¹ BC I, 37.

² cf. the prosecutions under the Mamilian law in 109 (Sallust, Jug. 40), and the trials of Q. Servilius Caepio and Cn. Mallius in 103 (Gran. Licin. 13, Flemisch; ad Herenn. I, 14, 24; Val. Max. 4, 7, 3). Many more could, of course, be cited.

³ Bloch, G. and Carcopino, J., Histoire Romaine II (Paris, 1940), 380Google Scholar; Hill, H., Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period (Oxford, 1952), 136Google Scholar; Pareti, L., Storia di Roma III (Torino, 1953), 536.Google Scholar

⁴ Asconius 22, Clark: ut quaereretur de iis quorum ope consiliove socii contra populum Romanum arma sumpsissent; Val. Max. 8, 6, 4: quorum dolo malo socii ad arma ire coacti essent.

⁵ Cicero, Brutus 304–5; cf. Broughton, T. R. S., The Magistrates of The Roman Republic II (New York, 1952), 26Google Scholar; 30–1, n. 6–9.

⁶ See the arguments of Fraccaro, P., Opuscula (Pavia, 1957) 2Google Scholar, 144, and Haug, I., Würzb. Jahrb. 2 (1947), 243–7.Google Scholar The date is accepted by Broughton, MRR II, 26–7.

⁷ cf. Mommsen, Th., Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899), 198Google Scholar; Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (Oxford, 1912), 1, 231Google Scholar; 239; Siber, H., Abh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. 43 (1936), 52Google Scholar; Bloch-Carcopino, , Hist. Rom. II (1935), 380Google Scholar; Gabba, E., Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus (Firenze, 1958), 124.Google Scholar

⁸ Asconius 79, Clark; cf. Val. Max. 8, 6, 4; Appian, BC I, 37.

⁹ Sallust, Jug. 40, 1: uti quaereretur in eos quorum consilio lugurtha senati decreta neglegisset …

¹⁰ Cicero, in the speech Pro Cornelio, quoted by Asconius 79, Clark. The meaning of maiestas was under dispute even in antiquity, as is graphically illustrated by the trial of C. Norbanus in 95 under Saturninus' maiestas law: ad Herenn. 2, 17; Cicero, De Orat. 2, 107; 197–201.

¹¹ Broughton, MRR I, 565, n. 4.

¹² The only certain example is the lex Pompeia de vi of 52; sources in Broughton, MRR II, 234. The year of Pompey's sole consulship was, of course, hardly normal.

¹³ See below, p. 69.

¹⁴ See below, pp. 70 f.

¹⁵ Appian, BC i, 37; Val. Max. 8, 6, 4; see Lengle, J., Untersuchungen über die Sullanische Verfassung (Freiburg, 1889), 35.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cicero, De Orat. 2, 107–9; 197–203; Part. Orat. 104–5; Val. Max. 8, 5, 2.

¹⁷ See below, pp. 70f.

¹⁸ Lengle, o.c. (n. 15), 32–6. Lengle has been followed now by H. Gundel, RE 15 (2), 389, ‘Varius,’ n. 7.

¹⁹ Lengle cites the lex Lutatia and the lex Plautia de vi: o.c, 36. But the lex Lutatia was probably a temporary measure for a special offence and no longer in use when the second law was passed; see Hough, J. N., AJP 51 (1930), 135 ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ For a similar view, now generally ignored, see Zumpt, A. W., Das Criminalrecht der römischen Republik II, 1 (Berlin, 1868), 249–264.Google Scholar

²¹ The penalty under the lex Varia appears to have been a capital one. Varius, in any case, was apparently executed; Cicero, , De Nat. Deor. 3, 81Google Scholar: summo cruciatu supplicioque Q. Varius, homo importunissimus, periit. Valerius Maximus' curious phrase sua lex eum domesticis laqueis constrictum absumpsit (8, 6, 4) should be taken in a metaphorical sense as ‘hoist with his own petard’. Siber's, view, Abh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. 43 (1936), 52Google Scholar, that the lex Varia provided for compulsory exile is unconvincing. Cicero's reference, Brutus 305, to the exile of Cotta as est expulsus must be rhetorical. Cotta left the city before the court reached its decision; Appian, , BC 1, 37Google Scholar; cf. Mommsen, Strafrecht 198; Levy, E., Sitz. Heid. Akad. Wiss. 21 (1930–1931), 21.Google Scholar

²² Asconius 73, Clark: cum multi Varia lege inique damnarentur, quasi id bellum illis auctoribus conflatum esset; Appian, , BC 1, 37Google Scholar:

²³ cf. Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939)Google Scholar, passim.

