¹ R. Syme, Sallust 209.

² McDonald, W., CQ xxiii (1929), 196 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A similar view is adopted by C. Meier, Res Publica Amissa 141, n. 83.

³ Seager, R., Hommages à Marcel Renard ii (1969), 680 ff.Google Scholar But, many years ago, Taylor, L. R., Cl. Phil. xxxvi (1941), 128–30Google Scholar, briefly noted the connection between Pompey's ideas and Cornelius' measures and made her protest, sadly unheeded, against McDonald's view of his dispensation measure.

⁴ For this technique, M. Gelzer, Pompeius 78, citing Cicero, , Fam. viii, 1, 3.Google Scholar Cf. also Cicero, , Q. Fr. iii, 6, 4Google Scholar; Att. iv, 9, 1 and the phrase ‘invito et praedicente me’ attributed to Pompey in Sallust's version of his letter of 74 (Hist, ii, 98, 10 M).

⁵ Asconius 57–81 C; Dio xxxvi, 38–40.

⁶ Puccioni, J., M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationum deperditarum fragmenta (1963), 33–65Google Scholar improves the order of the fragments from that of Schoell; Kumaniecki, K., ‘Les discours égarés de Cicéron Pro Cornelio,’ Med. Kon. Vlaam. Acad. Belg. xxxii (1970)Google Scholar, in reconstructing the speeches of the accuser Cominius and of Cicero, proposes some modifications of Puccioni's arrangements.

⁷ Hist, v, 27 M: ‘manum in os intendens’ which Maurenbrecher compared with Asconius' account of Piso's tribulations: ‘qui sibi intentabant manus’ (58 C).

⁸ See the testimonia in Puccioni, o.c. (n. 6), 33–41.

⁹ Quintilian viii, 3, 2–3: Cicero's defence employing ‘nec fortibus modo sed etiam fulgentibus armis’ elicited a spontaneous burst of applause from the spectators.

¹⁰ Thus some scholars have surmised a common source, see below, p. 203.

^l1 Dio xxxvi, 39; Asconius 58–9 C, whose description of the measure is far more precise and doubtless more accurate. The text of Asconius is cited above with Mommsen's supplement (‘quis ita solutus’ for ‘solutus’), rightly accepted by Münzer, R-E iv (1901), 1253 as necessary for the sense.

¹² Dio xxxvi, 40, 1–2; Asconius 59 C.

¹³ Asconius probably included it in the ‘alias quoque complures leges’ he mentions in 59 C, see below, p. 199.

¹⁴ Asconius 57–8 C; Dio frag. III. Boissevain's date for the Dio fragment is preferable to Mommsen's date of 69 (Staatsrecht ³ iii, 1154, n. 2) as Cicero in II Verr. 2, 76 expects war to be declared against the Cretans in the next year (69), presumably for non-compliance with the ultimatum Dio describes. The decree concerning the Cretan envoys seems to be part of a hardening of the senate's attitude towards the Cretans forced on them by a Lentulus Spinther, according to Diodorus xl, 1, 2 (not necessarily as a tribune, see Münzer, , R-E iv (1901), 1394).Google Scholar

¹⁵ We learn from Cicero, Corn. I frags. 40 and 41 Puccioni (henceforth P) that the significant difference was the Lex Calpurnia's omission of Cornelius' provision making divisores liable for prosecution.

¹⁶ In R-E iv (1901), 1252 ff., unknown to McDonald. The same view is now repeated by Kumaniecki, o.c. (n. 6), 34.

¹⁷ This provision cited by Schol. Bob. 148 St. ‘〈de〉 legibus dicit Aelia et Fufia, quae non sinebant prius aliqua de re ad populum ferri quam comitia haberentur ad designandos magistratus’, is attributed exclusively to the Lex Fufia by Sumner, G. V., AJP lxxxiv (1963), 337 ff.Google Scholar, against which see Astin, A. E., Latomus xxiii (1964), 221 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸ I have summarized the outline given by McDonald, o.c. (n. 2), 203.

¹⁹ See the discussion by L. R. Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies 98.

²⁰ The identification of the later Catilinarian with the praetor of 66 requires a correction of the praenomen P. given to the praetor de maiestate in Asconius 59 C (a correction doubted by Stangl, p. 48, and accepted by Broughton. MRR ii, 152).

²¹ This was the method used to enable the tribune Aufidius Lurco in 61 to put a bribery law to the people (Cicero, Att. i, 16, 13). From the fact that bribes were already being distributed, it is clear that the move to curb ambitus was, on this occasion, taken late in the day, not just after the announcement of the elections, as happened also in 64 (Asconius 83 C.) But such additional dispensation or a postponement will always have been necessary if the period between the announcement of the elections and the elections themselves was regularly a trinundinum, as is usually assumed (Mommsen, , Staatsrecht ³ i, 502Google Scholar, n. 3).

²² Att. i. 11, 2 where ‘iniquitatibus’ perhaps suggests the proposed penalties of the Lex Calpurnia. Cicero's uncertainty about the date could mean that the difficulties attending Piso's first attempt to pass the bill suggested that there might be a further postponement: it does not, of course, show there was one.

²³ Att. i, 16,13. The reading accepted by Shackleton-Bailey, , Cicero's Letters to Atticus (1965) i, 323–4Google Scholar, yields a pre-Clodian allusion to the tradition that the Leges Aelia et Fufia were designed to combat tribunicii furores.

