards a text of Cic. ad Att., p. 52), and in any case probably a Caesarian if alive.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 22} Probably a Pompeian, despite Münzer, , R.E. x. 1367. 2 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 23} Last heard of in 57.

^{page 262 note 1} Apparently a youngish man c. 57.

^{page 262 note 2} His anti-senatorial activity in 59 (Cic. Att. 2. 7. 3), the circumstances of his trial in 54, his presence in Italy in 47, and his daughter's marriages suggest support for Caesar.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 3} Banished Clodian, alive in 51.

^{page 262 note 4} Senator in 44, apparently on friendly terms with Caesar.

^{page 262 note 5} Turbulentus adulescens, last heard of in 54.

^{page 262 note 6} Father, no doubt, of the Pompeian quaestor.

^{page 262 note 7} Exiled in 51, probably recalled by Antony in 44.

^{page 262 note 8} Under Caesar in Gaul.

^{page 262 note 9} Tr. pi. 43.

^{page 262 note 10} Associated with Caesar in his tribunate, not afterwards heard of. For his claim to nobilitas cf. Cic. Agr. 2. 19. His son (?) supported Octavian against Antony in 40.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 11} Cos. suff. 32.

^{page 262 note 12} The standing of the Considii at this period (cf. Q. Considius, R.E. 7) suggests senatorial ancestry, though the only earlier trace is the tribunate of Q. Considius (R.E. 6) in 476.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 13} Son of Longus.

^{page 262 note 14} See above, p. 256. Senatorial descent is unproved, but R.E. 4 and 5 were persons of some consequence.

^{page 262 note 15} Included on the strength of his apparently good social status (candidature for the consulship and friendship with Pompey) and the record of a L. Lucceius (not his father) as legate c. 92 (R.E. 4).

^{page 262 note 16} Probably son of Antonius’ legate in 102 (Broughton, , i. 569). His aunt Lucilia was stirpis senatariae (Veil. 2. 29. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 17} Cf. C. Nigidius (R.E. 1), pr. I45(?).

^{page 262 note 18} By Münzer's conjecture son of a praetor (R.E. 4). But I do not include R.E. 11 on Pompey's side or R.E. 5 on Caesar's

^{page 263 note 1} Evidently a man of note (Cic. Att. 14. 6. I, 14. 10. 2). Two praetors of the gens (R.E. 3 and 12) held office in 68 and 88. Descent from C. Sextilius, consular tribune 379, is possible.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 2} Cf. Sicinius, Cn. (R.E. 8), pr. 183 and 172.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 3} Cf. Cic. Att. 8. 15. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 4} Cos. suff. 33. As son of the exiled Catilinarian (cos. desig. 65) he can be assumed to have been of Caesar's party.

^{page 263 note 5} Cicero's obituary notice in 44, hominem, quod ad me attinet, non ingratum (Att. 16. 14. 4) suggests a Caesarian. Descent from prae torian Caninii conjectural.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 6} Not in R.E. Cf. Cic. Att. 13. 52. IGoogle Scholar, Phil. 13. 3.Google Scholar Perhaps son of Lucullus' legate Barba (Broughton, , 112).Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 7} Tr. pl. 43, cos. 35. Earlier career un known, but his accusation of Brutus for Caesar's murder in 43 makes his party clear.

^{page 263 note 8} Tr. mil. 46. Connexion with praetorian Fonteii unproved, but the name does not seem to have spread widely under the Republic.

^{page 263 note 9} Senatorial descent unproved, but his father (Cic. Phil. 8. 13Google Scholar) and brother (?Verr. 2. 2. 23)Google Scholar seem to have been men of consequence. An ancestor may have sponsored the Lex Fufia of c. 153.

^{page 263 note 10} ‘About Gabinius’ origin nothing is known.' So Syme, (Rom. Rev., p. 31Google Scholar), with the conjecture that he came from Picenum. But the Gabinii were an established senatorial family, and if the consul's beginnings had been humble we should have heard of them from Cicero. He may have been son of a praetor (R.E. 9).

^{page 263 note 11} By Münzer's conjecture son of M. Lollius Palicanus, pr. 69(?).

^{page 263 note 12} Probably son of Q,. Marcius Rufus (R.E. 95), Crassus' legate in 71.

^{page 263 note 13} Cos. suff. 34. His exiled father was Pompey's enemy. Hence presumably a Caesarian.

^{page 263 note 14} Apparently of senatorial family (by adoption); cf. R.E. 37 and 39.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 15} See Münzer, , R.E., Munatius 5.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 1} By birth C. Munatius Plancus.

^{page 264 note 2} Apparently praetor in 45, though son of a Pompeian.

^{page 264 note 3} Senatorial descent indicated by his praetorship, taken together with that of L. Roscius Otho in 63 (?). Roscius, A. L. was moneyer c. 103.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 4} Q.47.

^{page 264 note 5} Att. 2. 5. 2Google Scholar [auguratus] quo quidem uno ego ab istis capi possum. It is true that the restora tion of the Lex Domitia in 63 affected the composition of the colleges politically; the contest between Domitius and Antony for the augurate in 50 was fought on party lines (Cic. (Caelius) Fam. 8. 14. I).Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 6} Broughton, , pp. 254 f.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 7} See above, p. 261, n. 3.