²⁴ It is too often forgotten that to speak of the equites as a bloc is seriously misleading, if not erroneous; cf. Meier, C., Gnomon 36 (1964), 64–70.Google Scholar Temporary unity might be achieved over control of business interests abroad or the debt-question at home, but hardly over factional struggles in the senate.

²⁵ Gabba, , Athenaeum 32 (1954), 41–82.Google Scholar Similarly, there is little to warrant Carney's, description of Varius as a Marian supporter, A Biography of Marius, Proc. Afr. Class. Ass. Supp. I (Assen, 1961), 52Google Scholar; Rh. Mus. 105 (1962), 326–7, n. 83. Marius did have vested interests in Spain (Carney, , Num. Chron. 19 (1959), 81Google Scholar) and Varius came of Spanish stock, but this is hardly enough to imply a connection. The only evidence for any association between these two men is Valerius Maximus' remark that Marius had C. Caesar Strabo killed in order to avenge Varius; 9, 2, 2. But Marius had much better reasons of his own; Diodorus 37, 2.

²⁸ See Thomsen, R., Class. et Med. 5 (1942), 25–6.Google Scholar Floras' statement, 2, 5, 17, that Caepio supported the cause of the knights carries little weight. Even if correct it shows only that Caepio exploited equestrian opposition to Drusus' jury reforms in 91. Nothing follows with respect to the lex Varia.

²⁷ Historia 6 (1957), 318–346; now reprinted with additions in Badian, , Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1964), 34–70.Google Scholar

²⁸ For the influence of Scaurus and Crassus, see Asconius 21, Clark; Cicero, De Domo 50: M. Drusus … M. Scauro et L. Crasso consiliariis; cf. De Orat. 3, 2. For the sources on Drusus' programme generally, see Broughton, , MRR II, 21.Google Scholar

²⁹ Broughton, , MRR II, IIGoogle Scholar; 17.

³⁰ Cicero, , De Orat. 2, 257.Google ScholarFraccaro, , Opuscula 2, 132–5Google Scholar, correctly saw this passage as a reflection of Scaurus' contempt for non-Romans. The objections of Taylor, L. R., The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome, 1960), 142–3Google Scholar, have been decisively refuted by Badian, , JRS 52 (1962), 207–8.Google Scholar

³¹ For the view that Drusus' plans were all of a piece and were advocated down the line by his supporters, see Carcopino, , Bull. Ass. Budé 22 (1929), 3–23Google Scholar; Badian, , Historia II (1962), 223–5.Google Scholar Badian, recognizing the volte-face that this involves, believes that the Metellan factio yielded to the inevitable winds of change and sought to gain for the senate the credit for Italian enfranchisement.

³² For an analysis of Drusus' character and references to the ancient material on him, see Pareti, , Storia di Roma III, 520–3.Google Scholar The view expressed here, that Drusus' supporters drew back on the Italian issue, has been argued by Bemardi, , Nuov. Riv. Stor. 28–9 (1944–1945), 92–4Google Scholar, and Gabba, , Athenaeum 31 (1953), 259–267.Google Scholar

³³ Asconius 73, Clark.

³⁴ cf. Meier, , Bonn. Jahrb. 161 (1961), 508.Google Scholar

³⁵ The death of Numidicus may have come not long after his return from exile in 98; cf. Cicero, , Ad Fam. 1, 9, 16.Google Scholar He is, in any case, not heard from again. On the trial of Metellus Nepos, see Asconius 63–5, Clark; Apuleius, Apol. 66.

³⁶ For the relationship, see Val. Max. 8, 13, 6; Pliny, , NH 7, 158.Google Scholar For Drusus' censorship, see Broughton, , MRR 1, 545Google Scholar; for Rutilius' legateship, see 1, 547.

³⁷ Asconius 22, Clark.

³⁸ Asconius 21, Clark; Val. Max. 3, 7, 8; Malcovati, H., Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, 2nd ed. (Torino, 1955), 167.Google Scholar

³⁹ Asconius 22, Clark. Carney, , Rh. Mus. 105 (1962), 316Google Scholar, wrongly states that Varius prosecuted Scaurus under his own law.

⁴⁰ Malcovati, ORF 296.

⁴¹ Val. Max. 3, 7, 8: pro rostris accusaretur … populus conmotus Varium … depulit. Vir. III. 72, 11: Scaurus senex cum a Vario tribuno plebis argueretur … ad populum ait.