²⁴ In Vat. 5. Corn. I frag. 28 P: ‘ex promulgatione trinum nundinum dies ad ferendum potestasque venisset’, if correctly placed among the fragments relating to the solutio law (cf. Asconius 58 C: ‘ubi legis ferundae dies venit’), would show that he also observed the Lex Caecilia Didia.

²⁵ Corn. I frags. 5; 20–27 P, which discuss examples of bad laws proposed by good men that were altered, usually with their cooperation; 33–4 P. The attempt to try Faustus Sulla was made by a tribune of 66 (Clu. 94, Leg. Ag. i, 12). Cf. II Verr. 2, 95 for an abortive senatorial attempt to protect the Sicilian Sthenius.

²⁶ Com. I frag. 41 P, (= Asconius 74–5 C); Kumaniecki, o.c. (n. 6), 25.

²⁷ The unfairness of the obstruction may be even greater than at first appears. McDonald assumed that Cornelius made his bribery proposal to the senate which rejected it, but Corn. I frag. 41 P (= Asconius 74–5 C) shows that it was drafted as a lex. Piso could have announced the elections just after Cornelius promulgated his law in order to prevent him from getting it through before the elections at which Piso was promising to oppose the candidature of the extribune Lollius Palicanus who had tribunician support (Val. Max. iii, 8, 3).

²⁸ Asconius 75 C: ‘cum legem de ambitu ex s.c. graviorem quam fuerat antea ferret’ cf. Cicero, Mur. 46.

²⁹ Asconius 59 C; Dio xxxvi, 38. Dio's view that Piso's hand was forced by the majority is plausible in the light of Piso's own indictment on the charge the year before (Dio 38, 3; Sallust, Hist, iv, 81Google Scholar M). On ambitus as a weapon primarily of the potentissimi quique ex senatu in this period, McDonald, o.c. (n. 2) 197 and Seager, o.c. (n. 3), 685.

³⁶ Above, n. 26.

³¹ The view of Niccolini, FTP, 259–260 among others.

³² Mommsen, (Staatsrecht ³ iii, 1232–3Google Scholar) noted that Pompey was the first, or at least one of the first, to be dispensed by the senate from the qualifications for holding office. Sherwin-White, A. N. (JRS xlvii (1957), 6–7)Google Scholar rightly inferred from Cornelius' proposal that the senate had been granting such privileges before 67. but he might be wrong to think they were already granting them freely before 70 and that their competence to do so was widely accepted: Lucullus was allowed to become praetor in 78, the year following his aedileship, not by the senate, but ‘praemio legis’ (Cicero, , Acad. ii, 1Google Scholar).

³³ For the effect of Sulla's arrangements, Wiseman, T. P., New Men in the Roman Senate (1971), 164–5.Google Scholar Note what Cornelius Nepos says of Atticus in his biography (6, 2): ‘Honores non petiit … quod neque peti more maiorum neque capi possent conservatis legibus in tam effusi ambitus largitionibus’.

³⁴ For those known, see Moore, O'Brien in R-E, Suppl. vi (1935), 747.Google Scholar

³⁵ Dio xxxvi, 38, 2 mentions these expulsions as a factor in increasing electoral corruption. Cicero says that those expelled for taking bribes as iudices in 74 had recovered their seats through re-election by 66 (Clu. 120–1). We also know of C. Antonius Hibrida and P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura who recovered their rank in this way.

³⁶ For the rule, Mommsen, , Staatsrecht ³ i, 521Google Scholar, who noted that P. Lentulus Sura, cos. 71, who only repeated the praetorship in 63, probably illustrates the normal working of the law. If Broughton's suspicions about P. Varinius are correct (MRR ii, 142, n. 9; Suppl. 73), he is an example of a man allowed to repeat the praetorship in less than ten years.

³⁷ Is this a possible solution to the strange tribunate of L. Volcatius Tullus in 68, two years before his consulship—the main obstacle to the otherwise plausible dating of the Lex Antonia de Termessibus (Syme, , JRS liii (1963), 59–60Google Scholar)? But he might have held the praetorship before expulsion or in 69, and simply have wanted to regain his senatorial seat or win some popularity by holding the now fashionable tribunate: he had failed to be elected aedile (Cicero, Planc. 51).

³⁸ Mommsen, , Staatsrecht ³ iii, 338Google Scholar, n. 2. Cicero makes no mention of popular ratification in reporting senatorial grants of exemption from the Leges Aelia et Fufia in 61 (Att. i, 16, 13) and the Lex Gabinia concerning loans in 56 (Att. v, 21, 12).

³⁹ See n. 29. As Asconius says, ‘nemo enim negare poterat pro senatus auctoritate esse eam legem’ (59 C), and Corn. I frag. 33 P ‘nihil senatui detraxisse Cornelium’ is plausibly connected with this law.

⁴⁰ Maurenbrecher, B., C. Sallustii Crispi Historiarum Reliquiae i, 81Google Scholar; ii, 195–7. For Lichtenfeldt, C., De Q. Asconii Pediani fontibus ac fide (1888), 48 ff.Google Scholar it was a datum which allowed Asconius' use of Sallust to be demonstrated from similarities between his and Dio's account of Cornelius' tribunate. Schwartz, E., R-E iii (1899), 1697Google Scholar was very sceptical about Dio's use of Sallust. Syme, Sallust 190, n. 47.

