A History of Rome During the Later Republic

Chapter VIII

The summer must have been well advanced when Marius landed at Utica with his untried forces. The veterans were handed over to his care by the legate Rutilius[1114] for Metellus had fled the sight of the man, whose success had been based on a slanderous attack on his own reputation. It must have been with a heavy heart that he accomplished the voyage to Rome; for the greatest expert in the moods of the people could scarcely have foretold the surprise that awaited him there. The popular passion was spent; it was a feverish force that had burnt itself out; the country voters had at last bethought themselves of their work and returned to their farms; many of the most active and disorderly spirits, the restless loud-voiced men who are the potent minority in an agitation, had been removed by the levy of Marius; with the city mob docility generally alternated with revolution, and it was now inclined to look to the verdict of the recognised heads of the State. In this moment of reaction, too, many must have been inclined to wonder what after all could be said against this general who had never lost a battle, who had conquered cities and pitilessly revenged the one disaster which was not his fault, who had constantly swept the terrible King of Numidia as a helpless fugitive before him. The presence of Metellus completed the work by giving stability to these half-formed views. The common folk are the true idealists. They love a hero rather better than a victim, although it often depends on the turn of a hair which part the object of their attentions is to play. Now they followed the lead of the senate; the returned commander was the man of the day[1115] he had exalted the glory of the Roman name; and if there was no fault, there could only have been misfortune; but misfortune might be compensated by honour. There was the prospect of a triumph in store, that mixed source of sensuous satisfaction and national self-congratulation. Thus Metellus won his prizes from the Numidian war, a parade through the streets to the Capitol and the addition of the surname “Numidicus” to the already lengthy nomenclature of his house[1116]

The war itself, under the guidance of Marius, soon assumed the character which it had possessed under that of all his predecessors. The originality of the new commander seemed to have spent itself in the selection of his troops; no new idea seems to have been introduced into the conduct of operations, which resumed their old shapes of precautions against surprise, weary marches from end to end of Numidia, and the siege of strongholds which were no sooner taken than they proved to be beyond the area of actual hostilities. Perhaps no new idea was possible except one that exchanged the weapons of war for those of diplomacy; but even the final attempt that had been made in this direction by Metellus was not continued by Marius. Bocchus, unwilling to lose the chance which had been presented of a definite convention with Home, sent repeated messages to her new representative to the effect that he desired the friendship of the Roman people, and that no acts of hostility on his part need be feared[1117] but his protestations were received with distrust, and Marius, accustomed to the duplicity of the African mind and rejecting the view that the king might really be wavering between war and peace, chose to regard them as the treacherous cover for a sudden attack. The desultory campaign which followed seems to have been directed by two motives. The first was the training of the raw levies which had just been brought from Rome; the second the supposed necessity of cutting Jugurtha off from the strongholds which he still held at the extremities of his kingdom. As these extremities were now threatened or commanded, on the south by the Gaetulians and on the west by the Mauretanians, the area of the war was no less than that of Numidia itself; and, as the occupation of such an area was impossible, the destruction of these strongholds, which was little loss to a mobile self-supporting force such as that which Jugurtha had at his command, was the utmost end which could be secured.

The practice of the untrained Roman levies was rendered easy by the fact that Jugurtha had resumed the offensive. He no longer had the help of his Mauretanian auxiliaries, for Bocchus had retired to his own kingdom, and he had therefore lost his desire for a pitched battle; but his swarms of Gaetulian horse had enabled him to resume his old style of guerilla fighting, and he had taken advantage of the practical suspension of hostilities which had accompanied the change in the Roman command, to set on foot a series of raids against the friends of Rome and even to penetrate the borders of the Roman province itself.[1118] For some time the attention of Marius was absorbed in following his difficult tracks, in striving to anticipate his rapidly shifting plans, in creating in his own men the habits of endurance, the mobility and the strained attention, which even a brief period of such a chase will rapidly engender in the rawest of recruits. The pursuit gradually shifted to the west, and a series of sharp conflicts on the road ended finally in the rout of the king in the neighbourhood of Cirta. With troops now seasoned to the toils of long marches and deliberate attack, Marius turned to the more definite, if not more effective, enterprise of beleaguering such fortified positions as were still strongly held, and by their position seemed to give a strategic advantage to the enemy. His object was either to strip Jugurtha of these last garrisons or to force him to a battle if he came to their defence. At first he confined his operations within a narrow area; the best part of the summer months seems to have been spent in the territory lying east and south of Cirta, and within this region several fortresses and castles still adhering to the king were reduced by persuasion or by force.[1119] Yet Jugurtha made no move, and Marius gained a full experience of the helpless irritation of the commander who hears that his enemy is far away, neglectful of his efforts and wholly absorbed in some deep-laid scheme the very rudiments of which are beyond the reach of conjecture. His operations seem to have brought him to a point somewhere in the neighbourhood of Sicca, and this proximity to the southern regions of Numidia suggested the thought of an enterprise that might rival and even surpass Metellus’s storm of Thala. About thirteen miles west of that town[1120] lay the strong city of Capsa.[1121] It marked almost the extremest limit of Jugurtha’s empire in this direction, placed as it was just north of the great lakes and west of the deepest curve of the Lesser Syrtis. The town was the gift of an oasis, which here broke the monotony of the desert with pleasant groves of dates and olives and a perennial stream of water. The sources of this stream, which was formed by the union of two fountains, had been enclosed within the walls, and supplied drinking water for the city before it passed beyond it to irrigate the land. Even this supply hardly sufficed for the moderate needs of the Numidians, who supplemented it by rain water[1122] which they caught and stored in cisterns. A siege of Capsa in the dry season might therefore prove irksome to the inhabitants; but the invading army might be even less well supplied, for although four other springs outside the walls fed the canals which served the work of irrigation, they tended to run low when the season of rain was past. The security of the city, although its defences and its garrison were strong, was thought to reside mainly in its desert barrier. The waste through which an invading army would have to pass was waterless and barren, while the multitude of snakes and scorpions that found a congenial home on the arid soil increased the horror, if not the danger, of the route.[1123] Jugurtha had dealt kindly by the lonely citizens of Capsa; they were free from taxes and had seldom to answer to any demand of the king: and this favour, which was perhaps as much the product of necessity as of policy, had strengthened their loyalty to the Numidian throne. It is probable that some strategic, or at least military, motive was mingled in the mind of Marius with the mere desire of excelling his predecessor and creating a deep impression in the minds of the proletariate in his army and at home. Although Capsa, with its limited resources, could hardly ever have served as the point of departure for a large Numidian or Gaetulian host, it might have been of value as a refuge for the king when he wished to vanish from the eyes of his enemies, and perhaps as a means of communication with friendly cities or peoples situated between the two Syrtes. To vanquish the difficulties of such an enterprise might also strike terror into the Numidian garrisons of other towns, and the subjects of Jugurtha might feel that no stronghold was safe when the unapproachable Capsa had been taken or destroyed. But the difficulties of the task were great. The Numidians of these regions were more attached to a pastoral life than to agriculture; the stores of corn to be found along the route were therefore scanty, and their scarcity was increased by the fact that the king, who seems but lately to have passed through these regions, had ordered that large supplies of grain should be conveyed from the district and stored in the fortresses which his garrisons still held.[1124] Nothing could be got from the fields, which at this late period of the autumn showed nothing but arid stubble. It was fortunate that some stores still lay at Lares (Lorbeus), a town at a short distance to the south-east of his present base;[1125] these were to be supplemented by the cattle that the foraging parties had driven in, and the Roman soldier would at least have his unwelcome supply of meat tempered by a moderate allowance of meal. Yet the terrors of the journey were so great that Marius thought it wise to conceal the object of his enterprise even from his own men, and even when, after a six days’ march to the south, he had reached a stream called the Tana,[1126] the motive of the expedition was still in all probability unknown. Here, as in Metellus’s march on Thala, a large supply of water was drawn from the river and stored in skins, all heavy baggage was discarded, and the lightened column prepared for its march across the desert. By day the soldiers kept their camp and every stage of the journey was accomplished between night-fall and dawn. On the morning of the third day they had reached some rising ground not more than two miles from Capsa.[1127] The sun had not yet risen when Marius halted his men in a hollow of the dunes, and watched the town to see whether his cautious plans had really effected a surprise. Evidently they had; for, when day broke, the gates were seen to open and large numbers of Numidians could be observed leaving the city for the business of the fields. The word was given, and in a moment the whole of the cavalry and the lightest of the infantry were dashing on the town. They were meant to block the gates; while Marius and the heavier troops followed as speedily as they could, driving the straggling Numidians before them. It was the possession of these hostages that decided the fate of the town. The commandant parleyed and agreed to admit the Romans within the walls, the condition, whether tacit or expressed, of this surrender being that the lives of the citizens should be spared. The condition was immediately broken. The town was given over to the flames, all the Numidians of full age were put to the sword, the rest were sold into slavery, and the movable property which had been seized was divided amongst the soldiers. The breach of international custom was not denied; the only attempt at palliation was drawn from the reflection that it was due neither to motiveless treachery nor to greed; a position like Capsa, it was urged,—difficult of approach, open to the enemy, the home of a race notorious for its mobile cunning-could be held neither by leniency nor by fear.[1128] The expedition had miscarried, if the town was not destroyed; and, as frequently happens in the pursuit of wars with peoples to whom the convenient epithet of “barbarian” can be applied, the successful fruit of cruelty and treachery was perhaps defended on the ground that the obligations of international law must be either reciprocal or non-existent.

The destruction of Capsa was followed by other successes of a similar though less arduous kind. The event had served the purpose of Marius well in so far as it spread before him a name of terror which caused some of the Numidian garrisons to flee their strong places without a struggle. In the few cases where resistance was met, it was beaten down, and the fortified places which Jugurtha’s soldiers were not rash enough to defend, were utterly destroyed by fire.[1129] Marius left a wilderness behind him on his return march to winter quarters,[1130] and perhaps renewed his devastating course in the south-eastern parts of Numidia during the spring of the following year, before his attention was suddenly called to another point in the vast area of the war. This easy triumph which cost little Roman blood and enriched the soldiers with the spoils of war, created in his men a belief in his foresight and prowess which seemed sufficient to stand the severest strain.[1131] A great effort had now to be made in a quarter of Numidia which lay not less than seven hundred miles from the recent scene of operations. As neither the site of Marius’s recent winter quarters nor the base which he chose for his spring campaign are known to us, we cannot say whether the expedition which he now directed to the extreme west of Numidia was an unpleasant diversion from a scheme already in operation, or whether it was the result of a plan matured in the winter camp; but in either case this conviction of the necessity for sweeping the country in such utterly diverse directions proves the full success of the plan which Jugurtha was pursuing. It is more difficult to determine whether Marius increased the success of this plan by a political blunder of his own. The point at which he is now found operating was near the river Muluccha or Molocath,[1132] the dividing line between the kingdoms of Numidia and Mauretania. If the incursion which he made into this region was unprovoked, it was a challenge to King Bocchus and an impolitic disturbance of the recent attitude of quiescence that had been assumed by that hesitating monarch; but it is possible that news had reached Marius that a Mauretanian attack was impending, and that the same motive which had impelled Metellus to hasten from the south to the defence of Cirta, now urged his successor to push his army more than five hundred miles farther to the west up to the very borders of Mauretania. The movement seems to have been defensive, for at the moment when we catch sight of his efforts he had not attempted to cross the admitted frontier,[1133] but was endeavouring to secure a strong position that lay within what he conceived to be the Numidian territory. A giant rock rose sheer out of the plain, tapering into the narrow fortress which continued by its walls an ascent so smoothly precipitous that it seemed as though the work of nature had been improved by the hand of man.[1134] But one narrow path led to the summit and was believed to be the only way, not merely to a position of supreme value for defensive purposes, but also to one of those rich deposits which the many-treasured king was held to have laid up in the strongest parts of his dominions. The difficulties of a siege were almost insurmountable. The garrison was strong and well supplied with food and water; the only avenue for a direct assault upon the walls was narrow and dangerous; the site was as ill-suited as it could be for the movement of the heavier engines of war. When the attack was made, the mantlets of the besiegers were easily destroyed by fire and stones hurled from above; yet the soldiers could not leave cover, nor get a firm hold on the steeply sloping ground; the foremost amongst the storming party fell stricken with wounds, and a panic seemed likely to prevail amidst the ever-victorious army if it were again urged to the attack. While Marius was brooding over this unexpected check, and his mind was divided between the wisdom of a retreat and the chances that might be offered by delay, an accident supplied the defects of strength and counsel.[1135] A Ligurian in quest of snails was tempted to pursue his search from ridge to ridge on that side of the hill which lay away from the avenue of attack and had hitherto been deemed inaccessible. He suddenly found that he had nearly reached the summit; a spirit of emulation urged him to complete the work which he had unconsciously begun, and the branches of a giant holmoak, which twisted amongst the rocks, gave him a hold and footing when the perpendicular walls of the last ascent seemed to deny all chance of further progress. When at length he craned over the edge of the highest ridge, the interior of the fort lay spread before him. No member of the garrison was to be seen, for every man was engaged in repelling the assault which had been renewed on the opposite side. A prolonged survey was therefore possible, and all the important details of the fortress were imprinted on the mind of the Ligurian before he began his leisurely descent. The features of the slope he traversed were also more cautiously observed; the next ascent would be attempted by more than one, and every irregularity that might give a foothold must be noted by the man who would have to prove and illustrate his tale. When the story was told to Marius he sent some of his retinue to view the spot; their reports differed according to the character of their minds; some of the investigators were sanguine, others more than doubtful; but the consul eventually determined to make the experiment. The escalade was to be attempted by a band of ten; five of the trumpeters and buglemen were selected and four centurions, the Ligurian was to be their guide. With head and feet bare, their only armour a sword and light leathern shield slung across their backs, the soldiers painfully imitated the daring movements of their active leader. But he was considerate as well as daring. Sometimes he would weave a scaling ladder of the trailing creepers; at others he would lend a helping hand; at others again he would gather up their armour and send them on before him, then step rapidly aside and pass with his burden up and down their struggling line. His cheery boldness kept them to their painful task until every man had reached the level of the fort. It was as desolate as when first seen by the Ligurian, for Marius had taken care that a frontal attack should engage the attention of the garrison. The climb had been a long one, and the battle had now been raging many hours when news was brought to the anxious commander that his men had gained the summit.[1136] The assault was now renewed with a force that astonished the besieged, and soon with a recklessness that led them to think the besiegers mad. They could see the Roman commander himself leaving the cover of the mantlets and advancing in the midst of his men up the perilous ascent under a tortoise fence of uplifted shields. Over the heads of the advancing party came a storm of missiles from the Roman lines below. Confident as the Numidians were in the strength of their position, scornful as were the gibes which a moment earlier they had been hurling against the foe, they could not think lightly of the serried mass that was moving up the hill and the rain of bullets that heralded its advance. Every hand was busy and every mind alert when suddenly the Roman trumpet call was heard upon their rear. The women and boys, who had crept out to watch the fight, were the first to take the alarm and to rush back to the shelter of the fort; most of the men were fighting in advance of their outer walls; those nearest to the ramparts were the first to be seized with the panic; but soon the whole garrison was surging backwards, while through and over it pressed the long and narrow wedge of Romans, cutting their way through the now defenceless mass until they had seized the outworks of the fort.

It is difficult to gauge the positive advantages secured by this feat of arms; but it is probable that the capture of this particular hill-fortress, although its difficulty gave it undue prominence in the annals of the war, was not an isolated fact, but one of a series of successful attempts to establish a chain of posts upon the Mauretanian border, which might bring King Bocchus to better counsels and interrupt his communications with Jugurtha. The enterprise may have been followed by a tolerably long campaign in these regions. This campaign has not been recorded, but that it was contemplated is proved by the fact that Marius had ordered an enormous force of cavalry to meet him near the Muluccha.[1137] The force thus summoned actually served the purpose of covering a retirement that was practically a retreat; but this could not have been the object which it was intended to fulfil when its presence was commanded. A large force of horse was essential, if Bocchus was to be paralysed and the border country swept clear of the enemy. The cloud that was to burst from Mauretania was not the only chance that could be foretold; it was the issue to be dreaded, if all plans at prevention failed; but it was one that might possibly be averted by the presence of a commanding force in the border regions.

It had taken nearly a year to collect and transport from Italy the cavalry force that now entered the camp of Marius. The reason why Italy and not Africa was chosen as the recruiting ground is probably to be found in the lack of confidence which the Romans felt even in those Numidians who professed a friendly attitude; otherwise cheapness and even efficiency might seem to have dictated the choice of native contingents, although it is possible that, as a defensive force, the tactical solidarity of the Italians gave them an advantage even over the Numidian horse. The Latins and Italian allies had furnished the troopers that had lately landed on African soil,[1138] perhaps not at the port of Utica, but at some harbour on the west, for the time consumed by Marius in the march to his present position, even had not his campaign been planned in winter quarters, would have given him an opportunity to send notice of his whereabouts to the leader of the auxiliary force. This leader was Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who had spent nearly the whole of the first year of his quaestorship in beating up on Italian soil the troops of horsemen which he now led into the camp. In comparison with the arrival of the force that of the quaestor was as nothing; yet the advent of such a subordinate was always a matter of interest to a general. Tradition had determined that the ties between a commander and his quaestor should be peculiarly close; the superior was responsible for every act of the minor official whom the chance of the lot might thrust upon him; if his subordinate were capable, he was the chosen delegate for every delicate operation in finance, diplomacy, jurisdiction, or even war: if he were incapable, he might be dismissed,[1139] but could not be neglected, for he was besides the general the only man in the province holding the position of a magistrate, and was in titular rank superior even to the oldest and most distinguished of the legates.[1140] It was a matter of chance whether a government or a campaign was to be helped or hindered by the arrival of a new quaestor; and Marius, when he first heard of the man whom destiny had brought to his side, was inclined to be sceptical as to the amount of assistance which was promised by the new appointment.[1141] Apart from a remarkable personal appearance—an impression due to the keen blueness of the eyes, the clear pallor of the face, the sudden flush that spread at moments over the cheeks as though the vigour of the mind could be seen pulsing beneath the delicate skin[1142]—there was little to recommend Sulla to the mind of a hard and stern man engaged in an arduous and disappointing task. The new lieutenant had no military experience, he was the scion of a ruined patrician family, and, if the gossip of Rome were true, his previous life suggested the light-hearted adventurer rather than the student of politics or war. In his early youth he seemed destined to continue the later traditions of his family—those of an unaspiring temper or a careless indolence, which had allowed the consulship to become extinct in the annals of the race and had been long content with the minor prize of the praetorship. Even this honour had been beyond the reach of the father of Sulla; the hereditary claim to office had been completely broken, and the family fortune had sunk so low that there seemed little chance of the renewal of this claim. The present bearer of the name, the elder son of the house, had lived in hired rooms, and such slender means as he could command seemed to be employed in gratifying a passion for the stage.[1143] Yet this taste was but one expression of a genuine thirst for culture;[1144] and, whatever the opinion of men might be, this youth whose most strenuous endeavours were strangely mingled with a careless geniality and an appetite that never dulled for the pleasures of the senses and the flesh, had a wonderful faculty for winning the love of women. His father had made a second marriage with a lady of considerable means; and the affection of the step-mother, who seems to have been herself childless, was soon centred on her husband’s elder son.[1145] At her death he was found to be her heir, and the fortune thus acquired was added to or increased by another that had also come by way of legacy from a woman. This benefactress was Nicopolis, a woman of Greek birth, whose transitory loves, which had Brought her wealth, were closed by a lasting passion for the man to Whom this wealth was given.[1146] The possession of this competence, which might have completed the wreck of the nerveless pleasure-seeker that Sulla seemed to be, proved the true steel of which the man was made. The first steps in his political career gave the immediate lie to any theory of wasted opportunities. He had but exceeded by a year or two the minimum age for office when he was elected to the quaestorship; he was but thirty-one when he was scouring Italy for recruits;[1147] a year later he had entered Marius’s camp near the Muluccha with his host of cavalry. A very brief experience was sufficient to convert the general’s prejudice into the heartiest approval of his new officer. Any spirit of emulation which Sulla possessed was but shown in action and counsel; none could outstrip him in prowess and forethought, yet all that he did seemed to be the easy outcome either of opportunity or of a ready wit which charmed without startling: and he was never heard to breathe a word which reflected on the conduct of the pro-consul or his staff. Over the petty officers and the soldiers he attained the immediate triumph which attends supreme capacity combined with a facile temper and a sense of humour. His old companions of the stage had been perhaps his best instructors in the art of moulding the will of the common man. He had the right address for every one; a grumble was met by a few kind words; a roar of laughter was awakened by a ready jest, and its recipient was the happier for the day. When help was wanted, his resources seemed boundless; yet he never gave as though he expected a return, and the idea of obligation was dismissed with a shrug and a smile.[1148] Sulla was not one of the clumsy intriguers who laboriously lay up a store of favour and are easily detected in the attempt. He was a terrible man because his insight and his charm were a part of his very nature, as were also the dark current of ambition, scarcely acknowledged even by its possessor, and the surging tides of passion, carefully dammed by an exquisitely balanced intellect into a level stream, on which crowds might float and believe themselves to be victims or agents of an overmastering principle, not of a single man’s caprice.

The capacity of every officer in Marius’s army was soon to be put to an effective test; for the coalition of Jugurtha and Bocchus, which the campaign might have been meant to prevent, turned out to be its immediate result. The Moor was still hesitating between peace and war—looking still, it may be, for another bid from the representative of Rome, and waiting for the moment when he might compel the attention of Metellus’s rude successor, who preferred the precautions of war to those of diplomacy—when the Numidian king, in despair at this ruinous passivity and at the loss of the magnificent strategic chance that was being offered by the enemy, approached his father-in-law with the proposal that the cession of one-third of Numidia should be the price of his assistance. The cession was to take effect, either if the Romans were driven out of Africa, or if a settlement was reached with Rome which left the boundaries of Numidia intact.[1149] Bocchus may not have credited the likelihood of the realisation of the first alternative; but combined action might render the second possible, and even if that failed, his chances of a bargain with Rome were not decreased by entering on a policy of hostility which might be closed at the opportune moment. For the time, however, he played vigorously for Jugurtha’s success. His troops of horsemen poured over the border to join the Numidian force, and the combined armies moved rapidly to the east to encompass the columns of Marius, that had just begun their long march to the site which had been chosen for winter quarters.

The object of the Roman general was to keep in touch with the sea for the purpose of facilitating the supply of his army. But we cannot say whether his original choice was a station so distant as the neighbourhood of Cirta,[1150] or whether his movement in this direction, which severed him by some hundreds of miles from the region which he had lately commanded, was a measure forced on him by the danger to which his army was exposed in the distant west from the overwhelming forces of the enemy. He had at any rate covered a great stretch of territory before he actually came into touch with the combined forces of Bocchus and Jugurtha; for the almost continuous fighting that ensued, when once the armies had come into contact, seems all to have been confined to the last few days before Cirta was reached and to a period of time which could have formed but a small fraction of the whole duration of the march. The first attack was planned for the closing hours of the day.[1151] The advent of night would be of advantage to the native force whether they were victorious or defeated. In the first case their knowledge of the ground would enable them to follow up their success, in the second their retreat would be secured. Under all circumstances a struggle in the darkness must increase the difficulties of the Romans. A complete surprise was impossible, for Marius’s scouting was good, and from all directions horsemen dashed up to tell him the enemy was at hand. But the quarter from which such an attack would be aimed could not be determined, and so incredibly rapid were the movements of the Moorish and Gaetulian horse that scarcely had the last messenger ridden up when the Roman column was assailed on every side. The Roman army had no time to form in line, and anything approaching battle array was scorned by the enemy. They charged in separate squadrons, the formation of which seemed to be due to chance as much as to design; this desultory mode of attack enabled them to assail the Roman forces at every point and to prevent any portion of the men from acquiring the stability that might save the helplessness of the others; they harried the legionaries as they shifted their heavy baggage, drew their swords and hurried into line, and the cavalry soldiers as they strove to mount their frightened horses. Horse and foot were inextricably mixed, and no one could tell which was the van and which the rear of the surrounded army. The general fought like a common soldier, but he did not forget the duties of a commander. With his chosen troop of horse he rode up and down the field, detecting the weak points of his own men, the strong points of the enemy, lending a timely succour to the first and throwing his weight against the second.[1152] But it was the experience of the well-trained legionaries that saved the day. Schooled in such surprises, they began to form small solid squares, and against these barriers the impact of the light horsemen beat in vain.[1153] But night was drawing on—the hour which the allied kings had chosen as the crowning moment of their attack—and Marius was as fully conscious as his enemies how helpless the Roman force would be if such a struggle were protracted into the darkness. Fortunately the place of the attack had been badly chosen; the neighbouring ground did not present a wholly level expanse on which cavalry could operate at will. But a short distance from the scene of the fight two neighbouring hills could be seen to rise above the plain; the smaller possessed an abundant spring of water, the larger by its rugged aspect seemed to promise an admirable rampart for defence.[1154] It was impossible to withdraw the whole army to the elevation which contained the welcome stream, for its space did not permit of an encampment; but Marius instructed Sulla to seize it with the cavalry. He then began to draw his scattered infantry together, taking advantage of the disorder in the enemy which the last sturdy stand of the veterans had produced, and when the divisions were at last in touch with one another, he led the whole force at a quick march to the place which he had chosen for its retreat. The kings soon recognised that this retreat was unassailable; their plan of a night attack had failed; but they did not lose the hope that they held the Romans at their mercy. The fight had become a blockade; they would coop the Romans within their narrow limits, or force them to straggle on their way under a renewal of the same merciless assault. To have withstood the legions and occupied their ground, was itself a triumph for Gaetulians and Moors. They spread their long lines round either hill and lighted a great ring of watchfires; but their minds were set on passing the night in a manner conducive neither to sleep nor vigilance. They threw away their victory in a manner common to barbarism, which often lacks neither courage nor skill, but finds its nemesis in an utter lack of self-restraint. From the silent darkness of the ridge above the Romans could see, in the circles of red light thrown by the blazing watch-fires, the forms of their enemies in every attitude of careless and reckless joy; while the delirious howls of triumph which reached their ears, were a source, not of terror, but of hope. In the Roman camp no sound was heard; even the call of the patrol was hushed by the general’s command.[1155] As the night wore on, the silence spread to the Plain below, but here it was the silence of the deep and profound sleep that comes on men wearied by the excesses of the night. Suddenly there was a terrific uproar. Every horn and trumpet in the Roman lines seemed to be alive, every throat to be swelling the clamour with ear-piercing yells. The Moors and Gaetulians, springing from the ground, found the enemy in their very midst. Where the slaughter ended, the pursuit began. No battle in the war had shown a larger amount of slain; for flight, which was the Numidian’s salvation and the mockery of his foe, had been less possible in this conflict than in any which had gone before.

Marius continued his march, but with precautions even greater than those which he had previously observed. He formed his whole army into a “hollow square” [1156]—in fact, a great oblong, arranged equally for defence on front, flanks, and rear, while the baggage occupied the centre. Sulla with the cavalry rode on the extreme right; on the left was Aulus Manlius with the slingers and archers and some cohorts of Ligurians; the front and rear were covered by light infantry selected from the legions under the command of military tribunes. Numidian refugees scoured the country around, their knowledge of the land giving them a peculiar value as a scouting force. The camp was formed with the same scrupulous care; whole cohorts formed from legionaries kept watch against the gates, fortified posts were manned at short distances along the enclosing mound, and squadrons of auxiliary cavalry moved all night before the ramparts. Marius was to be seen at all points and at all hours, a living example of vigilance not of distrust, a master in the art of controlling men, not by terror but by sharing in their toils. Four days had the march progressed and Cirta was reported to be not far distant, when suddenly an ominous but now familiar sight was seen. Scouts were riding in on every hand; all reported an enemy, but none could say with certainty the quarter from which he might appear.[1157] The present disposition of the Roman troops had made the direction of the attack a matter of comparatively little moment, and Marius called a halt without making any change in the order of his march. Soon the enemy came down, and Jugurtha, when he saw the hollow square, knew that his plan had been partly foiled. He had divided his own forces into four divisions; some of these were to engage the Roman van; but some at least might be able to throw themselves at the critical moment on the undefended rear of the Roman column, when its attention was fully engaged by a frontal attack.[1158]

As things were, the Roman army presented no one point that seemed more assailable than another, and Jugurtha determined to engage with the Roman cavalry on the right, probably with the idea that by diverting that portion of the Roman force which was under the circumstances its strongest protecting arm, he might give an opportunity to his ally to lead that attack upon the rear which was to be the crowning movement of the day. His assault, which was directed near to the angle which the right flank made with the van, was anticipated rather than received by Sulla, who rapidly formed his force into two divisions, one for attack, the other for defence. The first he massed in dense squadrons, and at the head of these he charged the Moorish horse; the second stood their ground, covering themselves as best they could from the clouds of missiles that rose from the enemy’s ranks, and slaughtering the daring horsemen that rode too near their lines. For a time it seemed as if the right flank and the van were to bear the brunt of the battle; the king was known to be there in person: and Marius, knowing what Jugurtha’s presence meant, himself hastened to the front.

But suddenly the chief point of the attack was changed. Bocchus had been joined by a force of native infantry, which his son Volux had just brought upon the field. It was a force that had not yet known defeat, for some delay upon the route had prevented it from taking part in the former battle. With this infantry, and probably with a considerable body of Moorish horse,[1159] Bocchus threw himself upon the Roman rear. Neither the general nor his chief officers were present with the division that was thus attacked; Marius and Sulla were both engrossed with the struggle at the other end of the right wing, and Manlius seems still to have kept his position on the left flank; the absence of an inspiring mind amongst the troops assailed, their ignorance of the fate of their distant comrades, moved Jugurtha to lend the weight of his presence and his words to the efforts of his fellow king. With a handful of horsemen he quitted the main force under his command and galloped down the whole length of the right wing, until he wheeled his horse amidst the front ranks of the struggling infantry. He raised a sword streaming with blood and shouted in the Latin tongue that Marius had already fallen by his hand, that the Romans might now give up the struggle. The suggestion conveyed by his words shook the nerves even of those who did not credit the horrifying news,[1160] while the presence of the king, here as everywhere, stirred the Africans to their highest pitch of daring. They pressed the wavering Romans harder than before, the battle at this point had almost become a rout, when suddenly a large body of Roman horse was seen to be bearing down on the right flank of the Moorish infantry. They were led by Sulla, whose vigorous attacks had scattered the enemy on the right wing; he could now employ his cavalry for other purposes, and the Moorish infantry shook beneath the flank attack, Jugurtha refused to see that the tide of victory had turned; with a reckless courage he still strove to weld together the shattered forces of the Moors and to urge them against the Roman lines; his own escape was a miracle; men fell to left and right of him, he was pressed on both sides by the Roman horse; at times he seemed almost alone amidst his foes; yet at the last moment he vanished, and the capture which would have ended the war was still beyond the reach of Roman skill and prowess.[1161] Sulla had saved the day, the advent of Marius was but needed to put the final touches to the victory. He had seen the cavalry on the right scatter beneath the charges of the Roman horse, and almost at the same moment news was brought him that his men were being driven back upon the rear. His succour was scarcely needed, but his presence gave an impulse to pursuit. The sight of the field when that pursuit was at its height, lived ever in the minds of those who shared in its glory and its horror. The sickening spectacle which a hard fought battle yields, was protracted in this instance by the vast vista of the plains. Wherever the eye could reach there were prostrate bodies of men and horses, whose only claim to life was the writhing agony of their wounds; on a stage dyed red with blood and strewn with the furniture of shattered weapons little moving groups could be seen. The figures of these puppets showed all the phases of helpless flight, violent pursuit, and pitiless slaughter.

In spite of the carnage of this battlefield, victory here, as elsewhere throughout the war, meant little more than driving off the foe. We possess but a fragmentary record of this terrible retreat to Cirta, but it is certain that its dangers and losses were by no means exhausted in two pitched battles. A chance notice torn from its context[1162] tells of a third great contest which closed a long period of harassing attacks. Close to the walls of Cirta the Roman army was met by the two kings at the head of sixty thousand horse. The combatants were swathed in a cloud raised by the dust of battle, the Roman soldiers massed in a narrow space were such helpless victims of the missiles of the enemy that the Numidian and Moorish horsemen ceased to single out their targets, and threw their javelins at random into the crowded ranks with the certainty that each would find its mark. For three days was the running fight continued. A charge was impossible against the volleys of the foe, and retreat was cut off by the multitude of light horsemen that hemmed the army in on every side. In the last desperate effort which Marius made to free himself from the meshes of the kings, even the centre of his column shook under the hail of missiles that assailed it, and to the weapons of the enemy were soon added the terrors of blinding heat and intolerable thirst. Suddenly a storm broke over the warring hosts. It cooled the throats of the Romans and refreshed their limbs, while it lessened the power of their foes. The strapless javelins[1163] of the Numidians could not be hurled when wet, for they slipped from the hands of the thrower; their shields of elephants’ hide absorbed water like a sponge and weighed down the arms on which they hung. The Moors and Numidians, seeing that even their means of defence had failed them, took to flight: but only to appear on another day with their army raised to ninety thousand and to repeat the attempt to surround the Roman host. This last effort ended in a signal victory for Marius. The forces of the two kings were not only defeated but almost destroyed.

The events thus recorded can scarcely be regarded as mere variants of the two battles which we have previously described. Vague and rhetorical as is the account which sets them forth, it shows that there were traditions of suffering and loss endured by the army of Marius such as found no parallel in the campaign of his predecessor. Marius had attempted what Metellus had never dared—a campaign in the far west of Numidia. Its results were fruitless successes of the paladin type followed by a burdensome and disastrous retreat. The west was lost, the east was threatened, yet the lesson was not without its fruit. The general when he reached the walls of Cirta had lost something of his hardy faith in the use of blood and iron; he was more ready to appeal to the motives which make for peace, to pretend a trust he did not feel, to make promises which might induce the fluid treachery of Bocchus to harden into a definite act of treason to his brother king, above all, to lean on some other man who could play the delicate game of diplomatic fence with a cunning which his own straightforward methods could not attain. Everything depended on the attitude of the King of Mauretania; and here again the campaign had not been without some healthful consequences. If the Romans had gained no material advantage, Bocchus had suffered some very material losses. His forces had been cut up, the stigma of failure attached (perhaps for the first time) to their leader, the first contact with the Romans had not been encouraging to his subjects. And the campaign may also have revealed the difficulty, if not the hopelessness, of Jugurtha’s cause. The plan of driving the Romans from Africa could not be perfected even with the combined forces of the two kingdoms at their fullest strength; however much they might harass, they had proved themselves utterly unable to attain such a success as even the most complacent patriotism could name a victory; while the sturdiness of the resistance of Rome seemed to banish the hypothesis that Jugurtha would be included in any terms that might be made. Yet the campaign had left Bocchus in an excellent position for negotiation. He had shown that Mauretania was a great make-weight in the scale against Rome; he had advertised his power as an enemy, his value as an ally; now was the time to see whether the power and the value, so long ignored, would be appreciated by Rome.