⁴² Lange, L., Römische Alterthömer 3 (Berlin, 1876), 108Google Scholar; Fraccaro, , Opuscula 2, 140–4.Google Scholar

⁴³ Pais, E., Dalle Guerre Puniche a Cesare Augusto 1–2 (Roma, 1918), 156–164.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Argueretur, in Vir. Ill. 72, 11, need not bear the technical meaning “accused” and could easily refer to a denunciation at an informal contio. Only Val. Max. 3, 7, 8, uses the word accusaretur. But he refers to this occasion the charge of accepting bribery from Mithridates. This probably reflects propaganda brought up by Varius against Scaurus on this occasion and related to his Asiatic embassy, but the reference to an actual trial is surely a confusion with the earlier repetundae prosecution of Scaurus by Caepio; cf. Badian, , Athenaeum 34 (1956), 117–122.Google Scholar It is not to be taken as a genuine accusation in 90.

⁴⁵ In 116 (Cicero, Brutus 113; De Orat. 2, 280; Tacitus, , Annals 3, 66)Google Scholar, in 114 (Cicero, Pro Font. 38; Malcovati, ORF 166), and 91 (Asconius 21, Clark; Malcovati, ORF 167).

⁴⁶ Münzer, F., Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920), 300–1.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ ILS 29; Livy, Per. 73; Eutropius 5, 3, 2; Orosius 5, 18, 4.

⁴⁸ For the speech on Caepio's behalf, see Cicero, Brutus 169. This probably belongs to the maiestas trial of 95; see Cicero, Brutus 162. For the speeches on behalf of Cotta, Pompeius, and Metellus, see Cicero, Brutus 205–7.

⁴⁹ Cicero, , Pro Murena 7, 16Google Scholar; Asconius 20; 24, Clark; Bloch, , Mélanges d'histoire ancienne 25 (1909), 4–9Google Scholar; Pais, Dalle Guerre Puniche 147.

⁵⁰ Sallust, , Jug. 25, 4Google Scholar; Broughton, , MRR 1, 532.Google Scholar

⁵¹ There may, of course, have been no patrician ex-censors alive at this time, but there were surely some patrician consulars, including Q. Fabius Maximus, cos. 116, and, more significantly, Q. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, cos. 121 and nephew of Scipio Aemilianus himself.

⁵² It has been argued that this Metellus was L. Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus, the father-in-law-to-be of Scaurus, but the Fasti Antiates give his filiation as Q.f., which would apply rather to L. Metellus Diadematus, cos. 117; Broughton, , MRR 1, 532Google Scholar, n. 1. In any event it was the Metellan faction which elevated Scaurus to the most distinguished position in the senate.

⁵³ The date of this marriage alliance is uncertain. It may have been as late as 101; Münzer, Röm. Adelsp. 280–1.

⁵⁴ See Badian, , Athenaeum 34 (1956), 104 ff.Google Scholar = Studies 34 ff.

⁵⁵ See above, n. 28.

⁵⁶ For Scaurus' business interests, see Vir. III. 72, 1–2; Cicero, , De Orat. 2, 283Google Scholar; Pliny, , NH 7, 128Google Scholar; 36, 116; Sallust, Jug. 15; 25; 28–30; 32; 40.

⁵⁷ Appian, , BC I, 37Google Scholar; Cicero, Brutus 205; 305; De Orat. 3, 11; [id.], Antequam iret in exsil. II, 27.

⁵⁸ Münzer, Röm. Adelsp. 245–8; Badian, Studies 36–9.

⁵⁹ Cicero, Pro Murena 58; Div. in Caec. 69; Pro Font. 38; Val. Max. 8, 1, 11; Livy, Oxyr. Per. 55; Appian, , BC I, 22.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Plutarch, Marius 4; Cicero, , De Leg. 2, 38.Google Scholar

⁶¹ For the friendship with Catulus, see Cicero, , De Orat. 3, 42Google Scholar; 3, 46. For his support of Caepio in 103, see Cicero, , De Orat. I, 229.Google Scholar

⁶² For the relationship, see Cicero, , De Orat. 1, 229Google Scholar; Ad Att. 12, 20, 2; De Nat. Deor. 3, 80. For Cotta's appearance at the trial of Rutilius, see Cicero, , De Orat. I, 229.Google Scholar For Rutilius' refusal of Crassus and Antonius, see Cicero, Brutus 115.

⁶³ Cicero, , De Orat. I, 30.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Cicero, , De Orat. I, 25.Google Scholar That the circle around Drusus had laid careful plans for an extended struggle is indicated by Cotta's candidature for 90 and the candidature of another friend of Drusus, P. Sulpicius Rufus, already mooted for 89: adolescentes duo, Drusi maxime familiares, et in quibus magnam tum spem maiores natu dignitatis suae collocarant, C. Cotta qui tum tribunatum plebis petebat, et P. Sulpicius, qui deinceps eum magistratum petiturus putabatur.

⁶⁵ Cicero, , De Orat. 3, 11.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Appian, , BC I, 37.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ De Orat. 3, 11; cf. Brutus 305, and see above, n. 21.