⁴¹ See the list of parallels between Dio and other Iivian sources amassed by Schwartz, o.c. (n. 40), 1698.

⁴² Corn. I frag. 25 P with Asconius' comment (69 C). Other passages are noted by Seager, o.c. (n. 3), 684, n. 2.

⁴³ Corn. I frag. 46 P in Asconius 75 C.

⁴⁴ Dio xxxvi, 24, 3; 39, 3.

⁴⁵ Schwartz, o.C. (n. 40), 1687–1691; F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio 40; Dio xxxvii, 37.

⁴⁶ His references to sources are conveniently listed in Clark's preface, ix–x.

⁴⁷ Asconius claims to have consulted all three in vain for information about the laws that C. Aurelius Cotta passed and then repudiated (66 C); Livy was also consulted, along with Tuditanus and Atticus, for the early history of the tribunate (77 C).

⁴⁸ Asconius 31, 14; 85, 13; 86, 16; 87, 11 C. Cf. Gellius, , NA xv, 28.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ ‘Livius noster’ (77 C). Asconius wrote a life of Sallust (Clark, preface, viii).

⁵⁰ Commenting on Cicero's charge that Catiline committed adultery with a woman whose daughter he later married, Asconius says: ‘Hoc Lucceius quoque Catilinae obicit in orationibus quas in eum scripsit. Nomina harum mulierum nondum inveni’ (92 C). It is usually said (J. Humbert, Contribution à l'étude des sources d'Asconius dans les débats judiciaires 63; Syme, Sallust 85, n. 8) that Asconius missed the information about Aurelia Orestilla in Sallust, Cat. 15. Yet Asconius' ‘nondum inveni’ suggests that he had done some research beyond the speeches which he consulted first: perhaps he was not certain that Sallust was talking about the same wife (Catiline had two, perhaps three) as the historian made no mention of an affair with the mother.

⁵¹ o.c. (n. 2), 201.

⁵² Humbert, o.c. (n. 50), 70 ff.

⁵³ Asconius' citations from Cicero's speeches preserve their original order (Kumaniecki, o.c. (n. 6), 10) and include mention of all three proposals.

⁵⁴ See Kumaniecki, o.c. (n. 6) for this reconstruction. On p. 10 he suggests that this inverted order followed the arrangement of the accuser's speech. His suggested rearrangement of the fragments (pp. 14–5), placing 13–17 P before 10 P, seems correct; but it is perverse of him (p. 12) to take the lex in 3 P ‘unde igitur ordiar? an ab ipsa lege?’ to be Cornelius' proposal: if 4 and 5 P are correctly placed, it should refer to the maiestas law.

⁵⁵ Corn. I frag. 5 P. There were clearly several related charges, but the gravamen of the case was his reading of the codex himself because that prevented his fellow-tribune's use of the veto. Asconius' interpretation on 61 C seems to me confirmed by Cicero Vat. 5 and I frag. 5 P, despite R. A. Baumann, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate 68 ff., who does not mention the fragment. For the constitutional point exploited by Cornelius, namely that it was illegal to interrupt a tribune addressing the people, see Mommsen, , Staatsrecht ³ ii, 289Google Scholar and nn. 1 and 2.

⁵⁶ Corn. I frags. 20–36 P. See below, n. 153.

⁵⁷ Corn. I frags. 37–46 P.

⁵⁸ Asconius 61–2 C. The commentator assures his readers that Cominius' speech was well worth reading on its own merits.

⁵⁹ Humbert, o.c. (n. 50), 72–4. But he must have looked elsewhere for the verdict (81 C). Perhaps Humbert is wrong to rule out the use of Nepos' biography from which Jerome cited the remark that attests Nepos' presence at the trial (frag, ii p. 34 Peter). But another possibility is Cicero's Hortensius, where Catulus mentioned the speech (Lact., , Inst. vi, 2, 15Google Scholar).

⁶⁰ On the kind of information Asconius would have derived from Cominius, see Lichtenfeldt, o.c. (n. 40), 80–2.

⁶¹ Cominius obviously dealt with the solutio propoposal, and Corn. I frags. 44–6 P (frags. 45–6 P = Asconius 75 C) show that he made remarks about Cornelius' behaviour during the passage of the Lex Calpurnia, so he probably mentioned Cornelius' ambitus proposal.

⁶² On Asconius' frequent and critical use of Cicero's works, see Lichtenfeldt, o.c. (n. 40), 16–27.

⁶³ Asconius 30 C: ‘non tantum ex oratione et annalibus’.

⁶⁴ The parallels are well set out by Lichtenfeldt, o.c., 48 ff. The idea of a common source is accepted by Maurenbrecher, o.c. (n. 40) i, 81, n. 8. See above, n. 40.

⁶⁵ See above, n. 48, and Lichtenfeldt, o.c., 55–7.

⁶⁶ Dio xxxvi, 24, 3; 37, 2; Plut., Pomp. 27.

⁶⁷ Val. Max. iii, 8, 3. The connection is emphasized by Seager, o.c. (n. 3), 684–5.

⁶⁸ Asconius 61 C: ‘adiumentum autem habuit (Cicero) quod… Cornelius praeter destrictum propositum animi adversus principum voluntatem cetera vita nihil fecerat quod magnopere improbaretur’.

⁶⁹ Sallust, , Hist, iv, 42Google Scholar M.; Plut., Pomp. 21.

