Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC-50 BC [10% sample] Michael C. Alexander

This document contains a randomly selected ten-per-cent sample of the trials contained in Michael C. Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic 149 BC to 50 BC (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990).

The sample is intended for use in the design of database structures for the information and for development and testing of XML processing to transform the XMLized form of Waterloo GML input shown here into more convenient 'fielded' XML structures.

This document seems unlikely to be of interest in other contexts. Readers who have any interest at all in the subject matter should consult the full text of the work at http://tlrr.blackmesatech.com/2013/tlrr1-overview.xhtml.

 The Trials 149 On the date see Cic. Att. 12.5b. quaestio extraordinaria quaestio extraordinaria (proposed) See Douglas, Brutus p. 77. (misconduct as gov. Lusitania 150) Sulpicius (+58), Ser. Galba Ser. Sulpicius Galba (58) cos. 144 spoke pro se (ORF 19.II, III) Fulvius (+95), Q. Nobilior Q. Fulvius Nobilior (95) cos. 153, cens. 136 Cornelius (+91), L. Cethegus L. Cornelius Cethegus (91)
Porcius (++9), M. Cato M. Porcius Cato (9) cos. 195, cens. 184 (ORF 8.LI)
Scribonius (+18), L. Libo L. Scribonius Libo (18) tr. pl. 149 (promulgator) proposal defeated Cic. Div. Caec. 66; Mur. 59; de Orat. 1.40, 227-28; 2.263; Brut. 80, 89; Att. 12.5b; Liv. 39.40.12; Per. 49; Per. Oxy. 49; Quint. Inst. 2.15.8; Plut. Cat. Mai. 15.5; Tac. Ann. 3.66; App. Hisp. 60; Fro. Aur. 1. p. 172 (56N); Gel. 1.12.17, 13.25.15; see also V. Max. 8.1. abs. 2; [Asc.] 203St; Vir. Ill. 47.7 Ferguson (1921); see also Buckland (1937); Richardson (1987) 2 n. 12 123 quaestio extraordinaria lex de provocatione perhaps a quaestio extraordinaria? Possibly the trial was held under the lex de provocatione. See Siber (1936) 10-11; Miners (1958) 242; Ewins (1960) 97; Kunkel (1962) 28 n. 89; Weinrib (1970) 431; Stockton (1979) 119. (involvement in tribunal aimed against supporters of Ti. Gracchus; see also cases , , and ) Popillius (+28), P. Laenas P. Popillius Laenas (28) cos. 132 Sempronius (+47), C. Gracchus C. Sempronius Gracchus (47) tr. pl. 123, 122 voluntary exile, at Nuceria (possibly before the trial) Cic. Clu. 95; Red. Sen. 37; Red. Pop. 6; Dom. 82, 87; Balb. 28; Brut. 128; Vell. 2.7.4; Plut. C. Gracch. 4.2; Gel. 11.13.1; Schol. Bob. 111St; Fest. 220, 1L 116 ambitus ambitus (in campaign for consulate) Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.I) Rutilius (+34), P. Rufus P. Rutilius Rufus (34) cos. 105 (ORF 44.I) A Cic. Brut. 113; see also de Orat. 2.280 114, acquitted XIII Kal. Ian. incestum apud pontifices incestum, apud pontifices Licinia (181) Licinia (181) Betitius (++1) Betucius (Betitius 1), T. Barrus Manius (not in RE) slave (perhaps named Manius [not in RE]) of T. Betucius Barrus (Betitius 1) e.R. See case , n. 1. A Fenestella 21 fr. 11 Peter = Macr. 1.10.6; Liv. Per. 63; Asc. 45-46C; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 83; Dio 26, fr. 87; Obsequens 37; Oros. 5.15.22 trial uncertain 103 quaestio extraordinaria peculatus quaestio extraordinaria, peculatus? (on theft of aurum Tolosanum) Servilius (+49), Q. Caepio Q. Servilius Caepio (49) cos. 106 and others A? C? According to Lengle (1931), Caepio was either acquitted or assessed a pecuniary penalty. Cic. N.D. 3.74; Liv. Per. 67; vir. ill. 73.5; Dio 27 fr. 90; Oros. 5.15 MRR 1.566 n. 8 103? See case , n. 1. iudicium populi iudicium populi (for failure to perform properly duties as priest [augur?]) Sumner, Orators 99, following Badian (1968) 29, argues that the priesthood of Scaurus was the augurate; contra MRR 1.562 n. 7. Sumner’s view is developed by Keaveney (1982) 152-53. See Marshall, Asconius 129-32, MRR Suppl. 