⁶⁸ Cicero, Brutus 205.

⁶⁹ For his accompaniment of Numidicus, see Suetonius, De Gramm. 2. For his ghost-writing on behalf of the Metellan group, see above, n. 48.

⁷⁰ Cicero, Brutus 206.

⁷¹ Appian, , BC 1, 37.Google Scholar For the earlier conviction, see Cicero, Brutus 128; De Orat. 2, 283.

⁷² Sallust, , Jug. 32, 1Google Scholar; Vir. III. 72, 5; Florus 1, 36, 5.

⁷³ Cicero, , De Orat. 2, 265Google Scholar; 2, 285; cf. Fraccaro, , Opuscula 2, 139 ff.Google Scholar; Malcovati, ORF 258.

⁷⁴ Bloch, , Mélanges d'histoire ancienne 25 (1909), 70–2Google Scholar, argued that since Bestia had been convicted in 109 it was probably his son who was victimized by the Varian law. But a recall from exile would not be unprecedented. Recent years had seen the return of men like Popillius Laenas and Metellus Numidicus; Cicero, Brutus 128; Broughton, , MRR 11, 5.Google Scholar Even if Bloch is right, however, the younger Bestia would presumably have retained the family connection with Scaurus, so that this will not affect the argument made here.

⁷⁵ Cicero, Brutus 304.

⁷⁶ For the trial of Pompeius in 139, see Cicero, Pro Font. 23; Val. Max. 8, 5, 1. For the conflict with Laelius, see Cicero, De Amicit. 77; Plutarch, Apophth. Scip. Min. 8. For the service with Macedonicus, see Val. Max. 3, 7, 5; cf. Dio, fr. 82. For the opposition to Ti. Gracchus, see Plutarch, , Ti. Gracch. 14, 3Google Scholar; Orosius 5, 8, 4; Cicero, Brutus 81; cf. Appian, , BC 1, 13.Google Scholar For the censorship, see Livy, Per. 59; Broughton, , MRR 1, 500.Google Scholar Cf. Earl, D. C., Tiberius Gracchus, A Study in Politics, Collection Latomus 56 (1963), 98–103.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Orosius 5, 17, 11.

⁷⁸ For the date of the praetorship, see Cicero, , De Orat. 1, 168.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Val. Max. 4, 1, 12; Lucilius v, 232–4; XXVI, 637 (Warmington, E. H., Remains of Old Latin III, (Cambridge, 1938), 73Google Scholar; 205). See Marx, F., Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae (Leipzig, 1904)Google Scholar, xxxiv–xxxv; xlvii; 87; 247; Cichorius, C., Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Berlin, 1908), 87–8Google Scholar; 134; 137–140; 278–9.

⁸⁰ Plutarch, , Sulla 6, 10Google Scholar:

⁸¹ Livy, Per. 77; Appian, , BC I, 56Google Scholar; Vell. Pat. 2, 18, 6; Carcopino, J., Sylla ou la Monarchie manquée (Paris, 1931), 25–9.Google Scholar

⁸² For the friendship with Sulpicius, see Cicero, De Amicit. 2. For Sulpicius' candidacy, see Cicero, , De Orat. I, 25.Google Scholar

⁸³ It should be noted that Pompeius, like others in the Metellan circle, was in the habit of having his speeches written by L. Aelius Stilo, the great friend of Numidicus; Cicero, Brutus 205–7.

⁸⁴ Cicero, Brutus 304. Van Ooteghem, J., L. Marcius Philippus et sa famille (Mémoires Acad. Roy. Belg., Namur, 1961), 134Google Scholar, believes that Philippus testified in Pompeius' behalf and not against him. But Cicero's testimony is explicit: Philippo, cuius in testimonio contentio et vim accusatoris habebat et copiam.

⁸⁵ Cicero, Brutus 304.

⁸⁶ See Mommsen, , Geschichte des Römischen Münzwesens (Berlin, 1860), 597–9Google Scholar; Münzer, , RE 29, 604–21Google Scholar, ‘Memmius,’ n. 4–14; Biedl, A., Wien. Stud. 48 (1930), 98–107Google Scholar; Wien. Stud. 49 (1931), 107; 114.

⁸⁷ Sallust, Jug. 27; 30–4.

⁸⁸ For Memmius' enmity with Scaurus, see Cicero, , De Orat. 2, 283Google Scholar; with Crassus, see Cicero, , De Orat. 2, 240Google Scholar; 2, 267.

⁸⁹ Cicero, Pro Font. 24; Val. Max. 8, 5, 2.

⁹⁰ Cicero, Brutus 136: C. L. Memmii … accusatores acres atque acerbi.

