¹ Sources MRR II, 198; Oost, , CP 1955, 98 f.Google Scholar

² Vir. ill. 80, 2. In fact, he clearly assigns the episode to Cato's quaestorship—which is to be expected of that author.

³ See, e.g., his treatment of M. Scaurus' mission to Jugurtha (72, 4), calling Scaurus praetor! This is obviously a confused record of the embassy of 112 or the legatio of 111 (MRR I, 539, 541) and not any kind of evidence on Scaurus' praetorship (thus, unfortunately, MRR I, 526 f.): at the time of Scaurus' praetorship (not after 119) there could be no question of accepting Numidian bribes.

⁴ Vell. 11, 45,4: ‘ut is quaestor cum iure praetorio, adiecto etiam quaestore [an all but certain emendation], mitteretur in insulam Cyprum ad spoliandum regno Ptolemaeum.’

⁵ E.g. by MRR, l.c. (n. 1)—self-contradictory, since Cato is listed (rightly) under ‘Promagistrates’, but described as ‘Quaestor pro praetore’.

⁶ See RE s.v. ‘Quaestor’, col. 807.

⁷ JRS 1962, 134 f. This important note has not yet had time to make its impact. Thus Olshausen (Rom und Ägypten, 1964) is unaware of it.

⁸ See W. F. Jashemski, The Origins and History of the Proconsular and Propraetorian Imperium to 27 B.C., 20 f.

⁹ Mommsen, , St.-R. II ³, 563.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cic., dom. 20: ‘huius [regis] pecuniae deportandae et, si ius suum defenderet, bello gerendo, M. Catonem praefecisti.’

¹¹ Vell, l.c. (n. 4). We do not know the name of the quaestor. But the statement itself is probably to be accepted, against Plutarch's story of the mere two scribae (one a thief and one a client of Clodius!), which smacks of rhetorical romance.

¹² ILS 8775 (the younger M. Scaurus), 8778 (Faustus Sulla—by special commission: see Balsdon, o.c. (n. 7), 135); MRR II, 260 (L. Antonius). See Mommsen, , St.-R. I ³, 683, n. 4Google Scholar; 693, n. 6.

¹³ Balsdon, l.c. (admitting the exception of Pompey).

¹⁴ Cic., dom. 22. On commanders in Spain, see MRR I, 280 (P. Scipio), 299 (L. Lentulus), 320 (C. Cethegus), 328 (Cn. Blasio, L. Stertinius); and cf. 303 (T. Flamininus).

¹⁵ See Cic., fam. VIII, 8, 8 (for 51 as well as for 50). The actual procedure was clearly evolved by the Senate, probably following the lines laid down by the law. For Pompey's law and the SC of 53, see MRR II, 234.

¹⁶ Balsdon, o.c. (n. 7), 135, n. 10.

¹⁷ See Pompey's legati (not all certainly identifiable), MRR II, 148.

¹⁸ On the importance of lictors and fasces, see Staveley, , Historia 1963, 258 f.Google Scholar We have no secure evidence on the number of lictors allowed to propraetors and legati pro pr. in the late Republic. The curious passage Cic., Att. X, 4, 9 fin. suggests that there was a difference and that propraetors had six, legati pro pr. a different number—almost certainly five, as later under Augustus.

¹⁹ This, of course, was firmly settled by Sulla (see, e.g., Cic., fam. III, 6, 3 and 6), but was mos maiorum a century earlier: see the case of C. Cassius Longinus in 171 (Livy XLIII, I). There is no essential difference between the definition by territory and the definition by purpose: the former is simply a special case of the latter, which is clearly older.

²⁰ Oost, o.c. (n. 1), 99 and n. 8.

²¹ Cic., dom. 25, which gives powerful support to Oost's thesis.

²² Livy, per. civ; App. b.c. II, 23.

²³ Cic., dom. 20 f., 52 f., 65; Sest. 56 f.; har. resp. 59.

²⁴ Vell., l.c. (n. 4); Plut., C. Min. 34–40, passim; Dio XXXIX, 22.

²⁵ Flor. 1, 43. We may add Velleius, who certainly knew his Livy and who is a respectable source. On him and the Periocha, see Balsdon's, interesting experiment, PBSR 1938, 100.Google Scholar

²⁶ This, in outline, has long been recognized (e.g. by Rotondi, Leges Publicae 493), though far from universally (no mention in MRR II, 210 (‘administrative arrangements’) or RE s.v. ‘Cornelius’, 238). It now needs restating against the ingenious attempt by Marshall, A. J. (Phoenix 1964, 211 f.Google Scholar) to deny it by rejecting Cicero's abundant testimony as ‘biassed rhetoric’. Against the contemporary evidence Marshall appears to cite Strabo (XIV, 6, 6—merely annexation, and inaccurate), Dio (l.c., n. 24—merely annexation) and Appian (l.c., n. 24—see my discussion above) as reporting a ‘provincial organization’ by Cato; and, preferring his interpretation of these authors to the evidence of Cicero, Plutarch, Velleius and Florus, he constructs a lex Porcia (which is nowhere mentioned) and ignores the attested lex Cornelia. On the strength of this he praises Cato's ‘administrative achievement’. He does not seem to know Oost's article. It is difficult to see how Cicero, holding up Lentulus and himself as examples to young C. Sextilius (fam. XIII, 48), could have omitted all mention of M. Cato—uirtus ipsa—if the lex prouinciae had been his.