11-12. Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 Domitius (+21), Cn. Ahenobarbus Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (21) tr. pl. 104? 103? cos. 96, cens. 92 (ORF 69.I) Plutarch incorrectly says that Scaurus prosecuted Domitius. A (32 tribes by a narrow margin for acquittal, 3 for condemnation) Cic. Scaur. fr. c; Deiot. 31; V. Max. 6.5.5; Asc. 21C; Plut. De capienda ex inimicis utilitate 91D; Dio 27 fr. 92; see also Suet. Nero 2.1 Gruen (1964) 107-8 95? 93? 91? The trial presumably followed the defendant’s command in Cilicia. This Badian (Studies 169-170) has dated to 96-95, and given this date, the trial would have occurred in late 95 or in 94. Keaveney (1980) 149-57 defends Badian’s dating, though for somewhat different reasons. Sumner (Athenaeum 1978) dates Sulla’s praetorship to 95 and his Cilician command to 94. He argues that Sulla must have run in 99 for the praetorship of 98, and having been defeated, ran in the same year for the aedileship of 98, which he held. Sherwin-White (CQ 1977, JRS 1977, 72) argues that Sulla restored Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia in the late nineties. See MRR Suppl. 74. repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis MRR 2.18 refers to the acceptance of bribes. But Gruen (Historia 1966) 51 n. 116 correctly points out that the force of Sallust’s words contained in Firm. Mat. 1.7.28, spoliatae provinciae crimen, means that extortion was the charge. (misconduct as gov. Cilicia) Cornelius (392), L. Sulla L. Cornelius Sulla (392) gov. Cilicia 96-95? 94? 92?, cos. 88, 80 Marcius (+43), C. Censorinus C. Marcius Censorinus (43) leg. 82 (ORF 82.I) charges dropped Plut. Sull. 5; Firm. Mat. 1.7.28 trial only threatened 90 lex Varia lex Varia Scribonius (+10), C. Curio C. Scribonius Curio (10) tr. pl., cos. 76, cens. 61 See case , n. 3. no trial Sis. Hist. 3, fr. 44 Peter (Nonius 393L); cf. Asc. 74C late 87 iudicium populi perduellio iudicium populi, for perduellio? Lutatius (++7), Q. Catulus Q. Lutatius Catulus (7) cos. 102 Marius (+42), M. Gratidianus M. Marius Gratidianus (42) tr. pl. 87 or 86, pr. 85? and 82? On these dates of the prosecutor’s career, see Sumner, Orators 118-19, and MRR Suppl. 140-41. suicide On the suicides of this period, see Weinrib (1968) 43, n. 45. Cic. de Orat. 3.9; Brut. 307; Tusc. 5.56; N.D. 3.80; Diod. 39.4.2; Vell. 2.22.4; V. Max. 9.12.4; Plut. Mar. 44.5; App. BCiv. 1.74; Flor. Epit. 2.9.15; Schol. Bern. on Lucan 2.173; Schol. Bob. 176St; August. C.D. 3.27 Brecht (1938) 301 spring of 81 For the date 81 see Gell. 15.28.3, Kinsey (1967), Shatzman (1968) 345-47, Hinard (1975) 94, and Badian FC 297, who argue against 80, the date suggested by Carcopino (1931). The dispute between Quinctius and Naevius dated back to September 83 (see case ). In 81 the praetor Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (135) had ruled that the sponsio should occur. sponsio sponsio (dispute over partnership) Naevius (++6), Sex. Sex. Naevius (6) Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.IV) Marcius (+75), L. Philippus L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86 Quinctius (+16), P. P. Quinctius (16) Iunius (+23), M. Iunius (+52), M. Brutus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 1) Aquillius (+23), C. Gallus C. Aquillius Gallus (23) pr. 66 Claudius (226), M. Marcellus Claudius (227), M. Marcellus Lucilius (+19), L. Balbus Lucilius (++8), L. Quinctilius (++2), P. Varus M. Claudius Marcellus (226) pr. uncertain date, = ? M. Claudius Marcellus (227) aed. cur. 91 See case , n. 2.