⁹¹ L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts 233–4, rightly conjectures that the two branches were on different sides of the political fence, although, consonant with her purpose, she does not develop the argument. The tribe Galeria is attested for a moneyer, L. Memmius, whose coins are dated to 103–101 (Sydenham, E. A., Coinage of the Roman Republic (London, 1952)Google Scholar, n. 574; K. Pink, The Triumviri Monetales and the Structure of the Coinage of the Roman Republic (New York, 1952), n. 52) and who was probably father of the two monetales of ca. 86–85 (Sydenham, op. cit., n. 712). He is Perhaps brother of C. Memmius, tribune III. For the L. Memmius, Cn. f. of the Menenia, a senator in 129, see IGRR 4, 262; Passerini, A., Athenaeum 15 (1937), 252–283.Google Scholar Among his descendants may well be the C. Memmius, praetor 58, who married Sulla's daughter Fausta; Asconius 28, Clark; cf. Münzer, , RE 29, 610Google Scholar, ‘Memmius,’ n. 8. Another C. Memmius, Perhaps of this branch, was a brother-in-law of Pompey, served with him in Sicily in 81, and then served with Q. Metellus Pius and Pompey in the Sertorian war, in which he died in 75; Plutarch, , Pompey 11, 2Google Scholar; Sert. 21, 2; Orosius 5, 23, 12; Cicero, Pro Balbo 5.

⁹² Sisenna, fr. 44; Peter, H., Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (Leipzig, 1914) 1, 284Google Scholar: Lucium Memmium, socerum Gai Scriboni tribunum plebis, quem Marci Livi consiliarium fuisse callebant et tunc Curionis oratorem. For the threatened prosecution of Curio, see Asconius 74, Clark.

⁹³ Niccolini, G., I Fasti dei Tribuni della Plebe (Milano, 1934), 223Google Scholar; Broughton, , MRR II, 38Google Scholar, n. 4.

⁹⁴ Brutus 304.

⁹⁵ BC I, 37.

⁹⁶ Rühl, F., Rh. Mus. 56 (1901), 634–5Google Scholar; see now Gabba, App. BC Lib. Prim. 125.

⁹⁷ Hill, Roman Middle Class 137, n. 3.

⁹⁸ Of course, Memmius' tribunate can be eliminated altogether by emendation. Roth suggested altering L. Memmium, socerum Gai Scriboni tribunum plebis to tribuni plebis; Peter, , HRR I, 284Google Scholar, followed by Biedl, , Wien. Stud. 48 (1930), 100–3.Google Scholar A solution may, however, be possible without recourse to emendation, as suggested in the text.

⁹⁹ Brutus 304–5.

¹⁰⁰ Badian, Studies 46–50; Carney, , Wien. Stud. 73 (1960), 107–8Google Scholar; A Biog. of Marius 46–52.

¹⁰¹ This warrants fuller treatment in a separate study.

¹⁰² Post Red. ad Quir. II.

¹⁰³ Broughton, , MRR 11, 2Google Scholar; 4–5. The chronology is confused but Decianus' tribunate should probably be dated to 99; see Gabba, App. BC Lib. Prim. 110–11: Badian, , Athenaeum 37 (1959), 300.Google ScholarContra: Niccolini, Fast. Trib. Pleb. 204; Carney, A Biog. of Marius 46, n. 216; Rh. Mus. 105 (1962), 306.

¹⁰⁴ Orosius 5, 17, 11.

¹⁰⁵ For the trial of Aquillius, see Cicero, Brutus 222; De Orat. 2, 124; 2, 194–6; Verr. 2, 5, 3; De Off. 2, 50; Pro Flacc. 98; Livy, Per. 70; Quint. Inst. Orat. 2, 15, 7; Apuleius, Apol. 66. For the case of Gratidianus, see Cicero, , De Orat. 1, 178Google Scholar; De Off. 3, 67.

¹⁰⁶ Cicero, , De Orat. 1, 24Google Scholar: M. Antonius, homo et consiliorum in republica socius, et summa cum Crasso familiaritate coniunctus.

¹⁰⁷ Cicero, Brutus 115.

¹⁰⁸ Sulpicius is given as the prosecutor and M. Antonius as defence counsel in Cicero, , De Orat. 2, 89Google Scholar; 2, 107–9. Sulpicius is mentioned in this connection also in De Off. 2, 49, and by Apuleius, Apol. 66, amidst a list of cases involving young men making a reputation at the bar. Cicero has Antonius recapitulate his arguments for the defence; De Orat. 2, 197–203. The appearance of Scaurus is noted in De Orat. 2, 203, and Val Max. 8, 5, 2. On Sulpicius' connections, see below, p. 72.