⁷⁰ For Gelzer, , ‘Das erste Consulat des Pompeius’ APAW (1943), iGoogle Scholar = Kleine Schriften ii (1963), 152, as for others before him, the prediction is a vaticinium ex eventu in Hist, iii, 48, 23. The interpretation of the dolus ascribed to the optimates by Macer given here follows that of Badian, E., FC (1958), 280.Google Scholar I do not see that Macer's speech in Sallust is incoherent, as argued by Rossi, R., PP xx (1965), 137–40Google Scholar, who thinks that he must actually have predicted that Pompey would take the side of the conservatives.

⁷¹ I Verr. 45: ‘Ipse denique Cn. Pompeius cum primam contionem ad urbem consul designatus habuit, ubi, id quod maxime exspectari videbatur, ostendit se tribuniciam potestatem restituturum’ Ps.-Asc. 220 St.

⁷² Sulla's total abolition of the tribunes' legislative function is attested by Livy Epit. 89 and consistent with Cicero, , Leg. iii, 22Google Scholar. To prove that Sulla did not cancel their legislative powers but only required them to obtain senatorial sanction, a tribunician law definitely passed in the 70's must be produced. The latest attempt to find one is that of Kelly, D. H. in Auckland Critical Essays (1970), 133 ff.Google Scholar, who takes ‘legem tribuniciam’ in I Verr. 46 to refer to a law passed by the tribune Quinctius in 74 under which C. Iunius and Fidicuianius Falcula were tried. But in the context the phrase clearly means the law restoring the tribunician powers (‘nunc adhuc’ points to a time after Pompey's contio in 71, described at i, 45). These two culprits were clearly tried by civil process and fined (Clu. 103) probably before the praetor urbanus, who, for Iunius, would have been Verres himself. On jurisdiction, see n. 76.

⁷³ Caesar, , BC i, 7, 3Google Scholar; cf. Cicero, , Leg. iii, 22.Google Scholar The only evidence for a restriction on the veto is II Verr. 1, 155–7, but Opimius' offence of using intercessio ‘contra legem Corneliam’ could have been the use of the veto to interfere with the implementation of a Lex Cornelia, in violation of a self-protecting clause in that law such as is to be found in the Tabula Bantina, the Tarentum fragment, and the Piracy Law. Ps.-Asc. 255 St. says that Opimius used his veto to support Cotta's law restoring the right of tribunes to stand for higher office: the Lex Cornelia concerned then could have been that cancelling this privilege.

⁷⁴ Maurenbrecher plausibly assigned iv, 45 and 46 to the speech; Div. in Caec. 8; Gelzer, o.c. (n. 70), 163–4.

⁷⁵ The contiones noted in I Verr. 2 could be tribunician. Palicanus may have opted for some change in the courts in 71 (Schol. Gronov. 328 St.—but not to be taken literally).

⁷⁶ Cf. I Verr. 38 ‘sublataque populi Romani in unum quemque vestrum potestate’ which could allude to the tribunes' loss of judicial powers, like Sallust, , Hist, i, 55, 23Google Scholar M: ‘iura et iudicia sibimet extorquerent’. Note also Cicero's threats to try Verres, if he is acquitted, before the comitia as aedile (I, 37; II, I, 13; II, 5, 173, 178, 179, 183.

⁷⁷ Licinianus 33 F shows the tribunes of 78 putting pressure on the consuls; Ps.-Asc. 189 St. and Sallust, , Hist, iii, 48Google Scholar, 8 M (Or. Macri) name Sicinius, tribune in 76, as the initiator of the public campaign. According to Hayne, L., Hist, xxi (1972), 661 ff.Google Scholar Lepidus, after initially resisting the demand, agreed to the policy, as attested in his own speech and that of Marcius Philippus in Sallust, , Hist, i, 55, 22Google Scholar; i, 77, 14 M. But the first is an anachronistic speech used by Sallust to present, in the first year of his narrative, the coming struggles of the decade; in the second speech, Philippus is giving his view of the demands Lepidus will make if he obtains a second consulship.

⁷⁸ Lepidus in Sallust, , Hist, i, 55, 23Google Scholar, 24 is probably thinking of tribunician powers; see above, n. 76.

⁷⁹ Div. in Caec. 8: ‘iudicum culpa atque dedecore etiam censorium nomen, quod asperius antea populo videri solebat, id nunc poscitur’ see below, n. 86. One might surmise that the harshness of these censors was one of the sources of conflict in this year (Sallust, Hist, iv, 51 M) between Pompey and Crassus who was later known for his patrocinium malorum (Sallust, , Cat. 48, 8Google Scholar). On the invidia connected with expulsions, below, n. 110.

⁸⁰ Cicero, Clu. 136–7.

⁸¹ Gelzer, o.c. (n. 70), 149–150.

⁸² Plut., Pomp, 10; Diod. xxxviii, 20; Cicero, II Verr. 3, 42.

⁸³ II Verr. 3, 45; 204.

⁸⁴ Cicero, Balb. 19; 32–3; for their connection with Pompey, see Gelzer, o.c. (n. 70), 173.

⁸⁵ II Verr. 2, 95–100. In helping Sthenius they were supporting a long-standing client of Pompey (Badian, FC 282). One of the censors, Gellius, had defended a man against Verres' injustices as urban praetor in 74 (II Verr. 1, 125; Ps.-Asc. 241 St.)