L. Lucilius Balbus (19) = ? L. Lucilius (8) pr. 91? He was gov. Asia 90 and beginning 89. See Sumner (GRBS 1978) 149-50, MRR Suppl. 128.
P. Quinctilius Varus (2) Cicero’s praise of Varus does not demonstrate that Varus was a senator, pace Sumner (CP 1978) 161; see MRR Suppl. 177. Albius (++6), L. L. Albius (6) against plaintiff See Kinsey’s comment in his edition of Cicero’s pro Quinctio, p. 5. M. Iunius (23), perhaps the same as M. Iunius Brutus (52) tr. pl. 83, withdrew as advocate for the plaintiff. Cic. Quinct.; Gel. 15.28.3 (Fenestella #17 Peter, Asc. xv-xvi KS); Tac. Dial. 37.6; see also Quint. Inst. 12.6.4 Greenidge LP App. II.1 before 74 actio liberalis actio liberalis? (Roman citizenship of Martiales of Larinum) Albius (+10), Statius Oppianicus Statius Albius See case , n. 2. Oppianicus (10) e.R. Cluentius (++4), A. Habitus A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. perhaps in favor of citizenship Cicero’s failure to mention the outcome may indicate that his client Cluentius was unsuccessful. Cic. Clu. 43-44 around 74 uncertain (misconduct as juror?) Caesonius (++1), M. M. Caesonius (1) pr. by 66 A [Asc.] 216St; see also Cic. 1 Ver. 29 74 civil suit civil suit (over succession) Octavius (+69), M. Ligus M. Octavius Ligus (69) sen. Gellius (+17), L. Publicola L. Gellius Publicola (17) cos. 72, cens. 70 (ORF 101.II) Octavius (+68), L. Ligus L. (Octavius) Ligus (68) sen.? Sulpicia (109) Sulpicia (109) Verres (++1), C. C. Verres (1) Cic. 2 Ver. 1.125-27, 133; 2 Ver. 2.119 between 74 The trial possibly occurred before this date. Shackleton Bailey apparently now holds the view (described in MRR Suppl. 101) that in 1 Ver. 39 the cases of C. Herennius (this case), C. Popillius (), and M. Atilius Bulbus () are to be separated from the juror (clearly Staienus) who accepted bribes from both sides when Verres was praetor (74 B.C.). Therefore trials , , and do not have to be dated to 74 B.C. and 70 peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu lex Cornelia de peculatu (receiving bribe ob rem iudicandam as juror in 74[?]) Herennius (++7), C. C. Herennius = ? C. Herennius (7) tr. pl. 88? 80? Münzer RE 8 (1912) 663 identifies him with the legate who served under Sertorius, and died in battle in 76 or 75. Syme (Historia 1955) 63 = RP 1.282 distinguishes them. C Cic. 1 Ver. 39; Plut. Pomp. 18; see also Sal. Hist. 2.98.6M 73 repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis lex Cornelia de repetundis (improper conduct as juror in case ) Fidiculanius (++1), C. Falcula C. Fidiculanius Falcula (1) sen. A, in first actio Cic. 1 Ver. 39; Caec. 29; Clu. 103, 104, 108, 112, 114; [Asc.] 219St; Schol. Gronov. B 339St ca Jan.-ca Oct. 70 On the date, see Marinone (1950) 8-14. repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sicily 73-71) Verres (++1), C. C. Verres (1) pr. 74 Caecilius (+99), Q. Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica Cornelius (374), L. Sisenna Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (99) cos. 52
L. Cornelius Sisenna (374) pr. 78 (ORF 89.I)
Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.IX) Alexander (1976) defends the belief of Quintilian (10.1.22-23) that Hortensius delivered a speech in the first actio in defense of his client; contra Brunt (1980) 280 n. 44, Venturini (1980) 170. Tullius (+29), M. Cicero M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 6-11, 123) (nom. del.) Acilius (+38), M’. Glabrio M’. Acilius Glabrio (38) cos. 67, cens. 64? See MRR Suppl. 2. Caecilius (+78), M. Metellus Caesonius (++1), M. Cassius (+13), L. Longinus Claudius (214), C. Marcellus Cornificius (++7), Q. Crepereius (++1), M. Lutatius (++8), Q. Catulus Manlius (+34), Q. Octavius (+45), L. Balbus Servilius (+93), P. Vatia Isauricus Sulpicius (+15), P. Titinius (+17), Q. Tremellius (++5), Cn. Scrofa M. Caecilius Metellus (78) pr. 69