¹⁰⁹ For the quaestorship of Norbanus, see Broughton, , MRR 1, 569.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Cicero, , De Orat. 2, 200.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Cicero, , De Orat. 2, 198Google Scholar: vix satis honeste viderer seditiosum civem … defendere; De Orat. 2, 202: Ut illud initio, quod tibi unum ad ignoscendum homines dabant, tenuisti, te pro homine pemecessario, quaestore tuo, dicere.

¹¹² For some trenchant comments on this, see Meier, , Bonn. Jahrb. 161 (1961), 510Google Scholar, who, however, tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater. See now Gelzer, M., Kleine Schriften (Wiesbaden, 1962), 1, 218–19.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Cicero, , Tusc. Disp. 2, 57.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Granius Licinianus 19, Flemisch. This notice, incidentally, also helps to verify the Metellan connections of Antonius.

¹¹⁵ Brutus 304.

¹¹⁶ This is the construction put upon the passage by Münzer, , RE 2, 2591Google Scholar, ‘Antonius,’ n. 28; so also Badian, Studies 56.

¹¹⁷ BC I, 40. This is not conclusive evidence, however. Appian's list is not complete. Sulpicius, specifically named by Cicero, Brutus 304, as a legate, is not included.

¹¹⁸ cf. Asconius 73, Clark: cum multi Varia lege inique damnarentur.

¹¹⁹ This a possible interpretation of Asconius 74, Clark: senatus decrevit ne iudicia, dum tumultus Italicus esset, exercerentur. But see Cicero, Brutus 304.

¹²⁰ Cicero, Pro Balbo 21; Appian, , BC 1, 49Google Scholar; Gellius 4, 43.

¹²¹ Brutus 305: consequente anno Q. Varius sua lege damnatus excesserat.

¹²² cf. e.g., Last, H., CAH IX, 196Google Scholar; Bloch-Carcopino, , Hist. Rom. 11, 400Google Scholar; Hill, Roman Middle Class 138.

¹²³ Even those who cannot be charged with this erroneous assumption continue to misdate Varius' trial; cf. Gelzer, , Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 2 (1941), 13Google Scholar (= Kl. Schrift. II, 17); Badian, , Foreign Clientelae (Oxford, 1958) 229, n. 5.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ BC I, 37.

¹²⁵ Asconius 79, Clark. Of course, the meaning here may simply be that it was under the lex Plautia that senators and equites first sat on the courts together. But even if this be the point of Cicero's remark, the mention of Strabo's trial in this context surely implies that it was the first case heard under the new system.

¹²⁶ Badian, , Proc. Afr. Class. Ass. I (1958), 305Google Scholar (= Studies 76–7), shows that the evidence is not conclusive for dating Plautius' tribunate. 89 or 88 remain possibilities. Asconius' remark, 79, Clark, that the lex Plautia iudiciaria was passed during the consular year 89 surely makes a tribunate for 89 more probable, though it is just possible that the bill was passed in Dec. 89 at the outset of a tribunate for 88. This will not, in any case, affect the argument advanced here.

¹²⁷ Röm. Adelsp. 301.

¹²⁸ Val. Max. 8, 6, 4: propter obscurum ius civitatis Hybrida cognominatus.

¹²⁹ Cicero, , De Nat. Deor. 3, 81Google Scholar; Philippus and Caepio, naturally, were also suspected of the murder of Drusus; Pliny, , NH 28, 148Google Scholar; Vir. Ill. 66, 13.

¹³⁰ Lengle, o.c. (n. 15), 32–6; Gundel, , RE 15 (2), 389Google Scholar, ‘Varius,’ n. 7. See above, p. 60.

¹³¹ See above, n. 21.

¹³² A parallel may be cited in the case of Q. Servilius Caepio in 103; Val. Max. 4, 7, 3; 6, 9, 13; Cicero, Pro Balbo 28. The accuser of Varius is unknown; Perhaps C. Julius Caesar Strabo; Val. Max. 8, 2, 2.

¹³³ Livy, Per. 74; Appian, , BC 1, 54Google Scholar; Val. Max. 9, 7, 4; Badian, For. Client. 227, n. 4.

¹³⁴ Asconius 79, Clark: ex ea lege tribus singulae ex suo numero quinos denos suffragio creabant qui eo anno iudicarent.

¹³⁵ How long the lex Plautia remained in effect is beyond knowing. No jury law is recorded between that of Plautius and the Sullan law of 81. Yet much of the ancient evidence implies that Sulla's law replaced equites with senators. That the Plautian law was repealed within a year and equites reinstalled is not impossible but there is no explicit testimony. For a summary of the ancient evidence and modern conclusions see Hill, Roman Middle Class 137–8.