⁸⁶ Cicero, Clu. 117 ff. Cicero mentions two iudices expelled for taking bribes (Clu. 127), and the expulsion of another was justified in that way by one censor (Clu. 132). The knight Cluentius was censured for distributing the bribes (Clu. 133).

⁸⁷ Sura: Ps.-Asc. 193, 218 St. commenting on Div. in Caec. 24 and I Verr. 35. According to Plut., Cic. 17, the censors objected to his ἀσέλγεια, but the case of Varro (which involved his relative Hortensius as defence lawyer) is so prominent in Cicero's Verrine speeches that it is more like to be the reason, as Clu. 130 suggests. Antonius: Asconius 84 C. Even if Maurenbrecher is right to attach Hist, iv, 52 ‘Fenoribus copertus est’ to Antonius, debt need only have been one of the censors' reasons.

⁸⁸ On P. Oppius see MRR ii, 111–12. The suggestion here is based on Pro Oppio frag. 4 c P (= Quint, v, 13, 21); ‘pro Oppio monet pluribus, ne illud actionis genus in equestrem ordinem admittant’. Gelzer, , R-E viiA (1948), 853Google Scholar, following Heinze, thinks Quintilian guilty here of a confusion with Pro Cluentio, because Oppius was a senator when he served as quaestor. But Quintilian cites other passages from the Pro Oppio in the neighbourhood, and another fragment (10 P) shows that Cicero was concerned to combat the auctoritas of M. Cotta with the iudices, perhaps because of his younger brother's judiciary law. This appeal to the equestrian iudices against allowing the liability of the ordo to be extended was used by Cicero not only in Pro Cluentio but in Pro Rab. Post. Perhaps in Oppius' case he could capitalize on a real ambiguity, if Oppius was a senator when the alleged crimes were committed, but had since been expelled from the senate.

⁸⁹ The charge was probably extortion, as Dio xxxvi, 40, 3 compares it with Cotta's own later indictment on which see now Shatzman, I., Hist, xxi (1972), 196–8.Google Scholar Frag. 4 c P, if genuine, would confirm the charge, as one where equestrian immunity normally applied. The views of Ward, A. M., Latomus xxvii (1968), 802 ff.Google Scholar on Oppius' connection with Pompey seem to be pure speculation.

⁹⁰ II Verr. 3,223; cf. II, 1, 4.

⁹¹ He disapproved of Antonius Hibrida's administration in Macedonia (Cicero, , Att. i, 12, 1Google Scholar) and he was unsympathetic to the notorious Valerius Flaccus (Cicero, Flacc. 14).

⁹² Plut., Pomp. 23, 4. The point is made forcibly by Gelzer, o.c. (n. 70), 168 ff.

⁹³ Div. in Caec. 8; 24; 68; II Verr. 1, 4.

⁹⁴ The popular demand was for all-equestrian iudices. Cicero carried this threat over into his account of Cotta's proposed law in the speeches he published as the second actio in order to suggest that Verres' conviction had saved the senate from a harsher measure (Gelzer, o.c. (n. 70), 171–2). cf. D. Stockton, Cicero 46, who thinks there was an earlier version of Cotta's law that excluded senatorial iudices altogether.

⁹⁵ Noted by Cicero, II Verr. 1, 22. The same situation existed under the Lex Aurelia: Pis. 94 and Asconius 17 C; cf. Mur. 42.

⁹⁶ II Verr. 3, 210; 4, 69; 4, 82; 1, 56; I, 32; II, 3, 212.

⁹⁷ The iudex Q. Titinius was a brother of Cn. Fannius (IIVerr. 1, 128).

⁹⁸ I Verr. 16. For the procedure involved, Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Problems of the Roman Criminal Law ii, 99–101.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Glabrio's connections are recalled at I Verr. 52. His wife Aemilia, however, had been handed over to Pompey, at Sulla's command, and she died in Pompey's house giving birth to Glabrio's son (Münzer, Römische Adelsparteïen 275 ff.) What attitudes this would produce is hard to say: Scaurus later mistakenly thought marriage to the same woman would create a bond (Asconius 17–18 C). If Ps.-Asc. 221 St. is right in identifying the tenuissimus senator condemned earlier in 70 (I Verr. 46) as ‘Dolabella‘, Glabrio may have presided over the successful prosecution of Cn. Cornelius Dolabella, governor of Cilicia 80–79, by his brother-in-law M. Aemilius Scaurus. There were other long-delayed prosecutions in the 70's (Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History 99, n. 69 on the trial of A. Terentius Varro; C. Antonius is another one): this would be an attempt before the trial of Verres to demonstrate the viability of senatorial juries.

¹⁰⁰ The sequence of events followed here is that of Gelzer, o.c. (n. 70), 168–172. It rests principally on I Verr. 30–1; 33–4; II Verr. 1, 20; 4, 33; 5, 177–8; but the interpretation of these passages is bedevilled by Cicero's fiction that speeches of the second actio were actually delivered and in the presence of Verres (cf. Ps.-Asc. 223–4 St.). On Cotta's law, see n. 94 above.

¹⁰¹ Laffi, U., Athenaeum xlv (1967), 177 ff.Google Scholar; 255 ff.

¹⁰² Sherwin-White, o.c. (n. 32), 5 ff.; Rossi, o.c. (n. 70), 133ff.