But five days are said to have elapsed since the last great conflict with the Moors when envoys from Bocchus waited on Marius in his winter quarters at Cirta.[1164] The request which they brought was that “two of the Roman general’s most trusty friends should wait on the king, who desired to speak with them on a matter of interest to himself and the Roman people”.[1165] Marius forthwith singled out Sulla and Manlius, who followed the envoys to the place of meeting that had been arranged. On the way it was agreed by the representatives of Rome that they should not wait for the king to open the discussion. Hitherto every proposal had come from Bocchus; he had been played with, but never given a straightforward answer, still less a sign of real encouragement. Yet no good could be gained by expecting the king to assume a grovelling attitude, by forcing him to begin proposals for peace with a confession of his own humiliation. It would be far wiser if the commissioners opened with a few spontaneous remarks which might restore rest and dignity to the royal mind. Manlius the elder readily yielded the place of first speaker to the more facile Sulla. If the words which history has attributed to the quaestor[1166] were really used by him, they are a record of one of those rare instances in which a diplomatist is able to tell the naked truth. Sulla began by dwelling on the joy which he and his friends derived from the change in Bocchus’s mind—from the heaven-sent inspiration which had taught the king that peace was preferable to war. He then dwelt on the fact, which he might have adduced the whole of his country’s history to prove, that Rome had been ever keener in the search for friends than subjects, that the Republic had ever deemed voluntary allegiance safer than that compelled by force. He showed that Roman friendship might be a boon, not a burden, to Bocchus; the distance of his kingdom from the capital would obviate a conflict of interests, but no distance was too great to be traversed by the gratitude of Rome. Bocchus had already seen what Rome could do in war; all that he needed to learn was the still greater lesson that her generosity was as unconquerable as her arms. Sulla’s words were a genuine statement of the whole theory of the Protectorate, as it was held and even acted on at this period of history. As a proof of the ruinous lengths to which Roman generosity might proceed, he could have pointed to the Numidian war now in the sixth year of its disastrous course. The darker side of the Protectorate—the rapacity of the individual adventurer—was no creation of the government, and needed not to be reproduced on the canvas of the bright picture which he drew. The hopes held out to Bocchus were genuine enough; the burden of his alliance was but slight, its security immense.

The king seemed impressed by the gracious overtures of the commissioners. His answer was not only friendly, but apologetic.[1167] He urged that he had not taken up arms in any spirit of hostility to Rome, but simply for the purpose of defending his own frontiers. He claimed that the territory near the Muluccha, which had been harried by Marius, did not belong to Jugurtha at all. He had expelled the Numidian king from this region and it was his by the right of war. He appealed finally to the fact of his own former embassy to Rome: he had made a genuine effort to secure her friendship, but this had been repulsed.[1168] He was, however, willing to forget the past; and, if Marius permitted, he would like to send a fresh embassy to the senate. This last request was provisionally granted by the commissioners; Bocchus, in making it, showed a wise and, in consideration of some of the events of this very war, a natural sense of the insecurity of the promises made by Roman commanders, at the same time as he exhibited a justifiable faith in a word once given by the great organ of the Republic. Yet, when the commissioners had taken their departure, his old hesitancy seemed to revive. He consented at least to listen to those of his advisers who still urged the claims of Jugurtha.[1169] They had raised their voices again, either at the time when the Roman commissioners were waiting on Bocchus, or immediately after their departure; for Jugurtha had no sooner learnt of his father-in-law’s renewed negotiations with Rome than he had used every means (amongst others, we are told, that of costly gifts) to induce his Mauretanian supporters to advocate his cause.

A further stage in the negotiations was reached before the winter season was over, although it is probable that, at the time when this next step was taken by the Mauretanian king, the new year had been passed and the advent of spring was not far off. Marius, who was not fettered in his operations by respect for the traditional seasons which were deemed suitable to a campaign, had started with some flying columns of infantry and a portion of the cavalry to some desert spot, with a view to besiege a fortress still held by Jugurtha, and garrisoned by all the deserters from the Roman army who were now in the king’s service. Sulla had been left with the usual title of pro-praetor to represent his absent commander. To the headquarters of the winter camp[1170] Bocchus now sent five of his closest friends, men chosen for their approved loyalty and ability.[1171] His last access of hesitancy, if it were more than a semblance, had certainly been shortlived, and the envoys were given full powers to arrange the terms of peace. They had set out with all speed to reach the Roman winter camp, but their journey had been long and painful. They had been seized and plundered on the route by Gaetulian brigands, and now appeared panic-stricken and in miserable plight before the representative of Rome. Stripped of their credentials and the symbols of their high office, they expected to be treated as vagrant impostors from a hostile state; Sulla received them with the lavish dignity that might be the due of princes. The simple nomads felt the charm and the surprise of this first glimpse of the public manners of Rome. Was it possible that these kindly and courteous men were the spoilers of the world? The rumour must be the false invention of the enemies of the bounteous Republic. The untrained mind rapidly argues from the part to the whole, and Sulla’s tact had done a great service to his country. He had also established a claim on the Mauretanian king,[1172] and this personal tie was not to be without its consequences.

The envoys revealed to the quaestor the instructions of their master, and asked his help and advice in the mission that lay before them. They dwelt with pardonable pride on the wealth, the magnificence, and the honour of their king, and dilated on every point in which the alliance with such a potentate was likely to serve the cause of Rome.[1173] Sulla promised them the plenitude of his help; he instructed them in the mode in which they should address Marius, in which they should approach the senate, and continued to be their host for forty days, until his commander was ready to listen to their proposals and forward them on their way. When Marius returned to Cirta after the successful completion of his brief campaign, and heard of the arrival of the envoys, he asked Sulla to bring them[1174] to his quarters, and made preparations for assembling as formal a council as the resources of the province permitted. A praetor happened to be within its limits and several men of senatorial rank. All these sat to listen to the proposals made by Bocchus. The verdict of the council was in favour of the genuineness of the king’s appeal, and the proconsul granted the envoys permission to make their way to Rome. They asked an armistice for their king[1175] until the mission should be completed. Loud and angry voices were heard in protest—the voices of the narrow and suspicious men who are haunted by the fixed conviction that a request for a cessation of hostilities is always a treacherous attempt at renewed preparations for war. But Sulla and the majority of the board supported the request of the envoys, and the wiser counsel at length prevailed. The embassy now divided; two of its members returned to their king, while three were escorted to Rome by Cnaeus Octavius Ruso, a quaestor who had brought the last instalment of pay for the army and was ready for his return homewards. The language of the envoys before the Roman senate assumed the apologetic tone which had been suggested by Sulla. Their king, they said, had erred; Jugurtha had been the cause of this error. Their master asked that Rome should admit him to treaty relations with herself, that she should call him her friend. It is not impossible that these negotiations had a secret history; that Bocchus was told of some very material reward that he might expect, if Jugurtha were surrendered. But the assumption is not necessary. The magic of the name of Rome had fired the imagination of the African king at the commencement of the struggle; now that his fears were quieted, the end, in whatever form it was attained, may have seemed supremely desirable in itself. His envoys had been schooled by Sulla to expect much more than was promised and to read the senate’s words aright. Certainly, if a prize had been offered for Bocchus’s fidelity, the offer was carefully concealed. The official form in which the government accepted the petitioner’s request, granted a free pardon and expressed a cold probation. “The senate and Roman people (so ran the resolution) are used to be mindful of good service and of wrongs. Since Bocchus is penitent for the past, they excuse his fault. He will be granted a treaty and the name of friend, when he has proved that he deserves the grant.” [1176]

When Bocchus received this answer, he despatched a letter to Marius asking that Sulla should be sent to advise with him on the matters that touched the common interests of himself and Rome.[1177] It was tolerably clear what the subject of interest was. If it could be made “common,” the end of the war had been reached. Sulla was despatched, and the final triumph, if attained, would be that of the diplomatist, not of the soldier. The quaestor was accompanied by an escort of cavalry, slingers, and archers, and a cohort of Italians bearing the weapons of a skirmishing force; for the adventures of Bocchus’s envoys had shown the insecurity of the route. On the fifth day of the march, a large body of horse was seen approaching from a distance—a force that looked larger and more threatening than it afterwards proved to be; for it rode in open order, and the wild evolutions of the horsemen seemed to be the preliminary to an attack. Sulla’s escort sprang to their arms; but the returning scouts soon removed all sense of fear. The approaching band of cavalry proved to be but a thousand strong and their leader to be Volux the son of Bocchus. The prince saluted Sulla and told him that he had been sent to meet and escort him to the presence of the king. For two days the combined forces advanced together, and there were no adventures by the road; but on the evening of the second day, when their resting place had been already chosen, the Moorish prince came hastily to Sulla with a look of perplexity on his face. He said that his scouts had just informed him that Jugurtha was close at hand, he entreated Sulla to join him in flight from the camp while it was yet night.[1178] The request was met by an indignant refusal; Sulla pointed to his men, whose lives might be sacrificed by the disgraceful disappearance of their leader. But, when Volux shifted his ground and merely insisted on the utility of a march by night from the dangerous neighbourhood, the quaestor yielded assent. He ordered that the soldiers should take their evening meal, and that a large number of fires should be lit which were to be left burning in the deserted camp. At the first watch the Moors and Romans stole silently from the lines. The dawn found them jaded, heavy with sleep, and longing for rest. Sulla was supervising the measurement of a camp, when some Moorish horsemen galloped up with the news that Jugurtha was but two miles in advance of their position. It was clear that the anxious Numidian was watching their every movement; the question to be answered was “Was Prince Volux in the plot?” The facts seemed dark enough to justify any suspicion. The nerves of the Romans had been shaken by the unknown danger which had forced them to leave their camp, by the night of sleepless watchfulness which had followed its abandonment. A panic was the inevitable result, and panic leads to fury. Voices were raised that the Moorish traitor should be slain, and that, if the fruit of his treason was reaped, he at least should not be allowed to see it. Sulla himself was weighed down with the same suspicion that animated his men, but he would not allow them to lay violent hands on the Moor.[1179] He encouraged them as best he might, then he turned with a passionate protest on his dubious companion. He called the protecting god of his own race, the guardian of its international honour, Jupiter Maximus, to witness the crime and perfidy of Bocchus, and he ordered Volux to leave his camp. The unhappy prince was probably in a state of genuine terror of Jugurtha, of complete uncertainty as to the intentions of that jealous kinsman and ally. Even had Volux known that his father Bocchus wished to play a double game, to balance the helplessness of Sulla against that of Jugurtha, to hold two valuable hostages in his hands at once, how could he be certain that Jugurtha would be content to play the part of a mere pawn in the king’s game, to be dependent for his safety on the passing whim of a man whom he distrusted? Jugurtha might have everything to gain by massacring the Romans and seizing Sulla. The act would compromise Bocchus hopelessly in the eyes of the Roman government. There was hardly a man that would not believe in his treason, and from that time forth Bocchus would have no choice but to be the firm ally of Numidia against the vengeance of Rome. Yet, if Volux acted or spoke as though he believed in the possibility of this issue, he might seem to be incriminating his father and himself, he might seem to deserve the stern rebuke of Sulla and the order of expulsion from the Roman camp. His fears must therefore be concealed and he must profess a confidence which he did not feel. With tears which may have expressed a genuine emotion, he entreated Sulla not to harbour the unworthy suspicion. There had been no preconcerted treachery; the danger was at the most the product of the cunning of Jugurtha, who had discovered their route. Volux implied that the object of the Numidian’s movement was to compromise the Moorish government in the eyes of Sulla; but he stated his emphatic belief that Jugurtha would, or could, do no positive hurt to the Roman envoy or his retinue. He pointed out that the king had no great force at his command, and (what was more important still) that he was now wholly dependent on the favour of his father-in-law. It was incredible, he maintained, that Jugurtha would attempt any overt act of hostility, when the son of Bocchus was present to be a witness to the crime. Their best plan would be to show their indifference to his schemes, to ride in broad daylight through the middle of his camp. If Sulla wished, he would send on the Moorish escort, or leave it where it was and ride with him alone.

It was one of those situations which are the supreme tests of the qualities of a man. Sulla knew that his life depended on the caprice, or the momentary sense of self-interest, of a barbarian who was believed to have shrunk from no crime and on whose head Rome had put a price. Yet he did not hesitate. He passed with Volux through the lines of Jugurtha’s camp, and the desperate Numidian never stirred. What motive held his hand was never known; it may have been that Jugurtha never intended violence; yet the failure of his plan of compromising Bocchus might well have stirred such a ready man to action; it may have been that he still relied on his influence with the Mauretanian king, which was perpetuated by his agents at the court. But some believed that his inaction was due to surprise, and that the transit of Sulla through the hostile camp was one of those actions which are rendered safe by their very boldness.[1180]

In a few days the travellers had reached the spot where Bocchus held his court. The secret advocates of Numidia and Rome were already in possession of the king.[1181] Jugurtha’s representative was Aspar, a Numidian subject who had been sent by his master as soon as the news had been brought of Bocchus’s demand for the presence of Sulla. He had been sent to watch the negotiations and, if possible, to plead his monarch’s cause. The advocate of Rome was Dabar, also a Numidian but of the royal line and therefore hostile to Jugurtha. He was a grandson of Masinissa, but not by legitimate descent, for his father had been born of a concubine of the king.[1182] His great parts had long recommended him to Bocchus, and his known loyalty to Rome made him a useful intermediary with the representative of that power. He was now sent to Sulla with the intimation that Bocchus was ready to meet the wishes of the Roman people; that he asked Sulla himself to choose a day, an hour and a place for a conference; that the understanding, which already existed between them, remained wholly unimpaired. The presence of a representative of Jugurtha at the court should cause no uneasiness. This representative was only tolerated because there was no other means of lulling the suspicion of the Numidian king. We do not know what Sulla made of this presentment of the case; but somewhere in the annals of the time there was to be found an emphatic conviction that Bocchus was still playing a double game, that he was still revolving in his mind the respective merits of a surrender of Jugurtha to the Romans and of Sulla to Jugurtha;[1183] that his fears prompted the first step, his inclinations the second, and that this internal struggle was waged throughout the whole of the tortuous negotiations which ensued.

Sulla, in accepting the promised interview, replied that he did not object to the presence of Jugurtha’s legate at the preliminaries; but that most of what he wished to say was for the king’s ear alone, or at least for those of a very few of his most trusted counsellors. He suggested the reply that he expected from the king, and after a short interval was led into Bocchus’s presence. At this meeting he gave the barest intimation of his mission; he had been sent, he said, by the proconsul[1184] to ask the king whether he intended peace or war. It had been arranged that Bocchus should make no immediate answer to this question, but should reserve his reply for another date. The king now adjourned the audience to the tenth day, intimating that on that day his intention would be decided and his reply prepared. Sulla and Bocchus both retired to their respective camps; but the king was restless, and at a late hour of that very night a message reached Sulla entreating an immediate and secret interview. No one was present but Dabar, the trusty go-between, and interpreters whose secrecy was assured. The narrative of this momentous meeting[1185] is therefore due to Sulla, whose fortunate possession of literary tastes has revealed a bit of secret history to the world. The king began with some complimentary references to his visitor, an acknowledgment of the great debt that he owed him, a hope that his benefactor would never be weary of attempting to exhaust his boundless gratitude. He then passed to the question of his own future relations with Rome. He repeated the assertion, which he had made on the occasion of Sulla’s earlier visit, that he had never made, or even wished for, war with the people of Rome, that he had merely protected his frontiers against armed aggression. But he was willing to waive the point. He would impose no hindrance to the Romans waging war with Jugurtha in any way they pleased. He would not press his claim to the disputed territory east of the Muluccha. He would be content to regard that river, which had been the boundary between his own kingdom and that of Micipsa, as his future frontier. He would not cross it himself nor permit Jugurtha to pass within it. If Sulla had any further request to urge, which could be fairly made by the petitioner and honourably granted by himself, he would not refuse it.

A strict and safe neutrality was the tentacle put out by Bocchus. The only shadow of a positive service by which he proposed to deserve the alliance of Rome, was the abandonment of a highly disputable claim to a part of Jugurtha’s possessions. It was certainly time to bring the monarch to the real point at issue, and Sulla pressed it home. He began by a brief acknowledgment of the complimentary references which the king had made to himself, and then indulged in some plain speaking as to the expectations which the Roman government had formed of their would-be ally.[1186] He pointed out that the offers made by Bocchus were scarcely needed by Rome. A power that possessed her military strength would not be likely to regard them in the light of favours. Something was expected which could be seen to subserve the interests of Rome far more than those of the king himself. The service was patent. He had Jugurtha in his power; if he handed him over to Rome, her debt would certainly be great, and it would be paid. The recognition of friendship, the treaty which he sought, and the portion of Numidia which he claimed—all these would be his for the asking. The king drew back; he urged the sacred bonds of relationship, the scarce less sacred tie of the treaty which bound him to his son-in-law; he emphasised the danger to himself of such a flagrant breach of faith. It might alienate the hearts of his subjects, who loved Jugurtha and hated the name of Rome.[1187] But Sulla continued to press the point; the king’s resistance seemed to give way, and at last he promised to do everything that his persistent visitor demanded. It was agreed, however, between the two conspirators that it was necessary to preserve a semblance of peaceful relations with Jugurtha. A pretence must be made of admitting him to the terms of the convention; this would be a ready bait, for he was thoroughly tired of the war. Sulla agreed to this arrangement as the only means of entrapping his victim; to Bocchus it may have had another significance as well; it still left his hands free.

The next day witnessed the beginning of the machinations that were to end in the sacrifice of a Numidian king or a Roman magistrate. Bocchus summoned Aspar, the agent of Jugurtha, and told him that a communication had been received from Sulla to the effect that terms might be considered for bringing the war to a close; he therefore asked the legate to ascertain the views of his sovereign.[1188] Aspar departed joyfully to the headquarters of Jugurtha, who was now at a considerable distance from the scene of the negotiations. Eight days later he returned with all speed, bearing a message for the ear of Bocchus. Jugurtha, it appeared, was willing to submit to any conditions. But he had little confidence in Marius. It had often happened that terms of peace sanctioned by Roman generals had been declared invalid. But there was a way of obtaining a guarantee. If Bocchus wished to secure their common interests and to enjoy an undisputed peace, he should arrange a meeting of all the principals to the agreement, on the pretext of discussing its terms. At that meeting Sulla should be handed over to Jugurtha. There could be no doubt that the possession of such a hostage would wring the consent of the senate and people to the terms of the treaty; for it was incredible that the Roman government would leave a member of the nobility, who had been captured while performing a public duty, in the power of his foes.

Bocchus after some reflection consented to this course. Then, as later, it was a disputed question whether the king had even at this stage made up his mind as to his final course of action.[1189] When the time and place for the meeting had been arranged, the nature of the treachery was still uncertain. At one moment the king was holding smiling converse with Sulla, at another with the envoy of Jugurtha. Precisely the same promises were made to both; both were satisfied and eager for the appointed day. On the evening before the meeting Bocchus summoned a council of his friends; then the whim took him that they should be dismissed, and he passed some time in silent thought. Before the night was out he had sent for Sulla, and it was the cunning of the Roman that set the final toils for the Numidian. At break of day the news was brought that Jugurtha was at hand. Bocchus, attended by a few friends and the Roman quaestor, advanced as though to do him honour, and halted on some rising ground which put the chief actors in the drama in full view of the men who lay in ambush. Jugurtha proceeded to the same spot amidst a large retinue of his friends; it had been agreed that all the partners to the conference should come unarmed.[1190] A sign was given, and the men of the ambuscade had sprung from every side upon the mound. Jugurtha’s retinue was cut down to a man; the king himself was seized, bound and handed over to Sulla. In a short while he was the prisoner of Marius.

Every one had long known that the war would be closed with the capture of the king. Marius could leave for other fields and dream other dreams of glory. But even the utter collapse of resistance in Numidia did not obviate the necessity for a considerable amount of detailed labour, which absorbed the energy of the commander during the closing months of the year. Even when news had been brought from Rome that a grateful people had raised him to the consulship for the second time, and that a task greater than that of the Numidian war had been entrusted to his hand,[1191] he did not immediately quit the African province, and it is probable that at least the initial steps of the new settlement of Numidia determined by the senate, were taken by him. The settlement was characteristic of the imperialism of the time. The government declined to extend the evils of empire westward and southward, to make of Mauretania another Numidia, and to enter on a course of border warfare with the tribes that fringed the desert. It therefore refused to recognise Numidia as a province. In default of an abler ruler, Gauda was set upon the throne of his ancestors;[1192] he had long had the support of Marius, and seems indeed to have been the only legitimate claimant. But he was not given the whole of the realm which had been swayed by Masinissa and Micipsa. The aspirations of Bocchus for an extension of the limits of Mauretania had to be satisfied, partly because it would have been ungenerous and impolitic to deprive of a reward that had been more than hinted at, a man who had violated his own personal inclinations and the national traditions of the subjects over whom he ruled, for the purpose of performing a signal service to Rome; partly because it would have been dangerous to the future peace of Numidia, and therefore of Rome, to leave the question of Bocchus’s claims to territory east of the Muluccha unsettled, especially with such a ruler as Gauda on the throne. The western part of Numidia was therefore attached to the kingdom of Mauretania; nearly five hundred miles of coast line may have been transferred, and the future boundary between the two dominions may have been the port of Saldae on the west of the Numidian gulf.[1193] The wisdom of this settlement is proved by its success. Until Rome herself becomes a victim to civil strife, and her exiles or conquerors play for the help of her own subjects, Numidia ceases to be a factor in Roman politics. The mischief of interfering in dynastic questions had been made too patent to permit of the rash repetition of the dangerous experiment.

In comparison with the settlement of Numidia, the ultimate fate of its late king was a matter of little concern. But Jugurtha had played too large a part in history to permit either the historian, or the lounger of the streets who jostled his neighbour for the privilege of gazing with hungry eyes at the visage and bearing of the terrible warrior, to be wholly indifferent to his end. The prisoner was foredoomed. Had he not for years been treated as an escaped criminal, not as a hostile king? If one ignored his outrages on his own race, had he not massacred Roman merchants, prompted the treacherous slaughter of a Roman garrison, and devised the murder of a client of the Roman people in the very streets of Rome? In truth, a formidable indictment might be brought against Jugurtha, nor was it the care of any one to discriminate which of the counts referred to acts of war, and which must be classed in the category of merely private crimes. It was sufficient that he was an enemy (which to the Roman mind meant traitor) who had brought death to citizens and humiliation to the State, and it is probable that, had the Numidian been the purest knight whose chivalrous warfare had shaken the power of Rome, he would have taken that last journey to the Capitol. It was the custom of Rome, and any derogation of the iron rule was an act of singular grace. The stupidity of the mob, which is closely akin to its brutality, was utterly unable to distinguish between the differences in conduct which are the result of the varying ethical standards of the races of the world, or even to balance the enormities committed by their own commanders against those which could be fastened on the enemy whom they had seized. And this lack of imagination was reflected in a cultured government, partly because their culture was superficial and they were still the products of the grim old school which had produced their ferocious ancestors, partly for reasons that were purely politic. The light hold which Rome held over her dependants, could only be rendered light by acts of occasional severity; the world must be made to see the consequences of rebellion against a sovereign. But the true justification for Roman rigour was not dependent on such considerations, which are often of a highly disputable kind, nearly so much as on the normal attitude of the Roman mind itself. Cruelty was but an expression of Roman patriotism; with characteristic consistency they applied much the same views to their citizens and their subjects, and their treatment of captured enemies was but one expression of the spirit which found utterance in their own terrible law of treason.

When Marius celebrated his triumph on the 1st of January in the year which followed the close of the Numidian war,[1194] Jugurtha and his two sons walked before his chariot. While the pageant lasted, the king still wore his royal robes in mockery of his former state; when it had reached its bourne on the Capitol, the degradation and the punishment were begun. But it was believed by some that neither could now be felt, and that it was a madman that was pushed down the narrow stair which leads to the rock-hewn dungeon below the hill.[1195] His tunic was stripped from him, the golden rings wrested from his ears, and, as the son of the south[1196] stepped shivering into the well-like cavern, the cry “Oh! what a cold bath!” burst from his lips. Of the stories as to how the end was reached, the more detailed speaks of a protracted agony of six days until the prisoner had starved to death, his weakened mind clinging ever to the hope that his life might yet be spared.[1197]

The minor prize of the Numidian war was a quantity of treasure including more than three thousand pounds’ weight of gold and over five thousand of silver[1198]—which was shown in the triumph of Marius before it was deposited in the treasury. It was indeed the only permanent prize of the war which could be exhibited to the people; if one excepted two triumphs and the recognition of the merit of three officials, there was nothing else to show. It was difficult to justify the war even on defensive grounds, for it would have required a courageous advocate to maintain that the mere recognition of Jugurtha as King of Numidia would have imperilled the Roman possessions in Africa; and, if the struggle had assumed an anti-Roman character, this result had been assisted, if not secured, by the tactics of the opposition which had systematically foiled every attempt at compromise. But a war, which it is difficult to justify and still more difficult to remember with satisfaction, may be the necessary result of a radically unsound system of administration: and the disasters which it entails may be equally the consequence of a military system, excellent in itself but ill-adapted to the circumstances of the country in which the struggle is waged. These are the only two points of view from which the Numidian war is remarkable on strategic or administrative grounds. The strategic difficulties of the task do nothing more than exhibit the wisdom of the majority of the senate, and of the earlier generals engaged in the campaign, in seeking to avoid a struggle at almost any cost. A military system is conditioned by the necessities of its growth; even that of an empire is seldom sufficiently elastic to be equally adapted to every country and equally capable of beating down every form of armed resistance. The Roman system had been evolved for the type of warfare which was common to the civilised nations around the Mediterranean basin—nations which employed heavily armed and fully equipped soldiers as the main source of their fighting strength, and which were forced to operate within a narrow area, on account of the possession of great centres of civilisation which it was imperative to defend. Its mobility was simply the mobility of a heavy force of infantry with a circumscribed range of action; in the days of its highest development it was still strikingly weak in cavalry. It had already shown itself an imperfect instrument for putting down the guerilla warfare of Spain; it had never been intended for the purposes of desert warfare, or to effect the pacification of nomad tribes extending over a vast and desolate territory. Even as the Parthian war of Trajan required the formation of what was practically a new army developed on unfamiliar lines, so the complete reorganisation of the Republican system would have been essential to the effective conquest of Numidia. The slight successes of this war, such as the taking of Thala and of Capsa and the victories near Cirta, were attained by judicious adaptations to the new conditions, by the employment of light infantry and the increased use of cavalry; but even these improvements were of little avail, for effective pursuit was still impossible, and without pursuit the conflict could not be brought to a close. The unkindness of the conditions almost exonerates the generals who blundered during the struggle, and to an unprejudiced observer the record of incompetence is slight. The fact that the inconclusive proceedings of Metellus and Marius were deemed successes, almost justifies the exploits of a Bestia, and even the crowning disaster of the war—the surprise of the army of Aulus Albinus—might have been the lot of a better commander opposed to an enemy so far superior in mobility and knowledge of the land. Most wars of this type are destructive of military reputations; the general is fortunate who can emerge as the least incapable of the host of blunderers. If we adopt this relative standard, one fortunate issue of the campaign may be held to be the discovery that Marius was not unworthy of his military reputation. The verdict, it is true, was not justified by positive results; but it was the verdict of the army that he led and as incapable of being ignored as all such judgments are. His leadership had been characterised at least by efficiency in detail, and this efficiency had been secured by gentle measures, by unceasing vigilance, by the cultivation of a true soldierly spirit, and by the untiring example of the commander. The courage of the innovator—a courage at once political and military—had also given Rome, in the mass of the unpropertied classes, a fathomless source from which she could draw an army of professional soldiers, if she possessed the capacity to use her opportunities.

The political issues of the war were bound up with those which were strategic, both in so far as the hesitancy of the senate to enter on hostilities was based on a just estimate of the difficulties of the campaign, and in so far as the policy of smoothing over difficulties in a client state by diplomatic means, in preference to stirring up a hornet’s nest by the thrust of the sword, was one of the traditional maxims of the Roman protectorate. But this second issue raised the whole of the great administrative question of the limits of the duties which Rome owed to her client kings. Such a question not infrequently suggests a conflict of duty with interest. The claims of Adherbal for protection against his aggressive cousin might be just, but even to many moderate men, not wholly vitiated by the maxims of a Machiavellian policy, they may have appeared intolerable. Was Rome to waste her own strength and stake the peace of the empire on a mere question of dynastic succession? Might it not be better to allow the rivals to fight out the question amongst themselves, and then to see whether the man who emerged victorious from the contest was likely to prove a client acceptable and obedient to Rome? There was danger in the course, no doubt: the danger inherent in a vicious example which might spread to other protected states; but might it not be a slighter peril than that involved in dethroning a ruler, who had proved his energy and ability, his familiarity with Roman ways, and his knowledge of Roman methods, above all, his possession of the confidence of the great mass of the Numidian people? Nay, it might be argued that Adherbal had by his weakness proved his unfitness to be an efficient agent of Rome. It might be asked whether such a man was likely to be an adequate representative of Roman interests in Africa, an adequate protector of the frontiers of the province. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the advocates of interference had something more than the claim of justice and the claim of prestige on their side. It was an undisputed fact that the division of power in Numidia, at the time when the question was presented to Rome, showed that Adherbal stood for civilisation and Jugurtha for barbarism. This was an issue that might not have been manifest at first, although any one who knew Numidia must have been aware that the military spirit of the country which was embodied in Jugurtha, was not represented in the coast cities with their trading populations drawn from many towns, but in the remote agricultural districts and the deserts of the west and south; but it was an issue recognised by the commissioners when they assigned the more civilised portion of the kingdom to Adherbal, and the territories, whose strength was the natural wealth and the manhood which they yielded, to his energetic rival; and it was one that became painfully apparent when Jugurtha led his barbarous hordes against Cirta, and when these hordes in the hour of victory slew every merchant and money-lender whom they could find in the town. It was this aspect of the question that ultimately proved the decisive factor in bringing on the war; for the claims of justice could now be reinforced by those of interest, and the interest which was at stake was that of the powerful moneyed class at Rome. It was this class that not only forced the government to war, but insisted on seeing the war through to its bitter end. It was this class that systematically hindered all attempts at compromise, that brandished its control of the courts in the face of every one who strove to temper war with hopes of peace, that tolerated Metellus until he proved too dilatory, and sent out Marius in the vain hope that he might show greater expedition. The close of the war was a singular satire on their policy, a remarkable proof of the justice of the official view. The end came through diplomacy, not through battle, through an unknown quaestor who belonged to the old nobility and possessed its best gifts of facile speech and suppleness in intrigue, not through the great “new man” who was to be a living example of what might be done, if the middle class had the making of the ministers of the State.

But the moneyed class could hardly have developed the power to force the hand of the council of state, had it not been in union with the third great factor in the commonwealth, that disorganised mass of fluctuating opinion and dissipated voting power which was known as “the people.” How came the Populus Romanus to be stirred to action in this cause, with the result that the balance of power projected by Caius Gracchus was again restored? Much of their excitement may have been the result of misrepresentation, of the persistent efforts made by the opposition to prove that all parleying with the enemy was tantamount to treason; more must have been due to the dishonouring news of positive disaster which marked a later stage of the war; but the mingled attitude of resentment and suspicion with which the people was taught to regard its council and its ministers, seems to have been due to the genuine belief that many of the former and nearly all of the latter were hopelessly corrupt. This darkest aspect of the Numidian war is none the less a reality if we believe that the individual charges of corruption were not well founded, and that they were mere party devices meant to mask a policy which would have been impossible without them. The proceedings of the Mamilian commission certainly commanded little respect even from the democrat of a later day; but it is with the suspicion of corruption, rather than with the justice of that suspicion in individual cases, that we are most intimately concerned. A political society must be tainted to the core, if bribery can be given and accepted as a serious and adequate explanation of the proceedings of its leading members. The suspicion was a condemnation of the State rather than of a class. It might be tempting to suppose that the disease was confined to a narrow circle (by a curious accident to the circle actually in power); but of what proof did such a supposition admit? The leaders of the people were themselves members of the senatorial order and scions of the nobility of office. Marius the “new man” might thunder his appeal for a purer atmosphere and a wider field; but it would be long, if ever, before the councils of the State would be administered by men who might be deemed virtuous because their ancestors were unknown.

But for a time the view prevailed that the interests of the State could best be served by a combination of powerful directors of financial corporations with patriotic reformers, invested with the tribunate, struggling for higher office, and expressing their views of statecraft chiefly in the form of denunciations of the government. Such a coalition might form a powerful and healthy organ of criticism; but it could only become more by serving as a mere basis for a new executive power. As regards the nature of this power and even the necessity for its existence, the views of the discontented elements of the time were probably as indefinite as those of the adherents of Caius Gracchus. The Republican constitution was an accepted fact, and the senate must at least be tolerated as a necessary element in that constitution; for no one could dream of finding a coherent administration either in the Comitia or in the aggregate of the magistrates of the people. Now, as at all times since the Roman constitution had attained its full development, the only mode of breaking with tradition in order to secure a given end which the senate was supposed to have neglected, was to employ the services of an individual. There was no danger in this employment if the individual could be overthrown when his work had been completed, or when the senate had regained its old prestige. The leader elevated to a purely civil magistracy by the suffrages of the people was ever subject to this risk; if his personal influence outgrew the necessities of his task, if he ceased to be an agent and threatened to be a master, the mere suspicion of an aspiration after monarchy would send a shudder of reaction through the mass of men which had given him his greatness. As long as the cry for reform was based on the existence of purely internal evils, which the temporary power of a domestic magistracy such as the tribunate might heal, the breast even of the most timid constitutionalist did not deserve to be agitated by alarm for the security of the Republican government. But what if external dangers called for settlement, if the eyes of the mercantile classes and the proletariate were turned on the spectacle of a foreign commerce in decay and an empire in disorder, if the grand justification for the senate’s authority—its government of the foreign dependencies of Rome—were first questioned, then tossed aside? Would not the Individual makeshift have in such a case as this to be invested with military authority? Might not his power be defended and perpetuated by a weapon mightier than the voting tablet? Might not his supporters be a class of men, to whom the charms of civil life are few, whose habits have trained them to look for inspiration to an individual, not to a corporation, still less to that abstraction called a constitution—of men not subjected to the dividing influences, or swayed by the momentary passions, of their fellows of the streets? In such a case might not the power of the individual be made secure, and what was this but monarchy?

Such were the reflections suggested to posterity by the power which popularly-elected generals began to hold from the time of the Numidian war. But such were not the reflections of Marius and his contemporaries. There was no precedent and no contemporary circumstance which could suggest a belief in any danger arising from the military power. The experiment of bearding the senate by entrusting the conduct of a campaign to a popular favourite had been tried before, and, whether its immediate results were beneficial or the reverse, it had produced no ulterior effects. Whether the people had pinned its faith on men of the nobility such as the two Scipios, or on a man of the people like Varro, such agents had either retired from public life, confessed their incapacity, or returned to serve the State. The armies which such generals had led were composed of well-to-do men who, apart from the annoyance of the levy, had no ground of complaint against the commonwealth: and the change in the recruiting system which had been introduced by Marius, was much too novel and too partial for its consequences to be forecast. Nor could any one be expected to see the fundamental difference between the Rome of but two generations past and the Rome of the day—the difference which sprang from the increasing divergence of the interests of classes, and the consequent weakening of confidence in the one class which had “weathered the storm and been wrecked in a calm”. Aristocracy is the true leveller of merit, but, if it lose that magic power by ceasing to be an aristocracy, then the turn of the individual has come.