¹³⁶ Plutarch, , Pomp. 37, 4.Google Scholar On the hostility of the optimate tradition generally to Strabo, cf. Stevenson, G. H., JRS 9 (1919), 97–8.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ See Gelzer, , Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 2 (1941), 15Google Scholar (= Kl. Schrift. II, 119).

¹³⁸ Plutarch, , Pomp. 2, 2Google Scholar; Cicero, Brutus 230.

¹³⁹ Appian, , BC 1, 63Google Scholar; Vell. Pat. 2, 20, 1; Livy, Per. 77; Val. Max. 9, 7, ex. 2. It may also be added that Strabo is specifically said to have been unfriendly to Sulla, Pompeius Rufus' adfinis; Appian, , BC 1, 80.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Asconius 79, Clark: Cn. Pompeium causam lege Varia de maiestate dixisse.

¹⁴¹ Pais, Dalle Guerre Puniche 109; 164–7; Gelzer, , Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 2 (1941), 13–15Google Scholar (= Kl. Schrift. II, 117–19).

¹⁴² Vell. Pat. 2, 21, 2: frustratus spe continuandi consulatus

¹⁴³ Granius Licin. 19, Flemisch.

¹⁴⁴ Livy, Per. 75; Appian, , BC 1, 50Google Scholar; Vell. Pat. 2, 16, 4; Eutropius, 5, 3, 2.

¹⁴⁵ Appian, , BC 1, 100.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Orosius 5, 18, 26; Pais, Dalle Guerre Puniche 109; 164–7.

¹⁴⁷ Plutarch, , Pomp. 4, 1Google Scholar:

¹⁴⁸ For the lex Pompeia on the Transpadani, see Asconius 3, Clark; Pliny, , NH 3, 138.Google Scholar For the negotiations with Vettius Scato, see Cicero, , Phil. 12, 27.Google Scholar A further suggestion by Stevenson, , JRS 9 (1919), 98Google Scholar, that Strabo was prosecuted because of his friendship with P. Sulpicius Rufus cannot be substantiated. That Sulpicius was, in fact, Strabo's lieutenant in 89 is itself uncertain; cf. Cichorius, , Römische Studien (Leipzig-Berlin, 1922), 137–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar All these conjectures are summed up by Miltner, , RE 42, 2258Google Scholar, ‘Pompeius,’ n. 45.

¹⁴⁹ ILS 8888.

¹⁵⁰ This is the story given by Livy, Per. 77, Val. Max. 9, 7, ex. 2, and Veil. Pat. 2, 20, Appian, I., BC 1, 63Google Scholar, states that Strabo was indignant after the murder was revealed, but adds that he lost no time in resuming command. Obviously, Strabo was not interested in acceding to the senatorial decision to replace him.

¹⁵¹ Quoted by Asconius, 79, Clark: cum primum senatores cum equitibus Romanis lege Plotia iudicarent, hominem dis ac nobilitati perinvisum Cn. Pompeium causam lege Varia de maiestate dixisse. Cicero's cum primum may, of course, mean either ‘when first’ or ‘as soon as’. The latter translation, usually assumed, has been responsible for many of the difficulties surrounding the trial. It has necessitated the search for a possible and unattested maiestas offence in 89. The former translation, equally possible from a linguistic standpoint, opens the way for a solution of the historical problem.

¹⁵² This is the assumption behind, e.g. Badian's remarks in For. Client. 229, and Studies 76.

¹⁵³ Badian, 's argument, Hermes 83 (1955), 109–112Google Scholar, that the despatching of Pompeius Rufus was vetoed by a tribune and therefore sanctioned only by a senatus consultum is ingenious and not implausible; see Sallust, , Hist. 2, 21Google Scholar, Maur. But this will not affect the case argued here. Pompeius Rufus was still the consul in office and could legitimately assume command of any Roman troops. Defiance by Strabo of a senatorial order would have led to prosecution by his enemies anyway, regardless of the constitutional niceties involved.

¹⁵⁴ Sources in Broughton, MRR II, 48–9.

¹⁵⁵ Livy, Per. 77; P. Sulpicius tribunus plebis auctore Mario perniciosas leges promulgasset, ut exules revocarentur; also ad Herennium 2, 45.

¹⁵⁶ See above, p. 67.

¹⁵⁷ For the friendship with Crassus, see Cicero, , De Orat. 1, 97Google Scholar; 1, 136; 2, 89; 3, 47; Brutus 203; with Antonius, see De Orat. I, 99; 2, 89; 3, 11; with C. Aurelius Cotta, see De Orat. I, 25; with Q. Pompeius Rufus, see De Amicit. 2; with C. Caesar, see De Orat. 2, 16.