^{page 264 note 8} Including M. Licinius Crassus, whose name appears almost at the bottom of the list in Cic. Har. Resp. 12, which refers to September 57. Since the list seems to be in order of inauguration into the college (cf. Taylor, L. R., A.J. Ph. lxiii [1942], 385 ff.)Google Scholar, this Crassus in view of his juniority will be the son rather than the father (cos. 70; cf. Taylor, , op. cit., pp. 392 f.).Google Scholar True, he is followed by C. Curio, usually thought to be the consul of 76. His son was a pontifex in 50 (Dio 40. 62.1) and is supposed to have succeeded him in the college. But the only evidence that he did is Cic. Fam. 2. 7. 3 de sacerdotio tuo quantam curam adhibuerim quamque difficili in re atque causa cognosces ex Us litteris quas Thra-soni liberto tuo dedi. This was written from Cilicia to the younger Curio in December 51. The elder Curio died in 53, probably quite early in the year (Fam. 2. 2). His successor ought to have been elected in July 53, though the disorders of the time may have caused delay. At any rate the matter would be ancient history by the end of 51. If therefore Cicero's reference is to Curio's pontificate, it still does not prove anything as to the date of his election. But it makes better sense to suppose that sacerdotium is some other priesthood on which Curio had his eye.

^{page 264 note 9} All nobiles except Cicero and Afranius.

^{page 264 note 10} Add to the nobiles Tullus, L. Volcatius (cos. 66), who sent his son to join Caesar at Brundisium.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 1} Petreius, M. (R.E. 3)Google Scholar, Labienus, T. (R.E. 6)Google Scholar, Vergilius, C. (R.E. 3)Google Scholar, Cicero, Q.Tullius (R.E. 3)Google Scholar, Balbus, T. Ampius (R.E. 1)Google Scholar, Rufus, L. Caecilius (R.E. 3)Google Scholar, Milo, T. Annius (R.E. 67)Google Scholar, Varus, P. Attius (R.E. 32)Google Scholar, Favonius, M. (R.E. 1.).Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 2} Vatinius, P. (R.E. 3)Google Scholar, Flavius, L. (R.E. 17)Google Scholar, Orca, Q. Valerius (R.E. 280)Google Scholar, Silius, P. (?R.E. 8)Google Scholar, Allienus, A. (R.E. 1)Google Scholar, Sosius, C. (R.E. 2).Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 3} Taylor, L. R., Party Politics, etc., c. iii.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 4} Son of a Publius, so possibly the tribune of 88; in that case not the quaestor of 69 (R.E. 15; cf. Broughton, p. 132 and Index).

^{page 265 note 5} Att. 9. 1. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 6} Caes. B.C. 1. 22. 3f.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 7} Cic. Att. 8. 9. 4, 8. 15. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 8} Ibid. 8. 1. 4, 9. 5. 3, 9. 7. 3, 9. 19. 2.

^{page 265 note 9} Ibid. 10. 4. 6.

^{page 266 note 1} Party Politics, etc., p. 224.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 2} Att. 10. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 3} Not merely a polite phrase. Most of Münzer's work, especially in R.E., is solid and indispensable; a paper such as this could not be written without it. And no desert island would be desirable without that daz zling, venerable, wise, and sometimes exasperating classic, The Roman Revolution.

^{page 266 note 4} Let alone earlier periods, e.g. 220–150 B.C.

^{page 266 note 5} Syme, , Rom. Rev., p. 68. Cf. p. 69Google Scholar: ‘The patricians were loyal to tradition without being fettered by caste or principle’ et sqq. Taylor, L. R., op. cit., p. 123Google Scholar: ‘Caesar was already strong in influence with his own patrician class—more inclined than the ple beian nobles to try radical attitudes.’

^{page 266 note 6} Including P. Sulpicius Rufus (doubtful), D. Brutus Albinus (plebeian by birth), and Cn. Lentulus Vatia (plebeian by adoption). There was also Caesar himself. Incidentally I cannot follow Miss Taylor in her belief that Caesar's nobility, like that of Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (‘though in a less degree’) was ‘dug from ancient records’. Of the two branches of the gens Julia officially in evidence since the beginning of the second century his, the younger, was naturally the less prominent; but his father and great-grandfather were praetors and his father's brother consul. His mother belonged to the prominent and plebeian Aurelii Cottae. A similar remark about Cinna (p. 21) ignores his father's consulate.

^{page 266 note 7} Including Caepio Brutus (plebeian by birth) and Metellus Scipio (plebeian by adoption).

^{page 266 note 8} ‘Two branches of the Cornelii, the Scipiones and the Lentuli, stood by the oligarchy’ (Syme, , op. cit., p. 69).Google Scholar Against Spinther and Crus (and their sons) set Marcellinus, Vatia, Dolabella (Lentulus). As for Scipiones, the only one besides Metellus of whom anything is known is more likely than not to have been a Caesarian in view of his triumviral consulate (see above, p. 261, n. 18).

^{page 267 note 1} Catilinarian connexions (Hibrida, Len tulus Sura) to be remembered.

^{page 267 note 2} Sometimes, says Syme, (op. cit., p. 64), such divisions ‘will be explained … by de liberate choice, to safeguard the wealth and standing of the family, whatever the event.’ I cannot contradict him; but the conse quences for what I may call Münzerismus are none the less devastating.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 3} Römische Adelsparteien, pp. 328 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 4} Servilius Isauricus and Lepidus.

^{page 267 note 5} Daughter of the consul of 56.

^{page 267 note 6} Cic. Att. 15. II. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 7} An example: The Luculli and the elder Isauricus, formerly enemies, were friends in 56 (Cic. Prov. Cons. 22). L. Lucullus married Servilia's sister in 65, the younger Isauricus married her daughter about 60. ‘So war sie es, die dessen Vater und ihren Schwager miteinander versohnte und gegen Pompeius, den Morder ihres ersten Gatten, einigte’ (Münzer, , op. cit., p. 358). Possibly; and possibly not. Anyhow, Servilia's vindictive memories did not prevent her half-brother and son from joining Pompey in 49.Google Scholar