The fact that it was already coming may justify us in descending from the general to the particular and remarking that the question “Who deserved the credit of bringing the war with Jugurtha to an end?” soon excited an interest which appealed equally to the two parties in the State and the two personalities whom the close of the episode had revealed. It was natural that the success of Sulla should be exploited by resentful members of the nobility as the triumph of the aristocrat over the parvenu, of the old diplomacy and the old bureaucracy over the coarse and childish methods of the opposition; it was tempting to circulate the view that the humiliation of Metellus had been avenged, that the man who had slandered and superseded him had found an immediate nemesis in a youthful member of the aristocracy.[1199] Such a version, if it ever reached the ears of the masses, was heard only to be rejected; the man who had brought Jugurtha in chains to Rome must be his conqueror, and, even had this evidence been lacking, they did not intend to surrender the glory which was reflected from the champion whom they had created. Nor even in the circles of the governing class could this controversy be for the moment more than a matter for idle or malicious speculation. Hard fighting had to be done against the barbarians of the north, a reorganisation of the army was essential, and for both these purposes even they admitted that Marius was the necessary man. Even the two men who were most interested in the verdict were content to stifle for the time, the one the ambitious claim which was strengthened by a belief in its justice, the other the resentful repudiation, which would have been rendered all the more emphatic from the galling sense that it could not be absolute. In the coming campaigns against the Germans Sulla served first as legate and afterwards as military tribune in the army of his old commander.[1200] But his own conviction of the part which he had played in the Numidian war was expressed in a manner not the less irritating because it gave no reasonable ground for offence. He began wearing a signet ring, the seal of which showed Bocchus delivering Jugurtha into his hand.[1201] This emblem was destined to grate on the nerves of Marius in a still more offensive form, for thirteen years later, when his work had been done and his glory had begun to wane, Rome was given an unexpected confirmation of the truthfulness of the scene which it depicted. The King of Mauretania, eager to conciliate the people of Rome while he showed his gratitude to Sulla, sent as a dedicatory offering to the Capitol a group of trophy-bearing Victories who guarded a device wrought in gold, which showed Bocchus surrendering to Sulla the person of the Numidian king. Marius would have had it removed, but Sulla’s supporters could now loudly assert the claim, which had been only whispered when the dark cloud of barbaric invasion hung over the State and the loyal belief of the people in Marius was quickened by their fears.[1202]

Yet, although at the close of the Numidian war an appalling danger to the empire tended to perpetuate the coalition that had been formed between the mercantile classes and the proletariate, and to wring from the senate an acceptance of the new military genius with his plans for reform, there are clear indications which prove that an ebb of political feeling had been witnessed, even during the last three years—a turn of the tide which shows how utterly unstable the coalition against the senate would have been, had it not been reinforced by the continuance of disasters abroad. The first sign of the reaction was the flattering reception and the triumph of Metellus; and it may have been this current of feeling which decided the consular elections for the following year. The successful candidates were Caius Atilius Serranus and Quintus Servilius Caepio. Of these Serranus could trace his name back to the great Reguli of Carthaginian fame;[1203] the family to which he belonged, although plebeian, had figured amongst the ranks of the official nobility since the close of the fourth century, although it is known to have furnished the State with but five consuls since the time of Caius Regulus. The merit which Serranus possessed in the eyes of the voters who elevated him to his high office, was a puzzle to posterity; for such nobility as he could boast seemed the only compensation for the lack of intelligence which was supposed to characterise his utterances and his conduct.[1204] But, if we may judge from the resolution which he subsequently displayed in combating revolution at Rome,[1205] he was known to be a supporter of the authority of the senate, and his aristocratic proclivities may have led to his association with his more distinguished colleague Caepio. The latter belonged to a patrician clan, and to a branch of that clan which had lately clung to the highest political prizes with a tenacity second only to that of the Metelli. Caepio’s great-grandfather, his grandfather, his father and his two uncles had all filled the consulship; and his own hereditary claim to that office had been rendered more secure by some good service in Lusitania, which had secured him a military reputation and the triumph which he enjoyed in the very year that preceded his candidature.[1206] His political sentiments may have been known before his election; but the very fact of his elevation to the consulship, and his appreciation of the direction in which the tide of public feeling seemed to be running, gave a definiteness to his views and a courage to his reforming conservatism, which must have surprised his supporters as well as his opponents, and may not have been altogether pleasing to the extreme members of the former party. It must have been believed that a rift was opening between the moneyed classes and the people, and that the latter, satisfied with their recent political triumph and reconciled by the honest passivity of the senate, were content to resume their old allegiance to the governing class. It must even have been held that a spirit of repentance and indignation could be awakened at the reckless and selfish use which the knights had made of the judicial power entrusted to their keeping, that the Mamilian commission could be represented as an outrage on the public conscience, and the ordinary cognisance of public crimes as a reign of terror intended merely to ensure the security of investments.[1207] The knights were to be attacked in their stronghold, and Caepio came forward with a new judiciary law. Two accounts of the scope of this measure have come down to us. According to the one, the bill proposed that jurisdiction in the standing criminal courts should be shared between the senators and the equites;[1208] according to the other, this jurisdiction was to be given to the senate.[1209] That the latter result was meant to be attained in some way by the law, is perhaps shown by the intense dislike which the equestrian order entertained in later times to any laudatory reference to the hated Servilian proposal:[1210] and, although a class which has possessed and perhaps abused a monopoly of jurisdiction, may object to seeing even a share of it given to their enemies and their victims, yet this resentment would be still more natural if the threatened transference of jurisdiction from their order was to be complete. But, in any case, we cannot afford to neglect the express testimony to the fact that the senate was to have possession of the courts; and the only method of reconciling this view with the other tradition of a partition of jurisdiction between the orders, is to suppose that Caepio attempted the effort suggested by Tiberius Gracchus, once advocated by his brother Caius,[1211] and subsequently taken up by the younger Livius Drusus, of increasing the senate by admitting a certain number of knights into that body, and giving the control of the courts to the members of this enlarged council. It may seem a strange and revolutionary step to attempt such a reform of the governing body of the State, whose membership and whose privileges were so jealously guarded, for the purpose of securing a single political end; it may seem at first sight as though the admission of a considerable number of the upper middle class to the power and prizes possessed by the privileged few, would be a shock even to a mildly conservative mind that had fed upon the traditions of the past. Yet a closer examination will reveal the truth that such a change would have meant a very slight modification in the temper and tendencies of the senate, and would have insured a very great increase in its security, whether it meant to govern well or ill, to secure its own advantages or those of its suffering subjects. In reality a very thin line parted the interests of the senators from those of the more distinguished members of the equestrian order. It was only when official probity or official selfishness came into conflict with capitalistic greed, that recrimination was aroused between the two heads of the body politic. But what if official power, under either of its aspects, could make a compromise with greed? The rough features of both might be softened; but, at the worst, a stronger, more permanent and, in the long run, more profitable monopoly of the good things of the empire would be the result of the union. The admission of wealthy capitalists could not be considered a very marked social detraction to the dignity of the order. The question of pedigree might be sunk in an amiable community of taste. In point of lavish expenditure and exotic refinement, in the taste that displayed itself in the patronage of literature, the collection of objects of art, the adornment of country villas, there was little to choose between the capitalist and the noble. And community of taste is an easy passage to community of political sentiment. Any one acquainted with the history of the past must have known that all efforts to temper the exclusiveness of the senatorial order had but resulted in an increase of the spirit of exclusiveness. The patrician council had in old days been stormed by a horde of plebeian chiefs; but these chiefs, when they had once stepped within the magic circle, had shown not the least inclination to permit their poorer followers to do the same. The successful Roman, practical, grasping, commercial and magnificently beneficent, ranking the glory of patronage as second only in point of worth to the possession and selfish use of power, scarcely attached a value even to the highest birth when deprived of its brilliant accessories, and had always found his bond of fellowship in a close community of interest with others, who helped him to hold a position which he might keep against the world. How much more secure would this position be, if the front rank of the assailants were enticed within the fortress and given strong positions upon the walls! They would soon drink into their lungs the strong air of possession, they would soon be stiffened by that electric rigidity which falls on a man when he becomes possessed of a vested interest. There was little probability that the knights admitted to the senate would continue to be in any real sense members of the equestrian order.

But even to a senator who reckoned the increase of profit-sharers, whatever their present or future sentiments might be, as a loss to himself, the sacrifice involved in the proposed increase of the members of his order may have seemed well worthy of the cost. For how could power be exercised or enjoyed in the face of a hostile judicature? The knights had recently made foreign administration on the accepted lines not only impossible in itself, but positively dangerous to the administrator, and in all the details of provincial policy they could, if they chose, enforce their views by means of the terrible instrument which Caius Gracchus had committed to their hands. Even if the business men, shorn of their most distinguished members, might still have the power to offer transitory opposition to the senate by coalition with the mob, the more dangerous, because more permanent, possibilities of harm which the control of the courts afforded them, would be wholly swept away.

The attraction of Caepio’s proposal to the senatorial mind is, therefore, perfectly intelligible; but it is very probable that there were many members of the nobility who were wholly insensible to this attraction. The men who would descend a few steps in order to secure a profitable concord between the orders, may have been in the majority; but there must have been a considerable number of stiff-backed nobles who, even if they believed that concord could be secured by a measure which gave away privileges and did not conciliate hostility, were exceedingly unwilling to descend at all. Caepio is the first exponent of a fresh phase of the new conservatism which had animated the elder Drusus. That statesman had sought to win the people over to the side of the senate by a series of beneficent laws, which should be as attractive as those of the demagogue and perhaps of more permanent utility than the blessings showered on them by the irresponsible favourite of the moment; but he had done nothing for the mercantile class; and his greater son was left to combine the scheme of conciliation transmitted to him by his father with that enunciated by Caepio.

The moderation and the tactical utility of the new proposal fired the imagination of a man, whose support was of the utmost importance for the success of a measure which was to be submitted to a popular body that was divided in its allegiance, uncertain in its views, and therefore open to conviction by rhetoric if not by argument. It was characteristic of the past career of the young orator Lucius Crassus that he should now have thrown himself wholly on the side of Caepio and the progressive members of the senate.[1212] His past career had committed him to no extremes. He had impeached Carbo, known to have been a radical and believed to be a renegade, and he had championed the policy of provincial colonisation as illustrated by the settlement of Narbo Martius. His action in the former case might have been equally pleasing to either side; his action in the latter might have been construed as the work, less of an advanced liberal, than of an imperialist more enlightened than his peers. He had evidently not compromised his chances of political success; he was still but thirty-four and had just concluded his tenure of the tribunate. In the opposite camp stood Memmius, striving with all his might to keep alive the coalition, which he had done so much to form, between the popular party and the merchant class. The knights mustered readily under his banner, for they had no illusions as to the meaning of the bill; it was impossible to conciliate an order by the bribery of a few hundreds of its members, whose very names were as yet unknown. To keep the people faithful to the coalition was a much more difficult task. It was soon patent to all that the agitators had not been wrong in supposing that a serious cleft had opened between the late allies, and in the war of words with which the Forum was soon filled, Memmius seems to have been no match for his opponent. Crassus surpassed himself, and the keen but humorous invective with which he held Memmius up to the ridicule of his former followers,[1213] was balanced by the grand periods in which he formulated his detailed indictment of the methods pursued by the existing courts of justice, and of the terrible dangers to the public security produced by their methods of administration. He did not merely impugn the verdicts which were the issue of a jury system so degraded as to have become the sport of a political “faction,” but he dwelt on the public danger which sprang from the parasites of the courts, the gloomy brood of public accusers which is hatched by a rotten system, feeds on the impurities of a diseased judicature, and terrifies the commonwealth by the peril that lurks in its poisonous sting. This speech was to be studied by eager students for years to come as a master work in the art of declamatory argument.[1214] But its momentary efficacy seems to have been as great as its permanent value. Caepio’s bill was acclaimed and carried.[1215] Then began the turn of the tide. It is practically certain that the authors of the measure never had the courage, or perhaps the time, to carry a single one of its proposals Into effect. The senate was not enlarged, nor was the right of judicature wrested from the hands of its existing holders.[1216] The bill may have been repealed within a few months of its acceptance by the people. Caepio went to Gaul to stake his military reputation on a conflict with the German hordes; he was to return as the best hated man in Rome, to receive no mercy from an indignant people. There was probably more than one cause for this sudden change in political sentiment. The knights may have been thrown off their guard by the suddenness of Caepio’s attack upon their privileges, and a few months of organisation and canvassing may have been all that they needed to restore the majority required for effacing the blot upon their name. But the chief reason is doubtless to be sought in the external circumstances of the moment, and can only be fully illustrated by the description which we shall soon be giving of the great events that were taking place on the northern frontiers of the empire. It is sufficient for the present to remember that, in the very year in which Caepio’s measure had received the ratification of the people, Caius Popillius Laenas, a legate of one of the consuls of the previous year, had been put on his trial before that very people for making a treaty which was considered still more disgraceful than the defeat which had preceded it.[1217] The Comitia now heard the whole story of the conduct of the Roman arms against the barbarians of the North. The story immediately revived the coalition of the early days of the Numidian war, and there was no longer any hope for the success of even moderate counsels proceeding from the senate. Popillius was a second Aulus Albinus, and a new Marius was required to restore the fortunes of the day. It was, however, certain that the only Marius could not be withdrawn from Africa, and men looked eagerly to see what the consular elections for the next year would produce. We hear of no candidate belonging to the highest ranks of the nobility who was deemed to have been defrauded of his birthright on this occasion; but the disappointment of Quintus Lutatius Catulus was deemed wholly legitimate, when Cnaeus Mallius Maximus defeated him at the poll. Catulus belonged to a plebeian family that had been ennobled by the possession of the consulship at least as early as the First Punic War; but the distinction had not been perpetuated in the later annals of the house, and if Catulus received the support of the official nobility, it was because his tastes and temperament harmonised with theirs, and because it may have seemed impolitic to advance a man of better birth and more pronounced opinions in view of the prevailing temper of the people. Catulus was a man of elegant taste and polished learning, one of the most perfect Hellenists of the day, and distinguished for the grace and purity of the Latin style that was exhibited in his writings and orations.[1218] He was one day to write the history of his own momentous consulship and of the final struggle with the Cimbri, in which he played a not ignoble part. Much of our knowledge of those days is due to his pen, and the modern historian is perhaps likely to congratulate himself on the blindness of the people, which thrice refused Catulus the consulship and reserved him to be an actor and a witness in the crowning victory of the great year of deliverance. He had already been defeated by Serranus; he was now subordinated to the claims of Maximus. But what were those claims? Posterity found it difficult to give an answer,[1219] and the reason for that difficulty was that this second experiment in the virtues of a “new man” was anything but successful. The family to which Maximus belonged seems to have been wholly undistinguished, and he himself is the only member of his clan who is known to have attained the consulship. An explanation of his present prominence could only be gathered from a knowledge of his past career, and of this knowledge we are wholly deprived; but it is manifest that he must have done much, either in the way of positive service to the State in subordinate capacities, or in the way of invective against its late administrators, which caused him to be regarded as a discovery by the leaders of the multitude. The colleague given to Maximus was a man such as the people in the present emergency could not well refuse. Publius Rutilius Rufus was a kind of Cato with a deeper philosophy, a higher culture, and a far less bewildering activity. As a soldier he had been trained by Scipio in Spain, and he possessed a theoretical interest in military matters which issued in practical results of the most important kind.[1220] His tenure of the urban praetorship seems to have been marked by reforms which materially improved the condition of the freedmen in matters of private law, and limited the right of patrons to impose burdensome conditions of personal service as the price of manumission.[1221] It was he too who may have introduced the humane system of granting the possession of a debtor’s goods to a creditor, if that creditor was willing to waive his claim to the debtor’s person.[1222] Rutilius, therefore, may have had strong claims on the gratitude of the lower orders; and his personality was one that could more readily command a grateful respect than a warm affection. He was a learned adherent of the Stoic system, the cold and stern philosophy of which imbued his speeches, already rendered somewhat unattractive by their author’s devotion to the forms of the civil law.[1223] He was much in request as an advocate, his learning commanded deep respect, but he lacked or would not condescend to the charm which would have made him a great personal force with the people at a time when there was a sore need of men who were at the same time great and honest.

By a singular irony of fortune it chanced that the province of Gaul fell to Maximus and not to Rutilius. The strong-headed soldier was left at home to indulge his schemes of army reform while the new man went to his post in the north, to quarrel with the aristocratic Caepio, who was now serving as proconsul in those regions, and to share in the crushing disaster which this dissension drew upon their heads. The search for genius had to be renewed at the close of this melancholy year.[1224] Another “new man” was found in Caius Flavius Fimbria, a product of the forensic activity of the age, a clever lawyer, a bitter and vehement speaker, but with a power that secured his efforts a transitory circulation as types of literary oratory.[1225] He is not known to have shown any previous ability as a soldier, and his election, so far as it was not due to his own unquestioned merit, may have been but a symbol of the continued prevalence of the distrust of the people in aristocratic influence and qualifications. His competitor was Catulus who was for the third time defeated. For the other place in the consulship there could be no competition. The close of the Numidian war had freed the hands of the man who was still believed to be the greatest soldier of the day. There was, it is true, a legal difficulty in the way of the appointment of Marius to the command in the north. Such a command should belong to a consul, but nearly fifty years before this date a law had been passed absolutely prohibiting re-election to the consulship.[1226] Yet the dispensation granted to the younger Africanus could be quoted as a precedent, and indeed the danger that now threatened the very frontiers of Italy was an infinitely better argument for the suspension of the law than the reverses of the Numantine war.[1227] The people were in no mood to listen to legal quibbles. They drove the protestant minority from the assembly, and raised Marius to the position which they deemed necessary for the salvation of the State.[1228] The formal act of dispensation may have been passed by the Comitia either before or after the election, but the senate must have been easily coerced into giving its assent, if its adherence were thought requisite to the validity of the act. The province of Gaul was assigned him as a matter of course,[1229] whether by the senate or the people is a matter of indifference. For the Roman constitution was again throwing off the mask of custom and uncovering the bold lineaments which spoke of the undisputed sovereignty of the people. Certainly, if a sovereign has a right to assert himself, it is one who is in extremis, who stands between death and revolution. Personality had again triumphed in spite of the meshes of Roman law and custom. It remained to be seen whether the net could be woven again with as much cunning as before, or whether the rent made by Marius was greater than that which had been torn by the Gracchi.

Footnotes

[1] The average, or at least the most powerful, type of a race is stamped on its history. It is perhaps needless to say that no generalisations on character apply to all its individual members.

[2] Even the Hellenes of the West are only a partial exception. It is true that their cities clung to the coast; but the vast inland possessions of states like Sybaris are scarcely paralleled elsewhere in the history of Greek colonisation.

[3] The Latin colony of Aquileia was settled in the former year (Liv. xl. 34 Vellei. 1. 15), the Roman colony of Auximum in the latter (Vellei. l.c.).

[4] Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 27. 73 Est operae pretium diligentiam majorum recordari, qui colonias sic idoneis in locis contra suspicionem periculi collocarunt, ut esse non oppida Italiae, sed propugnacula imperii viderentur.

[5] Liv. xxvii. 38; xxxvi. 3; cf. Marquardt Staatsverwaltung 1. p. 51.

[6] The Roman citizen, who entered his name for a Latin colony, suffered the derogation of caput which was known to the later jurists as capitis deminutio minor and expressed the loss of civitas (Gaius i. 161; iii. 56). That a fine was the alternative of enrolment, hence conceived as voluntary, we are told by Cicero (pro Caec. 33. 98 Aut sua voluntate aut legis multa profecti sunt: quam multam si sufferre voluissent, manere in civitate potuissent. Cf. pro Domo 30. 78 Qui cives Romani in colonias Latinas proficiscebantur, fieri non poterant Latini, nisi erant auctores acti nomenque dederant).

[7] Liv. xxxix. 23.

[8] Liv. xxxvii. 4.

[9] Liv. xlii. 32 Multi voluntate nomina dabant, quia locupletes videbant, qui priore Macedonico bello, aut adversus Antiochum in Asia, stipendia fecerant.

[10] For the assignations viritim in the times of the Kings see Varro R.R. i. 10 (Romulus); Cic. de Rep. ii. 14. 26 (Numa); Liv. 1. 46 (Servius Tullius). That the Cassian distribution was to be [Greek: kat andra] is stated by Dionysius (viii. 72, 73). On the whole subject see Mommsen in C.I.L. i. p. 75. He has made out a good case for the land thus assigned being known by the technical name of viritanus ager. See Festus p. 373; Siculus Flaccus p. 154 Lachm. We shall find that this was the form of distribution effected by the Gracchi.

[11] For the settlement in the land of the Volsci see Liv. v. 24; for that made by M. Curius in the Sabine territory, Colum. i. praef. 14; [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 33.

[12] Cato ap. Varr. R.R. i. 2. 7 Ager Gallicus Romanus vocatur, qui viritim cis Ariminum datus est ultra agrum Picentium; cf. Cic. Brut. 14. 57; de Senect. 4. 11; Val. Max. v. 4. 5.

[13] Liv. xlii. 4 (173 B.C.); cf. xli. 16.

[14] The other sources were the portoria and the vicesima libertatis. Even at a period when the revenues from the provinces were infinitely larger than they were at the present time Cicero could write, with reference to Caesar’s proposal for distributing the Campanian land, Portoriis Italiae sublatis, agro Campano divisor, quid vectigal superest domesticum praeter vicensimam? (Cic. ad Att. ii. 16. i).

[15] See the map attempted by Beloch in his work Der Italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie.

[16] Vellei. ii. 7. See ch. iv., where the attitude of the senate towards the proposals for transmarine settlement made by Caius Gracchus is described.

[17] Polyb. xxxii. 11.

[18] Besides the continued war in Spain from 145 to 133 there were troubles in Macedonia (in 142) and in Sicily during this period of comparative peace. Circa 140-135 commences the great slave rising in that island, and in the latter year the long series of campaigns against the free Illyrian and Thracian peoples begins.

[19] The officia of the villicus have become very extensive even in Cato’s time (Cato R.R. 5). Their extent implies the assumption of very prolonged absences on the part of the master.

[20] Lucullus paid 500,200 drachmae for the house at Misenum which had once belonged to Cornelia. She had purchased it for 75,000 (Plut. Mar. 34). Marius had been its intermediate owner. Even during his occupancy it is described as [Greek: polytelaes oikia tryphas echousa kai diaitas thaelyteras hae kat andra polemon tosouton kai strateion autourgon.]

[21] Diod. xxxvii. 3.

[22] Sulla rented one of the lower floors for 3000 sesterces (Plut. Sulla 1).

[23] The coenaculum is mentioned by Livy (xxxix. 14) in connection with the year 186 B.C. It is known both to Ennius (ap. Tertull. adv. Valent. 7) and to Plautus (Amph. iii. 1. 3).

[24] Festus p. 171. The insula resembled a large hotel, with one or more courts, and bounded on all sides by streets. See Smith Dict. of Antiq. (3rd ed.) i. p. 665.

[25] Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 7 Admodum severae notae et illud populi judicium, cum M. Aemilium Porcinam (consul 137 B.C.) a L. Cassio (censor 125 B.C.) accusatum crimine nimis sublime extructae villae in Alsiensi agro gravi multa affecit. The author does not sufficiently distinguish between the censorian initiative and the operation of the law. The passage is important as showing the existence of an enactment on the height of buildings. See Voigt in Iwan-Müller’s Handbuch iv. 2, p. 394, and cf. Vellei. ii. 10. Augustus limited the height of houses to 70 feet (Strabo v. p. 235).

[26] Diodor. v. 40 (The Etruscans) [Greek: en … tais oikiais ta peristoa pros tas ton therapeuonton ochlon tarachas exeuron euchraestian.] See Krause Deinokrates p. 528.

[27] In spite of the plural form fauces (Vitruv. vi. 3. 6) may denote only a single passage. See Marquardt Privatl. p. 240; Smith and Middleton in Smith Dict. of Antiq. i. p. 671.

[28] For this atriensis, the English butler, the continental porter, see the frequent references in Plautus (e.g., Asin. ii. 2. 80 and 101; Pseud. ii. 2. 15), Krause Deinokrates p. 534 and Marquardt Privatl. p. 140.

[29] Plin. H.N. xxxv. 6 Stemmata vero lineis discurrebant ad imagines pictas. It is not known at what period the imagines were transferred from the Atrium to the Alae.

[30] Overbeck Pompeii p. 192; Krause Deinokrates p. 539.

[31] For the practice started, or developed, by Caius Gracchus of receiving visitors, some singly, others in smaller or larger groups, see Seneca de Ben. vi. 34. 2 and the description of Gracchus’ tribunate in chapter iv.

[32] Festus p. 357 (according to Mommsen, Abh. der Berl. Akad. Phil.-hist. Classe, 1864 p. 68). Tablinum proxime atrium locus dicitur, quod antiqui magistratus in suo imperio tabulis rationum ibi habebant publicarum rationum causa factum locum; Plin. H.N. xxxv. 7 Tabulina codicibus implebantur et monimentis rerum in magistratu gestarum. Marquardt, however (Privatl. p. 215) thinks that the name tablinum is derived from the fact that this chamber was originally made of planks (tablinum from tabula, as figlinum from figulus).

[33] The earliest instances of extreme extravagance in the use of building material—of the use, for instance, of Hymettian and Numidian marble—are furnished by the houses of the orator Lucius Licinius Crassus (built about 92 B.C.) and of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, consul in 78 B.C. This growth of luxury will be treated when we come to deal with the civilisation of the Ciceronian period.

[34] As Krause expresses it (Deinokrates p. 542), at the final stage we find a Greek “Hinterhaus” standing behind an old Italian “Vorderhaus”.

[35] The case mentioned by Juvenal (xi. 151)

Pastoris duri hic est filius, ille bubulci.
    Suspirat longo non visam tempore matrem,
    Et casulam, et notos tristis desiderat haedos,

must have been of frequent occurrence as soon as the urban and rustic familiae had been kept distinct.

[36] Suetonius says (de Rhet. 3) of L. Voltacilius Pilutus, one of the teachers of Pompeius, Servisse dicitur atque etiam ostiarius vetere more in catena fuisse.

[37] For these atrienses, atriarii, admissionales, velarii see Wallon Hist. de l’Esclavage ii. p. 108.

[38] Diod. xxxvii. 3; Sallust (Jug. 85) makes Marius say (107 B.C.) Neque pluris pretii coquum quam villicum habeo. Livy (xxxix. 6) remarks with reference to the consequences of the return of Manlius’ army from Asia in 187 B.C. Tum coquus, vilissimum antiquis mancipium et aestimatione et usu, in pretio esse; et, quod ministerium fuerat, ars haberi coepta.

[39] Plin. H.N. xviii. 108 Nec coquos vero habebant in servitiis eosque ex macello conducebant. The practice is mentioned by Plautus (Aul. ii. 4. 1; iii. 2. 15).

[40] Condus promus (Plaut. Pseud. ii. 2. 14).

[41] Wallon op. cit. ii. p. 111.

[42] C. Gracchus ap. Gell. x. 3. 5.

[43] Polyb. xxxii. 11; Diodor. xxxvii. 3.

[44] Diod. l.c.

[45] Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 143 Invenimus legatos Carthaginiensium dixisse nullos hominum inter se benignius vivere quam Romanos. Eodem enim argento apud omnes cenitavisse ipsos.

[46] Val. Max. ii. 9, 3.

[47] Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 141.

[48] Vellei. i. 13.

[49] Polyb. xl. 7.

[50] Liv. xxxix. 6 Lectos aeratos … plagulas … monopodia et abacos Romam advexerunt. Tunc psaltriae sambucistriaeque et convivalia ludionum oblectamenta addita epulis. Cf. Plin, H.N. xxxiv. 14.

[51] Polyb. ix. 10 [Greek: Rhomaioi de metakomisantes ta proeiraemena tais men idiotikais kataskenais tous auton ekosmaesan bious, tais de daemosiais ta koina taes poleos.] Another great raid was that made by Fulvius Nobilior in 189 B.C. on the art treasures of the Ambraciots (Signa aenea marmoreaque et tabulae pictae, Liv. xxxviii. 9).

[52] Plin. H.N. xv. 19 Graeci vitiorum omnium genitores.

[53] Cic. pro Arch. 3. 5 Erat Italia tum plena Graecarum artium ac disciplinarum … Itaque hunc (Archiam) et Tarentini et Regini et Neapolitani civitate ceterisque praemiis donarunt: et omnes, qui aliquid de ingeniis poterant judicare, cognitione atque hospitio dignum existimarunt.

[54] Cic. de Rep. ii. 19. 34 Videtur insitiva quadam disciplina doctior facta esse civitas. Influxit enim non tenuis quidam e Graecia rivulus in hanc urbem, sed abundantissimus amnis illarum disciplinarum et artium. Cicero is speaking of the very earliest Hellenic influences on Rome, but his description is just as appropriate to the period which we are considering.

[55] Plut. Paul. 28.

[56] Sulla brought back the library of Apellicon of Teos, Lucullus the very large one of the kings of Pontus (Plut. Sulla 26; Luc. 42; Isid. Orig. vi. 5). Lucullus allowed free access to his books. Here we get the germ of the public library. The first that was genuinely public belongs to the close of the Republican era. It was founded by Asinius Pollio in the Atrium Libertatis on the Aventine (Plin. H.N. vii. 45; Isid. Orig. vi. 5).

[57] Macrob. Sat. iii. 14. 7.

[58] Dionys. vii. 71.

[59] They had made contributions in 186 B.C. towards the games of Scipio Asiaticus (Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 138).

[60] Livy (xl. 44) after describing the senatus consultum, in which occur the words Neve quid ad eos ludos arcesseret, cogeret, acciperet, faceret adversus id senatus consultum, quod L. Aemilio Cn. Baebio consulibus de ludis factum esset, adds Decreverat id senatus propter effusos sumptus, factos in ludos Ti. Sempronii aedilis, qui graves non modo Italiae ac sociis Latini nominis sed etiam provinciis externis fuerant.

[61] The effect was still worse when a rich man avoided it. Cic. de Off. ii. 17. 58. Vitanda tamen suspicio est avaritiae. Mamerco, homini divitissimo, praetermissio aedilitatis consulatus repulsam attulit. Sulla said that the people would not give him the praetorship because they wished him to be aedile first. They knew that he could obtain African animals for exhibition (Plut. Sulla 5).

[62] Cic. in Verr. v. 14. 36.

[63] Liv. x. 47; xxvii. 6.

[64] Liv. xxiii. 30.

[65] Liv. xxx. 39.

[66] Plin. H.N. xviii. 286.

[67] Mommsen Röm. Münzw. p. 645.

[68] Liv. xxxvi. 36. On these festivals see Warde Fowler The Roman Festivals pp. 72. 91. 70. The Megalesia seem to have fallen to the lot of the curule aediles (Dio. Cass. xliii. 48), the others to have been given indifferently by either pair.

[69] Val. Max. ii. 4-7; Liv. Ep. xvi. It was exhibited in the Forum Boarium by Marcus and Decimus Brutus at the funeral of their father.

[70] Compare Livy’s description (xli. 20) of the adoption of Roman gladiatorial shows by Antiochus Epiphanes—Armorum studium plerisque juvenum accendit.

[71] Polyb. xxx. 13.

[72] Liv. xxxix. 22.

[73] Liv. xliv. 18.

[74] Dig. 21. 1. 40-42 (from the edict of the curule aediles) Ne quis canem, verrem vel minorem aprum, lupum, ursum, pantheram, leonem … qua vulgo iter fiet, ita habuisse velit, ut cuiquam nocere damnumve dare possit.

[75] Cic. de Off. ii. 17. 60 Tota igitur ratio talium largitionum genere vitiosa est, temporibus necessaria. He adds the pious but unattainable wish Tamen ipsa et ad facultates accomodanda et mediocritate moderanda est. Compare the remarks of Pöhlmann on the subject in his Geschichte des antiken Communismus und Sozialismus ii. 2. p. 471.

[76] Mommsen Staatsr. ii., p. 382.

[77] Plut, Ti. Gracch. 14.

[78] Liv. xxxix. 44; Plut, Cat. Maj. 18.

[79] Nitzsch Die Gracchen, p. 128.

[80] Cic. de Off. ii. 22. 76 (Paullus) tantum in aerarium pecuniae invexit, ut unius imperatoris praeda finem attulerit tributorum. A deterrent to luxury could still have been created by imposing heavy harbour-dues on articles of value; but this would have required legislation. Nothing is known about the Republican tariff at Italian ports. The percentage may have been uniform for all articles.

[81] Liv. xxxiv. cc. 1-8; Val. Max. ix. 1. 3; Tac. Ann. iii. 33.

[82] Macrob. Sat. iii. 17; Festus pp. 201, 242; Schol. Bob. p. 310; Meyer Orat. Rom. Fragm. p. 91.

[83] This date (161) is given by Pliny (H.N. x. 139); Macrobius (Sat. iii. 17. 3) places the law in 159.

[84] Gell. ii. 24; Macrob. Sat. iii. 17; Plin. H.N. x. 139; Tertull. Apol. vi. The ten asses of this law are the Fanni centussis misellus of Lucilius.

[85] It seems that we must assume formal acceptance on the part of the allies in accordance with the principle that Rome could not legislate for her confederacy, a principle analogous to that which forbade her to force her franchise on its members (Cic. pro Balbo 8, 20 and 21).

[86] We may compare the enactment of 193 B.C., which was produced by the discovery that Roman creditors escaped the usury laws by using Italians as their agents (Liv. xxxv. 7 M. Sempronius tribunus plebis … plebem rogavit plebesque scivit ut cum sociis ac nomine Latino creditae pecuniae jus idem quod cum civibus Romanis esset).

[87] The Lex Licinia, which is attributed by Macrobius (l.c.) to P. Licinius Crassus Dives, perhaps belongs either to his praetorship (104 B.C.) or to his consulship (97 B.C.).

[88] Gellius (ii. 24), in speaking of Sulla’s experiments, says of the older laws Legibus istis situ atque senio obliteratis.

[89] Exaequatio (Liv. xxxiv. 4).

[90] Cic. de Rep. iii. g. 16; see p. 80.

[91] Compare Tac. Ann. iii. 53. The Emperor Tiberius here speaks of Illa feminarum propria, quis lapidum causa pecuniae nostrae ad externas aut hostilis gentes transferuntur.

[92] The prohibition belongs to the year 229 B.C. (Zonar. viii. 19). For other prohibitions of the same kind dating from, a period later than that which we are considering see Voigt in Iwan-Müller’s Handbuch iv. 2, p. 376 n. 95.

[93] Earlier enactments had been directed against canvassing, but not against bribery. The simplicity of the fifth century B.C. was illustrated by the law that a candidate should not whiten his toga with chalk (Liv. iv. 25; 433 B.C.). The Lex Poetelia of 358 B.C. (Liv. vii. 16) was directed against personal solicitation by novi homines. Some law of ambitus is known to Plautus (Amph. prol. 73; cf. Trinumm. iv. 3. 26), See Rein Criminalrecht p. 706

[94] Liv. xl. 19 Leges de ambitu consules ex auctoritate senatus ad populum tulerunt. This was the lex Cornelia Baebia and that it referred to pecuniary corruption is known from a fragment of Cato (ap. Non. vii. 19, s.v. largi, Cato lege Baebia: pecuniam inlargibo tibi).

[95] Obsequens lxxi.

[96] Liv. Ep. xlvii.

[97] Polyb. vi. 56 [Greek: para men Karchaedoniois dora phaneros didontes lambanousi tas archas, para de Rhomaiois thanatos esti peri touto prostimon.]

[98] The position of the ruined patrician will be fully illustrated in the following pages when we deal with the careers of Scaurus and of Sulla.

[99] Liv. xxxiv. 52.

[100] Liv. xxxix. 7.

[101] Liv. xxxviii. 9.

[102] For the later history of the aurum coronarium see Marquardt Staatsverw. ii. p. 295. It was developed from the triumphales coronae (Festus p. 367) and is described as gold Quod triumphantibus … a victis gentibus datur and as imposed by commanders Propter concessam vitam (al. immunitatem) (Serv. Ad. Aen. viii. 721).

[103] Liv. xxi. 63 (218 B.C.) Id satis habitum ad fructus ex agris vectandos; quaestus omnis patribus indecorus visus.

[104] It was antiqua et mortua (Cic. in Verr. v. 18. 45).

[105] Cicero (Parad. 6. 46) speaks of those Qui honeste rem quaerunt mercaturis faciendis, operis dandis, publicis sumendis. Compare the category of banausic trades in de Off, 1. 42. 150, although in the Paradoxa the contrast is rather that between honest and vicious methods of money-making. Deloume (Les manieurs d’argent à Rome pp. 58 ff.) believes that the fortune of Cicero swelled through participation in publica.

[106] Plut. Cato Maj. 21.

[107] Plut. Crass. 2.