¹⁰³ Corn. I frag. 52 P (in Asconius 78 C). Rossi, o.c. (n. 70), 142 goes too far in suggesting that the value of the tribunate to young optimates seeking a little popularity on the way up the cursus honorum was the real motive for Cotta's measure, which was probably not strongly opposed. But on his own showing, it was the veto which Sulla had left intact that was most valuable to the optimates. That Cotta's measure was highly controversial is suggested by the debate over Verres' imposition of a heavy fine on the tribune Q. Opimius, who had offended Catulus and other nobiles when he used his veto to support Cotta (see above n. 73).

¹⁰⁴ Sallust, , Hist, iii, 48Google Scholar, 8 M. For Sallust himself (ii, 42 M) he was a man avid for gratia.

¹⁰⁵ For the withholding of supplies as a deliberate plan to undermine Pompey, Badian, FC 279 relying on accounts of Sallust and Plutarch of the reasons for which they were finally sent. But cf. Sallust's version of Pompey's letter in Hist, ii, 98, 9.

¹⁰⁶ P. Servilius Isauricus, a hereditary enemy of the Luculli (Cicero, Prov. Cons. 22); C. Scribonius Curio, a successful governor of Macedonia; C. Cassius Longinus, who was a witness against Verres and perhaps the son of the praetor of 111 who collaborated with the tribune Memmius (Münzer, , R-E iii (1897), n. 58, 1727Google Scholar. They are mentioned in Cicero, Manil. 68.

¹⁰⁷ Dio xxxviii, 5, 1.

¹⁰⁸ Cicero, Arch. 26. So interpreted by Gelzer, o.c. (n. 70), 173, n. 139.

¹⁰⁹ Badian, , Lucius Sulla, The Deadly Reformer (Todd Lecture 1969) 27–28Google Scholar, presents now a more balanced view. See also the reply to Sherwin-White (n. 32) by Stockton, in Hist, xxii (1973), 205 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Rossi, o.c. (n. 70), 148 thinks the senatorial expulsions carried out by these censors would have been welcomed by the nobiles who would be glad to lose Sulla's humble adlectees. But at least two of the 64 they expelled were nobiles, and Cicero (Clu. 130) shows the expulsions were a response to popular pressure. Though Sulla's provisions for twenty quaestors with the ius sententiae dicendae meant that the senate could only be kept to 600 by censorial expulsions (Willems, P., Le sénat i, 234, 243Google Scholar), the censors of 64 and 61 shunned the invidia involved (Dio xxxvii, 9, 4; 46, 4).

¹¹¹ On the intrigues of Cethegus, see Badian, FC 280–1; Taylor, VDRR, 121 ff., who, however, seems to think Lucullus received his command by a law, whereas Cicero, Acad. ii, 1, 1 and Memnon 27 both indicate an S.C. as for M. Aurelius Cotta (and M. Antonius, Vell. Pat. ii, 31).

¹¹² Taylor, VDRR 120; 128–9. But Brunt, , JRS lv (1965), 109Google Scholar seems to be right that the effective registration of the Italians as citizens with voting rights only took place in 70–69, whereas Taylor holds that the censors of 86 enrolled a substantial number and that many more were given by the S.C. of 84 (Livy, Epit. 84) the right to vote in the tribal assembly though not in the centuriate assembly.

¹¹³ Plut. pomp. 13, 5.

¹¹⁴ See Badian, , Hermes lxxxiii (1955), 116Google Scholar and n. 2, on the usual practice whereby the returning promagistrate dismissed his army on reaching Italy. So Metellus did in 70 (Sallust, , Hist, iv, 49Google Scholar M), and Pompey in 62 despite gloomy expectations (Plut., Pomp. 43, 1–2).

¹¹⁵ Plut., Pomp. 15.

¹¹⁶ Sallust, Hist. iv, 1 M.

¹¹⁷ The law about the tribunate is everywhere said to have been passed by them both, and Cicero mentions them both in that connection in the Pro Cornelio (I frag. 48 P in Asconius 76 C).

¹¹⁸ For the ambitus measure, see p. 199 and n. 29. For the other two, both restating traditional principles (n. 125, Asconius 58 C), see Asconius 59 C according to whom they were passed without overt opposition though displeasing to the pauci. Their smooth passage shows that Cicero has not distorted the issues when he insists that only the nobilissimi homines were Cornelius' enemies (Corn. II frags. 1, 3, 9, 11, 12 P).

¹¹⁹ Corn. I frags. 40–41 P. In 40 P: ‘〈repugnat〉 ut divisores, quos honoris suis ministros esse voluerat, lege ambitus vellet affligere’, the subject is clearly Piso, cf. Dio xxxvi, 38; I Verr. 21–5.

¹²⁰ The enrolment was presumably only finished in 69. The evidence suggests that the optimates concentrated their efforts on the consulship in the early 60's when, on the other hand, three popular extribunes won their praetorships: Lollius Palicanus (69), L. Quinctius (68) and C. Licinius Macer (probably 68).

¹²¹ Above, n. 35.

¹²² The provision ‘at Rome’ seems to have been stipulated in the Lex Gabinia which embodied Cornelius' idea (Cicero, Att. v, 21, 12).

¹²³ See above, n. 14; Asconius 58 C where Clark's reading is eccentric, being unrelated to the problem Cornelius was considering as revealed in Dio frag. III, and grammatically faulty, as pointed out by Stangl, who reads: ‘exhauriri provincias usuris propter id unum, ut haberent legati unde praesentia munera darent.’

¹²⁴ II Verr. 2, 76.