¹⁵⁸ Cicero, , De Orat. 1, 25Google Scholar; see above, n. 64.

¹⁵⁹ Cicero, , De Orat. 3, 11Google Scholar; cf. on Sulpicius' connections Münzer, , RE 7(2), 843–6Google Scholar, ‘Sulpicius,’ n. 92, and Schur, W., Das Zeitalter des Marius und Sulla, Klio Beiheft (Leipzig, 1942), 127–9.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ The reasons for Sulpicius' volte-face are probably unfathomable and cannot be investigated in detail here. It is only to be expected that optimate sources would not be kind to a renegade. His conversion, therefore, is ascribed to heavy debts and bribery by the equites; Plutarch, Sulla 8; see Pareti, , Storia di Roma III, 556–8.Google Scholar More probably, the potential involved in an alliance with Marius was too tempting to be ignored. Marius had long coveted the command against Mithridates and employed Sulpicius to block the similar desires first of C. Caesar Strabo and then Sulla.

¹⁶¹ Cicero, De Har. Resp. 43; Brutus 226; Asconius 25, Clark; Quint., Inst. Orat. 6, 3, 75; Priscian 5, 44. Badian, For. Client. 231, and Studies 51, believes that Caesar Strabo was standing in 89 for 88 and that Sulpicius opposed him at the very outset of his tribunate in December of 89. This is very difficult to accept. In the De Har. Resp. 43, Cicero does affirm that Sulpicius opposed Caesar Strabo ab optima causa and was then carried away by popularis aura. But the optima causa ought not to be pressed. In any case, this passage offers no chronology. Diodorus 37, 2, 12, is explicit that the rivalry between Strabo and Marius for the chief magistracy occurred during the consulship of Sulla, i.e. 88. There is thus no justification for Badian's statement that Sulpicius acted here ‘on behalf of the boni’ and that ‘it was only by accident that he found himself co-operating with Marius and his supporters’. Since Sulpicius acted in concert with Marius in 88, it is hardly necessary to describe his activity here as ‘accidental’.

¹⁶² Ad Herennium 2, 45: velut Sulpicius, qui intercesserat ne exules quibus causam dicere non licuisset reducerentur, idem posterius, immutata voluntate, cum eandem legem ferret, aliam se ferre dicebat propter nominum commutationem; nam non exules, sed vi eiectos se reducere aiebat. In the context, immutata voluntate must mean that Sulpicius alleged he had not changed his mind.

¹⁶³ cf. e.g. Last, CAH IX, 202; Bloch-Carcopino, , Hist. Rom. 11, 404Google Scholar; Hill, Roman Middle Class 142; Pareti, , Storia di Roma III, 556Google Scholar; Greenidge, A. H. J. and Clay, A. M., Sources for Roman History 133–70 B.C., rev. by Gray, E. W. (Oxford, 1960), 162Google Scholar; Scullard, H. H., From the Gracchi to Nero, 2nd ed. (New York, 1963), 71.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ This measure on the exiles was presumably implemented in 87 when Cinna revived the leges Sulpiciae; Appian, , BC 1, 73.Google Scholar Yet C. Aurelius Cotta did not return to Rome before 82; Cicero, Brutus 311.

¹⁶⁵ Lange, , Röm. Alterth. 3, 123Google Scholar, makes the extraordinary statement that the law sought to recall all the equites banished after the passage of the lex Plautia. There is no evidence to suggest that any eques was prosecuted under this law. Carney, , A Biog. of Marius 54, n. 250Google Scholar, believes that all the exiles in question were Marians. But not a single ‘Marian’ is known to have been in exile in 88.

¹⁶⁶ Ad Herennium 2, 45: exules quibus causam dicere non licuisset.

¹⁶⁷ Sources in Broughton, MRR II, II; 17.

¹⁶⁸ This has been convincingly demonstrated by Husband, R. W., CP II (1916), 321–3Google Scholar; Gabba, , Athenaeum 31 (1953), 260–2Google Scholar; Badian, For. Client. 297, Note Cicero, R., De Off. 3, 47Google Scholar, clearly contrasts the lex Licinia Mucia with decrees of expulsion.

¹⁶⁹ The problem would be resolved if the author of the ad Herennium is assumed to have made an error, and if Sulpicius first supported and then opposed the recall of exiles, rather than the reverse. This solution does not seem possible, however. The Epitomator of Livy 77, states that Sulpicius proposed the recall of exiles at the instigation of Marius: auctore C. Mario.

¹⁷⁰ Much improvement in this paper is due to advice provided by Prof. E. Badian of Leeds, Prof. T. R. S. Broughton of Bryn Mawr, and Prof. M. Hammond of Harvard. Remaining defects are to be ascribed to the author alone.