[108] Plut. Cato Maj. 21. Cato employed this method of training as a means of increasing the peculium of his own slaves. But even the peculium technically belonged to the master, and it is obvious that the slave-trainer might have been used by others as a mere instrument for the master’s gain.

[109] Plat. l.c. [Greek: haptomenos de syntonoteron porismou taen men georgian mallon haegeito diagogaen hae prosodon.]

[110] Plaut. Trinumm. Prol. 8:

Primum mihi Plautus nomen Luxuriae indidit:
    Tum hanc mihi gnatam esse voluit Inopiam.

[111] Liv. xxxiv. 4 (Cato’s speech in defence of the Oppian law) Saepe me querentem de feminarum, saepe de virorum, nec de privatorum modo, sed etiam magistratuum sumptibus audistis; diversisque duobus vitiis, avaritia et luxuria, civitatem laborare. Compare Sallust’s impressions of a later age (Cat. 3) Pro pudore, pro abstinentia, pro virtute, audacia, largitio, avaritia vigebant.

[112] Polyb. vi. 56.

[113] Polyb. xxiv. 9.

[114] Cato ap. Gell. xi. 18. 18. The speech was one De praeda militibus dividenda.

[115] We first hear of a standing court for peculatus in 66 B.C. (Cic. pro Cluent. 53. 147). It was probably established by Sulla.

[116] Rein Criminalr. pp. 680 ff.; Mommsen Röm. Forsch. ii. pp. 437 ff.

[117] Liv. xxxvii. 57 and 58 (190 B.C.).

[118] See especially the case of Pleminius, Scipio’s lieutenant at Locri (204 B.C.), who, after a committee had reported on the charge, was conveyed to Rome but died in bonds before the popular court had pronounced judgment (Liv. xxix. 16-22).

[119] Liv. xlii. 1 (173 B.C.) Silentium, nimis aut modestum aut timidum Praenestinorum, jus, velut probato exemplo, magistratibus fecit graviorum in dies talis generis imperiorum.

[120] For such requisitions see Plut. Cato Maj 6 (of Cato’s government of Sardinia) [Greek: ton pro autou strataegon eiothoton chraesthai kai skaenomasi daemosiois kai klinais kai himatiois, pollae de therapeia kai philon plaethei kai peri deipna dapanais kai paraskeuais barhynonton.]

[121] Liv. xxxii. 27 Sumptus, quos in cultum praetorum socii facere soliti erant, circumcisi aut sublati (198 B.C.).

[122] The Lex de Termessibus (a charter of freedom given to Termessus in Pisidia in 71 B.C.) enjoins (ii. l. 15) Nei … quis magistratus … inperato, quo quid magis iei dent praebeant ab ieisve auferatur nisei quod eos ex lege Porcia dare praebere oportet oportebit. This Porcian law was probably the work of Cato (Rein Criminalr. p. 607).

[123] Liv. xxxviii. 43; xxxix. 3; Rein, l.c.

[124] Liv. xliii. 2.

[125] Cic. Brut. 27. 106; de Off. ii. 21. 75; cf. in Verr. iii. 84. 195; iv. 25. 56.

[126] Liv. xli. 15. (176 B.C.) Duo (praetores) deprecati sunt ne in provincias irent, M. Popillius in Sardiniam: Gracchum eam provinciam pacare &c…. Probata Popillii excusatio est. P. Licinius Crassus sacrificiis se impediri sollemnibus excusabat, ne in provinciam iret. Citerior Hispania obvenerat. Ceterum aut ire jussus aut jurare pro contione sollemni sacrificio se prohiberi…. Praetores ambo in eadem verba jurarunt. I have seen the passage cited as a proof that governors would not go to unproductive provinces; but Sardinia was a fruitful sphere for plunder, and the excuses may have been genuine. That of Popillius seems to have been positively patriotic.

[127] Liv. xlii. 45 Decimius unus sine ullo effectu, captarum etiam pecuniarum ab regibus Illyriorum suspicione infamis, Romam rediit.

[128] Cic. in Verr. v. 48. 126 (70 B.C.) Patimur … multos jam annos et silemus cum videamus ad paucos homines omnes omnium nationum pecunias pervenisse.

[129] For the principle see Gaius iii. 151-153.

[130] Polybius (vi. 17), after speaking of various kinds of property belonging to the state, adds [Greek: panta cheirizesthai symbainei ta proeiraemena dia tou plaethous, kai schedon hos epos eipein pantas endedesthai tais onais kai tais ergasiais tais ek touton].

[131] Polyb. vi. 17. The senate can [Greek: symptomatos genomenou kouphisai kai to parapan adynatou tinos symbantos apolysai taes ergonias]. Thus the senate invalidated the locationes of the censors of 184 B.C. (Liv. xxxix. 44 Locationes cum senatus precibus et lacrimis publicanorum victus induci et de integro locari jussisset.)

[132] In 169 B.C. it was the people that released from an oppressive regulation (Liv. xliii. 16). In this case a tribune answered the censor’s intimation, that none of the former state-contractors should appear at the auction, by promulgating the resolution Quae publica vectigalia, ultro tributa C. Claudius et Ti. Sempronius locassent, ea rata locatio ne esset. Ab integro locarentur, et ut omnibus redimendi et conducendi promiscue jus esset.

[133] Deloume op. cit. pp. 119 ff. Polybius (vi. 17) has been quoted as an authority for the distinction between these two classes. He says [Greek: oi men gar agorazousi para ton timaeton autoi tas ekdoseis, oi de koinonousi toutois, oi d’ enguontai tous aegorakotas, oi de tas ousias didoasi peri touton eis to daemosion.] The first three classes are the mancipes, socii and praedes. In the fourth the shareholders (participes or perhaps adfines, cf. Liv. xliii. 16) are found by Deloume (p. 120); but the identification is very uncertain. The words may denote either real as opposed to formal security or the final payment of the vectigal into the treasury. A better evidence for the distinction between socii and shareholders is found in the Pseudo-Asconius (in Cic. in Verr. p. 197 Or.) Aliud enim socius, Aliud particeps qui certam habet partem et non indivise agit ut socius. The magnas partes (Cic. pro Rab. Post. 2. 4) and the particulam (Val. Max. vi. 9. 7) of a publicum, need only denote large or small shares held by the socii. Dare partes (Cic. l.c.) is to “allot shares,” but not necessarily to outside members. Apart from the testimony of the Pseudo-Asconius and the mention of adfines in Livy the evidence for the ordinary shareholder is slight but by no means fatal to his existence.

[134] E.g. by loan to a socius at a rate of interest dependent on his returns, perhaps with a pactum de non petendo in certain contingencies.

[135] These are, in strict legal language, the true publicani; the lessees of state property are publicanorum loco (Dig. 39. 4, 12 and 13).

[136] Later legal theory assimilated the third with the first class. Gaius says (ii. 7) In eo (provinciali) solo dominium populi Romani est vel Caesaris, nos autem possessionem tantum vel usumfructum habere videmur. But the theory is not ancient-perhaps not older than the Gracchan period. See Greenidge Roman Public Life p. 320. From a broad standpoint the first and second classes may be assimilated, since the payment of harbour dues (portoria) is based on the idea of the use of public ground by a private occupant.

[137] Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 31. 84.

[138] Thédenat in Daremberg-Saglio Dict. des Antiq. s.v. Ergastulum.

[139] Compare Cunningham Western Civilisation in its Economic Aspects vol. i. p. 162.

[140] Cic. in Verr. ii. 55. 137; iii. 33. 77; ii. 13. 32; 26. 63.

[141] Ibid. ii. 13. 32.

[142] Liv. xxv. 3.

[143] Liv. xxiii. 49.

[144] Liv. xxiv. 18; Val. Max. v. 6. 8.

[145] Plut. Cato Maj. 19.

[146] Liv. xliii. 16.

[147] Cic. Brut. 22. 85 Cum in silva Sila facta caedes esset notique homines interfecti insimulareturque familia, partim etiam liberi, societatis ejus, quae picarias de P. Cornelio, L. Mummio censoribus redemisset, decrevisse senatum ut de ea re cognoscerent et statuerent consules. For the value of the pine-woods of Sila see Strabo vi. 1. 9.

[148] Liv. xlv. 18 Metalli quoque Macedonici, quod ingens vectigal erat, locationesque praediorum rusticorum tolli placebat. Nam neque sine publicano exerceri posse, et, ubi publicanus esset, ibi aut jus publicum vanum aut libertatem sociis nullam esse. The praedia rustica were probably public domains, that might have formed part of the crown lands of the Macedonian Kings and would now, in the natural course of events, have been leased to publicani.

[149] It might happen that the interest of the negotiator was opposed to that of the publicanus. The former, for instance, might wish portoria to be lessened, the latter to be increased (Cic. ad Att. ii. 16. 4). But such a conflict was unusual.

[150] Cato R.R. pr. 1. Est interdum praestare mercaturis rem quaerere, nisi tam periculosum sit, et item fenerari, si tam honestum sit. Majores nostri sic habuerunt et ita in legibus posiverunt, furem dupli condemnari, feneratorem quadrupli. Quanto pejorem civem existimarint feneratorem quam furem, hinc licet existimare. Cf. Cic. de Off. i. 42. 150. Improbantur ii quaestus, qui in odia hominum incurrunt, ut portitorum, ut feneratorum.

[151] Cic. de Off. ii. 25. 89. Cum ille … dixisset “Quid fenerari?” tum Cato “Quid hominem,” inquit, “occidere?”

[152] For such professional money-lenders see Plaut. Most. iii. 1. 2 ff.; Curc. iv. 1. 19.

[153] Liv. xxxii. 27.

[154] On the history and functions of the bankers see Voigt Ueber die Bankiers, die Buchführung und die Litteralobligation der Römer (Abh. d. Königl. Sächs. Gesell. d. Wissench.; Phil. hist. Classe, Bd. x); Marquardt Staatsverw, ii. pp. 64 ff.; Deloume Les manieurs d’argent à Rome, pp. 146 ff.

[155] Plin. H.N. xxi. 3. 8.

[156] Cf. Cic. de Off, iii. 14. 58. Pythius, qui esset ut argentarius apud omnes ordines gratiosus….

[157] Yet the two never became thoroughly assimilated. The argentarius, for instance, was not an official tester of money, and the nummularii appear not to have performed certain functions usual to the banker, e.g. sales by auction. See Voigt op. cit. pp. 521. 522.

[158] Plaut. Cure. iv. 1. 6 ff.

Commonstrabo, quo in quemque hominem facile inveniatis loco.
       * * * * *
    Ditis damnosos maritos sub basilica quaerito.
    Ibidem erunt scorta exoleta, quique stipulari solent.
       * * * * *
    In foro infumo boni homines, atque dites ambulant.
    Sub veteribus, ibi sunt qui dant quique accipiunt faenore.

[159] To be bankrupt is foro mergi (Plaut. Ep. i. 2. 16), a foro fugere, abire (Plaut. Pers. iii. 3. 31 and 38).

[160] Cic. de Off. ii. 24. 87. Toto hoc de genere, de quaerenda, de collocanda pecunia, vellem etiam de utenda, commodius a quibusdam optumis viris ad Janum medium sedentibus … disputatur. For Janus medius and the question whether it means an arch or a street see Richter Topogr. der Stadt Rom. pp. 106. 107.

[161] Liv. xxxix. 44; xliv. 16. The Porcian was followed by the Fulvian Basilica (Liv. xl. 51). The dates of the three were 184, 179, 169 B.C. respectively.

[162] Deloume op. cit. pp. 320 ff.; Guadet in Daremberg-Saglio Dict. des Antiq. s.v. Basilicae.

[163] Large transport ships could themselves come to Rome if their build was suited to river navigation. In 167 B.C. Aemilius Paulus astonished the city with the size of a ship (once belonging to the Macedonian King) on which he arrived (Liv. xlv. 35). On the whole question of this foreign trade see Voigt in Iwan-Müller’s Handbuch iv. 2, pp. 373-378.

[164] Voigt op. cit. p. 377 n. 99.

[165] Compare Cunningham Western Civilisation in its Economic Aspects vol. i. p. 165, “It is only under very special conditions, including the existence of a strong government to exercise a constant control, that free play for the formation of associations of capitalists bent on securing profit, is anything but a public danger. The landed interest in England has hitherto been strong enough to bring legislative control to bear on the moneyed men from time to time…. The problem of leaving sufficient liberty for the formation of capital and for enterprise in the use of it, without allowing it licence to exhaust the national resources, has not been solved.”

[166] Plut. Numa 17. On the history of these gilds see Waltzing Corporations professionelles chez les Remains pp. 61-78.

[167] The praetor was Rutilius (Ulpian in Dig. 38. 2. 1. 1), perhaps P. Rutilius Rufus, the consul of 105 B.C. (Mommsen Staatsr. in. p. 433). See the last chapter of this volume. For the principle on which such operae were exacted from freedmen see Mommsen l.c.

[168] Inliberales ac sordidi quaestus (Cic. de Off. i. 42. 150).

[169] Gell. vii. (vi.) 9; Liv. ix. 46; Mommsen Staatsr. i. p. 497.

[170] Cf. Cic. de Off. i. 42. 151 Omnium autem rerum, ex quibus aliquid adquiritur, nihil est agricultura melius, nihil uberius, nihil dulcius, nihil homine libero dignius.

[171] See de Boor Fasti Censorii. A disturbing element in this enumeration is the uncertainty of numerals in ancient manuscripts. But the fact of the progressive decline is beyond all question. No accidental errors of transcription could have produced this result in the text of Livy’s epitome.

[172] Liv. Ep. xvi.

[173] Ibid. lvi.

[174] Ibid. xlvi. xlviii.

[175] Euseb. Arm. a. Abr. 1870 Ol. 158.3 (Hieron. Ol. 158.2 = 608 A.U.C.).

[176] Liv. Ep. lvi.

[177] Eorum qui arma ferre possent (Liv. i. 44); [Greek: ton echonton taen strateusimon haelikian] (Dionys. xi. 63); [Greek: ton en tais haelikiais] (Polyb. ii. 23).

[178] Besides the proletarii all under military age would be excluded from these lists. Mommsen (Staatsr. ii. p. 411) goes further and thinks that the seniores are not included in our lists.

[179] The limit to the incidence of taxation was a property of 1500 asses (Cic. de Rep. ii. 22. 40), the limit of census for military service was by the time of Polybius reduced to 4000 asses (Polyb. vi. 19). Gellius (xvi. 10. 10) gives a reduction to 375 asses at a date unknown but preceding the Marian reform. Perhaps the numerals are incorrect and should be 3,750.

[180] Liv. xl. 38.

[181] Gell. i. 6. Cf. Liv. Ep. lix.

[182] See Wallon Hist. de l’Esclavage ii. p. 276.

[183] Concubinatus could not, by the nature of the case, become a legal conception until the Emperor Augustus had devised penalties for stuprum. It was then necessary to determine what kind of stuprum was not punishable. But the social institution and its ethical characteristics, although they may have been made more definite by legal regulations, could not have originated in the time of the Principate. For the meaning of paelex in Republican times see Meyer Der römische Konkubinat and a notice of that work in the English Historical Review for July 1896.

[184] Cunningham Western Civilisation p. 156. Cf. Soltau in Kulturgesch. des klass. Altertums p. 318.

[185] Plin. H.N. xviii. 3. 22; Varro R.R. i. 1. 10.

[186] Colum. 1. 1. 18. The Latin translation was probably made shortly after the destruction of Carthage, circa 140 B.C. (Mahaffy The Work of Mago on Agriculture in Hermathena vol. vii. 1890). Mahaffy believes that the Greek translation by Cassius Dionysius (Varro R.R. i. 1. 10) was later, and he associates it with the colonies planted by C. Gracchus in Southern Italy.

[187] Saturnia in 183 (Liv. xxxix. 55), Graviscae in 181 (Liv. xl. 29), Luna in 180 and again in 177 (Liv. xli. 13; Mommsen in C.I.L. i. n. 539). See Marquardt Staatsverw, i. p. 39.

[188] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8; Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 198.

[189] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 198.

[190] Liv. xxxix. 29.

[191] Varro R.R. ii. 5. II Pascuntur armenta commodissime in nemoribus, ubi virgulta et frons multa. Hieme secundum mare, aestu abiguntur in montes frondosos.

[192] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 16.

[193] Nitzsch op. cit. p. 17.

[194] Cic. de Off. ii. 25. 89. So in Cato’s more reasoned estimate (R.R. i. 7) of the relative degrees of productivity, although vinea comes first (cf. p. 80) yet pratum precedes campus frumentarius.

[195] App. Hannib. 61.

[196] App. l.c.; Gell. x. 3. 19.

[197] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 193 So zerfiel denn Mittelitalien in zwei scharf-getheilte Hälften, den ackerbauenden Westen und den viehzuchttreibenden Osten; jener reich an Häfen, von Landstrassen durchschnitten, in einer Menge von Colonien oder einzelnen Gehöften von Römischen Ackerbürgern bewohnt; dieser fast ohne Häfen, nur von einer Küstenstrasse durchschnitten, für den grossen Römer der rechte Sitz seiner Sclaven und Heerden. Cf. p. 21. For the pasturage in Calabria and Apulia see op. cit. pp. 13 and 193.

[198] Liv. xxviii. II; cf. Luc. Phars. i. 30.

[199] Dureau de la Malle (Économie Politique ii. p. 38) compares the precept of the Roman “Quid est agrum bene colere? bene arare. Quid secundum? arare. Tertio stercorare” with the adage of the French farmer “Fumez bien, labourez mal, vous recueillerez plus qu’en fumant mal et en labourant bien”.

[200] See Dreyfus Les lois agraires p. 97. Varro (R.R. i. 12. 2) is singularly correct in his account of the nature of the disease that arose from the loca palustria:—Crescunt animalia quaedam minuta, quae non possunt oculi consequi, et per aera intus in corpus per os ac nares perveniunt atque efficiunt difficilis morbos. The passage is cited by Voigt (Iwan-Müller’s Handbuch iv. 2. p. 358) who gives a good sketch of the evils consequent on neglect of drainage.

[201] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 228.

[202] Polyb. xxxvii. 4.

[203] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 237.

[204] Polyb. xxxvii. 3.

[205] Polyb. ii. 15.

[206] For such purchases from Sardinia see Liv. xxxvi. 2, from Sicily (at a period later than that which we are considering) Cic. in Verr. iii. 70, 163.

[207] Cf. Cato R.R. i. 3 (In choosing the situation of one’s estate) oppidum validum prope siet aut mare aut amnis, qua naves ambulant, aut via bona celebrisque.

[208] For the traditions which assign a very early date for laws dealing with the ager publicus see the following chapter, which treats of the legislation of Tiberius Gracchus.

[209] App, Bell. Civ. i. 7 [Greek: taes de gaes taes doriktaetou sphisin ekastote gignomenaes taen men exeirgasmenaen autika tois oikizomenois epidiaeroun hae epipraskon hae exemisthoun, taen d’ argon ek tou polemou tote ousan, hae dae kai malista eplaethyen, ouk agontes po scholaen dialachein, epekaerytton en tosode tois ethelousin ekponein epi telei ton etaesion karpon].

[210] For the evidence for this and other statements connected with the ager publicus see the citations in the next chapter.

[211] In consequence of the doubtfulness of the traditions concerning early agrarian laws this time cannot even be approximately specified. See the next chapter.

[212] Tradition represents the first laws dealing with the ager publicus (e. g. the supposed lex Licinia) as earlier than the lex Poetelia of 326 B.C., which abolished the contract of nexum.

[213] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8 [Greek: hysteron de ton geitnionton plousion hypoblaetois prosopois metapheronton tas misthoseis eis eautous.]

[214] App. Bell. Civ. i. 7 [Greek: oi gar plousioi … ta … anchou sphisin, osa te haen alla brachea penaeton, ta men onoumenoi peithoi ta de bia lambanontes, pedia makra anti chorion egeorgoun.] Cf. Seneca Ep. xiv. 2 (90). 39 Licet agros agris adjiciat vicinum vel pretio pellens vel injuria.

[215] [Greek: pedia makra] (App. l.c.), Plin. H.N. xviii. 6. 35 Verumque confitentibus latifundia perdidere Italiam. (For the expression lati fundi see Siculus Flaccus pp. 157, 161). Frontinus p. 53 Per longum enim tempus attigui possessores vacantia loca quasi invitante otiosi soli opportunitate invaserunt, et per longum tempus inpune commalleaverunt. For the invasion of pasturage see Frontinus p. 48 Haec fere pascua certis personis data sunt depascenda tunc cum agri adsignati sunt. Haec pascua multi per inpotentiam invaserunt et colunt.

[216] In spite of the fertility of the land, the native Gallic population had vanished from most of the districts of this region as early as Polybius’ time (Polyb. ii. 35). Cf. Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 60.

[217] Val. Max. iv. 4. 6.

[218] Steinwender Die römische Bürgerschaft in ihrem Verhältnis zum Heere p. 28.

[219] App. Bell. Civ. i. 7.

[220] Polyb. vi. 39.

[221] Liv. xxvii. 9 (209 B.C.) Fremitus enim inter Latinos sociosque in conciliis ortus:—Decimum annum dilectibus, stipendiis se exhaustos esse … Duodecim (coloniae) … negaverunt consulibus esse unde milites pecuniamque darent.

[222] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 194.

[223] Cato R.R. 144 etc.

[224] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 187.

[225] Cato R.R. 5. 136.

[226] Cato R.R. 136 Politionem quo pacto partiario dari oporteat. In agro Casinate et Venafro in loco bono parti octava corbi dividat, satis bono septima, tertio loco sexta; si granum modio dividet, parti quinta. In Venafro ager optimus nona parti corbi dividat … Hordeum quinta modio, fabam quinta modio dividat.

[227] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 188.

[228] Dureau de la Malle Économie Politique ii. pp. 225, 226.

[229] Cato R.R. i. 7 Vinea est prima,… secundo loco hortus inriguus, tertio salictum, quarto oletum, quinto pratum, sexto campus frumentarius, septimo silva caedua, octavo arbustum, nono glandaria silva.

[230] Cic. de Rep. iii. 9. 16 Nos vero justissimi homines, qui Transalpinas gentis oleam et vitem serere non sinimus, quo pluris sint nostra oliveta nostraeque vineae. Cf. Colum. iii. 3. 11.

[231] See Cato R.R. 7, 8 for the produce of the fundus suburbanus. Cf. c. 1 (note 2) for the value of the hortus inriguus.

[232] See the citations in Voigt (Iwan-Müller’s Handbuch iv. 2 p. 370). Communities and corporations employed coloni on their agri vectigales (Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 11, 1; Hygin. de Cond. Agr. p. 117. 11; Voigt l.c.).

[233] Liv. xlv. 34.

[234] Mahaffy (“The Slave Wars against Rome” in Hermathena no. xvi. 1890) believes that the majority of these were shipped to Sicily.

[235] Strabo xiv. 5. 2.

[236] Cf. Arist. Pol. i. 8. 12 [Greek: hae polemikae physei ktaetikae pos estai; hae gar thaereutikae meros autaes, hae dei chraesthai pros te ta thaeria kai ton anthropon hosoi pephykotes archesthai mae thelousin, hos physei dikaion touton onta ton polemon.]

[237] Mahaffy (l.c.) thinks that the Syrians and Cilicians of the first slave war in Sicily, whom he believes to have been transferred from Carthage, had been secured by that state in a trade with the East—the trade which perhaps took the Southern Mediterranean route from Malta past Crete and Cyprus.

[238] Wallon Histoire de l’Esclavage ii. p, 45.

[239] Strabo xiv, 3. 2 [Greek: en Sidae goun polei taes Pamphylias ta naupaegia synistato tois Kilixin, hypo kaeruka te epoloun ekei tous halontas eleutherous homologountes.]

[240] Strabo (xiv. 5. 2), after describing the slave market at Delos, continues [Greek: hoste kai paroimian genesthai dia touto; hempore, katapleuson, exelou, panta pepratai.]

[241] Plut. Cato Maj. 4.

[242] If we make the denarius a rough equivalent of the drachma, some of the prices given in Plautus are as follows:—A child, 600 denarii, a nurse and two female children, 1800, a young girl, 2000, another 3000. Here we seem to get the average prices for valuable and refined domestics. Elsewhere special circumstances might increase the value; a female lyrist fetches 5000 denarii, a girl of remarkable attractions 6000. See Wallon _Hist. de l’Esclavage ii. pp. 160 ff.

[243] Ter. Andria ii. 6. 26.

[244] It is probable, however, that in the case of superintendents (villici, villicae, procuratores) experience may have been an element in the prices which they fetched.

[245] Festus p. 332 Sardi venales, alius alio nequior.

[246] Plut. Cato Maj. 21.

[247] Cato R.R. 56, 57.

[248] Ibid. 2.

[249] At the close of this period a division took place between the functions of villicus and those of procurator. The former still controlled the economy of the estate and administered its goods; the latter was the business agent and entered into legal relations with other parties. See Voigt in Iwan-Müller’s Handbuch iv. 2 p. 368.

[250] Colum. i. 6.

[251] An inspection of all the ergastula of Italy was ordered by Augustus (Suet. Aug. 32) and Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 8). Columella (i. 8) recommends inspection by the master.

[252] Kidnapping became very frequent after the civil wars. It was to prevent this evil that inspection was ordered by the Emperors (note 3). See Thédenat in Daremberg-Saglio Dict. des Antiq. s.v. Ergastulum.

[253] Plaut. Most. i. 1. 18; Florus iii. 19.

[254] For the distinction between the vincti and soluti see Colum. i. 7.

[255] Varro R.R. ii. 2 10 The proportion is larger than would be demanded in modern times, but Mahaffy (l.c.) remarks that we do not hear of the work of guardianship being shared by trained dogs, and that the danger from wild beasts and lawless classes was considerable. As regards the first point, however, we do hear of packs of hounds which followed the Sicilian shepherds (Diod. xxxiv. 2), and it is difficult to believe that these had not developed some kind of training.

[256] Varro R.R. ii. 10. 7.

[257] Diod, xxxiv. 2. 38.

[258] Val. Max. ii. 10. 2.

[259] Livy (xxxii. 26) speaks of them as nationis eius. He has just mentioned the slaves of the Carthaginian hostages. But it does not follow that either class was composed of native Africans. They may have been imported Asiatics, as in Sicily.

[260] Liv. xxxii. 26.

[261] Liv. xxxiii. 36 Etruriam infestam prope conjuratio servorum fecit.

[262] Liv. xxxix. 29.

[263] Bücher Die Aufstände der unfreien Arbeiter p. 34. Cf. Soltau in Kulturgesch. des klass. Altertums p. 326.

[264] Oros. v. 9 Diodor. xxxiv. 2. 19.

[265] Mahaffy l.c.

[266] Cf. Bücher op. cit. p. 79.

[267] Diod. xxxiv. 2. 27. For the large number of Roman proprietors in Sicily see Florus ii. 7 (iii. 19) 3—(Sicilia) terra frugum ferax et quodam modo suburbana provincia latifundis civium Romanorum tenebatur.

[268] Diod. xxxiv. 2. 32. 36.

[269] Diod. l.c.

[270] Diod. xxxiv. 2. 31. This may have been true of the time of which we are speaking; for the influence of the Roman residents in Sicily on the administration of the island must always have been great. But Diodorus assigns an incorrect reason when he states that the Roman knights of Sicily were judges of the governors of the provinces. This is true only of the period preceding the second servile war.

[271] Historians profess to tell the mechanism by which this device was secured. A spark of fire was placed with inflammable material in a hollow nut or some similar small object, which was perforated. The receptacle was placed in the mouth, and judicious breathing did the rest. See Diodorus xxxiv, 2. 7; Floras ii. 7 (iii. 19).

[272] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 228.

[273] Diod. xxxiv. 2. 24 [Greek: hypo gar taes pepromenaes autois kekyrosthai taen patrida taen Ennan, ousan akropolin holaes taes naesou.]

[274] Ibid. 2. 12 [Greek: oud estin eipein … hosa enybrizon te kai enaeselgainon.]

[275] [Greek: planon te apekaloun] (Diod. xxxiv. 2. 14).

[276] Diodor. xxxiv. 3. 41.

[277] Ibid. 2. 39.

[278] Ibid., 2, 24.

[279] Liv. Ep. lv.; App. Syr. 68. Cf. Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 288.

[280] Diodorus describes him as an Achaean. Mahaffy (l.c.) suspects that he came from Eastern Asia Minor or Syria, where Achaeus occurs as a royal name. But the name also occurs in old Greece. One may instance the tragic poet of Eretria.

[281] [Greek: kai boulae kai cheiri diapheron] (Diod. xxxiv. 2. 16).

[282] Ibid. 2. 42.

[283] Florus ii. 7 (iii. 19). 6.

[284] Diod. xxxiv. 2. 43.

[285] Ibid. 2. 18; Florus l.c.

[286] Florus ii. 7 (iii. 19). 7 Quin illud quoque ultimum dedecus belli, capta sunt castra praetorum—nec nominare ipsos pudebit—castra Manli Lentuli, Pisonis Hypsaei. Itaque qui per fugitivarios abstrahi debuissent praetorios duces profugos praelio ipsi sequebantur. P. Popillius Laenas, the consul of 132 B.C., was praetor in Sicily either immediately before, or during the revolt (C.I.L. i. n. 351. l. g).

[287] Strabo vi. 2. 6. For the question whether they held Messana see p. 98.

[288] Florus ii. 7 (iii. 19). 2 Quis crederet Siciliam multo cruentius servili quam Punico bello esse vastatam?

[289] [Greek: epi tae prophasei ton drapeton] (Diodor. xxxiv. 2. 48). Wallon (Hist. de l’Esclavage ii. p. 307) takes these words to mean that the peasantry professed to be marching against the slaves.

[290] Mahaffy (l.c.) has raised and discussed this question. His conclusions are (i) that the pirates may have been influenced by a sense of business honour to the effect that the man-stealer should abide by his bargain, (ii) that these pirates may have received some large bribe, direct or indirect, from Rome, (iii) that the natural enmity between the slaves and the pirates may have hindered an agreement for transport, (iv) that the Cilician slaves, accustomed to permanent robber-bands, may have not held it impossible that Rome would acquiesce in such a creation in Sicily, (v) that the Syrian towns would not have troubled about the restoration of such of their members as had become slaves, even had they not feared to offend Rome. He remarks that the return of even free exiles to a Hellenistic city was a cause of great disturbance.

[291] Liv. Ep. lvi.; Oros. v. 9.

[292] C.I.L. i. nn. 642, 643.

[293] Oros. v. 9. This Mamertium oppidum of Orosius has often been interpreted as Messana (Mamertinorum oppidum, Bücher, p. 68); for, although the slaves of this town had not revolted (Oros. v. 6. 4), it might have been captured by the rebels. Schäfer, however (Jahrb. f. Class. Philol. 1873 p. 71) explains Mamertium as Morgantia (Murgentinum oppidum).

[294] Val. Max. ix. 12 ext. 1. Diodorus (xxxiv. 2. 20) calls him Comanus and speaks of his being captured during the siege of Tauromenium.

[295] Oros. v. 9.

[296] Wallon Hist. de l’Esclavage ii. p. 308.

[297] Florus ii. 7 (iii. 19). 8.

[298] For the lex Rupilia see Cic. in Verr. ii. 13. 32; 15. 37; 16. 39; 24. 59.

[299] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8. Plutarch speaks of an “attempt” ([Greek: epecheiraese men oun tae diorthosei]); but the effort perhaps went no further than the testing of opinion to discover the probability of support. The enterprise may have belonged to the praetorship of Laelius (145 B.C.).

[300] Polyb. vi. 11.

[301] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 203.

[302] Cic. Brut. 27. 104 Fuit Gracchus diligentia Corneliae matris a puero doctus et Graecis litteris eruditus. Id. Ib. 58. 211 Legimus epistulas Corneliae matris Gracchorum: apparet filios non tam in gremio educatos quam in sermone matris. Cf. Quinctil. Inst. Or. i. 1. 6; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 1.

[303] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 1. The King referred to in this story is perhaps Ptolemy Euergetes, who reigned from 146 to 117 B.C.

[304] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8.

[305] Nitzsch Die Gracchen pp. 208 foll., 258.

[306] Polyb. vi. 14 [Greek: krinei men oun ho daemos kai diaphorou] (money penalties) [Greek: pollakis … thanatou de krinei monos].

[307] Polyb. vi. 16 [Greek: opheilousi d’ aei poiein oi daemarchoi to dokoun to daemo kai malista stochazesthai taes toutou boulaeseos].

[308] Polyb. vi. 57.

[309] Polyb. xxxvii. 4.

[310] Ibid.

[311] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 2.

[312] Ibid., 4 [Greek: outos haen periboaetos hoste taes ton Augouron legomenaes hierosonaes axiothaenai di’ aretaen mallon hae dia taen eugeneian.] Tiberius may have filled the place vacated by the death of his father (circa 148 B.C.). He would have been barely sixteen; and Plutarch says (l.c.) that he had but just emerged from boyhood. Election to the augural college at this time was effected by co-optation. See Underhill in loc.

[313] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 4.

[314] Cic. pro Cael. 14. 34; Suet. Tib. 2.

[315] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 4. The story is also told of the betrothal of Cornelia herself to the elder Gracchus (Liv. xxxviii. 57; Val. Max. iv. 2. 3; Gell. xii. 8); but Plutarch records a statement of Polybius that Cornelia was not betrothed until after her father’s death, and Livy (l.c.) is conscious of this version.

[316] Fannius ap. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 4 [Greek: tou ge teichous epebae ton polemion protos]. As the context seems to show that Tiberius did not remain until the end of the siege, the teichos was probably that of Megara, the suburb of Carthage (Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 244); cf. App. Lib. 117.

[317] Plut. l.c.

[318] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 7; cf. App. Iber. 83; Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 280; Long Decline of Rom. Rep. i. p. 83.

[319] Plut. l.c.

[320] Vellei. ii. 1 Mancinum verecundia, poenam non recusando, perduxit huc, ut per fetialis nudus ac post tergam religatis manibus dederetur hostibus. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 7 [Greek: ton men gar hypaton epsaephisanto gymnon kai dedemenon paradounai tois Nomantinois, ton d’ allon epheisanto panton dia Tiberion.] Cf. Cic. de Off. iii. 30. 109.

[321] Cic. Brut. 27. 103 (Ti. Gracchus) propter turbulentissimum tribunatum, ad quem ex invidia foederis Numantini bonis iratus accesserat, ab ipsa re publica est interfectus. Id. de Har. Resp. 20. 43 Ti. Graccho invidia Numantini foederis, cui feriendo, quaestor C. Mancini consulis cum esset, interfuerat, et in eo foedere improbando senatus severitas dolori et timori fuit, eaque res illum fortem et clarum virum a gravitate patrum desciscere coegit. The same motive is suggested by Vellei. ii. 2; Quinctil. Inst. Or. vii. 4. 13; Dio Cass. frg. 82; Oros. v. 8. 3; Florus ii. 2 (iii. 14).

[322] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8.

[323] Plut. l.c.

[324] Plut. l.c.

[325] Gell. i. 13. 10 Is Crassas a Sempronio Asellione et plerisque aliis historiae Romanae scriptoribus traditur habuisse quinque rerum bonarum maxima et praecipua: quod esset ditissimus, quod nobilissimus, quod eloquentissimus, quod jurisconsultissimus, quod pontifex maximus.

[326] Cic. Acad. Prior. ii. 5. 13 Duo … sapientissimos et clarissimos fratres, P. Crassum et P. Scaevolam, aiunt Ti. Graccho auctores legum fuisse, alterum quidem, ut videmus, palam; alterum, ut suspicantur, obscurius.

[327] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 9.

[328] App. Bell. Civ. i. 9 [Greek: esemnologaese peri tou Italikou genous]. The expression suggests the further question whether Gracchus intended Italians, as well as Romans, to benefit by his law. On this question see p. 115. But, whatever our opinion on this point, the widening of the issue by an appeal to Italian interests was natural, if not inevitable.