¹²⁵ Asconius 59 C; Schulz, F., Principles of Roman Law ² (1936), 229–30Google Scholar; II Verr. 1, 119.

¹²⁶ See Badian, Studies 74, n. 24, defending Mommsen, , Staatsrecht ³ ii, 240Google Scholar, n. 5. Cicero, when governing Cilicia, calls himself praetor in the context of the Lex Gabinia about loans to foreign envoys (Att. v, 21 11).

¹²⁷ II Verr. 2, 90 (Cicero often calls Verres praetor in speaking of his governorship, e.g. Div. in Caec. 28; 72; I Verr. 13).

¹²⁸ Dio xxxvi, 42, 2.

¹²⁹ Suet., Caesar 50. Before the law giving Pompey the command against the pirates, Gabinius prepared the way for the Mithridatic command and bought the quiescence of one consul by a law giving M'. Acilius Glabrio control of Bithynia and Pontus—the last step in the dismantling of Lucullus' command (MRR II, 143; 150, n. 7).

¹³⁰ Corn. I frag. 10–11 P in Asconius 65 C = 15 and 16, Kumaniecki.

¹³¹ Asconius 59–60 C: ‘a notis operarum ducibus’ ‘Manilius qui iudicium per operarum duces turbaverat’.

¹³² Att. v, 21, 12; vi, 2, 7. Against Mommsen and Niccolini who prefer 58, Gabinius' consulship, Broughton, (MRR ii, 145, 150Google Scholar) appears to favour 67.

¹³³ Asconius 72 C; Plut., Pomp. 27; Dio xxxvi, 37, 2.

¹³⁴ For a full discussion of the dating of this law, see Niccolini, FTP, 256–8. Broughton, , MRR ii, p. 643Google Scholar accepts the view of Carcopino, , Mél. Glotz (1932) i, 120–2Google Scholar that the author of the law was A. Gabinius, tribune in 139 B.C.; but Carcopino's inference from the Piracy Law (Riccobono, FIRA ², no. 9) B 17–19 is unjustified: our best evidence for the content of the Lex Gabinia (Cicero, , Fam. i, 4, 1Google Scholar; Q. Fr. ii, 12, 3) does not show that the senate was thereby forbidden to receive envoys at other times, only that February was reserved for that use. See also the points made against the idea by Colin, G., Fouilles de Delphes iii, 4 (1930), p. 48.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Gellius ii, 24, 13; Macrobius iii, 17, 13. See Syme, , JRS liii (1963), 59Google Scholar: ‘an attack on intrigue no less than on luxury, a curb on the habits of opulent Optimates, such as Q. Hortensius.’

¹³⁶ Plut., Luc. 20, 5; 33, 4: δημαγωγοί Dio xxxvi. 2 says of the transfer of Asia to praetors in 69 that Lucullus was blamed παρὰ τοῖς πολίταις, which might suggest tribunician activity.

¹³⁷ CIL I² 389; ILS 38. On the date see MRR ii, 141, n. 8; and Syme, , JRS liii (1963), 58Google Scholar who discusses what is known of the tribunes of 68.

¹³⁸ Dio xxxvi, 17.

¹³⁹ CIL I² 744; ILS 5800; Cicero Leg. ag. ii, 22: ‘ei locus primus in indice et in praescriptione legis concessus est’ cf. ii, 13: ‘princeps erat agrariae legis’.

¹⁴⁰ Asconius 84 C; Plut., Caes. 4, 1 is highly confused.

¹⁴¹ I, lines 12–35; II, 1–5; 18–30.

¹⁴² I, 1–11; 20–3.

¹⁴³ II, 6–17; 31 ff.

¹⁴⁴ Appian, Mith. 75. Magie, , RRAM i, 294–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Appian, , BC i, 102Google Scholar; Rostovzeff, , SEHHW ² ii, 947–8.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Plut., Luc. 20. Brunt, P. A., Second International Conf. on Econ. Hist. 1962, (1965), 148–9Google Scholar, points out that some senators too must have opposed Lucullus, but minimizes too much the role of the equites: see Broughton, ibid., 154–5; Badian, Publicans and Sinners 98–9.

¹⁴⁷ II, 34–7. cf. Livy xxxviii, 44 where all Roman citizens (and Latins) are exempted.

¹⁴⁸ Syme, , JRS liii (1963), 56, 58.Google Scholar For his role in the Verres case, Cicero, Div. in Caec. 13; II Verr. 2, 103; 4, 53.

¹⁴⁹ Syme., JRS liii (1963), 58.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ The time of year is not given by Asconius for ‘eodem ilio tempore erat reus repetundarum (Catilina)’ in 66 C apparently refers to the time of the disturbed trial of Manilius which the citation under consideration discusses. The trial of Cornelius clearly came after this trial of Manilius for extortion (‘meis alienissimum rationibus’ indicates that Cicero was involved either as president of the extortion court at the end of 66 or as would-be defender at the abortive trial before Attius Celsus) and, if that is different, that planned before Attius Celsus, mentioned in Corn. I frag. 12 P = 17 Kumaniecki, in Asconius 65 C, and Manilius' ultimate conviction for maiestas (Asconius 60 C). Cornelius' trial cannot be contemporaneous with Catiline's trials for extortion in August 65 (Cicero, , Att. i, 1, 2Google Scholar), as Asconius would then have known that Cicero could not have defended Catiline because he was otherwise engaged (85, 87 C). It probably preceded Catiline's trial, as Att. i, 1, 2 shows that Cicero was thinking of leaving Rome in September when the closed periods of the courts set in. Asconius' ‘reus repetundarum’ (66 C) then just shows that the preliminary arrangements for Catiline's trials started early in the year, or is frankly anticipatory.