²⁷ Marshall, o.c. (last note).

²⁸ RE s.v. ‘Sextilius’, 24; cf. MRR Suppl., 60.

²⁹ Cic., fin. II, 55.

³⁰ RE s.v., 12. Cf. my Studies in Greek and Roman History (1964), 71 f.

³¹ RE s.v., 3.

³² The only certain addition is Q. Sextilius, the enemy of Clodius (RE s.v., 16)—perhaps related, despite the odd praenomen: certainly his political alignment was the same. The legate of Lucullus (RE s.v., 2) may not be a Sextilius, though Plutarch consistently gives him that name. Relationships with second-century Sextilii cannot be worked out in detail; nor—despite scraps of evidence—is it safe to specify tribe and origo.

³³ Cic., Flacc. 89.

³⁴ Marshall, o.c. (n. 26), 209 f., 212 f.

³⁵ See Magie, , RRAM I, 409 f.Google Scholar; cf. 11, 1256.

³⁶ B. Al. 66.

³⁷ On Cyprus, see Hill, G. F., History of Cyprus (1940), 1, 210.Google Scholar The alienation of Cyprus is clearly dated by Dio (XLII, 35, 5) to the period shortly after Caesar's arrival in Alexandria, at the time when he set up as executor of Auletes' will—i.e. the end of (Roman) 48; cf. b.c. III, 109—preferring (for obvious reasons) not to mention Cyprus. Cleopatra would certainly have taken possession by the time of Caesar's return journey. On Cilicia, see Syme, , Buckler Studies (1939), 305, 324 f.Google Scholar

³⁸ Dio XLII, 55, 4. Cf. the events of 53 and 52. The reference to Sextilius in MRR II, 287, needs amending accordingly.

³⁹ Syme, o.c. (n. 37), 324.

⁴⁰ Cic., Att. v, 21, 6. (See Tyrrell-Purser, ad loc.)

⁴¹ See RE s.v. ‘Kypros’, col. 105.

⁴² Cic., l.c. (n. 40).

⁴³ On the history of Cilicia in this period, see Syme, o.c. (n. 37).

⁴⁴ E.g. by Syme, o.c. 301.

⁴⁵ Cic., dom. 23; Sest. 55.

⁴⁶ If only to pay off his election debts (Cic., Pis. 12—obviously true, as we can gather from many known parallels!).

⁴⁷ Sources MRR II, 193 f. The coincidence in time, several times stressed by Cicero, must be a fact.

⁴⁸ Not Syria (thus, e.g., Meyer, Caes. Mon. ³ 97, overlooking the passages cited n. 45)—despite Cicero's own inaccuracy dom. 70, where he implies (what the other two passages show to be untrue) that a single law dealt with Macedonia and Syria.

⁴⁹ It is put beyond reasonable doubt by Oost's careful investigation, o.c. (n. 1), 99 f.; 109 f., nn. 11 and 12.

⁵⁰ Cic., har. resp. 59; Sest. 57. The order in the latter passage is of some significance, since the Byzantine affair usually appears in the sources as a mere tailpiece to Cato's task in Cyprus (see, e.g., Plut., C. Min. 34, fin.). In our passage there is not a word of Cato's connection with it. On Brogitarus, see MRR II, 196 (Clodius, item 10).

⁵¹ As Optimate leaders more objective than Cicero said (dom. 42; prov. cons. 45): ‘funus (reipublicae) iure indictum’.

⁵² Cf. dom. 65: Clodius had hoped for plunder from Cyprus, but gave up that hope in order to remove Cato from Rome. (The text is corrupt, but at this point certain.) This establishes the order of events.

⁵³ Oost, o.c. (n. 1), thinks it likely that Cato was intended for the mission from the start, since ‘it is very unlikely that the opportunity offered by the Cyprus affair would not have occurred to [Clodius and the three dynasts] until after the first law had been promulgated’. This is a matter of balance of probabilities, and I see no real objection to the view that the use of Cato only occurred to them a little later. It is the point of the interpretation here advanced that many known facts fall into place better on this view. One might say that the simple opportunity of personal enrichment was prima facie even more obvious to the persons concerned than the more sophisticated advantage to be reaped from Cato's employment.