[329] App. l.c.

[330] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 9.

[331] App. Bell. Civ. i. 9; cf. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 8.

[332] The most respectable of the authorities for the Licinian law having dealt with the land question is Varro (R.R. 1. 2. 9 Stolonis illa lex, quae vetat plus D jugera habere civem R). A similar account is found in many other authors (Liv. vi. 35; Vellei. ii. 6; Plut. Cam. 39; Gell. vi. 3. 40; Val. Max. viii. 6. 3). A variant in the maximum amount permitted to a single holder is given by [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 20 [(Licinius Stolo) legem scivit, ne cui plebeio plus centum jugera agri habere liceret]; or the word “plebeio,” if not a mistake, may suggest another clause in the supposed law.

[333] Cato ap. Gell. vi. (vii.) 3. 37. Cato asks whether any enactment punishes intent (for the Rhodians were charged with having intended hostility to Rome), and points his argument by the following reductio ad absurdum of legislation conceived in this spirit, Si quis plus quingenta jugera habere voluerit, tanta poena esto: si quis majorem pecuum numerum habere voluerit, tantum damnas esto.

[334] On this subject see Niese Das sogenannte Licinisch-sextische Ackergesetz (Hermes xxiii. 1888), Soltau Das Aechtheit des licinischen Ackergesetzes von 367 v. Chr. (Hermes xxx. 1895).

[335] Mommsen in C.I.L. i. pp. 75 ff.

[336] Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 29. 81 Nec duo Gracchi, qui de plebis Romanae commodis plurimum cogitaverunt, nec L. Sulla … agrum Campanum attingere ausus est. Cf. i. 7. 21.

[337] Exemptions were specified in the agrarian law of C. Gracchus, which must have appeared in that of his elder brother. They are noticed in the extant Lex agraria (C.I.L. 1. n. 200; Bruns Fontes 1. 3. 11) l. 6 Extra eum agrum, quei ager ex lege plebive scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr. pl. rog(avit), exceptum cavitumve est nei divideretur…. The law of C. Gracchus is here mentioned as being the later enactment. Cicero, when he writes (ad Att. 1. 19. 4) of his own attitude to the Flavian agrarian law of 60 B.C. Liberabam agrum eum, qui P. Mucio L. Calpurnio consulibus publicus fuisset, is probably referring to land that, public in 133 B.C., still remained public in his own day.

[338] See Voigt Ueber die staatsrechtliche Possessio und den Ager Compascuus p. 229.

[339] App. Bell. Civ. 1. 9 [Greek: anekainize ton nomon maedena ton pentakosion plethron pleon hechein, paisi d’ auton hyper ton palaion nomon prosetithei ta haemisea touton]. Liv. Ep. lviii. Ne quis ex publico agro plus quam mille jugera possideret, cf. [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 64. The conclusion stated in the text, which is gained by a combination of these passages, is, however, somewhat hazardous.

[340] App, Bell, Civ. 1. 11 [Greek: ekeleue tous plousious … mae, en ho peri mikron diapherontai, ton pleonon hyperidein, misthon hama taes peponaemenaes exergasias autarkae pheromenous taen exaireton aneu timaes ktaesin es aei bebaion hekasto pentakosion plethron, kai paisin, ois eisi paides, ekasto kai touton ta haemisea]. If [Greek: aneu timaes] means “without paying for it,” the phrase has no relation to the timae mentioned by Plutarch (see the next note) which was a valuation to be received by the dispossessed. It can scarcely mean “without further compensation”; but, if interpreted in this way, the two accounts can be brought into some relation with each other.

[341] Plut, Ti. Gracch. 9 [Greek: ekeleuse timaen proslambanontas ekbainein hon adikos ekektaento].

[342] Siculus Flaccus (p. 136 Lachm.); cf. Mommsen l.c.

[343] There is a reference to this limit in the extant Lex Agraria (C. I. L. i. n. 200; Bruns Fontes 1. 3. 11) l. 14 Sei quis … agri jugra Non amplius xxx possidebit habebitve, but there is no direct evidence to connect it with the Gracchan legislation.

[344] App. Bell. Civ. i. 10.

[345] Cf. p. 110.

[346] Mommsen l.c.

[347] App, Bell. Civ. i. 10

[348] Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 12. 31 Audes etiam, Rulle, mentionem facere legis Semproniae, nec te ea lex ipsa commonet III viros illos XXXV tribuum suffragio creatos esse? App. Bell. Civ. i. 9 [Greek: prosetithei … taen loipaen treis airetous andras, henallassomenous kat’ hetos, dianemein tois penaesin]. Strachan-Davidson (in loc.) doubts this latter characteristic of the magistracy. The history of the land-commission proves at least that the occupants of the post were perpetually re-eligible and could be chosen in their absence. Thus Gracchus, in spite of his two years’ quaestorship in Sardinia, was still a commissioner in 124 B.C. (App. Bell. Civ. i. 21). See Mommsen Staatsr. ii. i. p. 632. The electing body was doubtless the plebeian assembly of the tribes under the guidance of a tribune. This was the mode prescribed by Rullus’s law of 63 B.C. (Cic. de Leg. Agr, ii. 7. 16).

[349] App. Bell, Civ. i. 11.

[350] Cf. App. Bell. Civ. i. 10.

[351] App. l.c. [Greek: daneistai te chrea kai tautaes epedeiknuon.]

[352] App. l.c. [Greek: plaethos hallo hoson en tais apoikois polesin hae tais isopolitisin hae hallos ekoinonei taesde taes gaes, dediotes homoios epaeesan kai es hekaterous auton diemerizonto. isopolitides] would naturally be the municipia (c.f. Lex Agraria l. 31); but Strachan-Davidson (in loc.) thinks that the civitates foederatae are here intended. There is a possibility that Appian has used the term vaguely: but there is no real difficulty in conceiving the municipia to be meant. Even the majority, that had received Roman citizenship, still continued to bear the name, and they may have continued to enjoy municipal rights in public land. The wealthier classes in these towns were therefore alarmed; the poorer classes (possessed of Roman citizenship) hoped for a share in the assignment.

[353] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 10.

[354] Plut. l.c.

[355] Plut. l.c.

[356] Plut. l.c. [Greek: ouden eipein legontai peri allaelon phlauron, oude rhaema prospesein thaterou pros ton heteron di’ horgaen anepitaedeion.]

[357] Diod. xxxiv 6 [Greek: synerreon eis taen Rhomaen oi hochloi apo taes choras hosperei potamoi tines eis taen panta dynamenaen dechesthai thalattan.]

[358] App. Bell. Civ. i. 12.

[359] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 10 [Greek: paroxyntheis ho Tiberios ton men philanthropon epaneileto nomon, ton d’ haedio te tois pollois kai sphodroteron epi tous adikountas eisepheren haedae, keleuon existasthai taes choras haen ekektaento para tous proterous nomous]. Plutarch is apparently thinking of the abolition of what he calls the timae (c. 9.); but his words do not necessarily imply that the original concessions mentioned by Appian (p. 114) were removed.

[360] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 10.

[361] Plut. l.c.

[362] App. Bell. Civ. 1. 12. Plutarch (Ti. Gracch. 11) preserves a tradition that the meeting was practically broken up by the adherents of the possessores who, to prevent the passing of an illegal decree, carried off the voting urns.

[363] [Greek: Mallios kai phoulbios] (Plut. Ti. Gracch. 11). Schäfer (Jahrb. f. Class. Philol. 1873 p. 71) thinks that the first name is a mistake for that of Manilius the jurist, consul in 149 B.C., and that the second refers to Ser. Fulvius Flaccus, consul in 135 B.C.

[364] App. Bell. Civ. 1. 12 oi dunatoi tous daemarchous aexioun hepitrepsai tae boulae peri hon diapherontai.

[365] App. l. c.

[366] App. l. c.

[367] Or in contio held before the meeting. The scene is described in Plut. Ti. Gracch, 11.

[368] Plut. l.c. [Greek: hypeipon ho Tiberios hos ouk estin archontas amphoterous kai peri pragmaton megalon ap’ isaes exousias diapheromenous aneu polemou diexelthein ton chronon.]

[369] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 12.

[370] Cf. Mommsen Staatsr. iii. p. 409, note 1.

[371] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 12.

[372] This is the name given by Appian (Bell. Civ. 1. 13); Plutarch (Ti. Gracch. 13) calls him Mucius; Orosius (v. 8. 3) Minucius.

[373] App. Iber. 83. Cf. Liv. xxvii. 20, xxix. 19. See Mommsen Staatsr. i. p. 629.

[374] Mommsen l.c.

[375] App. Bell. Civ. 1. 13; Plut. _Ti. Gracch. 13.

[376] Liv. Ep. lviii Promulgavit et aliam legem agrariam, qua sibi latius agrum patefaceret, ut iidem triumviri judicarent qua publicus ager, qua privatus esset. The titles borne by the commissioners appear as III vir a. d. a. (Lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, C.I.L. 1. 197; Bruns Fontes i. 3. 9; cf. Lex Acilia Repetundarum 1. 13, C.I.L. i. 198; Bruns Fontes i. 3. 10): III vir a. i. a. (C.I.L. i. nn. 552-555); III vir a.d.a. i. (C.I.L. i. n. 583).

[377] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 13.

[378] App. Bell. Civ. 1. 13.

[379] Plut. l.c.

[380] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14.

[381] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 315.

[382] Liv. Ep. lviii Deinde, cum minus agri esset quam quod dividi posset sine offensa etiam plebis, quoniam eos ad cupiditatem amplum modum sperandi incitaverat, legem se promulgaturum ostendit, ut iis, qui Sempronia lege agrum accipere deberent, pecunia quae regia Attali fuisset divideretur. [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 64 Tulit ut ea familia quae ex Attali hereditate erat ageretur et populo divideretur, Cf. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14; Oros. v. 8. 4.

[383] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14.

[384] Ibid.; Oros. v. 8. 4.

[385] Plut. l.c.. Cicero (Brut. 21. 81) speaks of a speech of Metellus “contra Ti. Gracchum”. Plutarch’s citation may be from this speech.

[386] Cicero regarded Octavius’s deposition as the ruin of Gracchus. Brut. 25. 95 Injuria accepta fregit Ti. Gracchum patientia civis in rebus optimis constantissimus M. Octavius. De Leg. iii. 10. 24 Ipsum Ti. Gracchum non solum neglectus sed etiam sublatus intercessor evertit; quid enim illum aliud perculit, nisi quod potestatem intercedenti collegae abrogavit? The deposition was an act of “seditio” (pro Mil. 27. 72).

[387] Plut. Quaest. Rom. Section 81.

[388] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14.

[389] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 15.

[390] App. Bell. Civ. i. 14.

[391] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 16 [Greek: authis allois nomois anelambane to plaethos, tou te chronou ton strateion aphairon, kai didous epikaleisthai ton daepon apo ton dikaston kai tois krinousi tote synklaetikois ousi [triakosiois] katamignus ek ton hippeon ton ison arithmon.] Dio Cass. Frg. 88 [Greek: ta dikastaeria apo taes boulaes epi tous hippeas metaege] (Cf. Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 34).

[392] Polyb. vi. 19.

[393] There was already such a maximum according to Polybius (vi. 19). What it precisely was, is uncertain, as the passage is corrupt. According to Lipsius’s reading, it was twenty years, according to Casaubon’s, sixteen under ordinary conditions, twenty in emergencies. The knights were required to serve ten campaigns. See Marquardt Staatsverw. ii. p. 381. The nature of the reduction proposed by Gracchus is unknown.

[394] Lex Acilia ll. 23 and 74.

[395] Cic. de Fin. ii. 16. 54.

[396] No mention is made of the appeal in five cases in which criminal commissions had been established by the senate. The dates of these commissions are B.C. 331 (Liv. viii. 18; Val. Max. ii. 5. 3), 314 (Liv. ix. 26), 186 (Liv. xxxix. 8-19), 184 (Liv. xxxix. 41) and 180 (Liv. xl. 37).

[397] Vellei. ii. 2 (Tiberius Gracchus) pollicitus toti Italiae civitatem.

[398] Cicero is perhaps stating the result, rather than the intention, of the Gracchan legislation when he says (de Rep. iii. 29. 41) Ti. Gracchus perseveravit in civibus, sociorum nominisque Latini jura neglexit ac foedera. No point in the Gracchan agrarian law is more remarkable than its strict, perhaps inequitable, legality. That its author consciously violated treaty relations is improbable.

[399] App. Bell. Civ. i. 14.

[400] For the qualifications at this period see Mommsen Staatsr. i. p. 505.

[401] Dio Cass. frg. 88 [Greek: epecheiraese kai es to epion etos meta tou adelphou daemarchaesai kai ton pentheron hypaton apodeixai].

[402] App. l.c.

[403] Mommsen Staatsr. i. p. 523. Dio Cassius indeed says (fr. 22) [Greek: koluphen to tina dis taen archaen lambanein]; but tradition held that the proviso had been violated in the early plebeian agitations.

[404] App. Bell. Civ. 1. 14.

[405] App. l.c.; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 13. The scene is thus described by Asellio (a contemporary):—Orare coepit, id quidem ut se defenderent liberosque suos, eumque, quem virile secus tum in eo tempore habebat, produci jussit populoque commendavit prope flens (Gell. ii. 13. 5). Appian also speaks of a son, Plutarch of children.

[406] Plut. Ti. Gracch., 16.

[407] App. Bell. Civ. 1. 15.

[408] [Greek: prostataes de tou Rhomaion daemou] (Plut. Ti. Gracch. 17).

[409] App. Bell. Civ. i. 16.

[410] Richter Topographie p. 128.

[411] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 18.

[412] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 19.

[413] App. Bell. Civ. i. 15.

[414] Ibid. 16.

[415] The dictator was usually nominated by the consul between midnight and morning (Liv. viii. 23), for the purpose of the avoidance of unfavourable omens.

[416] Tradition ultimately carried it back to the fourth century B.C. In the revolution threatened by Manlius Capitolinus (384 B.C., Liv. vi. 19) the phrase Ut videant magistrates ne quid … res publica detrimenti capiat was believed to have been employed.

[417] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 19 [Greek: epei … prodidosin ho archon taen polin, oi boulomenoi tois nomois boaethein akoloutheite.] The most specific and juristically exact account of these proceedings (one probably drawn from Livy) is preserved by Valerius Maximus (iii. 2. l7): —In aedem Fidei publicae convocati patres conscripti a consule Mucio Scaevola quidnam in tali tempestate faciendum esset deliberabant, cunctisque censentibus ut consul armis rem publicam tueretur, Scaevola negavit se quicquam vi esse acturum. Tum Scipio Nasica Quoniam, inquit, consul dum juris ordinem sequitur id agit ut cum omnibus legibus Romanum imperium corruat, egomet me privatus voluntati vestrae ducem offero…. Qui rem publicam salvam esse volunt me sequantur.

[418] App. Bell. Civ. i. 16; Plut. l.c. Appian speculates as to the meaning of the act. It may have been meant to attract the attention of his supporters, it may have been a signal of war, it may have been intended to veil the impending deed of horror from the eyes of the gods. Cf. Vellei. ii. 3.

[419] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 19.

[420] [Cic.] ad Herenn, iv. 55. 68.

[421] In the highly rhetorical exercise contained in [Cic.] ad Herenn. iv. 55. 68 is to be found the following picture:—Iste spumans ex ore scelus, anhelans ex infirmo pectore crudelitatem, contorquet brachium et dubitanti Graccho quid esset, neque tamen locum, in quo constiterat, relinquenti, percutit tempus.

[422] App. Bell. Civ. i. 16.

[423] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 19.

[424] App. Bell. Civ. i. 16 [Greek: kai pantas autous nyktos exerripsan es to rheuma ton potamou]. [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 64 (Gracchi) corpus Lucretii aedilis manu in Tiberim missum; unde ille Vespillo dictus.

[425] Plut. C. Gracch. 1.

[426] Vellei. ii. 3. 3 Hoc initium in urbe Roma civilis sanguinis gladiorumque impunitatis fuit. Inde jus vi obrutum potentiorque habitus prior, discordiaeque civium antea condicionibus sanari solitae ferro dijudicatae (cf. Plut. Ti. Gracch. 20; App. Bell. Civ. i. 17). Cic. de Rep. i. 19. 31 Mors Tiberii Gracchi et jam ante tota illius ratio tribunatus divisit populum unum in duas partes.

[427] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 20 [Greek: tautaen protaen historousin en Rhomae stasin, aph’ ou to basileuesthai katelysan, aimati kai phono politon diakrithaenai.]

[428] Sall. Jug. 31. 7 Occiso Ti. Graccho, quem regnum parare aiebant, in plebem Romanam quaestiones habitae sunt. Val. Max. iv. 7, 1 Cum senatus Rupilio et Laenati consulibus mandasset ut in eos, qui cum Graccho consenserant, more majorum animadverterent … Cf. Vellei. ii. 7. 4.

[429] Cic. de Amic. 11. 37.

[430] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 20.

[431] Cic. de Amic. ii. 37; Val. Max. iv. 7. 1.

[432] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 20.

[433] Ibid. 21.

[434] Val Max. v. 3. 2 e Is quoque (Scipio Nasica) propter iniquissimam virtutum suarum apud cives aestimationem sub titulo legationis Pergamum secessit et quod vitae superfuit ibi sine ullo ingratae patriae desiderio peregit. Cf. Plut. l.c.; Strabo xiv. 1. 38. See Waddington Fastes p. 662.

[435] Vellei. ii. 3. 1 P. Scipio Nasica … ob eas virtutes primus omnium absens pontifex maximus factus est. The other view, that Nasica was already pontifex maximus before his exile, was widely prevalent and is stated by nearly all our authorities (Cic. in Cat. i. 1. 3; Val. Max. 1. 4. 1; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 21; App. Bell. Civ. i. 16).

[436] Plut. l.c.

[437] Val. Max. vii. 2, 6 Par illa sapientia senatus. Ti. Gracchum tribunum pl. agrariam legem promulgare ausum morte multavit. Idem ut secundum legem ejus per triumviros ager populo viritim divideretur egregie censuit.

[438] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 21, C.I.L. i. n. 552 C. Sempronius Ti. F. Grac., Ap. Claudius C. F. Pulc., P. Licinius P. F. Crass. III vir. A. I. A. (Cf. nn. 553. 1504), n. 583 (82-81 B.C.) M. Terentius M. F. Varro Lucullus Pro Pr. terminos restituendos ex s. c. coeravit qua P. Licinius Ap. Claudius C. Graccus III vir A. D. A. I. statuerunt. These termini suggest the limites Graccani of the Liber Coloniarum (Gromatici ed. Lachmann, pp. 209. 210) which may refer to the agrarian assignments under the leges Semproniae (of Ti. and C. Gracchus) rather than to the colonial foundations of the younger brother.

[439] Liv. Ep. lix. Seditiones a triumviris Fulvio Flacco et C. Graccho et C. Papirio Carbone agro dividendo creatis excitatae. App. Bell. Civ. i. 18. C.I.L. i. n. 554 M. Folvios M.F. Flac., C. Sempronius Ti. F. Grac., C. Paperius C.F. Carb. III vire. A.I.A. (cf. n. 555).

[440] C.I.L. i. 551 (Wilmanns 797) Primus fecei ut de agro poplico aratoribus cederent pastores.

[441] Liv. Ep. lix. (131 B.C.) Censa sunt civium capita CCCXVIII milia DCCCXXIII praeter pupillos et viduas. Ib. lx. (125 B.C.) Censa sunt civium capita CCCLXXXXIIII milia DCCXXVI. See de Boor Fasti Censorii.

[442] Mommsen Hist. of Rome bk. iv. c. 3.

[443] App. Bell. Civ. i. 18 [Greek: amelounton de ton kektaemenon autaen (sc. taen gaen) apographesthai, kataegorous ekaerytton endeiknynai; kai tachy plaethos haen dikon chalepon].

[444] App. l.c.

[445] Unless we take such to be the meaning of Hyginus (de Condic. Agr. p. 116) Vectigales autem agri sunt obligati, quidam r. p. P. R., quidam coloniarum aut municipiorum aut civitatium aliquarum. Qui et ipsi plerique ad populum Romanum pertinentes…. The passage seems to state that some agri which owed vectigal to communities belonged to the Roman people. There might therefore be a fear of their resumption, although it should have been remote, since these lands, as the context shows, were dealt with by a system of lease (for its nature see Mitteis Zur Gesch. der Erbpacht im Alterthum pp. 13 foll.), and leaseholds do not seem to have been threatened by Gracchus.

[446] App. Bell. Civ. i 19.

[447] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 21. Hom. Od. i. 47.

[448] Cic. Phil. xi. 8. 18; Liv. Ep. lix.; Eutrop. iv. 19.

[449] Liv. Ep. lix. Cum Carbo tribunus plebis rogationem tulisset, ut eundem tribunum plebi, quoties vellet, creare liceret, rogationem ejus P. Africanus gravissima oratione dissuasit. Cic. de Amic. 25. 95 Dissuasimus nos (Laelius), sed nihil de me: de Scipione dicam libentius. Quanta illi, dii immortales! fuit gravitas! quanta in oratione majestas! … Itaque lex popularis suffragiis populi repudiata est. Cf. Cic. de Or. ii. 40. 170.

[450] Vellei. ii. 4. 4 Hic, eum interrogante tribuno Carbone quid de Ti. Gracchi caede sentiret, respondit, si is occupandae rei publicae animum habuisset, jure caesum. Et cum omnis contio adclamasset, “Hostium,” inquit, “armatorum totiens clamore non territus, qui possum vestro moveri, quorum noverca est Italia?” Val. Max. vi. 2. 3 Orto deinde murmure “Non efficietis,” ait, “ut solutos verear quos alligatos adduxi.” Cf. Cic, pro Mil. 3. 8; Liv. Ep. lix; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 21.

[451] App. Bell. Civ. i. 19 [Greek: ho d’ es tous polemous autois kechraemenos prothymotatois hyperidein … oknaese.]

[452] Liv. Ep. lvii.

[453] App. Bell. Civ. i 19.

[454] Liv. Ep. lviii (p. 127).

[455] App. l.c.

[456] App. l.c.

[457] App. l.c.

[458] Plut. C. Gracch. 10.

[459] Oros. v. 10. 9; Cic. de Amic. 3. 12.

[460] App. Bell. Civ. i. 20.

[461] Plut. Rom. 27 [Greek: oi men automatos onta physei nosodae kamein legousin.]

[462] Villei. ii. 4 Mane in lectulo repertus est mortuus, ita ut quaedam elisarum faucium in cervice reperirentur notae.

[463] Plut. C. Gracch. 10 [Greek: kai deinon outos ergon ep’ andri to proto kai megisto Rhomaion tolmaethen ouk etyche dikaes oud’ eis elenchon proaelthen; enestaesan gar oi polloi kai katelysan taen krisin hyper tou Gaiou phobaethentes, mae peripetaes tae aitia tou phonou zaetoumenou genaetai.] Vellei. ii. 4 De tanti viri morte nulla habita est quaestio. Cf. Liv. Ep. lix.

[464] Schol. Bob. ad Cic. Milon. 7. p. 383.

[465] App. Bell. Civ. i. 20.

[466] Schol. Bob. l.c.; cf. Plut. C. Gracch. 10.

[467] Plut. l.c.

[468] Cic. ad Fam. ix. 21. 3, ad Q. fr. ii 3. 3, de Or. ii. 40. 170. Cf. de Amic. 12. 41.

[469] App. Bell. Civ. i. 20.

[470] App. l.c.

[471] App. Bell. Civ. i. 20 [Greek: hos enioi dokousin, ekon apethane synidon hoti ouk esoito dynatos kataschein hon hyposchoito.] For the theory of suicide cf. Plut. Rom. 27 [Greek: oi d’ auton hyph’ eautou pharmakois apothanein (legousin).]

[472] Schol. Bob. in Milon, l.c.

[473] Val. Max. iv. 1. 12.

[474] Cic. de Leg. iii. 16. 35 Carbonis est tertia (lex tabellaria) de jubendis legibus ac vetandis.

[475] Liv. Ep. lvi.

[476] App. Bell. Civ. i. 21 [Greek: kai gar tis haedae nomos ekekyroto, ei daemarchos endeoi tais parangeliais, ton daemon ek panton epilegesthai.] It is possible that Appian has misconstrued the provision that, if enough candidates did not receive the absolute majority required for election (explere tribus), any one—even a tribune already in office—should be eligible. See Strachan-Davidson in loc.

[477] Or possibly by securing that some of its candidates should not receive the number of votes requisite for election. See the last note.

[478] App. Bell. Civ. i 21 [Greek: kai tines esaegounto tous symmachous hapantas, oi dae teri taes gaes malista antelegon, es taen Rhomaion politeian anagrapsai, os meizoni chariti peri taes gaes ou dioisomenous; kai edechonto hasmenoi touth’ oi Italiotai, protithentes ton chorion taen politeian.]

[479] Cic. de Off. iii. 11. 47 Male etiam qui peregrinos urbibus uti prohibent eosque exterminant, ut Pennus apud patres nostros…. Nam esse pro cive qui civis non sit rectum est non licere; quam legem tulerunt sapientissimi consules Crassus et Scaevola (95 B.C.); usu vero urbis prohibere peregrinos sane inhumanum est. For the date of Pennus’s law see Cic. Brut. 28. 109:—Fuit … M. Lepido et L. Oreste consulibus quaestor Gracchus, tribunus Pennus.

[480] Festus p. 286 Resp. multarum civitatum pluraliter dixit C. Gracchus in ea, quam conscripsit de lege p. Enni (Penni Müller) et peregrinis, cum ait: “eae nationes, cum aliis rebus, per avaritiam atque stultitiam res publicas suas amiserunt”.

[481] App. Bell. Civ. i. 34 [Greek: Phoulouios phlakkos hypateion malista dae protos ode es to phanerotaton haerethize tous Italiotas epithymein taes Rhomaion politeias hos koinonous taes haegemonias anti hypaekoon esomenous]. (Cf. i. 21), Val. Max. ix. 5. 1 M. Fulvius Flaccus consul, … cum perniciosissimas rei publicae leges introduceret de civitate Italiae danda et de provocatione ad populum eorum, qui civitatem mutare noluissent, aegre compulsus est ut in Curiam veniret.

[482] Liv. xxxviii. 36. Four tribunes vetoed a rogatio to grant voting rights to the municipia of Formiae, Fundi and Arpinum in 188 B.C. on the ground that the senate’s judgment had not been taken, but Edocti populi esse, non senatus jus, suffragium quibus velit impertire, destiterunt incepto.

[483] Val. Max. ix. 5, 1 Deinde partim monenti, partim oranti senatui ut incepto desisteret, responsum non dedit … Flaccus in totius amplissimi ordinis contemnenda majestate versatus est. Cf. App. Bell. Civ. i. 21.

[484] App. Bell. Civ. i. 34 [Greek: esaegoumenos de taen gnomaen kai epimenon autae karteros, upa taes boulaes epi tina strateian exepemphthae dia tode].

[485] Liv. Ep. lx; Ammian, xv. 12. 5.

[486] An isolated notice speaks of a rising at Asculum. [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 65 (C. Gracchus) Asculanae et Fregellanae defectionis invidiam sustinuit.

[487] Liv. viii. 22.

[488] Liv. xxvii. 10.

[489] Liv. Ep. lx L. Opimius praetor Fregellanos, qui defecerant, in deditionem accepit; Fregellas diruit. Cf. Vellei. ii. 6; Obsequens 90; Plut. C. Gracch. 3; [Cic.] ad Herenn. iv. 15. 22.

[490] Vellei. i. 15 Cassio autem Longino et Sextio Calvino … consulibus Fabrateria deducta est.

[491] Plut. C. Gracch. 3.

[492] It has been supposed that this boy may really have been the son of Attalus brother of Eumenes, a fruit of the transitory connection between this prince and Stratonice, which followed the false news of Eumenes’s death in 172 B.C. See F. Köpp De Attali III patre in Rhein. Mus. xlviii. pp. 154 ff.; Wilcken in Pauly-Wissowa Real, Enc. p. 2170, and for the temporary marriage of Attalus with Stratonice Plut. de Frat. Amor. 18; Polyb. xxx. 2. 6. Livy (xlii. 16) and perhaps Diodorus (xxix. 34) speak only of Attalus’s wooing, not of his marriage. If Attalus the Third was not the son of Eumenes, he was at least adopted by the king and was clearly recognised as his heir. The official view made the relationship between the Attali that of uncle and nephew.

[493] For the guardianship of the younger Attalus see Strabo xiii. 4. 2. The recognition of the regent as king is clearly attested by inscriptions (Fränkel Inschriften von Pergamon nn. 214 ff., 224, 225, 248. In n. 248.) the future Attalus the Third is called by the king [Greek: ho tadelphon nios] (l. 18, cf. l. 32 [Greek: ho theios mon] used by Attalus the Third) and has some power of appointment to the priesthood. There is no sign that the nephew was in any other respect a co-regent of the uncle. See Fränkel op. cit. p. 169.

[494] Liv. xxxviii. cc. 12, 23, 25; Polyb. xxi. 39.

[495] Liv. xliv. 36; xlv. 19.

[496] Wilcken in Pauly-Wissowa Real. Enc. p. 2168 foll.

[497] Polyb. xxxii. 22; Diod. xxxi. 32 b.

[498] For the details of this struggle see Wilcken l.c. p. 2172; Ussing Pergamos p. 50.

[499] Ussing op. cit. p. 51.

[500] Strabo xiii. 4. 2.

[501] Strabo l.c.; Lucian. Macrob. 12. He was sixty-one years old at his accession and eighty-two years old at the time of his death.

[502] Justin. xxxvi. 4; Diod. xxxiv. 3.

[503] Once, indeed, he seems to have taken the field with some success, as is proved by a decree in honour of a victory (Fränkel Inschr. von Pergamon n. 246). A vote of the town of Elaea honours the king [Greek: aretaes heneken kai andragathias taes kata polemon, krataesanta ton hupenantion] (l. 22). The victory is also mentioned in n. 249.

[504] Liv. Ep. lviii. Heredem autem populum Romanum reliquerat Attalus, rex Pergami, Eumenis filius. Cf. ib. lix; Strabo xiii. 4. 2; Vellei. ii. 4; Val. Max. v. 2, ext. 3; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14; Eutrop. iv. 18; Justin. xxxvi. 4. 5; Florus ii. 3 (iii. 15); Oros. v. 8; App. Mithr. 62.

[505] Sall. Hist. iv. 69 Maur. (Epistula Mithridatis) Eumenen, cujus amicitiam gloriose ostentant, initio prodidere (Romani) Antiocho, pacis mercedem; post habitum custodiae agri captivi sumptibus et contumeliis ex rege miserrimum servorum effecere, simulatoque impio testamento filium ejus Aristonicum, quia patrium regnum petiverat, hostium more per triumphum duxere.

[506] The reality of the will is attested by a Pergamene inscription (Fränkel Inschr. von Pergamon n. 249). The inscription records a resolution taken by the [Greek: daemos] on the proposal of the [Greek: strataegoi]. The resolution is elicited after the will has become known and in view of its ratification by Rome (l. 7 [Greek: dei de epicurothaenai taen diathaekaen hupo Rhomaion]). Pergamon has by the death of the king, and perhaps in accordance with the will (see p. 177), been left “free” (l. 5 Attalus by passing away [Greek: apoleloipen taen patrida haemon eleutheran)]. The first result of this freedom is that the people extends the privileges of its citizenship. Full civic rights are given to Paroeci (i.e. incolae) and (mercenary) soldiers; the rights of Paroeci are given to other classes:—freedmen, royal and public slaves. The motive assigned for the conferment is public security, and the extension of rights seems to be justified (l. 6) by the liberal spirit shown by the late king in the organisation of his conquests (see p. 175 note 2). The ruling idea seems to be that, if Pergamon was to be free, she must be strong. See Frankel in loc., Ussing Pergamos p. 55.

[507] At the same time the self-governing character of the civic corporation might be recognised: and Attalus, if he made the will, may have been courteous enough to recognise the “freedom” of the city from this point of view. See p. 177.

[508] Liv. Ep. lix. Cum testamento Attali regis legata populo Romano libera esse deberet (Asia). Cf. pp. 175, 176, notes 5 and 1.

[509] Justin. xxxvi. 4. 6 Sed erat ex Eumene Aristonicus, non justo matrimonio, sed ex paelice Ephesia, citharistae cujusdam filia, genitus, qui post mortem Attali velut paternum regnum Asiam invasit. The epitomator of Livy (lix.) speaks of him as “Eumenis filius”. Strabo (xiv. 1. 38) describes him as [Greek: dokon tou genous einai tou ton basileon].

[510] Florus i. 35 (ii. 20).

[511] Strabo xiv. 1. 38.

[512] Diod. xxxiv. 2. 26 [Greek: to paraplaesion de] (to the slave revolt in Sicily) [Greek: gegone kai kata taen Asian kata tous autous kairous, Aristonikou men antipoiaesamenou taes mae prosaekousaes basileias, ton de doulon dia tas ek ton despoton kakouchias synaponoaesamenon ekeino kai megalois atychaemasi pollas poleis peribalonton].

[513] Strabo l.c. [Greek: eis de taen mesogaian anion haethroise dia tacheon plaethos aporon te anthropon kai doulon ep’ eleutheria katakeklaemenon, ous Haeliopolitas ekalese]. For the view that Heliopolis was a merely ideal city deriving its name from the sun-god of Syria, see Mommsen Hist. of Rome bk. iv. c. 1; Bücher op. cit. pp. 105 foll. For the hopes of divine deliverance which pervade the slave revolts, see Mahaffy in Hermathena xvi. 1890, and cf. p. 89.

[514] Strabo l.c.

[515] Florus i. 35 (ii. 20).

[516] Val. Max. iii. 2. 12.

[517] Strabo xiv. i. 38.

[518] Strabo l.c. [Greek: euthus ai te poleis hepempsan plaethos, kai Nikomaedaes ho Bithynos epekouraese kai oi ton Kappadokon basileis]. Eutrop. iv. 20 P. Licinius Crassus infinita regum habuit auxilia. Nam et Bithyniae rex Nicomedes Romanos juvit et Mithridates Ponticus, cum quo bellum postea gravissimum fuit, et Ariarathes Cappadox et Pylaemenes Paphlagon. The Pontic king was Mithradates Euergetes, not Eupator.

[519] Cic. Phil. xi. 8. 18 Populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit.

[520] In B.C. 189 (Liv. xxxvii. 51) and 180 (Liv. xi. 42).

[521] Cic. l.c. Rogatus est populus quem id bellum gerere placeret. Crassus consul, pontifex maximus, Flacco collegae, flamini Martiali, multam dixit si a sacris discessisset; quam multam populus remisit, pontifici tamen flaminem parere jussit.

[522] Cf. Liv. Ep. lix. Adversus eum (Aristonicum) P. Licinius Crassus consul, cum idem pontifex maximus esset, quod numquam antea factum erat, extra Italiam profectus….

[523] Quinctil, Inst. Or. xi. 2. 50.

[524] Gell. i. 13.

[525] Intentior Attalicae praedae quam bello (Justin. xxxvi. 4. 8).

[526] Cf. Eutrop. iv. 20 Perperna, consul Romanus (130 B.C.) qui successor Crasso veniebat.

[527] Val. Max. iii. 2. 12; Strabo xiv. i. 38.

[528] Val. Max. l.c. Cf. Oros. v. 10; Florus i. 34 (ii. 20). Eutropius (iv. 20) states that Crassus’s head was taken to Aristonicus, his body buried at Smyrna.

[529] Justin. xxxvi. 4 Prima congressione Aristonicum superatum in potestatem suam redegit.

[530] Eutrop. iv. 20. Cf. Liv. Ep. lix.

[531] Justin. l.c.

[532] Justin. xxxvi. 4 M. Aquilius consul ad eripiendum Aristonicum Perpernae, veluti sui potius triumphi munus esse deberet, festinata velocitate contendit.