¹⁵¹ Corn. I frag. 48 P in Asconius 76 C; 52 P in Asconius 78 C; II frag. 3 P in Asconius 79 C.

¹⁵² Quintilian iv, 3, 13; cf. ix, 2, 55 = Corn. I frag. 47 P = 48 Kumaniecki (see 48 ff.).

¹⁵³ Corn. I frag. 35 P, properly relocated by Kumaniecki, 48 ff. as frag. 51.

¹⁵⁴ Corn. II frag. 3 P in Asconius 79 C.

¹⁵⁵ In Vat. 5; Asconius 61 C, cf. 58 C.

¹⁵⁶ Corn. I frag. 53 P in Asconius 78 C.

¹⁵⁷ Att. i, 4, 2; Plut., Cicero 9, 1–2; Val. Max. ix, 12, 7.

¹⁵⁸ Corn. I frag. 34 P in Asconius 75 C. See above, n. 25.

^l59 Corn. I frag. 34 P: ‘id quod palam iam isti defensores iudiciorum propugnaverunt’ Cicero avoided mentioning the potential threat of Rullus' law to Faustus Sulla in his speech to the people, but emphasized it in that to the senate (Leg. ag. i, 12).

¹⁶⁰ Att. i, 1, 1–2.

¹⁶¹ Heinze, R., ‘Ciceros politische Anfänge’, Vom Geist des Römertums ³ (1960), 132–3.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Att. i, 1, 1, cf. Leg. ag. ii, 49. In the light of this, Badian, , Hist, xviii (1969), 475Google Scholar, is clearly right to reject the reading ‘Pompeium’ in Corn. I frag. 54 P in Asconius 79 C as the ‘hominem dis ac nobilitati perinvisum’. He accepts ‘Pomponium’, a fellow-tribune of Varus in 90, an opponent of the Sullani, hence probably in favour of all-equestrian courts. This fits the context: Cicero is urging that a mixed jury acquitted such a man on a maiestas charge: therefore, a fortiori, they should acquit this blameless champion of the plebs (Corn. I frag. 55 P).

¹⁶³ Corn. II frag. 8 P in Asconius 81 C.

¹⁶⁴ Above, n. 106.

¹⁶⁵ Ps.-Asc. 255 St. on II Verr. 1, 155; I, 18–19. Münzer, , R-E ii B (1923), 862 ff.Google Scholar, held (with Ps.-Asc. 207 St.) that Curio was the governor of Macedonia that the ‘Achaicus inquisitor’ of I Verr. 6 was pretending to prosecute in order to delay Verres' trial, and identified the abortive proceedings with those described in Corn. I frag. 9 P in Asconius 62–4 C But as Zielinski, (Philologus lii (1893), 256–7Google Scholar) rightly noted, Curio could not be introduced so deferentially, twelve chapters after being alluded to anonymously as one picked ‘ex senatu qui reus fieret in I, 9, and nothing suggests that the case mentioned was not in fact carried out to an acquittal.

^l66 Sisenna iii, 44 Peter; Cicero, Off. ii, 88. Kumaniecki, o.c. (n. 6), 23, n. 38, thinks the deferential reference to Curio in Corn. I frag. 9 P and 36 P shows he was active on the prosecution side. But Asconius' identification (74 C) of the man in 36 P is doubtful (Badian, , Hist, xviii (1969), 453Google Scholar) and in 9 P Cicero is equally deferential about Metellus Nepos, who was away serving under Pompey.

¹⁶⁷ Asconius 59–60 C.

¹⁶⁸ Sumner, , JRS liv (1964), 41 ff.Google Scholar; Syme, , Ten Studies in Tacitus (1970), 141Google Scholar is highly sceptical of this solitary late appearance.

¹⁶⁹ Corn. I frag. 16 P = 13 Kumaniecki; Kumaniecki, o.c. (n.6), 15, 31. Another change of personnel concerned the accusers: there were two Cominii in 66 (Asconius 59 C), one in 65 (Asconius 61 C): Corn. I, frag. 61 P: ‘coeptum igitur per eos, qui agi volebant, desitum est per hunc, qui decessit’ may refer to this, in which case it probably belongs after frag. 8 P. (On their praenomina, see Badian, , JRS xlvi (1956), 220Google Scholar).

¹⁷⁰ Cicero, Pro Sulla 15; Dio xxxvi, 44.

¹⁷¹ Corn. I frag. 48 P in Asconius 76 C.

¹⁷² Corn. I frags. 53–4 in Asconius 78–9 C. The plebs are said to have favoured the Lex Aurelia and the Lex Roscia (cf. Plut., Cicero 13), while mixed juries acquitted the tribune Pomponius (above, n. 162).

¹⁷³ Vatinius was later to say that Cicero thus offended ‘boni viri’ (Cicero, Vat. 5).

¹⁷⁴ Corn. I frag. 8 P in Asconius 62 C. Note Q. Metellus Pius, one of Cornelius' hostile witnesses, was an important witness against Catiline in the same year (Cicero, Tog. Cand. frag. 8 P in Asconius 87 C).