⁵⁴ Vell. 11, 38, 6; Oost, o.c.

⁵⁵ He left after September 7th, 58 (Samuel, , Ptolemaic Chronology (1962), 156Google Scholar).

⁵⁶ See Syme, o.c. (n. 37), 310 f.

⁵⁷ Cic., fam. III, 7, 5.

⁵⁸ Klebs, RE s.v. ‘Ampius’, I; followed at one time by Syme, o.c. (n. 37), 301 f. The emendation was suggested by Herrmann, K. F., Philologus 1847, 114.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Münzer, RE s.v. ‘Fabius’, 17; BMCGC, ‘Ionia’, 67; ‘Phrygia’ XXXIII, LXXIV. Only the Ephesian coins appear to be dated, but this suffices.

⁶⁰ Syme, , CP 1955, 130Google Scholar (developing an idea of Magie's); accepted MRR Suppl., 4.f.

⁶¹ Cic., dom. 23. Though Cicero can (where the meaning is clear) use ‘praetor’ of provincial governors, in this context it must refer to a praetor of 58.

⁶² Cic., fam. I, 3, 2, of course, must continue to be explained by T. Ampius Balbus' government of Asia including (at the time) the three dioeceses.

⁶³ On Cyrene the standard discussion is again by Oost, , CP 1963, 11 f.Google Scholar Most of his conclusions seem incontestably convincing, and it will be seen that they are accepted and presupposed here. The mission of Cn. Piso to Spain (ILS 875—cf. MRR II, 159) was both technically and politically entirely different and need not be considered in this context.

⁶⁴ Oost, o.c. (last note), 14.

⁶⁵ See Oost, o.c. (n. 63), 12 f., stressing the Senate's unwillingness to encourage the unnecessary proliferation of publicani—and the significant absence of any record of publicani during the time of troubles at Cyrene. It should be added that Pliny's wording at n.h. XIX, 39 seems to refer to an import by Rome after a public decision, and in fact (on normal word usage) one paid for out of public funds: certainly not to a tax.

⁶⁶ See Sall., hist. II, 43 M and cf. my Foreign Clientelae (1958), 140. That Sallust's date for the appointment is 75 (in fact, apparently early 75) was seen long ago by Maurenbrecher and decisively reaffirmed by Bloch in his discussion of the palimpsest (Didascaliae Albareda (1961) 59 f.). This date may be correct—but need not be. Appian's apparent dating to 74 can be explained (if we accept Sallust) in various ways: see, e.g., Oost, o.c. (n. 63), 20; Romanelli, Cirenaica Romana 47, n. 2 (the latter very unsatisfactory). But a suspicion remains that Sallust, in this case as in many others we know so well, was not as reliable and well-informed as we should like: he seems to think Apion's testament quite recent.

⁶⁷ Maurennbrecher's text, at this point, is hopeless. Dr. G. Perl, who has recently studied the Berlin palimpsest, has proposed completely new readings (of which he has been kind enough to show me a copy) and is about to publish the passage with a commentary. In the meantime, see his article in Philologus 1965, 75 ff.—Professor Sumner has suggested to me that it is quite possible that P. Lentulus was in fact pro quaestore. Sallust would avoid a pedantic technical term, not common in literary use. This very probable suggestion would neatly complete the parallel between the two cases.

⁶⁸ JRS 1962, 97 f. See especially her discussion 101 f. It should be added that the family connections of the Marcellini with Cyrene are obviously relevant: compare L. Lucullus in 75–4.

⁶⁹ Oost, o.c. (n. 63), n. 48.

⁷⁰ Sall., hist. III, 47, 6 f.; 45.

⁷¹ Cic., 2 Verr. III, 163; V, 52; Sall., hist. III, 48, 19.

⁷² The figure in Pliny, n.h. XIX, 39 cannot be accurately restored. But it is most unlikely that it went into thousands of pounds, accumulated and all unsold. On the import of silphium in 95, see n. 65 (above).

⁷³ On all this, see Cic., Planc. 13 and 63. For the date (deducible from 13) see Mattingly, , NC 1956, 199.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Cic., fam. VIII, 8, 8 (the eight provinces must include Cyrene). This, of course, was under Pompey's law and its consequences.

⁷⁵ It was not, as far as we can tell, united with Crete (see Jashemski, o.c. (n. 8), 84 f., with references): this union perhaps began under Cleopatra (Grant, From Imp. to Auct., 55 f.).

⁷⁶ This is the thesis advanced by Willems, which, despite a minor difficulty, should not be rejected out of hand. For discussion, see Münzer, RE s.v. ‘Cornelius’, 238.