[533] Eutrop. iv. 20; Justin. xxxvi. 4.

[534] Vellei. ii. 4.

[535] Eutrop. l.c. Aristonicus jussu senatus Romae in carcere strangulatus est. According to Strabo (xiv. i. 38) he had been sent to Rome by Perperna.

[536] Florus i. 35 (ii. 20) Aquillius Asiatici belli reliquias confecit, mixtis-nefas-veneno fontibus ad deditionem quarundam urbium. Quae res ut maturam ita infamem fecit victoriam, quippe cum contra fas deum moresque majorum medicaminibus impuris in id tempus sacrosancta Romana arma violasset.

[537] Strabo xiv. 1. 38 [Greek: Manion d’ Akyllios, epelthon hypatos meta deka presbeuton, dietaxe taen eparchian eis to nyn eti symmenon taes politeias schaema.]

[538] An inscription with the words [Greek: Man(i)os Aky(l)ios Man(i)ou hypato(s) Rhomaion] has been found near Tralles. It probably belongs to a milestone (C.I.L. i. n. 557 = C.I.Gr. n. 2920).

[539] Where the rights of city-states were in question the lines of demarcation between “province” and “protectorate” were necessarily vague. Even a protectorate over small political units would demand organisation and justify the appointment of a commission.

[540] The evidence is furnished by a Cistophorus of 77 B.C. struck at Ephesus. See Waddington Fastes p. 674.

[541] His triumph is dated to 126 B.C. (628 A. U. C., 627 according to the reckoning of the Fasti). See Fasti triumph, in C.I.L. i.

[542] Waddington Fastes pp. 662 foll. Caria belongs to the province of Asia in 76 B.C. (Le Bas-Waddington, no. 409).

[543] It is dependent on this province in the time of Cicero (in Pis. 35. 86).

[544] Strabo xiv. 3. 4.

[545] Justin. xxxvii. i. Cf. Bergmann in Philologus 1847 p. 642.

[546] Forbiger Handb. der All. Geogr. ii. p. 338.

[547] Reinach Mithridate Eupator p. 43.

[548] Justin. xxxviii. 5.

[549] C. Gracchus ap. Gell. xi. 10. Cf. Plin. H.N. xxxiii. ii. 148 Asia primum devicta luxuriam misit in Italiam…. At eadem Asia donata multo etiam gravius adflixit mores, inutiliorque victoria illa hereditas Attalo rege mortuo fuit. Tum enim haec emendi Romae in auctionibus regiis verecundia exempta est.

[550] Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia i. 2, pp. 423, 762; Reinach. Mithridate Eupator p. 457.

[551] For the evidence as to the islands, see Waddington Fastes l. c.

[552] Regni attalici opes (Justin. xxxviii. 7. 7); Attalicae conditiones (Hor, Od. i. 1. 12); Attalicae vestes (Prop. iii. 18. 19) etc. (from Ihne Rom. Gesch. v., p. 76).

[553] Liv. Ep. lix; App. Illyr. 10, Bell. Civ. i. 19; Plin. H.N. iii. 19. 129; Fasti triumph. C. Sempronius C.F.C.N. Tuditan. a. dcxxiv cos. de Iapudibus k. Oct.

[554] Liv. Ep. lx; Florus i. 37 (iii. 2); Obsequens 90 (28); Ammian. xv. 12. 5.

[555] Liv. Ep. lx; Plut. C. Gracch. 1. 2.

[556] Fasti Triumph. L. Aurelius L.F.L.N. Orestes pro an. dcxxi cos. ex Sardinia vi Idus Dec. (123 B.C.)

[557] Plut. C. Gracch. 2.

[558] Diod. v. 17, 2.

[559] Besides Mago (Mahon), Bocchori and Guiuntum on Majorca, Iamo on Minorca are supposed to be Punic names. See Hübner in Pauly-Wissowa Real. Enc. p. 2823. On the islands generally (Baliares, later Baleares of the Romans, [Greek: Gymnaesiai, Baliareis] of the Greeks) see the same author’s Römische Heerschaft in Westeuropa 208 ff.

[560] Strabo iii. v. 1.

[561] Diod. v. 17. 4.

[562] Hübner in Pauly-Wissowa Real. Enc. l. c.

[563] They also purchased wine. They were so [Greek: philogynai] that they would give pirates three or four men as a ransom for one woman (Diod. v. 17).

[564] Strabo l.c. [Greek: oi katoikountes eiraenaioi … kakourgon de tinon oligon koinonias systaesamenon pros tous en tois pelagesi laestas, dieblaethaesan hapantes, kai diebae Metellos ep’ autous ho Baliarikos prosagoreutheis.]

[565] Strabo l.c.

[566] Strabo l.c. [Greek: eisaegage de (Metellos) epoikous trischilious ton ek taes Ibaerias Rhomaion.]

[567] Fasti Triumph. (121 B.C.) Q. Caecilius Q.F.Q.N. Metellus a. dcxxxii Baliaric. procos. de Baliarib.

[568] Plut. Ti. Gracch. 2.

[569] Quae sic ab illo acta esse constabat oculis, voce, gestu, inimici ut lacrimas tenere non possent (Cic. de Or, iii. 56. 214).

[570] Plut. l.c.

[571] Plut. l.c.

[572] Cic. Brut, 33. 125 Sed ecce in manibus vir et praestantissimo ingenio et flagranti studio et doctus a puero, C. Gracchus…. Grandis est verbis, sapiens sententiis, genere toto gravis. His “impetus” is dwelt on in Tac. de Orat. 26.

[573] Cic. Brut. 33. 126 Manus extrema non accessit operibus ejus: praeclare inchoata multa, perfecta non plane. Cf. Tac. de Orat. 18 Sic Catoni seni comparatus C. Gracchus plenior et uberior; sic Graccho politior et ornatior Crassus.

[574] Cic, de Or. iii. 56. 214.

[575] P. 127

[576] Plut. C. Gracch. 1.

[577] C. Gracchus ap. Charis. ii. p. 177 Qui sapientem eum faciet? Qui et vobis et rei publicae et sibi communiter prospiciat, non qui pro suilla humanam trucidet.

[578] Plut. l.c.

[579] Ibid. Cf. [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 65 Pestilentem Sardiniam quaestor sortitus.

[580] Plut. l.c.

[581] Cic. de Div. i. 26. 56 C. vero Gracchus multis dixit, ut scriptum apud eundem Coelium est, sibi in somniis quaesturam petere dubitanti Ti. fratrem visum esse dicere, quam vellet cunctaretur, tamen eodem sibi leto quo ipse interisset esse pereundum. Hoc, ante quam tribunus plebi C. Gracchus factus esset, et se audisse scribit Coelius et dixisse eum multis. Cf. Plut. l.c.

[582] Plut. C. Gracch. 2.

[583] Plut. l.c.

[584] Plut. l.c.

[585] Ibid. [Greek: alla kai pollois allokotom edokei to tamian onta proapostaenai tou archontos].

[586] Cic. Div. in Caec. 19. 61 Sic enim a majoribus nostris accepimus praetorem quaestori suo parentis loco esse oportere: nullam neque justiorem neque graviorem causam necessitudinis posse reperiri quam conjunctionem sortis, quam provinciae, quam officii, quam publici muneris societatem.

[587] A passage from Caius’s speech “apud censores” is quoted by Cicero Orat. 70.233.

[588] Plutarch says (C. Gracch. 2) that Caius [Greek: aitaesamenos logon outo metestaese tas gnomes ton akousanton, hos apelthein haedikaesthai ta megista doxas]. The passage seems to imply acquittal by the censors, although [Greek: ton akousanton] suggests the larger audience. The arguments cited by Plutarch as developed by Caius appeared, or were repeated, in the speech that he subsequently made before the people.

[589] Gell. xv. 12.

[590] Plut. C. Gracch. 3; [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 65.

[591] Plut. l.c.

[592] Plut. l.c.

[593] Cic. pro Rab. 4. 12 C. Gracchus legem tulit ne de capite civium Romanorum injussu vestro (sc. populi) judicaretur. Plut. C. Gracch. 4 [Greek: (nomon eisepheren) ei tis archon akriton ekpekaerychoi politaen, kat’ auton didonta krisin to daemo_.] Schol. Ambros. p. 370 Quia sententiam tulerat Gracchus, ut ne quis in civem Romanum capitalem sententiam diceret. Cic. in Cat. iv. 5. 10; in Verr. v. 63. 163. Cf. Cic. pro Sest. 28. 61; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 14.

[594] Plut. C. Gracch. 4.

[595] Schol. Ambros. p. 370. Cf. Cic. pro Sest. 28, 61 Consule me, cum esset designatus (Cato) tribunus plebis (63 B.C.), obtulit in discrimen vitam suam: dixit eam sententiam cujus invidiam capitis periculo sibi praestandam videbat. Dio Cass. xxxviii. 14.

[596] Cic. pro Domo 31. 82 Ubi enim tuleras ut mihi aqua et igni interdiceretur? quod C. Gracchus de P. Popilio … tulit. de Leg. iii. 11. 26 Si nos multitudinis furentis inflammata invidia pepulisset tribuniciaque vis in me populum, sicut Gracchus in Laenatem … incitasset, ferremus. Cf. pro Cluent. 35. 95; de Rep. i. 3.6. For the speeches of Caius Gracchus on Popillius see Gell. 1.7.7; xi. 13.1.5.

[597] Cic. post Red. in Sen. 15. 37 Pro me non ut pro P. Popilio, nobilissimo homine, adulescentes filii, non propinquorum multitudo populum Romanum est deprecata.

[598] Diod. xxxv. 26 [Greek: ho Popillios meta dakruon hypo ton ochlon proepemphthae ekballomenos ek taes poleos.] Cf. Plut. C. Gracch. 4.

[599] Vellei. ii. 7 Rupilium Popiliumque, qui consules asperrime in Tiberii Gracchi amicos saevierant, postea judiciorum publicorum merito oppressit invidia. It is a little difficult to harmonise Fannius’s account of Rupilius’s death (ap. Cic. Tusc. iv. 17.40) with this condemnation. Here Rupilius is said to have died of grief at his brother’s failure to obtain the consulship, and this failure happened before Scipio’s death (Cic. de Am 20.73). But his brother may have continued his unsuccessful efforts up to the time of Rupilius’s condemnation.

[600] Plut. C. Gracch. 4 [Greek: (nomon) eisephere … ei tinos archontos aphaeraeto ton archaen ho daemos, ouk eonta touto deuteras archaes metousian einai.] Cf. Diod. xxxv. 25. Magistrates who had been deposed, or compelled to abdicate, were known as abacti (Festus p. 23 Abacti magistratus dicebantur, qui coacti deposuerant imperium).

[601] Plut. l.c.

[602] Diod. xxxv. 25 [Greek: ho Grakchos daemaegoraesas peri tou katalysai aristokratian, daemokratian de systaesai, kai ephikomenos taes hapanton euchraestias ton meron, ouketi synagonistas alla kathaper authentas eiche toutous hyper taes idias tolmaes; dedekasmenos gar hekastos tais idiais elpisin hos hyper idion agathon ton eispheromenon nomon hetoimos haen panta kindynon hypomenein.]

[603] Liv. Ep. xlviii (155 B.C.) Cum locatum a censoribus theatrum exstrueretur; P. Cornelio Nasica auctore, tanquam inutile et nociturum publicis moribus, ex senatus consulto destructum est, populusque aliquamdiu stans ludos spectavit.

[604] Liv. Ep. lx.; Oros. v. II; Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 393.

[605] Plut. C. Gracch. 5 [Greek: ho de sitikos (nomos) epeuonizon tois penaesi taen agoran.] App. Bell. Civ. i. 21 [Greek: sitaeresion hemmaenon horisas hekasto ton daemoton apo ton koinon chraematon, ou proteron eiothos diadidosthai.] Vellei. ii. 6 Frumentum plebi dari instituerat. Liv. Ep. lx Leges tulit, inter quas frumentariam, ut senis et triente frumentum plebi daretur. Schol. Bob. p. 303 Ut senis aeris et trientibus modios singulos populus acciperet. Cf. Mommsen Die römischen Tribus pp. 179 and 182.

[606] Mommsen (Hist. of Rome bk. iv. c. 3) considers it rather less than half. The average market-price of the modius is difficult to fix. A low price seems to have been about 12 asses the modius. See Smith and Wilkins in Smith _Dict. of Antiq. i. p. 877. For occasional sales below the market-price at an earlier period see Plin. H.N. xviii. 3. 17 M. Varro auctor est, cum L. Metellus (cos. 251 B.C.) in triumpho plurimos duxit elephantos, assibus singulis farris modios fuisse.

[607] Cic. Tusc. Disp. iii. 20. 48 C. Gracchus, cum largitiones maximas fecisset et effudisset aerarium, verbis ramen defendebat aerarium.

[608] Cic. Tusc. Disp. iii. 20. 48.

[609] Cic. de Off. ii. 21. 72 C. Gracchi frumentaria magna largitio; exhauriebat igitur aerarium: pro Sest. 48. 103 Frumentariam legem C. Gracchus ferebat. Jucunda res plebei; victus enim suppeditabatur large sine labore. Cf. Brut. 62. 222. Diod. xxxv. 25 [Greek: to koinon tamieion eis aischras kai akairous dapanas kai charitas analiskon eis heauton pantas apoblepein epoiaese.] Cf. Oros. v. 12.

[610] Plut. C. Gracch. 6 [Greek: egrapse de kai … kataskeuazesthai sitobolia.] Festus p. 290 Sempronia horrea qui locus dicitur, in eo fuerunt lege Gracchi, ad custodiam frumenti publici.

[611] This view is represented in a criticism preserved by Diodorus xxxv. 25 [Greek: tois stratiotais dia ton nomon ta taes archaias agogaes austaera katacharisamenos apeithian kai anarchian eisaegagen eis taen politeian].

[612] Plut. C. Gracch. 5 [Greek: ho de stratiotikos (nomos) esthaeta te keleuon daemosia choraegeisthai kai maeden eis touto taes misthophoras hyphaireisthai ton stratenomenon].

[613] [Greek: kai neoteron eton heptakaideka mae katalegesthai stratiotaen] (Plut. l.c.).

[614] Plut. l.c. [Greek: ton de nomon … ho men haen klaerouchikos hama nemon tois penaesi taen daemosian.] Liv. Ep. lx Tulit … legem agrariam, quam et frater ejus tulerat. Vellei. ii. 6 (C. Gracchus) dividebat agros, vetabat quemquam civem plus quingentis jugeribus habere, quod aliquando lege Licinia cautum erat. Cf. Cic. de Leg. Agr. i. 7. 21; ii. 5. 10; Oros. v. 12; Florus ii. 3 (iii. 15).

[615] Lex Agraria (C.I.L. i. n. 200; Bruns Fontes 1. 3. 11) 1. 6. See p. 113, note 2.

[616] In 125 B.C. the census had been 394, 726 (Liv. Ep. lx), in 115 it was 394, 336 (Liv. Ep. lxiii). See de Boor Fasti Censorii.

[617] Herzog Staatsverf. i. p. 466.

[618] In 142 B.C. (Cic. de Fin. ii. 16. 54).

[619] Polyb. vi. 14.

[620] Cic. pro Mur. 28. 58; pro Font. 13. 38; Brut. 21. 81; Div. in Caec. 21. 69; Tac_. Ann_ 111. 66. Valerius Maximus (viii. 1. 11) can scarcely be correct in saying that the trial took place apud populum. It seems to have been a trial for extortion.

[621] App. Bell. Civ. i. 22. Cf. Cic. Div. in Caec. 21. 69 [Ascon.] in loc.; App. Mithr. 57.

[622] App. Bell. Civ. i. 22 [Greek: oi te presbeis oi kat auton eti parontes syn phthono tauta permontes ekekragesan.]

[623] Plut, C. Gracch. 5 [Greek: ho de dikastikos (nomos) ho to pleiston apekopse taes ton synklaetikon dynameos … ho de priakosious ton hippeon proskatelexen antois ousi triakosiois kai tas kriseis koinas ton hexakosion epoiaese]. Cf. Compar. 2. Liv. Ep. lx Tertiam (legem tulit) qua equestrem ordinem, tunc cum senatu consentientem, corrumperet: “ut sexcenti ex equitibus in curiam sublegerentur: et quia illis temporibus trecenti tantum senatores erant, sexcenti equites trecentis senatoribus admiscerentur”: id est, ut equester ordo bis tantum virium in senatu haberet.

[624] Vellei. ii. 6 C. Gracchus … judicia a senatu transferebat ad equites. (Cf. ii. 13. 32). Tac. Ann. xii. 60 Cum Semproniis rogationibus equester ordo in possessione judiciorum locaretur. Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 34 Judicum autem appellatione separare eum (equestrem) ordinem primi omnium instituere Gracchi, discordi popularitate in contumeliam senatus. Cf. Diod. xxxv. 25; xxxvii. 9; App. Bell. Civ. 1. 22.

[625] The qualifications of the Gracchan jurors were probably identical with those required for jurors under the extant lex Repetundarum (C.I. L. i. n. 198; Bruns Fontes i. 3. 10) which is probably the lex Acilia (Cic. in Verr. Act. i. 17. 51; cf. Mommsen in C.I.L. l.c.). The conditions fixed by this law are as follows (ll. 12, l3):—Praetor quei inter peregrinos jous deicet, is in diebus x proxumeis, quibus h. l. populus plebesve jouserit, facito utei CDL viros legat, quei in hac civit[ate … dum nei quem eorum legat, quei tr. pl., q., iii vir cap., tr. mil. l. iv primis aliqua earum, iii vi]rum a. d. a. siet fueri[tve, queive mercede conductus depugnavit depugnaverit, queive quaestione joudicioque puplico conde]mnatus siet quod circa eum in senatum legei non liceat, queive minor anneis xxx majorve annos lx gnatus siet, queive in u[rbem Romam propiusve urbem Romam passus M domicilium non habeat, queive ejus magistratus, quei supra scriptus est, pater frater filiusve siet, queive ejus, quei in senatu siet fueritve, pater frater filiusve siet, queive trans mar]e erit. (Cf. ll. 16, 17). Unfortunately the main qualification for the jurors, which was stated after the words “in hac civitate,” has been lost.

[626] Plut. C. Gracch. 6 [Greek: kakeino tous krinountas ek ton hippeon hedoken (ho daemos) katalexai].

[627] The lex Acilia says “within ten days of its becoming law” (p. 214, note 2). If Plutarch (l.c.) is right about Gracchus selecting the original judices, the provision of this lex shows that it cannot be, as some have thought, the law which first created the Gracchan jurors. It must have been passed subsequently to Gracchus’s own lex judiciaria.

[628] In the Ciceronian period we find a knight as a judex in a civil case (Cic. pro Rosc. Com. 14. 42), but it is not probable that senators were ever excluded from the civil bench. See Greenidge Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time p. 265.

[629] Cic. in Verr. Act. i. 13. 38.

[630] Cic. pro Cluent. 56. 154 Lege … quae tum erat Sempronia, nunc est Cornelia (i.e. the law mentioned in note 4) … intellegebant … ea lege equestrem ordinem non teneri. Livius Drusus in 91 B.C. attempted to fix a retrospective liability on the equestrian jurors (Cic. pro Rab. Post 7. 16). Cf. App. Bell. Civ. i. 35. Yet Appian elsewhere (Bell. Civ. i. 22) says that the equites obviated trials for bribery [Greek: synistamenoi sphisin autois kai biazomenoi]. It is possible that prosecutions for corruption before the judicia populi are meant. See Strachan-Davidson in loc.

[631] Cic. pro Cluent. 55. 151 Hanc ipsam legem NE QUIS JUDICIO CIRCUMVENIRETUR C. Gracchus tulit; eam legem pro plebe, non in plebem tulit. Postea L. Sulla … cum ejus rei quaestionem hac ipsa lege constitueret, … populum Romanum … alligare novo quaestionis genere ausus non est. 56. 154 Illi non hoc recusabant, ea ne lege accusarentur … quae tum erat Sempronia, nunc est Cornelia … intellegebant enim ea lege equestrem ordinem non teneri.

[632] Gell. 1. xx. 7; Justin. Inst. iv. 5. 2.

[633] App. Bell. Civ. i. 22.

[634] App. l.c. [Greek: kataegorous te enetous epi tois plousiois epaegonto].

[635] C. Gracchus ap. Gell. xi. 10 Ego ipse, qui aput vos verba facio, uti vectigalia vestra augeatis, quo facilius vestra commoda et rem publicam administrare possitis, non gratis prodeo.

[636] Vellei. ii. 6. 3 Nova constituebat portoria.

[637] Cf. App. Bell. Civ. v. 4 (M. Antonius to the Asiatics) [Greek: ous … eteleite phorous Attalo, methaekamen hymin, mechri, daemokopon andron kai par’ haemin genomenon, edeaese phoron, epei de edeaesen … merae pherein ton ekastote karpon epetazamen].

[638] Fronto ad Verum p. 125 (Naber) Gracchus locabat Asiam. Cic. in Verr. iii. 6. 12 Inter Siciliam ceterasque provincias, judices, in agrorum vectigalium ratione hoc interest, quod ceteris aut impositum vectigal est certum … aut censoria locatio constituta est, ut Asiae lege Sempronia.

[639] Decumani, hoc est, principes et quasi senatores publicanorum (Cic. in Verr. ii. 71. 175).

[640] Polyb. vi. 17.

[641] Schol. Bob. p. 259 Cum princeps esset publicanorum Cn. Plancii pater, et societas eadem in exercendis vectigalibus gravissimo damno videretur adfecta, desideratum est in senatu nomine publicanorum ut cum iis ratio putaretur lege Sempronia, et remissionis tantum fieret de summa pecunia, quantum aequitas postularet, pro quantitate damnorum quibus fuerant hostili incursione vexati (60 B.C.; cf. Cic. ad Att. i. 17. 9).

[642] Varro ap. Non. p. 308 G. Equestri ordini judicia tradidit ac bicipitem civitatem fecit discordiarum civilium fontem. Cf. Florus ii. 5 (iii. 17).

[643] Diod. xxxvii. 9 [Greek: apeilousaes taes synklaetou polemon to Grakcho dia taen metathesin ton kritaerion, tetharraekotos outos eipen hoti kan apothano, ou dialeipso to eiphos apo taes pleuras ton synklaetikon diaeraemenos.] Diodorus has preserved the utterance in a more intelligible form than Cicero (de Leg. iii. 9. 20 C. vero Gracchus … sicis iis, quas ipse se projecisse in forum dixit, quibus digladiarentur inter se cives, nonne omnem rei publicae statum permutavit?).

[644] Cic. pro Domo 9, 24 Tu provincias consulares, quas C. Gracchus, qui unus maxime popularis fuit, non modo non abstulit a senatu, sed etiam, ut necesse esset quotannis constitui per senatum decretas lege sanxit, eas lege Sempronia per senatum decretas rescidisti. Sall, Fug. 27 Lege Sempronia provinciae futuris consulibus Numidia atque Italia decretae. Cic. de Prov. Cons. 2. 3 Decernendae nobis sunt lege Sempronia duae (provinciae). Cf. ad Fam. i. 7. 10; pro Balbo 27. 61.

[645] Cic. de Prov. Cons. 7. 17.

[646] The colonists were to be [Greek: oi chariestatoi ton politon] (Plut. C. Gracch. 9).

[647] Liv. Ep. lx Legibus agrariis latis effecit ut complures coloniae in Italia deducerentur. Cf. Plut. C. Gracch, 6. App. Bell. Civ. 1. 23; Foundations at Abellinum, Cadatia, Suessa Aurunca etc. are attributed to a lex Sempronia or lex Graccana in Liber Coloniarum (Gromatici Lachmann) pp. 229, 233, 237, 238; cf. pp. 216, 219, 228, 255. It is difficult to say whether they were products of the Gracchan agrarian or colonial law. In either case, these foundations may have been subsequent to his death, as neither law was repealed.

[648] Vellei. 1. 15 Et post annum (i.e. a year after the foundation of Fabrateria, see p. 171) Scolacium Minervium, Tarentum Neptunia (coloniae conditae sunt).

[649] Forbiger Handb. der Alt. Geogr. ii. p. 503.

[650] L’Année Epigraphique, 1896, pp. 30, 31.

[651] Plut. C. Gracch. 8.

[652] Vellei. ii. 6 Novis coloniis replebat provincias. This may be wrong as a fact but true as an intention.

[653] Vellei. ii. 7.

[654] Plut. C. Gracch. 10 [Greek: Rhoubrion ton synarchonton henos oikizesthai Karchaedona grapsantos anaeraemenaen hypo Skaepionos]…. Lex Acilia 1. 22 Queive 1. Rubria in. vir col. ded. creatus siet fueritve. Cf. Lex Agraria 1. 59. Oros. v. 12 L. Caecilio Metello et Q. Titio (Scr. T. Quinctio) Flaminino coss. Carthago in Africa restitui jussa vicensimo secundo demum anno quam fuerat eversa deductis civium Romanorum familiis, quae eam incolerent, restituta et repleta est. Cf. Eutrop. iv. 21.

[655] Mommsen in C.I.L. i. pp. 75 ff.

[656] Mommsen l.c. This was the tenure afterwards called that of the jus Italicum.

[657] Liv. Ep. ix; App. Bell. Civ. i. 24.

[658] Plut. C. Gracch. 6; App, Bell. Civ, i. 23.

[659] Plut. C. Gracch. 7.

[660] Nitzsch Die Gracchen p. 402.

[661] These are apparently the Viasii vicani of the lex Agraria. Sometimes the service was performed by personal labour (operae), at other times a vectigal was demanded. See Mommsen in C.I.L. l.c.

[662] Cic. ad Fam. viii. 6. 5; cf. Mommsen l.c.

[663] This was prohibited by a lex Licinia and a lex Aebutia which Cicero (de Leg. Agr. ii. 8. 21) calls veteres tribuniciae. But it is possible that they were post-Gracchan. See Mommsen Staatsr. ii. p. 630.

[664] App. Bell. Civ. i. 23 [Greek: ho de Grakchos kai hodous etemnen ana ten Italian makras, plaethos ergolabon kai cheirotechnon hyph’ eauto poionmenos, hetoimon es ho ti keleuoi]

[665] Plut. C. Gracch. 8.

[666] Cic. Brut. 26, 100.

[667] Mommsen in C.I.L. i. p. 158.

[668] Plut. C. Gracch. 6.

[669] Seneca de Ben, vi. 34. 2 Apud nos primi omnium Gracchus et mox Livius Drusus instituerunt segregate turbam suam et alios in secretum recipere, alios cum pluribus, alios universos. Habuerunt itaque isti amicos primos, habuerunt secundos, numquam veros.

[670] The name of the law was probably lex de sociis et nomine Latino. See Cic. Brut. 26. 99.

[671] App. Bell. Civ. i. 23 [Greek: kai tous Latinous epi panta ekalei ta Rhomaion, hos ouk euprepos sygnenesi taes boulaes antistaenai dynamenaes; ton de heteron symmachon hois ouk ezaen psaephon en tais Rhomaion cheirotoniais pherein, edidous pherein apo toude, epi to echein kai tousde en tais cherotioniais ton nomon auto syntelountas]. The words [Greek: psaephon k.t.l.] refer to the limited suffrage granted to Latin incolae (Liv. xxv. 3. 16); but the voting power of his new Latins would be so small that the motive attributed to this measure by Appian is improbable. See Strachan-Davidson in loc. Other accounts of Gracchus’s proposal ignore this distinction between Latins and Italians, e.g. Plutarch (C. Gracch. 5) describes his law as [Greek: isopsaephous toion tois politais tous Italiotas] and Velleius says (ii. 6) Dabat civitatem omnibus Italicis.

[672] If we may trust Velleius (ii. 6) Dabat civitatem omnibus Italicis, extendebat eam paene usque Alpis. Cisalpine Gaul was not yet a separate province, but it was not regarded as a part of Italy. The Latin colonies between the Padus and the Rubicon would certainly have received Roman rights, and this may have been the case with a Latin township north of the Padus such as Aquileia. But it is doubtful whether Latin rights would have been given to the towns between the Padus and the Alps. These Transpadani received Latinitas in 89 B.C. (Ascon. in Pisonian. P. 3).

[673] C. Gracch. ap, Gell. x. 3. 3.

[674] Fann. ap. Jul. Victor 6. 6. A speech of Fannius as consul against Caius Gracchus is also mentioned by Charisius p. 143 Keil.

[675] Cic. Brut. 26. 99.

[676] App. Bell. Civ. i. 23.

[677] Plut. C. Gracch. 12 [Greek: antexethaeken ho Gaios diagramma kataegoron ton hypaton, kai tois symmachois, an menosi, boaethaesein epangellomenos.] The invective may have been directed against Fannius, According to Appian (l.c.) both consuls had been instructed by the senate to issue the edict.

[678] If it had been hampered in this way, the judicial protection of peregrini against the judgments of the Praetor Peregrinus would have been impossible.

[679] Plut. C. Gracch. 12.

[680] App. Bell. Civ. i. 23.

[681] [Sall.] de Rep. Ord. ii. 8 Magistratibus creandis haud mihi quidem apsurde placet lex quam C. Gracchus in tribunatu promulgaverat, ut ex confusis quinque classibus sorte centuriae vocarentur. Ita coaequatus dignitate pecunia, virtute anteire alius alium properabit.

[682] Plut. C. Gracch. 8.

[683] Vir et oratione gravis et auctoritate (Cic. Brut. 28. 109) [Greek: haethei de kai logo kai plouto tois malista timomenois kai dynamenois apo touton enamillos] (Plut. C. Gracch. 8).

[684] Suet. Tib. 3 Ob eximiam adversus Gracchos operam “patronus senatus” dictus.

[685] Plut. C. Gracch. 9.

[686] App. Bell. Civ i. 35.

[687] Plut. C. Gracch. 10.

[688] Plut. C. Gracch. 9 [Greek: Libios de kai taen apophoran tautaen] (which had been imposed by the Gracchan laws) [Greek: ton neimamenon aphairon haeresken autois]. The tense of neimamenon seems to show that the Gracchan as well as the Livian settlers are meant. See Underhill in loc. In any case, the reimposition of the vectigal on the allotments by the law of 119 (App. Bell. Civ. i. 27) proves that it had been remitted before this date.

[689] [Greek: hopos maed’ epi strateias exae tina Latinon rhabdois aikisasthai] (Plut. C. Gracch. 9).

[690] The lex Acilia Repetundarum grants them the right of appeal as an alternative to citizenship as a reward for successful prosecution. Cf. the similar provision in the franchise law of Flaccus (p. 168).

[691] Plut. C. Gracch. 9.

[692] Appian (Bell. Civ. i. 24) says that Gracchus was accompanied by Fulvius Flaccus. Plutarch (C. Gracch. 10) implies that the latter stayed at Rome.

[693] App. l.c. Appian represents this measure as having been proposed after the return of the commissioners to Rome. The words of Plutarch (C. Gracch. 8) [Greek: apaertaesato to plaethos … kakon … epi koinoniai politeias tous Latinous] probably refer to an invitation of the Latins to share in these citizen colonies.

[694] Plut. C. Gracch. 10.

[695] Mommsen in C.I.L. l.c.

[696] Plut. C. Gracch. 11.

[697] App. Bell. Civ. i. 24. According to Appian, the wolf event occurred after Gracchus had quitted Africa.

[698] Plut. C. Gracch. 11.

[699] Plut. C. Gracch. 12.

[700] Ibid. [Greek: synetyche d’ auto kai pros tous synarchontas en orgae genesthai. synarchontas] here is not limited to his colleagues in the tribunate.

[701] [Greek: exemisthoun] (Plut. l.c.), probably to contractors who would sublet the seats.

[702] Beesly The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla p. 53.

[703] [Greek: psaephon men auto pleiston genomenon, adikos de kai kakourgos ton synarchonton poiaesamenon taen anagoreusin kai anadeixin]. (Plut. l.c.)

[704] Cic. in Pis. 15. 36; Varro R.R. iii. 5. 18.

[705] [Greek: hos Sardonion gelota gelosin, ou gignoskontes hoson autois skotos ek ton auton perikechytai politeumaton.] (Plut. l.c.)

[706] Cic. pro Caec. 33. 95; pro Domo 40. 106.

[707] [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 65.

[708] Cornelia ap. Corn. Nep. fr. 16 Ne id quidem tam breve spatium (sc. vitae) potest opitulari quin et mihi adversere et rem publicam profliges? Denique quae pausa erit? Ecquando desinet familia nostra insanire? Ecquando modus ei rei haberi poterit? Ecquando desinemus et habentes et praebentes molestiis insistere? Ecquando perpudescet miscenda atque perturbanda re publica?

[709] [Greek: hos dae theristas] (Plut. C. Gracch. 13).

[710] Plutarch (l.c.) says that the consul had “sacrificed” [Greek: (thysantos)] and, if this is correct, Opimius must have summoned the meeting.

[711] App. Bell. Civ. i. 25.

[712] Plut. C. Gracch. 13; App. Bell. Civ. i. 25; [Victor] de Vir. III. 65. The last author calls the slain man Attilius and describes him as “praeco Opimii consulis”. Cf. Ihne Röm. Gesch. v. p. 103.

[713] [Victor] l.c. Imprudens contionem a tribuno plebis avocavit. Cf. App. Bell. Civ. i. 25.

[714] Plut. C. Gracch. 14.

[715] App. Bell. Civ. i. 25.

[716] App. l.c.

[717] Plut. C. Gracch. 14.

[718] Cic. Phil. viii. 4. 14 Quod L. Opimius consul verba fecit de re publica, de ea re ita censuerunt, uti L. Opimius consul rem publicam defenderet. Senatus haec verbis, Opimius armis. Cf. in Cat. i. 2. 4; iv. 5. 10. Plut. C. Gracch. 14 [Greek: eis to bouleutaerion apelthontes epsaephisanto kai prosetaxan Opimio to hypato sozein taen polin hopos dynaito kai katalyein tous tyrannous.]

[719] Plut. l.c.

[720] App. Bell. Civ. i. 26.

[721] Plut. C. Gracch. 14.

[722] Ibid. 15.

[723] App. Bell. Civ. i. 26.

[724] Cf. Bardey Das sechste Consulat des Marius p. 61.

[725] Plut. l.c.

[726] Plut. C. Gracch. 16; App. l.c.

[727] Plut. l.c.

[728] Plut. l.c.

[729] Cic. in Cat. iv. 6. 13.

[730] App. Bell. Civ. i. 26. Plut. (C. Gracch. 16) states that Flaccus fled to a bathroom ([Greek: eis ti balaneion]).

[731] Dionys. viii. 80.

[732] Plut. l.c.

[733] Val. Max. iv. 7. 2; [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 65; Oros, v. 12. Plutarch (l.c.) gives he second name as Licinius.

[734] Plut. l.c.

[735] [Victor] l.c.

[736] Translated “Grove of the Furies” by Plutarch; cf. Cic. de Nat. Deor. iii. 18. 46. The true name of the grove was Lucus Furrinae, named after some goddess, whose significance was forgotten (Varro L. L. vi. 19 Nunc vix nomen notum paucis). See Richter Topographie p. 271.

[737] Plut. C. Gracch. 17. Cf. Val. Max. vi. 8. 3.

[738] Plin. H.N. xxxiii. 3. 48. Cf. Plut. l.c.; [Victor] l.c.; Florus ii. 3 (iii. 15).

[739] Oros. v. 12.

[740] Oros. l.c. Opimius consul sicut in bello fortis fuit ita in quaestione crudelis. Nam amplius tria milia hominum suppliciis necavit, ex quibus plurimi ne dicta quidem causa innocentes interfecti sunt. Plutarch (l.c.) gives three thousand as the number actually slain in the tumult. Orosius (l.c.) gives the number slain on the Aventine as two hundred and fifty. For the severity with which Opimius conducted the quaestio see Sall. Jug. 16. 2, 31. 7; Vellei. ii. 7.

[741] Plut. l.c.

[742] Dig. xxiv. 3. 66. The passage speaks of Licinia’s dowry; yet Plutarch (l.c.) says that this was confiscated.

[743] In Plutarch’s Greek version (C. Gracch, 17) [Greek: ergon aponoias] (vecordiae) [Greek: naon homonoias] (concordiae) [Greek: poiei].

[744] Cf. Neumann Geschichte Roms. p. 259.

[745] Plut, C. Gracch, 18.

[746] Plut. C, Gracch, 19.

[747] Plin. H.N. xxxiv. 6. 31.

[748] Hence the establishment of the praefecti jure dicundo, sent to the burgess colonies and municipia.

[749] Arist. Pol. iv. 6, p. 1292 b.

[750] The choice of the month of July as the date for elections seems to be post-Sullan. See Mommsen Staatsr. i. p. 583. During the Jugurthine War consular elections took place, as we shall see, in the late autumn or even in the winter.

[751] Suet. Caes. 42.

[752] If some of the Gracchan assignments were thirty jugera each (p. 115). The larger assignments of earlier times had been from seven to ten jugera. See Mommsen in C.I. L. i. pp. 75 foll.

[753] Liv. Ep. lxi L. Opimius accusatus apud populum a Q. Decio tribuno plebis quod indemnatos cives in carcerem conjecisset, absolutus est. “In carcerem conjicere” does not express the whole truth. A magistrate could imprison in preparation for a trial. The words must imply imprisonment preparatory to execution and probably refer to death in the Tullianum.

[754] Cic. de Orat. ii. 30. 132; Part. Orat. 30, 104. In the latter passage Opimius is supposed to say “Jure feci, salutis omnium et conservandae rei publicae causa.” Decius is supposed to answer “Ne sceleratissimum quidem civem sine judicio jure ullo necare potuisti.” The cardinal question therefore is “Potueritne recte salutis rei publicae causa civem eversorem civitatis indemnatum necare?” Cf. Cic. de Orat. ii. 39. 165 Si ex vocabulo, ut Carbo: Sei consul est qui consuluit patriae, quid aliud fecit Opimius?

[755] Cf. Cic. pro Sest. 67. 140 (Opimium) flagrantem invidia propter interitum C. Gracchi semper ipse populus Romanus periculo liberavit.

[756] Cic. Brut. 34. 128 L. Bestia … P. Popillium vi C. Gracchi expulsum sua rogatione restituit. Cf. post Red. in Sen. 15. 38; post Red. ad Quir. 4.10.

[757] Cic. in Cat. iv. 6, 13; Phil. viii. 4. 14.

[758] Val. Max. v. 3. 2. The colouring of the story is doubted by Ihne (Rom. Gesch. v. p. 111). He thinks that perhaps Lentulus went to Sicily to restore his shattered health.

[759] Cic. de Orat. ii. 25. 106; 39. 165; 40. 170.

[760] Ibid. ii. 39. 165.

[761] Cic. Brut. 43. 159 Crassus … accusavit C. Carbonem, eloquentissimum hominem, admodum adulescens. Cf. de Orat. i. 10. 39.

[762] Valerius Maximus (vi. 5. 6) tells the story that a slave of Carbo’s brought Crassus a letter-case (scrinium) full of compromising papers. Crassus sent back the case still sealed and the slave in chains to Carbo.

[763] Mommsen, Hist. of Rome bk. iv. c. 4.

[764] Cic. in Verr. iii. i. 3 Itaque hoc, judices, ex … L. Crasso saepe auditum est, cum se nullius rei tam paenitere diceret quam quod C. Carbonem unquam in judicium vocavisset.

[765] Cic. ad Fam. ix. 21. 3 (C. Carbo) accusante L. Crasso cantharidas sumpsisse dicitur. Valerius Maximus (iii. 7. 6) implies that Carbo was sent into exile. But the two stories are not necessarily inconsistent.

[766] Appian (Bell. Civ. i. 35) says that the younger Livius Drusus (91 B.C.) [Greek: ton daemon … hypaegeto apoikiais pollais es te taen Italian kai Sikelian epsaephismenais men ek pollou, gegonuiais de oupo]. These colonies could only have been those proposed by his father.

[767] Mommsen in C.I.L. 1 pp. 75 ff. Cf. p. 227. We have no record of the tenure by which Romans held their lands in such settlements as Palma and Pollentia (p. 189). They too may have been illustrations of what was known later as the jus Italicum.

[768] We know that the corn law of C. Gracchus was repealed or modified by a lex Octavia. Cic. Brut. 62. 222 (M. Octavius) tantum auctoritate dicendoque valuit, ut legem Semproniam frumentariam populi frequentis suffragiis abrogaverit. Cf. de Off. ii. 21. 72. But the date of this alteration is unknown and it may not have been immediate. If it was a consequence of Gracchus’s fall, as is thought by Peter (Gesch. Roms. ii. p. 41), the distributions may have been restored circa 119 B.C. (see p. 287). We shall see that in the tribunate of Marius during this year some proposal about corn was before the people (Plut. Mar. 4).

[769] App. Bell. Civ. i. 27 [Greek: nomos te ou poly hysteron ekyrhothae, taen gaen, hyper haes dietheronto, exeinai pipraskein tois echousin.]

[770] App. l.c. [Greek: kai euthus oi plousioi para ton penaeton eonounto, hae taisde tais prophasesin ebiazonto.]

[771] The law permitting alienation may have been in 121 B.C. The year 119 or 118 B.C. ([Greek: pentekaideka maliosta etesin apo taes Grakchou nomothesias]) is given by Appian (l.c.) for one of the two subsequent laws which he speaks of. It is probably the date of the first of these, the one which we are now considering.

[772] App. l.c. [Greek: Sporios Thorios daemarchon esaegaesato nomon, taen men gaen maeketi sianemein, all’ einai ton echonton, kai phorous hyper autaes to daemo katatithesthai, kai tade ta chrhaemata chorein es dianomas.]

[773] If Gracchus’s corn law was abolished or modified immediately after his fall, the corn largesses may now have been restored or extended. Cf. p. 306.

[774] Some such guarantee may be inferred from a passage in the lex Agraria (l. 29) Item Latino peregrinoque, quibus M. Livio L. Calpurnio [cos. in eis agris id facere … ex lege plebeive sc(ito) exve foedere licuit.]

[775] Cic. Brut. 36. 136 Sp. Thorius satis valuit in populari genere dicendi, is qui agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege vectigali levavit. Cf. de Orat. ii. 70. 284. Appian, on the other hand; makes Sp. Thorius the author of the law preceding this (p. 285). It is possible that Cicero may be mistaken, but, if he is correct, the fragments of the agrarian law which we possess may be those of the lex Thoria, the name given to it by its earlier editors. For a different view see Mommsen in C.I.L. i. pp. 75 ff.

[776] App. Bell Civ. i. 27 [Greek: tous phorous ou poly hysteron dielyse daemarchos heteros.]

[777] The latest years to which it refers are those of the censors of 115 and the consuls of 113, 112 and 111. The harvest and future vintage of 111 are referred to (1. 95), and it has, therefore, been assigned to some period between January 1 and the summer of this year. See Rudorff Das Ackergesetz des Sp. Thorius and cf. Mommsen l.c. It is a curious fact, however, that a law dealing with African land amongst others should have been passed in the first year of active hostilities with Jugurtha. From this point of view the date which marks the close of the Jugurthine war, suggested by Kiene (Bundesgenossenkrieg p. 125), i.e., 106 or 105 B.C., is more probable. But the objection to this view is that the law contains no reference to the censors of 109. See Mommsen l.c.

[778] Ager compascuus. See Mommsen l.c. and Voigt Ueber die staatsrechtliche possessio und den ager compascuus der röm. Republik.

[779] The pastores also must often have been too indefinite a body to make it possible to treat them as joint owners.

[780] The tribune L. Marcius Philippus, when introducing an agrarian law in 104 B.C., made the startling statement “Non esse in civitate duo milia hominum, qui rem haberent” (Cic. de Off. ii. 21, 73). If there was even a minimum of truth in his words, the expression “qui rem haberent” must mean “moneyed men,” “people comfortably off.”

[781] Mommsen in C.I.L. l.c.

[782] Kiene also thinks (Bundesgenossenkrieg p. 146) that the right given by the law of exchanging a bit of one’s own land for an equivalent bit of the public domain, which became private property, was reserved solely for the citizen.

[783] Cic. Brut. 26. 102; de Orat. ii. 70. 281; de Fin. i. 3. 8.

[784] Vellei. ii. 8; Cic. in Verr. iii 80. 184; iv. 10. 22.

[785] [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 72 Consul legem de sumptibus et libertinorum suffragiis tulit.

[786] Liv. xlv, 15.

[787] [Victor] l.c..

[788] Plin. H.N. viii. 57. 223.

[789] Cassiodor. Chron. L. Metellus et Cn. Domitius censores artem ludicram ex urbe removerunt praeter Latinum tibicinem cum cantore et ludum talarium. The ludus talarius in its chief form was a game of skill, not of chance. The reference here may be to juggling with the tali on the stage, not to the pursuit of the game in domestic life.

[790] Liv. Ep. lxiii.

[791] Fast. triumph.; [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 72.

[792] Val. Max. vii. 1. 1.

[793] [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 72.

[794] [Victor] l.c. Ipse primo dubitavit honores peteret an argentariam faceret.

[795] [Victor] l.c. Aedilis juri reddendo magis quam muneri edendo studuit.

[796] Sallust (Jug. 15) gives the following somewhat unkind sketch of the great senatorial champion, “Aemilius Scaurus, homo nobilis, inpiger, factiosus, avidus potentiae, honoris, divitiarum, ceterum vitia sua callide occultans”. “Inpiger, factiosus” are testimonies of his value to his party. The last words of the sketch are a confession that his reputation may have been blemished by suspicion, but never by proof.

[797] [Victor] l.c. Consul Ligures et Gantiscos domuit, atque de his triumphavit. Cf. Fast. triumph.

[798] [Victor] l.c.

[799] Plut. Mar. 3.

[800] In Velleius ii. 11 the manuscript reading natus equestri loco (corrected into agresti) may be correct.

[801] Plut. Mar. 3.

[802] Plut. Mar. 5.

[803] Ibid. 4.

[804] His military reputation amongst old soldiers had led to his easy attainment of the military tribunate. Sall. Jug. 63 Ubi primum tribunatum militarem a populo petit, plerisque faciem ejus ignorantibus, facile notus per omnis tribus declaratur. Deinde ab eo magistratu alium post alium sibi peperit.

[805] Plut. Mar. 4.

[806] Plut. l.c. [Greek: nomon tina peri psaephophorias graphontos autou dokounta ton dynaton aphaireisthai taen peri tas kriseis ischyn]. It is possible, however, that kriseis may simply mean “decisions”.

[807] Cic. de Leg. iii. 17. 38 Pontes … lex Maria fecit angustos.

[808] Plut. l.c. [Greek: ei me diagrapseie to dogma.]

[809] Plut. l.c. [Greek: nomou … eispheromenou peri sitou dianomaes]. See p. 284.

[810] Plut. Mar 5. Cf. Cic. pro Planc. 21, 51; Val. Max. vi. 9. 14.

[811] Val. Max. vi. 9. 14.

[812] Plut. Mar. 5.

[813] [Greek: dikastai] (Plut. l.c.). It seems, therefore, that a special quaestio de ambitu existed at this time. Otherwise, the case would naturally have gone before the Comitia. We can hardly think of a Special Commission.

[814] Plut. Mar. 6 [Greek: en men oun tae strataegia metrios epainoumenon heauton paresche].

[815] Plut. l.c.

[816] Plut. l.c.

[817] Vellei. ii. 7 Porcio Marcioque consulibus deducta colonia Narbo Martius. Cf. i. 15.

[818] This was but a [Greek: phroura Rhomaion] (Strabo iv. 1. 5). It had been established in 122 B.C.

[819] Cic. pro Font. 5. 13 Narbo Martius, colonia nostrorum civium, specula populi Romani ac propugnaculum istis ipsis nationibus oppositum et objectum.

[820] This fact appears from Cic. pro Cluent. 51. 140 (Crassus) in dissuasione rogationis ejus quae contra coloniam Narbonensem ferebatur, quantum potest, de auctoritate senatus detrahit. A rogatio against a project implies something more than opposition to a bill.

[821] Cic. Brut. 43. 160 Exstat in eam legem senior ut ita dicam quam illa aetas ferebat oratio.

[822] Cic. Brut. l.c. Cf. pro Cluent. 51. 140; de Orat. ii. 55. 223; Quinctil. Inst. Or. vi. 3. 44.

[823] The date is unknown, but the lex Servilia repetundarum was probably a product of this tribunate. An approximate date can be assigned to this law, if we believe that it immediately superseded the lex Acilia as the law of extortion, and that the lex Acilia is the lex repetundarum which has come down to us on a bronze tablet (see p. 214); for the latter law must have been abrogated by 111 B.C., since the back of the tablet on which it is inscribed is used for the lex agraria of this year. The side containing the lex Acilia must have been turned to the wall, and this fact seems to prove the supersession of this law by a later one on the same subject. See Mommsen in C.I.L. i. p. 56.

[824] Peracutus et callidus cum primisque ridiculus (Cic. Brut. 62. 224).

[825] Cic. _pro Rab. Post, 6, 14.

[826] Stercus Curiae (Cic. de Orat. iii. 41. 164).

[827] Cic. Brut. 62. 224 Is … equestrem ordinem beneficio legis devinxerat. Cf. pro Scauro 1. 2. But the law of Glaucia was a lex repetundarum (Ascon. in Scaurian. p. 21; Val. Max. viii. 1. 8; cf. notes 4 and 5), not a lex judiciaria.

[828] Cic. in Verr. i. 9. 26.

[829] Cic. pro Rab. Post. 4. 8. The granting of the civitas to Latins, as a reward for successful prosecution (Cic. pro Balbo 24. 54), was not an innovation due to Glaucia. It appears already in the lex Acilia.

[830] Liv. Ep. lxiii; Florus i. 39 (iii. 4); Eutrop. iv. 24.

[831] Oros. v. 15.

[832] Plut. Quaest. Rom. 83.

[833] Plut. Quaest. Rom. 83. The manuscript reading is [Greek: barbarou tinos hippikou therapon]. I have adopted Ihne’s suggestion of Barrou, which he supports by a reference to Porphyrio ad Hor. Sat. 1. 6. 30—Hic Barrus vilisimmae libidinosaeque admodum vitae fuit, adeo ut Aemiliam virginem Vestae incestasse dictus sit.

[834] Dio Cass. fr. 92.

[835] Macrob. Sat. i. 10. 5.

[836] Ascon. in Milonian. p. 46. Cf. Cic. de Nat. Deor. iii. 30. 74.

[837] Scopulus reorum (Val. Max. iii. 7. 9).

[838] Ascon. l.c.

[839] Val. Max. l.c. Cum id vitare beneficio legis Memmiae liceret, quae eorum, qui rei publicae causa abessent, recipi nomina vetabat.

[840] Val. Max. vi. 8. 1.

[841] Ascon. l.c. Nimia etiam, ut existimatio est, asperitate usus.

[842] Zumpt Criminalrecht i. p. 117.

[843] Plut. Quaest. Rom., 83 [Greek: duo en andras duo de gynaikas en tae boon agorai legomenae tous men Hellaenas, tous de Galatas, zontas katorhyxan].

[844] Plin. H.N. xxx. 1. 12 DCLVII demum anno urbis Cn. Cornelia Lentulo P. Licinio Crasso consulibus (97 B.C.) senatus consultum factum est ne homo immolaretur.

[845] Plut. l.c.

[846] Obsequens 99 (37) (111 B.C.) Maxima pars urbis exusta cum aede Matris Magnae; lacte per triduum pluit, hostiisque expiatum majoribus, Jugurthinum bellum exortum. The war had been determined on the year before.

[847] Boissière Esquisse d’une histoire de la conquête et de l’administration Romaines dans le Nord de l’Afrique p. 41.

[848] App. Lib. [Greek: apo Maurousion ton okeanoi mechri taes Kyraenaion archaes es ta mesogeia.]

[849] Boissière l.c.

[850] [Greek: ton legomenon Megalon Pedion] (App. Lib. 68).

[851] Tissot Géographie comparée de la province Romaine d’Afrique ii. p. 5.

[852] Plin. H.N. v. 3. 22; v. 4. 25; Ptol. iv. 3. 7.

[853] Tissot op. cit. ii. pp. 1-20.

[854] Ibid. ii. p. 20.

[855] Mercier La population indigène de L’Afrique pp. 129, 130; Boissière op. cit. p. 39.

[856] Tissot op. cit. i. pp. 400 foll. For the extension of the native Libyan language cf. Boissière, L’Afrique Romaine p. 6.

[857] Tissot op. cit. pp. 403, 404.

[858] Hence the [Greek: Melanogatouloi] and the [Greek: Lenkaithiopes] of Ptolemy (iv. 6. 5 and 6.) See Tissot op. cit. p. 447.

[859] Mercier op. cit. p. 136.

[860] Tissot op. cit. i. pp. 414-17.

[861] Boissière (op. cit. p. 101) cites an interesting description of the Kabyle from Le capitaine Rinn. In it occur the following words:—La guerre pour lui (le Kabyle) est une affaire de devoir, de nécessité, de point d’honneur ou de vengeance; ce n’est jamais ni un plaisir, ni une distraction, ni même un état normal; il ne la fait qu’après prévenu son ennemi, et, dans le combat ou après la victoire, il n’a pas de cruauté inutile.

[862] Tissot op. cit. i. pp. 417-18.

[863] Polyb. xxxvii. 3; Diod. xxxii. 17.

[864] Plin. H.N. v. 3 22.

[865] Strabo xvii. 3. 13.

[866] Livy says (xxix. 29) that this was the admitted order of succession (ita mos apud Numidas est). The brother of a late king was probably considered to be the most capable successor. An immature son would be passed over. Cf. Biereye Res Numidarum et Maurorum p. 18.

[867] Liv. Ep. 1.; Val. Max. v. 2, ext. 4; Oros. iv. 22.

[868] App. Lib. 106.

[869] App. Hisp. 67; Sall. Jug. 7.

[870] Strabo. xvii. 3. 13; Diod. xxxiv. 35.

[871] Oros. v, 11.

[872] Strabo l.c.

[873] Sall. Jug. 65. 1 Morbis confectus et ob eam causam mente paulum inminuta. We are not told that he was in this condition before Micipsa’s death; but it is perhaps the reason why the king left him only “heir in remainder” (secundum heredem) to the crown. Another aspirant appears later on in the person of Massiva son of Gulussa (Sall. Jug. 35. i), but this prince may not have been born, or may have been an infant, at the time when Jugurtha was recognised as a possible successor. It is possible that Massiva may have been mentioned as one of the supplementary heirs in Micipsa’s will, although Sallust does not inform us of the fact.

[874] Sall. Jug. 6. 1.

[875] Sall. Jug. 6. 2.

[876] Ibid. 7. 6.

[877] Sall. Jug. 8. 1.

[878] Ibid. 8. 2.

[879] Sall. Jug. 9. 1.

[880] Statimque eum adoptavit et testamento pariter cum filiis heredem instituit (Ibid. 9. 3).

[881] Ibid. 10.

[882] Sall. Jug. 11.

[883] Ibid. 12. 3. The site of Thirmida is unknown.

[884] Sallust, using Roman phraseology, says that he had been “proxumus lictor Jugurthae” (l c.). Such a lictor would stand nearest the magistrate, receive his immediate orders and be, therefore, presumably a more trusted and intimate servant.

[885] Sall. Jug. 12.

[886] In duas partis discedunt Numidae; plures Adherbalem secuntur, sed illum alterum bello meliores (Ibid. 13. 1).

[887] Sall. Jug. 13. 4.

[888] Ibid. 13. 6.

[889] Ibid. 14.

[890] Sallust (l.c.) makes Adherbal say “Micipsa pater meus moriens mihi praecepit, ut regni Numidiae tantum modo procurationem existumarem meam, ceterum jus et imperium ejus penes vos esse”. The “jus et imperium” have no true application to a protectorate.

[891] Sall. Jug. 15. 1.

[892] Ibid. 15. 2.

[893] Sall. Jug. 16. 2.

[894] Ibid. 16. 3.

[895] Sall. Jug. 16. 5.

[896] Sall. Jug. 20. 4.

[897] Ibid. 20. 7 Itaque non uti antea cum praedatoria manu, sed magno exercitu conparato bellum gerere coepit et aperte totius Numidiae imperium petere.

[898] Ibid. 21. 3.

[899] Sallust says (Jug. 21. 2): Haud longe a mari prope Cirtam oppidum utriusque exercitus consedit. He apparently underestimates the distance of Cirta from the sea.

[900] Ibid. 21. 2 Ni multitude togatorum fuisset, quae Numidas insequentis moenibus prohibuit, uno die inter duos reges coeptum atque patratum bellum foret.

[901] The bridge described by Shaw, constructed on one of the natural arches which connect the two sides of the river bed and presenting two ranges of superposed arcades, is no longer in existence. This bridge attached the south-eastern angle of the town to the heights of Mansoura. See Tissot Géographie comparée ii. p. 393.

[902] Sall. Jug. 21. 3.

[903] Sall. Jug. 21. 4 Postquam senatus de bello eorum accepit, tres adulescentes in Africam legantur, qui ambos reges adeant, senatus populique Romani verbis nuntient velle et censere eos ab armis discedere, de controvorsiis suis jure potius quam bello disceptare: ita seque illisque dignum esse.

[904] Is rumor clemens erat (Ibid. 22. 1).

[905] Adherbalis adpellandi copia non fuit (Ibid. 22. 5).

[906] Si ab jure gentium sese prohibuerit (Sail. Jug. 22.4).

[907] Ibid, 23. 2 Adherbal … intellegit … penuria rerum necessariarum bellum trahi non posse.

[908] Sall. Jug. 23. 2.

[909] Ibid. 24.

[910] Sall. Jug. 25. 1.

[911] Ibid. 25. 3 Ita bonum publicum, ut in plerisque negotiis solet, privata gratia devictum.

[912] Ibid. 25. 4 Legantur tamen in Africam majores natu nobiles, amplis honoribus usi.

[913] Cujus … nutu prope terrarum orbis regebatur (Cic. pro Font. 7, 24).

[914] Sall. Jug. 25. 6 Primo commotus metu atque lubidine divorsus agitabatur. Timebat iram senatus, ni paruisset legatis: porro animus cupidine caecus ad inceptum scelus rapiebatur.

[915] Sall, Jug. 25. 10.

[916] Ibid. 25. 11.

[917] Sall. Jug. 26. 1 Italici, quorum virtute moenia defensabantur, confisi deditione facta propter magnitudinem populi Romani inviolatos sese fore, Adherbali suadent uti seque et oppidum Jugurthae tradat, tantum ab eo vitam paciscatur: de ceteris senatui curae fore.

[918] Ibid. 26. 3 Jugurtha in primis Adherbalem excruciatum necat.

[919] Sallust (l.c.) represents him as the author of this massacre; (Jugurtha) omnis puberes Numidas atque negotiatores promiscue, uti quisque armatus obvius fuerat, interficit. But the attribution may be due to the brevity of the narrative. The leader of a murderous host may easily be credited with the outrages which it commits.

[920] Cic. Brut. 36. 136 Tum etiam C. L. Memmii fuerunt oratores mediocres, accusatores acres atque acerbi. Itaque in judicium capitis multos vocaverunt, pro reis non saepe dixerunt. For his mordant style see Cic. de Orat. ii. 59, 240. The lofty opinion which he was supposed to hold of himself is illustrated in Cic. de Orat. ii. 66, 267 Velut tu, Crasse, in contione “ita sibi ipsum magnum videri Memmium ut in forum descendens caput ad fornicem Fabianum demitteret”.

[921] He was already “vir acer et infestus potentiae nobilitatis” (Sall. Jug. 27. 2).

[922] Ibid. 27. 1.

[923] Ibid. 27. 2.

[924] Sall. Jug. 27. 3 Lege Sempronia provinciae futuris consulibus Numidia atque Italia decretae. Consules declarati P. Scipio Nasica, L. Bestia: Calpurnio Numidia, Scipioni Italia obvenit.

[925] Jugurtha, contra spem nuntio accepto, quippe cui Romae omnia venum ire in animo haeserat (Ibid, 28. 1).

[926] Ibid.

[927] Sall. Jug. 28. 2.

[928] In consule nostro multae bonaeque artes animi et corporis erant, quas omnis avaritia praepediebat: patiens laborum, acri ingenio, satis providens, belli haud ignarus, firmissumus contra pericula et insidias (Ibid. 28. 5).

[929] Sall. Jug. 28. 4 Calpurnius parato exercitu legal sibi homines nobilis, factiosos, quorum auctoritate quae deliquisset munita fore sperabat.

[930] Sall. l. c.

[931] The only record of this campaign is contained in the few words of Sallust (Ibid, 28. 7) Acriter Numidiam ingressus est multosque mortalis et urbis aliquot pugnando cepit.

[932] Possibly not at this time, but the date of its recovery is unknown. The town is in the hands of Metellus during the closing months of his campaign (Sall. Jug. 81. 2). Cf. p. 431.

[933] Sall. Jug. 19. 7 Mauris omnibus rex Bocchus imperitabat, praeter nomen cetera ignarus populi Romani, itemque nobis neque bello neque pace antea cognitus. Practically nothing is known of the predecessors of this king. Livy (xxix. 30) mentions an earlier Baga of Mauretania, and perhaps this name is identical with that of Bocchus or [Greek: Bogos]. See Biereye Res Numidarum et Maurorum. For the earlier history of Mauretania see also Göbel Die Westküste Afrikas im Altertum. The boundaries of the kingdom were the Atlantic and the Muluccha on the west and east respectively (Liv. xxiv. 49, xxi. 22; Sall. Jug. 110). The southern boundary naturally shifted. At times the Mauretanian kings ruled over some of the Gaetulian tribes, and Strabo (ii. 3.4) makes the kingdom extend at one time to tribes akin to the Aethiopians—presumably to the Atlas range. Elsewhere (xvii. 3. 2) he speaks of it as extending over the Rif to the Gaetulians. See Göbel op. cit. pp. 79-82.

[934] Ibid. 80. 4 Bocchus initio hujusce belli legatos Romam miserat foedus et amicitiam petitum.

[935] Sall. Jug. 29. 2 Scaurus … tametsi a principio, plerisque ex factione ejus conruptis, acerrume regem inpugnaverat, tamen magnitudine pecuniae a bono honestoque in pravom abstractus est.

[936] Sall. Jug. 29. 3.

[937] Ibid. 29. 4 Interea fidei causa mittitur a consule Sextius quaestor in oppidum Jugurthae Vagam.

[938] Vaga (Bêdja) marks the frontier between the Numidian kingdom and the Roman province—the frontier created in 172 B.C. by the invasions of Masinissa and finally fixed in 146 B.C. The town lay on the west of the Wad Bédja, which joins the Medjerda, and on the right of the road from Carthage to Bulla Regia. There was another Vaga in the heart of Numidia, between the Ampsaga and Thabraca. See Tissot Géographie comparée ii. pp. 6, 302; Wilmanns in C.I.L. viii. p. 154.

[939] Long Decline of the Rom. Republic i. p. 400.

[940] Sall. Jug, 29, 5 Rex … pauca praesenti consilio locutus de invidia fact! sui atque uti in deditionem acciperetur, reliqua cum Bestia et Scauro secreta transigit.

[941] Ibid. (Rex) quasi per saturam sententiis exquisitis in deditionem accipitur.

[942] Ibid. 29. 6.

[943] Bestia’s presence was necessary at Rome as his colleague Nasica had died during his tenure of the consulship (Cic. Brut. 34. 128).

[944] Sall. Jug. 30. I Postquam res in Africa gestas, quoque modo actae forent fama divolgavit, Romae per omnis locos et conventus de facto consulis agitari. Apud plebem gravis invidia.

[945] Sall. Jug. 30. 1 Patres solliciti erant: probarentne tantum flagitium an decretum consulis subvorterent parum constabat.

[946] Ibid. 30. 2 Maxume eos potentia Scauri, quod is auctor et socius Bestiae ferebatur, a vero bonoque inpediebat.

[947] Ibid. 30. 3.

[948] Ibid. 31.

[949] The best manuscripts read his annis xv in Sall, Jug 31. 2, but xv may be a mistake for xx, which is the reading of some good ones. Twenty years would carry us back to 131 B.C., approximately the date of the fall of Tiberius Gracchus. The year 126 B.C. which the reading xv gives, can hardly be said to mark an epoch in the decline of the liberties of the people.

[950] Sociis nostris veluti hostibus, hostibus pro sociis utuntur (Sall. Jug. 31. 23).

[951] Metum ab scelere suo ad ignaviam vostram transtulere, quos omnis eadem cupere, eadem odisse, eadem metuere in unum coegit. Sed haec inter bonos amicitia, inter malos factio est (Sall_. Jug_. 31. 14.)

[952] Quo facilius indicio regis Scauri et reliquorum, quos pecuniae captae accersebat (Memmius), delicta patefierent (Ibid. 33. i).

[953] Alii perfugas vendere (Sall, Jug, 32.3). Long (Decline of the Rom. Rep. i. p. 406) thinks that this means that they were sold as slaves. But the words are probably to be brought into connection with the terms of the Mamilian commission (Sall. Jug. 40.1) “qui elephantos quique perfugas tradidissent”. Ihne (Röm. Gesch. v. p. 131) seems to regard these perfugae as Roman subjects who had been handed over by Jugurtha.

[954] Quoniam se populo Romano dedisset, ne vim quam misericordiam ejus experiri mallet (Sall. Jug. 32. 5).

[955] Sall. Jug, 33.7.

[956] Confirmatus ab omnibus, quorum potentia aut scelere cuncta ea gesserat quae supra diximus (Ibid. 33. 2).

[957] Ibid. 33. 2 (Jugurtha) C. Baebium tribunum plebis magna mercede parat, cujus inpudentia contra jus et injurias omnis munitus foret.

[958] Sall. Jug. 33. 3.

[959] Producto Jugurtha (Ibid, 33. 4) i.e. led him to the front of the tribunal, or the Rostra if the scene took place in the Forum.

[960] Regem tacere jubet (Sall. Jug. 34.1).

[961] Vicit tamen inpudentia (Ibid.).

[962] Ibid. 34. 2.

[963] Sall. Jug. 35. 2. It is not impossible that he may have been mentioned as one of the supplementary heirs in Micipsa’s will. See p. 323.

[964] Sall. Jug. 35. 6.

[965] Ibid. 35. 7 Fit reus magis ex aequo bonoque quam ex jure gentium Bomilcar, comes ejus qui Romam fide publica venerat.

[966] Sall. Jug. 35. 9.

[967] Urbem venalem et mature perituram, si emptorem invenerit! (Ibid. 35. 10).

[968] There was still an heir in Gauda—one too who had been recognised in the testament of Micipsa (p. 323); but he may not have been regarded as a suitable candidate.

[969] Sall. Jug. 36. 1 Albinus renovato bello commeatum, stipendium, aliaque, quae militibus usui forent, maturat in Africam portare, ac statim ipse profectus, uti ante comitia, quod tempus haud longe aberat, armis aut deditione aut quovis modo bellum conficeret.

[970] Cf. Sall. Jug. 36. 1 Armis aut deditione aut quovis modo.

[971] Sall. Jug. 36. 3 Ac fuere qui tum Albinum haud ignarum consili regis existumarent, neque ex tanta properantia tam facile tractum bellum socordia magis quam dolo crederent.

[972] His colleague Quintus Minucius Rufus was making war with the barbarians of Thrace (Liv. Ep. lxv; Vellei. ii. 8; Florus i. 39 (iii. 4); Eutrop. iv. 27).

[973] See cf. Meinel Zur Chronologie des Jug. Krieges p. 11.

[974] Quae dissensio totius anni comitia inpediebat (Sall. Jug. 37. 2).

[975] The tribunician year ended with 9th December, but it is not likely that the consuls of 109, Metellus and Silanus, were elected between this date and 1st January of 109. Had they been, Metellus would have held Numidia and Sp. Albinus would not have been allowed to return there.

[976] Sall. Jug. 37. 3.

[977] There is little probability that the Calama (Gelma) of Orosius (v. 15) and the Suthul of Sallust are identical. Those who have visited the site of Gelma deny that Sallust’s description suits this region and think that Suthul was a place near by. Grellois (Ghelma pp. 263 foll.) thinks that Suthul may be placed on a site where now stands the village of Henschir Ain Neschma, one hour’s distance from Gelma. See Wilmanns in C.I. L. viii. p. 521.

[978] Sall. Jug. 37. 4.

[979] Vineas agere, aggerem jacere, aliaque quae incepto usui forent properare (Sall. Jug. 37. 4).

[980] Sall. _Jug. 38. 9. The treaty perhaps gave to Jugurtha a specific guarantee of the undisturbed possession of Numidia.

[981] Oros. v. 15.

[982] Sail. Jug. 39. 1.

[983] Sallust (Jug. 39. 2) improperly calls him consul. The only position which he held now was that of proconsul of Numidia.

[984] Senatus ita uti par fuerat decernit, suo atque populi injussu nullum potuisse foedus fieri (Sall. Jug. 39. 3).

[985] Sall. Jug. 39. 4.

[986] Sall. Jug. 40. 1.

[987] Occulte per amicos ac maxume per homines nominis Latini et socios Italicos inpedimenta parabant (Ibid. 40. 2). For the later relations of the government with the Latins and allies see p. 288.

[988] Sed plebes incredibile memoratu est quam intenta fuerit quantaque vi rogationem jusserit, magis odio nobilitatis cui mala illa parabantur, quam cura rei publicae: tanta lubido in partibus erat (Sall. Jug. 40. 3).

[989] Ibid. 40. 4.

[990] [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 72; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 50.

[991] Sall. Jug. 40. 5 Sed quaestio exercita aspere violenterque ex rumore et lubidine plebis. Ut saepe nobilitatem, sic ea tempestate plebem ex secundis rebus insolentia ceperat.

[992] Cic. Brut. 34. 128 Invidiosa lege Mamilia quaestio C. Galbam sacerdotem et quattuor consulates, L. Bestiam, C. Catonem, Sp. Albinum civemque praestantissimum L. Opimium, Gracchi interfectorem, a populo absolutum, cum is contra populi studium stetisset. Gracchani judices sustulerunt. For the condemnation of Opimius cf. pro Sest. 67, 140; for that of Galba, Brut. 33. 127. Here honour is paid to Galba’s speech in his defence (Extat ejus peroratio, qui epilogus dicitur: qui tanto in honore pueris nobis erat, ut eum etiam edisceremus). Of Galba it is said (l.c.) Hic, qui in collegio sacerdotum esset, primus post Romam conditam judicio publico est condemnatus. He was perhaps a member of the college of pontiffs (Long Decline of the Rom. Rep. i. p. 415). (For the exile of Cato at Tarraco see pro Balbo 11. 28).

[993] Sall. Jug. 43. I; Liv. Ep. lxv.

[994] Sallust’s language (Jug. 43. 1) is indeterminate, but suggests the use of the lot—Metellus et Silanus consules designati provincias inter se partiverant, Metelloque Numidia evenerat. There are instances in later times of a manipulation of the sortitio. See Cic. ad Fam. v. 2. 3; ad Att. i. 16. 8. This assignment of the provinces followed the treaty of Aulus (l.c.), i.e. it took place early in 109, but not in the very first months of that year, as Spurius Albinus had gone back to Africa as proconsul (p. 373). As we have seen (p. 369) there is no probability that the consuls of 109 were elected in 110. Sallust’s words (l.c.) “consules designati” simply mean “appointed consuls” and have no reference to the usual status of “consuls designate”.

[995] Polyb. vi. 56.

[996] Cic. pro Balbo 5. 11; ad Att. i. 16. 4; Val. Max. ii. 10. 1. It is supposed that Sicily may have been the province, which he had governed as propraetor, and from which he had returned when he was subjected to this trial. See Drumann Gesch. Roms. ii. p. 31.

[997] Acri viro et, quamquam advorso populi partium, fama tamen aequabili et inviolata (Sall. Jug. 43. 1).

[998] Ibid. 43. 4.

[999] Sall. Jug. 44. Cf. Val. Max. ii. 7. 2; Frontin. Strat. iv. 1. 2.

[1000] Sed in ea difficultate Metellum non minus quam in rebus hostilibus magnum et sapientem virum fuisse conperior: tanta temperantia inter ambitionem saevitiamque moderatum…. Ita prohibendo a delictis magis quam vindicando exercitum brevi confirmavit (Sall. Jug. 45).

[1001] Sall. Jug. 46. 1.

[1002] Jugurtha … diffidere suis rebus ac tum demum veram deditionem facere conatus est (Ibid.).

[1003] Sall. Jug. 46. 2.

[1004] Sed Metello jam antea experimentis cognitum erat genus Numidarum infidum, ingenio mobili, novarum rerum avidum esse (Ibid. 46. 3).

[1005] Sall. Jug. 46. 5.

[1006] Sall. Jug. 47. 1 Oppidum Numidarum nomine Vaga, forum rerum venalium totius regni maxume celebratum, ubi et incolere et mercari consueverant Italici generis multi mortales. Sallust does not say that Italian merchants were still in the town. Their presence in Numidian cities since the massacre at Cirta may be doubted, although the fact that the town was so near the province may have mastered the fears of some of the traders.

[1007] Sall. Jug. 47. 4.

[1008] Ibid. 48. 1 Coactus rerum necessitudine statuit armis certare.

[1009] Tissot Géographie comparée 1. pp. 67-68. I have followed Tissot in his identification of the Muthul with the Wäd Mellag. This view makes Metellus’s efforts concentrate for the time on S.E. Numidia. He intended to secure his communications before proceeding farther, whether south or west. The older view, which identified the Muthul with the Ubus (Mannert and Forbiger) would represent Metellus as opening his campaign in the direction of Hippo Regius—Western Numidia would thus be his object and the subsequent campaign about Zama would indicate a change of plan. This is not an impossible view; but there are other indications which favour the hypothesis that the Muthul is the Wäd Mellag. One is that Sicca in its neighbourhood veered round to the Romans after the battle (Sall. Jug. 56. 3). The other is the alleged suitability of this region to the topographical description given by Sallust. Tissot believed that every step in the great battle could be traced on the ground. The “mons tractu pari” is the Djebel Hemeur mta Ouargha, parallel to the course of the Wäd Mellag and extending from the Djebel Sara to the Wäd Zouatin. The hill projected by this chain perpendicularly to the river is the Koudiat Abd Allah, which detaches itself from the central block of the Djebel Hemeur and the direction of which is perpendicular both to the mountain and to the Wäd Mellag. The plain, waterless and desert in the angle formed by the hill and the mountain but inhabited and cultivated in the neighbourhood of the Muthul, is the Fëid-es-Smar, watered in its lower part by two streams which empty into the Wäd Mellag. The distance, however, which separates Djebel Hemeur from the left bank of the Wäd Mellag, is not twenty (the number given by the MSS. of Sallust) but about seven miles. S. Reinach in his edition of Tissot has not reproduced the author’s own sketch of the battle of the Muthul, but a map of the district will be found in the Atlas appended to the work (Map xviii., Medjerda supérieure). This map forms the basis of the one which I have given.

[1010] See note 1. One must agree with Tissot that the “ferme milia passuum viginti” of Sallust (Jug. 48. 3) cannot be accepted. Such a distance is impossible from a strategic point of view, as Metellus could never have sent his vanguard such a distance in advance, when he himself was engaged with the enemy. It is also inconsistent with the account of the battle, the details of which obviously show that it took place in a much smaller area. The actual distance between the conjectured sites is about seven Roman miles (note 1. See Tissot op. cit. i. p. 71).

[1011] Sall. Jug. 48.

[1012] This appears from the narrative in Ibid. 52. 5. Even when Jugurtha had advanced some distance to the river, Bomilcar was not actually in touch with the king’s forces.

[1013] Sall. Jug. 49. 4.

[1014] Sall. Jug. 49. 4.

[1015] Ibid. 49. 6 Ibi conmutatis ordinibus in dextero latere, quod proxumum hostis erat, triplicibus subsidies aciem instruxit.

[1016] Sall. Jug. 49. 6 Sicuti instruxerat, transvorsis principiis in planum deducit. The word “transvorsis” here probably refers to the direction in which the front rank faced the enemy, and the position may be described in another way by saying that Metellus marched with his front rank sideways to Jugurtha. See Summers in loc.

[1017] Ibid. 50. 2.

[1018] Ibid. 50. 1.

[1019] Sall. Jug. 52. 5.

[1020] Ibid. 50. 2.

[1021] Sall. Jug. 51. 3.

[1022] Sall. Jug. 52.5.

[1023] Aciem quam diffidens virtuti militum arte statuerat, quo hostium itineri officeret, latius porrigit eoque modo ad Rutili castra procedit (Ibid. 52. 6).

[1024] Sall. Jug. 53. 3.

[1025] Ibid. 53. 5 Instructi intentique obviam procedunt. Nam dolus Numidarum nihil languidi neque remissi patiebatur.

[1026] Pro victoria satis jam pugnatum, reliquos labores pro praeda fore (Sall. Jug. 54. 1).

[1027] Interim Romae gaudium ingens ortum cognitis Metelli rebus, ut seque et exercitum more majorum gereret, in advorso loco victor tamen virtute fuisset, hostium agro potiretur, Jugurtham magnificum ex Albini socordia spem salutis in solitudine aut fuga coegisset habere (Ibid. 55. 1).

[1028] Sall. Jug. 54. 1.

[1029] Ibid. 54. 3.

[1030] Metellus, ubi videt … minore detrimento illos vinci quam suos vincere, statuit non proeliis neque in acie, sed alio more bellum gerundum (Ibid. 54. 5).

[1031] Sall. Jug. 54. 6.

[1032] Sall. Jug. 55. 5.

[1033] Sicca is the modern El Kef, but is still called by its inhabitants by its old name of Sicca Veneria (Schak Benar), The name Veneria was derived from a temple of the Punic Aphrodite (cf. Val. Max. ii. 6. 15). Of its strategic importance Tissot says “El Kef is still regarded as the strongest place in Tunis…. The town dominates the great plains of Es-sers, Zanfour, Lorbeus and of the Wäd Mellag, at the same time that it commands one of the principal ways of communication leading from Tunis to Algiers.” See Wilmanns in C.I.L. viii. p. 197; Tissot Géogr. comp. ii. p. 378. Zama Regia is now identified, not with the place called Lehs, El-Lehs or Eliès (Wilmanns op. cit. p. 210), but with Djiâma. See Tissot op. cit. ii. pp. 571, 577-79; Mommsen in Hermes xx. pp. 144-56; Schmidt in Rhein. Mus. 1889 (N. F. 44) pp. 397 foll.

[1034] Sall. Jug. 56. 3.

[1035] Ibid. 56. 2.

[1036] Id oppidum in campo situm magis opere quam natura munitum erat (Ibid. 57. 1).

[1037] Contra ea oppidani in proxumos saxa volvere, sudes, pila, praeterea picem sulphure et taeda mixtam ardentia mittere (Sall. Jug. 57. 5). If ardentia is correct, the sudes and pila must also have been winged with fire. I have interpreted the passage as though ardenti (suggested by Herzog) were the true reading. Summers suggests “picem sulphure mixtam et tela ardentia.”

[1038] Ibid. 58. 1.

[1039] Sall. Jug. 59. 1.

[1040] Ibid. 59. 3.

[1041] Sall. Jug. 60. 4.

[1042] Ibid. 61. 1.

[1043] Sall. Jug. 61. 4.

[1044] Sall. Jug. 62, 1.

[1045] Mittuntur ad imperatorem legati, qui Jugurtham imperata facturum dice rent (Ibid. 62. 3). The word imperata implies previous negotiations.

[1046] Metellus proper cantos senatorial ordinis ex Hibernia accurse jubet; eorum et variorum, quos ironers defeat, console habet (Ibid. 62. 4).

[1047] Ihne Röm. Gesch. v. p. 146.

[1048] Sall. Jug. 62. 5. Orosius (v. 15. 7) adds that Jugurtha promised corn and other supplies.

[1049] Oros. l.c.

[1050] Sall. Jug. 62. 7.

[1051] Oros. l.c.

[1052] App. Num. 3.

[1053] Its site is unknown.

[1054] Romae senatus de provinciis consults Numidiam Metello decelerare (Sall. Jug. 62. 10). It is possible that the senate merely abstained from making Numidia a consular province. See Summers in loc. and cf. p. 222.

[1055] Etiam tum alios magistratus plebs, consulate nobilities inter se per manus trade bat. Novas memo tam claries neque tam egregious facts erat, quin is indigenous illo honore et quasi pollutes aerator (Ibid. 63. 6).

[1056] Ibid. 63. 1.

[1057] Sall. Jug. 64. 4.

[1058] Milites quibus in Hibernia preheat lax ore imperio quam antea habere (Ibid. 64. 5).

[1059] Sall. Jug. 64. 5.

[1060] Ibid. 65. 1 Erat praeterea in exercitu nostro Unmade quidam nomine Gauda, Mastanabalis filius, Masinissae nepos, quem Micipsa testamento secundum heredem scripserat, morbis confectus et ob eam causam mente paulum inminuta.

[1061] Turmam equitum Romanorum (Ibid. 65. 2). It appears, therefore, that equites equo publico, although seldom (if ever) used as cavalry at this time, still formed the escort of generals or princes.

[1062] Equites Romanos, milites et negotiatores (Sall. Jug. 65. 4).

[1063] Sall. Jug. 66. 3.

[1064] Ibid. 67.

[1065] Sall. Jug. 67. 3 Turpilius praefectus unus ex omnibus Italicis intactus profugit. Id misericordiane hospitis an pactione an casu ita evenerit, parum comperimus: nisi, quia illi in tanto malo turpis vita integra fama potior fuit, inprobus intestabilisque videtur.

[1066] Ibid. 68. 1.

[1067] Ibid. 68. 4 Equites in primo late, pedites quam artissume ire et signa occultare jubet.

[1068] Plut. Mar. 8 outos gar ho anaer aen men ek poteron xenos toi Metello kai tote taen epi ton tektonon echon archaen synestrateue.

[1069] Plut. l.c.

[1070] Plut. l.c.

[1071] Sall. Jug. 69. 4 Turpilius … condemnatus verberatusque capite poenas solvit: nam is civis e Latio erat. If the last words mean that Turpilius was a Latin, they may show that the law of Drusus (p. 242), if passed, was no longer respected. If they mean that he was a Roman citizen from a Latin town, they illustrate this law. Appian (Num. 3) says that Turpilius was a Roman ([Greek: andra Rhomaion]).

[1072] Sall. Jug. 70.

[1073] Proinde reputaret cum animo suo, praemia an cruciatum mallet (Sall. Jug. 70. 6).

[1074] Sall. Jug. 72.

[1075] Ibid. 73.

[1076] Meinel (Zur Chronologie des Jugurth. Krieges p. 13) thinks that the consular elections of 108 did not take place before the winter, and that they may even have drifted over into the following year.

[1077] Plut, Mar. 8.

[1078] Plut. l.c. It is possible that this story and that of Sallust (Jug. 63 see p. 410) about the sacrifice at Utica belong to the same incident. But it is not probable. A man such as Marius would often approach a favourite shrine.

[1079] Liv. Ep. lxv.

[1080] [Victor] de Vir. Ill. 72; Ammian. xxvii. 3. 9.

[1081] The via Aemilia ([Victor] l.c.; Strabo v. 1. 11).

[1082] Plut. Quaest. Rom. 50.

[1083] Plut. Mar. 8.

[1084] Sall. Jug. 73. 6 Denique plebes sic accensa, uti opifices agrestesque omnes, quorum res fidesque in manibus sitae erant, relictis operibus frequentarent Marium et sua necessaria post illius honorem ducerent. The labours, from which the agrestes were drawn, may have been those of early spring, if the elections were delayed until the early part of 107 B.C. (See p. 420, Meinel l.c.)

[1085] Ibid. 73. 7 Sed paulo ante senatus Metello Numidiam decreverat: ea res frustra fuit. The words in italics are not given by the good manuscripts; they are perhaps an interpolation drawn from ch. 62. See Summers in loc. It is possible that some mention of the provinces which the senate had decreed to the new consuls stood here. Mommsen (Hist. of Rome bk. iv. c. 4) thinks that the passage may have contained a statement that the senate had destined Gaul and Italy for the consuls.

[1086] Sall. Fug. 85.

[1087] Ibid. 85. 12 Atque ego scio, Quirites, qui, postquam consules facti sunt, et acta majorum et Graecorum militaria praecepta legere coeperint—praeposteri homines: nam gerere quam fieri tempore posterius, re atque usu prius est.

[1088] Ibid. 84. 2.

[1089] Polyb. vi. 19.2.

[1090] According to Gellius (xvi. 10, 10) 375 asses:—Qui … nullo aut perquam parvo aere censebantur, “capite censi” vocabantur, extremus autem census capite censorum aeris fuit trecentis septuaginta quinque. But this decline from the Polybian census seems incredibly rapid. Perhaps the figure should be 3,750—one closely resembling that given by Polybius. Cf. p. 61.

[1091] Cf. Liv. x. 21 (cited by Ihne Röm. Gesch. v. p. 154) Senatus … delectum omnis generis hominum haberi jussit. See also Gell. l.c. 13. Polybius vi. 19. 3, according to Casaubon’s reading (p. 135), cannot be cited in illustration of this point.

[1092] Sall. Jug. 86 2 Ipse interea milites scribere, non more majorum neque ex classibus, sed uti cujusque lubido erat, capite censos plerosque. Val. Max. ii. 3. 1 Fastidiosum dilectus genus in exercitibus Romanis oblitterandum duxit. Cf. Florus i. 36 (iii. 1). 13. The tradition preserved by Plutarch (Mar. 9) that Marius enrolled slaves as well ([Greek: polyn ton aporon kai doulon katagraphon]), is apparently an echo from the time of the civil wars. Plutarch may mean men of servile birth and, though it is noted that freedmen were not employed even on occasional service until 90 B.C. (App. Bell. Civ. i. 49), yet it is possible that Marius’s hasty levy may have swept in some men of this standing. But after, as before the time of Marius, free-birth (ingenuitas) continued to be a necessary qualification for service in the legions.

[1093] Sall. Jug. 86. 3.

[1094] Sall. Jug. 86. 3.

[1095] Sall. Jug. 74. 1.

[1096] Ibid. 74. 2.

[1097] Ibid. 75. 1. There are two Thalas in Numidia. The one with which we are here concerned is believed to be that lying east of Capsa (Khafsa), not that near Ammaedara (the latter is probably the Thala of Tac. Ann. iii. 21). Its identification was due to Pelissier who visited the site. It has one of the characteristics mentioned by Sallust, for the existing ruins are situated in a region destitute of water except for one neighbouring fountain. The river from which the Romans drew water and filled their vessels might be the one now called the Wäd Lebem or Leben—the only one in this part of Tunis which does not run dry even in summer. The ruins are of small extent and unimposing, but this feature agrees with the statement of Strabo (xvii. 3. 12) that Thala was one of the towns blotted out by continuous wars in Africa. It was, therefore, not restored by the Romans. It has been doubted whether the name Thala is a proof of the identity of the site with that described by Sallust, since Pelissier says (Rev. Arch. 1847, p. 399) that the place is surrounded by a grove of trees, of the kind known as mimosa gummifera and called thala by the Arabs. The ruins may have drawn their name from these trees. See Wilmanns in C.I.L. viii. p. 28 and cf. Tissot Géogr. comp. ii. p. 635.

[1098] Sall. Jug. 75. 9.

[1099] Sall. Jug. 76. 3 Deinde locis ex copia maxume idoneis vineas agere, aggerem jacere et super aggerem inpositis turribus opus et administros tutari.

[1102] The name appears on coins in Punic letters as L B Q I (Movers Die Phönizer II 2. p. 486; Müller Numismatique de l’Afrique II p. 10). Greek writers also call it Neapolis, probably because it was not far from an older town at the mouth of the Cinyps (the Wäd Mghar-el-Ghrin), although others hold that this name designated a particular quarter of the town. The three cities of the Syrtis—Sabrata, Oea and Leptis—were called Tripolis, but do not seem to have been politically connected with one another. Leptis had been stipendiary to Carthage (Liv. xxxiv. 62) and had subsequently been occupied by Masinissa (Liv. l.c.; cf. App. Lib. 106). But the occupation was not permanent or effective. Sallust notes (Jug. 78) that its situation had enabled it to escape Numidian influence.

[1101] Sall. Jug. 77. 3.

[1102] Ibid. 80. 1.

[1103] Forbiger Handb. der alt. Geogr. ii. p. 885.

[1104] Sall. Jug. 80. 2.

[1105] Ibid. 80. 1.

[1106] Ibid. 80. 6 Ea necessitudo apud Numidas Maurosque levis ducitur, quia singuli pro opibus quisque quam plurumas uxores, denas alii, alii pluris habent, sed reges eo amplius. Ita animus multitudine distrahitur: nulla pro socia optinet, pariter omnes viles sunt.

[1107] Sall. Jug. 81. 1.

[1108] Ibid. 82. 1.

[1109] Cf. p. 349.

[1110] Sall. Jug. 81. 2.

[1111] Ibid. 82. 1.

[1112] Ibid. 82. 2.

[1113] Sall. Jug. 83. 1.

[1114] Sall, Jug. 86. 5.

[1115] Ibid. 88. 1.

[1116] Vellei. ii. II Metelli … et triumphus fuit clarissimus et meritum ex virtute ei cognomen Numidici inditum. Cf. Eutrop. iv. 27.

[1117] Sall. Jug. 88. 5.

[1118] Sall. Jug. 88. 3.

[1119] Sallust uses the historic infinitive (Ibid, 89. 1 Consul, uti statuerat, oppida castellaque munita adire, partim vi, alia metu aut praemia ostentando avortere ab hostibus), but the reduction of some of these places may perhaps be assumed.

[1120] Cf. p. 426.

[1121] Capsa (Kafsa or Gafsa) may have been once subject to Carthage and have been added to the kingdom of Masinissa after the Hannibalic war. Strabo (xvii. 3. 12) mentions it amongst the ruined towns of Africa, but it revived later on, received a Latin form of constitution under Hadrian, and was ultimately the seat of a bishopric. See Wilmanns in C. I. L. viii. p. 22. Its commercial importance was very great. It was, as Tissot says (Géogr. comp. ii. p. 664), placed on the threshold of the desert at the head of the three great valleys which lead, the one to the bottom of the Gulf of Kabes, the other to Tebessa, the third to the centre of the regency of Tunis. He describes it as one of the gates of the Sahara and one of the keys of Tell, the necessary point of transit of the caravans of the Soudan and the advanced post of the high plateau against the incursions of the nomads. Strabo (l.c.) describes Capsa as a treasure-house of Jugurtha, but it has been questioned whether this description is not due to a confusion with Thala (Wilmanns l.c.).

[1122] Sall. Jug. 89. 6.

[1123] Ibid. 89. 5 Nam, praeter oppido propinqua, alia omnia vasta, inculta, egentia aquae, infesta serpentibus, quarum vis sicuti omnium ferarum inopia cibi acrior. Ad hoc natura serpentium, ipsa perniciosa, siti magis quam alia re accenditur. Tissot says (op. cit. ii. p. 669) that the solitudes which surround the oasis make a veritable “belt of sands and snakes” (cf. Florus iii. 1. 14 Anguibus harenisque vallatam).

[1124] Sal. Jug. 90. 1.

[1125] Aulus Manlius was sent with some light cohorts to protect the stores at Lares (Ibid. 90. 2). These stores were, therefore, not exhausted.

[1126] The Tana has often been identified with the Wäd Tina, but this identification would take Marius along the coast by Thenae—a course which he almost certainly did not follow. Tissot holds (Géogr. comp. i. p. 85) that Tana is only a generic Libyan name for a water-course. He thinks that the river in question is the Wäd-ed-Derb. (Ibid. p. 86).

[1127] This locus tumulosus (Sall. Jug. 91. 3) is identified by Tissot (op. cit. ii. p 669) with a spur of the Djebel Beni-Younès which dominates Kafsa on the northeast at the distance indicated by Sallust.

[1128] Ibid. 91. 7.

[1129] Sall. Jug. 92. 3.

[1130] Sallust omits all mention of these winter quarters. Such an omission does not prove that he is a bad military historian, but simply that he never meant his sketch to be a military history. But he has perhaps freed himself too completely from the annalistic methods of most Roman historians.

[1131] Sall. Jug. 92. 2.

[1132] The Wäd Muluja. It is called Muluccha by Sallust, [Greek: Molochath] by Strabo (xvii. 3, 9). Other names given to it by ancient authorities are Malvane, [Greek: Maloua], Malva. See Göbel Die Westküste Afrikas im Altertum pp. 79, 80.

[1133] Bocchus, however, claimed the territory within which Marius was operating (Sall. Jug. 102).

[1134] Ibid. 92. 5.

[1135] Ibid. 93.

[1136] Sall. Jug. 94. 3.

[1137] Sall. Jug. 95. 1.

[1138] Sall, Jug. 95. 1 L. Sulla quaestor cum magno equitatu in castra venit, quos uti ex Latio et a sociis cogeret Romae relictus erat.

[1139] Cic. in Verr. iii. 58. 134.

[1140] Cf. Cic. ad Att. vi. 6. 3 and 4.

[1141] Val. Max. vi. 9. 6 C. Marius consul moleste tulisse traditur quod sibi asperrimum in Africa bellum gerenti tam delicatus quaestor sorte obvenisset.

[1142] Plut. Sulla 2.

[1143] Val. Max. l.c.; Plut. Sulla 2.

[1144] Litteris Graecis atque Latinis juxta, atque doctissume, eruditus (Sall. Jug. 95. 3).

[1145] Plut. l.c.

[1146] Plut. l.c.

[1147] He was born in 138 B.C. He was entering on his sixtieth year at the time of his death in 78 B.C. (Val. Max. ix. 3. 8). Cf. Vellei. ii. 17 and see Lau Lucius Cornelius Sulla p. 25.

[1148] Sall. Jug. 96.

[1149] Sall. Jug. 97. 2.

[1150] Sallust states later that Cirta was his original aim (Ibid. 102. 1 Pervenit in oppidum Cirtam, quo initio profectus intenderat); but Marius’s plans may have been modified by intervening events.

[1151] Vix decuma parte die reliqua (Ibid. 97. 3).

[1152] Sall, Jug. 98. 1.

[1153] Ibid. 97. 5 Denique Romani … orbis facere, atque ita ab omnibus partibus simul tecti et instructi hostium vim sustentabant.

[1154] Ibid. 98. 3.

[1155] Sall. Jug. 99. 1.

[1156] Pariter atque in conspectu hostium quadrato agmine incedere (Ibid. 100. 1). For the nature and growth of this tactical formation amongst the Romans see Marquardt _Staatsverw. ii. p. 423.

[1157] Sall. Jug. 101. 2.

[1158] It is possible that Jugurtha intentionally let his approach be known, so that the Romans might form in their usual battle order.

[1159] This force is not mentioned by Sallust (Sall. Jug. 101. 5), but it seems implied in the junction of Bocchus with Volux.

[1160] Quod ubi milites accepere, magis atrocitate rei quam fide nuntii terrentur (Ibid. 101. 7).

[1161] Sall. Jug. 101. 9.

[1162] Oros. v. 15. 9 foll. This account in Orosius corresponds to nothing in Sallust and is clearly drawn from other sources. The attempt of the Romans to storm Cirta (Section 10) must be a mistake, unless it refers to some earlier and unrecorded operation of the war. Some details of Section 14 bear a shadowy resemblance to points in the first of the recent battles described by Sallust; but there are other details which make the identification impossible.

[1163] Hastilia telorum, quae manu intorquere sine ammentis solent (Oros. v. 15. 16).

[1164] According to Sallust (Jug. 102. 2.); but the fight which he describes may not have been the final battle. See p. 452.

[1165] Ibid. 102. 2.

[1166] Sall. Jug. 102. 5.

[1167] Ibid. 102. 12.

[1168] Cf. Sall. Jug. 80. 4. See p. 349.

[1169] Sall. Jug. 102. 15.

[1170] The headquarters were doubtless Cirta, to which we find Marius returning (Ibid. 104. 1); but shortly afterwards we find Sulla and the envoys coming to Cirta from a place which, according to one reading, is called Tucca (see p. 457). All the troops were probably not concentrated at Cirta, as Marius meant to quarter them in the coast-towns (Ibid. 100. 1).

[1171] Ibid. 103. 2.

[1172] Sall. Jug. 104. 3.

[1173] Ibid. 103. 7.

[1174] Sulla and the envoys were now at a place which variant readings make either Tucca or Utica (Ibid. 104. 1 Illosque et Sullam [ab Tucca or Utica] venire jubet, item L. Bellienum praetorem Utica). Utica is rendered improbable by its mention a few words later, although it is possible that the name of this town has been duplicated in the sentence. If we keep Tucca, it cannot be Thugga (Dugga) in Numidia, which is some distance from the coast. It may be the town which Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. 2. 21) calls “oppidum Tucca inpositum mari et flumini Ampsagae”.

[1175] It is possible that this armistice included Jugurtha as well, although this is not stated by Sallust (Sall. Jug. 104. 2).

[1176] Ibid. 104. 5.

[1177] Sall. Jug. 105. 1.

[1178] Ibid. 106. 2.

[1179] Sall. Jug. 107, 1.

[1180] Sall. Jug. 107. 6. Cf. Plut. Sulla 3.

[1181] Ibid. 108.

[1182] This is apparently the meaning of Sallust (Ibid. 108. 1) when he describes Dabar as Massugradae filius, ex gente Masinissae, ceterum materno genere inpar (nam pater ejus ex concubina ortus erat).

[1183] Sall. Jug. 108. 3 Sed ego conperior Bocchum magis Punica fide quam ob ea, quae praedicabat, simul Romanos et Numidam spe pacis attinuisse, multumque cum animo suo volvere solitum, Jugurtham Romanis an illi Sullam traderet; lubidinem advorsum nos, metum pro nobis suasisse.

[1184] Ibid. 109, 2 Dicit se missum a consule. Marius was really proconsul.

[1185] Ibid. 110.

[1186] Sall. Jug. 111.

[1187] Sall. Jug. 111. 2

[1188] Ibid. 112. 1.

[1189] Haec Maurus secum ipse diu volvens tandem promisit, ceterum dolo an vere cunctatus parum comperimus (Ibid. 113. 1).

[1190] This must have been the agreement, although Sallust says only Eodem Numida cum plerisque necessariis inermis, uti dictum erat, adcedit (Sall. Jug. 113. 6).

[1191] Ibid. 114. 3.

[1192] Gauda is called king in an inscription which gives the whole house of Juba II. The inscription (C.I.L. II. n. 3417) runs:—Regi Jubae reg(is) Jubae filio regi(s) Iempsalis n. regis Gau(dae) pronepoti regis Masiniss(ae) pronepotis nepoti IIvir quinq. patrono coloni (the coloni, who set up the inscription, having made Juba II IIvir quinquennalis honoris causa). The only doubt which affects the belief in Gauda’s succession arises from a passage in Cic. post Red. ad Quir. 8. 20. Cicero here says (Marius) cum parva navicula pervectus in Africam, quibus regna ipse dederat, ad eos inops supplexque venisset. There can be no doubt that Marius fled to Hiempsal, not to Gauda. But it has been pointed out that Cicero’s expression is “ad eos,” not “ad eum.” The plural probably refers to the whole “domus” of the monarch and would include both Gauda and Hiempsal. See Biereye Res Numidarum et Maurorum p. 7.

[1193] Mauretania subsequently includes the region of Caesariensis, but it has been thought probable that the territory of Sitifis on the east was not added until the new settlement in 46 B.C. (Mommsen Hist. of Rome bk. iv. c. 4). The territory between the Muluccha and Saldae might, therefore, have been added after the close of the war with Jugurtha. See Müller Numismatique de l’Afrique. p. 4; Mommsen l.c.; Göbel Die Westküste Afrikas im Altertum p. 93; Biereye op. cit. p. 6. It is very questionable whether the limits of the Roman province were in any way extended at the expense of Numidia. Such additions as Vaga and Sicca probably belong to the settlement of 46 B.C. See Tissot Géogr. comp. ii. pp. 21 foll. It has sometimes been thought that the attachment of Leptis Magna to Rome (p. 429) was permanent (Wilmanns in C.I.L. viii. p. 2) and that Tripolis became a part of the Roman province (Marquardt Staatsverw. i. p. 465), but Tissot (op. cit. ii. p. 22) believes that Leptis remained a free city.

[1194] Sall. Jug. 114. 3; Liv. Ep. lxvii; C.I.L. i. n. xxxiii p. 290 Eum (Jugurtham) cepit et triumphans in secundo consulatu ante currum suum duci jussit … veste triumphali calceis patriciis [? in senatum venit]. It is questionable, however, whether the last words of this Arretine inscription (words which do not immediately follow the account of the Numidian triumph) can be brought into connection with the story told by Plutarch (Mar. 12) that Marius, either through forgetfulness or clumsiness, entered the senate in his triumphal dress. They seem to refer to some special honours conferred after the defeat of the Germanic tribes. It is possible that the conferment of this honour gave rise to the malicious story, which became not only distorted but misplaced.

[1195] Plut. Mar. 12.

[1196] Ihne Röm. Gesch. v. p. 164 Wo dem Sohn des Südens der Schmerzenschrei entfuhr.

[1197] Plut. Mar. 12. The epitomator of Livy (lxvii.) says in carcere necatus est. The word necatus is quite consistent with a death such as that described by Plutarch. See Festus, pp. 162, 178.

[1198] Plut. l.c.

[1199] Plut. Mar. 10.

[1200] Plut. Sulla 4.

[1201] Plut. Mar. 10; Sulla 3.

[1202] Plut. Sulla 6.

[1203] Ancient writers derive the name from serere and connect it with a story of the family of the Reguli (Plin. Hist. Nat. xviii. 3, 20; Verg. Aen. vi. 844; Val. Max. iv. 4. 5). But the name appears on coins as “Saranus” (Eckhel v. p. 146). It seems, however, to be true that the name was borne by, or applied to, C. Atilius Regulus, the consul of 257 B.C. See Klebs in Pauly-Wissowa R. E. p. 2095.

[1204] Cic. pro Planc. 5. 12.

[1205] In the movement connected with the proceedings of Saturninus in 100 B.C. (Cic. pro Rab. 7. 21).

[1206] Eutrop. iv. 27; Val. Max. vi. 9. 13; Fast. triumph.

[1207] Yet no very recent cases repetundarum are known. The last seems to have been the accusation of M. Valerius Messala (Gell. xv. 14). About this time C. Flavius Fimbria was accused by M. Gratidius and acquitted in spite of the hostile evidence of M. Aemilius Scaurus (Cic. pro Font. 11. 24; Brut. 45. 168; Val. Max. viii. 5. 2; Rein Criminalrecht p. 649); but even if, with Rein, we assign this case to 106 and not to a time later than Fimbria’s consulship, the judiciary law must have been prepared before the trial.

[1208] Cassiodor. Chron. Per Servilium Caepionem consulem judicia equitibus et senatoribus communicata. Obsequens 101 (39) Per Caepionem cos. senatorum et equitum judicia communicata.

[1209] Tac. Ann. xii. 60 Cum … Serviliae leges senatui judicia redderent.

[1210] Cic. de Inv. i. 49. 92 Offensum est quod corum qui audiunt voluntatem laedit: ut si quis apud equites Romanos cupidos judicandi Caepionis legem judiciariam laudet.

[1211] Pp. 135, 213.

[1212] Cic. Brut. 43, 161; pro Cluent. 51, 140.

[1213] Cic. de Or. ii. 59. 240, 66. 264. It is very probable that this attack on Memmius belongs to the speech on the Servilian law.

[1214] Cic. Brut. 44. 164 Mihi (Ciceroni) quidem a pueritia quasi magistra fuit, inquam, illa in legem Caepionis oratio.

[1215] Cassiod. Chron.; Obsequens 101 (39) (quoted p, 478).

[1216] Cicero, speaking in 70 B.C., says that the Equites had held the courts for nearly fifty years, i.e. up to the date of the lex Cornelia of 81 B.C. (Cic. in Verr. Act. i. 13. 38).

[1217] [Cic.] ad Herenn. i. 15, 25, iv. 24. 34; de Rep. i. 3. 6; pro Balbo II. 28.

[1218] Cic. de Orat. iii. 8. 29; Brut. 35. 132.

[1219] Cicero, in speaking of the successive defeats of Catulus at the polls, says Praeposuisse (populum Romanum) Q. Catulo, summa in familia nato, sapientissimo et sanctissimo viro, non dico C. Serranum, stultissimum hominem, (fuit enim tamen nobilis,) non C. Fimbriam, novum hominem, (fuit enim et animi satis magni et consilii,) sed Cn. Mallium, non solum ignobilem, verum sine virtute, sine ingenio, vita etiam contempta ac sordida (pro Planc. 5. 12).

[1220] Val. Max. ii. 3. 2. The changes introduced into the military system by Rutilius will be explained in the next chapter.

[1221] Ulp. in Dig. xxxviii. 2, i. i. Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 433) thinks that the consul of 105 is the “praetor Rutilius” of Ulpian’s account.

[1222] Gaius iv, 35 (Praetor Publius Rutilius), qui et bonorum venditionem introduxisse dicitur. See Bethmann-Hollweg Civilprozess ii. p. 671. Here again the consul of 105 is probably meant.

[1223] Cic. Brut. 30. 113, 114.

[1224] The disaster at Arausio took place on 6th October (Plut. Luc. 27). The consuls for the next year may not yet have been elected, as there was at this time no fixed date for the consular Comitia. Cf. p. 364 and see Sall. Jug. 114.

[1225] Cic. Brut. 34. 129; de Orat. ii. 22. 91.

[1226] Liv. Ep. lvi. (see the next note). For the probable date of this enactment (151 B.C.) see Mommsen Staatsrecht i. p. 521.

[1227] Liv. Ep. lvi Cum bellum Numantinum vitio ducum non sine pudore publico duraret, delatus est ultro Scipioni Africano a senatu populoque Romano consulatus; quem cum illi capere ob legem, quae vetabat quemquam iterum consulem fieri, non liceret, sicut priori consulatu, legibus solutus est.

[1228] Plut. Mar. 12 [Greek: kai to deuteron hypatos apedeichthae, tou men nomou koluontos aponta kai mae dialiponta chronon horismenon authis aireisthai, tou de daemou tous antilegontas ekbalontos.] Plutarch adds that the people recalled the dispensation granted to Scipio when the annihilation of the Carthaginian power was planned. This is perhaps a mistaken reference to the dispensation granted to Scipio in the Numantine war. See Liv. Ep. lvi. (quoted in the last note); Cic. pro Leg. Man. 20. 60 and Mommsen Staatsr. l.c. As to the irregularity involved in Marius’s absence, it is questionable whether Plutarch is right in supposing that a personal professio was required at this time. See Mommsen Staatsr. i. p. 504. Possibly the irregularity consisted in the fact that there had been no formal candidature at all. Other references to this election of Marius are to be found in Sall. Jug. 114; Vellei. ii. 12; Liv. Ep. lxvii.

[1229] Sall. Jug. 114, Marius consul absens factus est, et ei decreta provincia Gallia.