M. Caesonius (1) pr. by 66
L. Cassius Longinus (13) pr. 66 For references, see case , n. 4.
C. Claudius Marcellus (214) pr. 80
Q. Cornificius (7) pr. by 66
M. Crepereius (1) tr. mil. 69
Q. Lutatius Catulus (8) cos. 78, cens. 65
Q. Manlius (34) tr. pl. 69
L. His praenomen is not ‘P.’ See case , n. 9. Octavius Balbus (45)
P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55
P. Sulpicius (15) q. 69 See Box (1942) 72, Gabba (1976) 60-61, and MRR Suppl. 200.
Q. Titinius (17) sen.
Cn. Tremellius Scrofa (5) tr. mil. 69, pr. by early 50s See MRR Suppl. 208. Cassius (+58), C. Longinus Cervius (++1), P. Considius (++7), Q. Iunius (+30), Q. Peducaeus (++5), Sex. Sulpicius (+55), P. Galba Lucretius (++9), M. C. Cassius (Longinus?) (58) cos. 73
P. Cervius (1) leg. Sicily 72? See Marinone (1965-66) 238-46; MRR Suppl. 43, 53.
Q. Considius (7) sen.
Q. Iunius (30) sen.
Sex. Peducaeus (5) pr. 77
P. Sulpicius Galba (55) pr. 66 His curule aedileship in 69 and candidacy for consulate of 63 fix his praetorship to 66. M. Lucretius (9) sen., M. Lucretius was probably rejected by Cicero. Ps.-Asconius (229St) surmises, probably correctly, that Cicero would not have attacked Lucretius as he does (2 Ver. 1.18, admittedly in a fictitious speech), if Lucretius were still a juror in the case. So Münzer RE 13(1927) 1657; contra McDermott (1977) 69. and others Cicero rejected some jurors (1 Ver. 16; 2 Ver. 1.18), but, pace McDermott (1977) 65 n. 4, we cannot be sure that he rejected the same number as the defense (i.e., six). Apollodoros Pyragros (not in RE) Caecilius (not in RE), L. Dio Caecilius (+52), Q. Dio Charidemos (not in RE) Cottius (not in RE), M. Cottius (not in RE), P. Diodoros (+29) Domitius (not in RE), L. Fannius (+11), Cn. Flavius (+16), L. Fufius (++8), L. Calenus Heius (++2) C. Herakleios (++4) Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus Lucceius (++9), Q. Manlius (+41), T. Manilius (+16), T. Matrinius (++1), C. Minucius (+26), Q. Modius (++6), M. Nikasio (++1) Numenios (++3) Numitorius (++2), C. Octavius (+68), L. Ligus Octavius (+69), M. Ligus Pompeius (+27), Sex. Chlorus Pompeius (+46), Cn. Theodorus Posides (not in RE) Macro Sertius (++1), Cn. Theodoros (not in RE) Tadius (++2), Q. Tettius (++3), P. Titius (+19), P. Varius (++5), Q. Andron (not in RE) Cornelius (216), Cn. Lentulus Clodianus Poleas (not in RE) Vettius (+10), P. Chilo Epikrates (not in RE) Herakleios (++3) witnesses (in first actio): Apollodoros Pyragros (not in RE)
L. Caecilius (Dio?) (not in RE)
Q. Caecilius Dio (52)
Charidemos of Chios (not in RE)
M. Cottius (not in RE)
P. Cottius (not in RE)
Diodoros of Melita (29)
L. Domitius (not in RE)
Cn. Fannius (11) e.R.
L. Flavius (16) e.R.
L. Fufius Calenus (8)
C. Heius of Messana (2)
Herakleios of Syracuse (4)
Q. Lucceius of Regium (9)
T. Manlius (41) = ? T. Manilius (16)
C. Matrinius (1) e.R.
Q. Minucius (26) e.R.
M. Modius (6)
Nikasio of Henna (1)
Numenios of Henna (3)
C. Numitorius (2) e.R.
L. (Octavius) Ligus (68) sen.?
M. Octavius Ligus (69) sen.
Sex. Pompeius Chlorus (27)
Cn. Pompeius Theodorus (46)
Posides Macro of Solus (not in RE)
Cn. Sertius (1) e.R.
Q. Tadius (2)
M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) cos. 73 procos. Macedonia and Thrace 72-71
P. Tettius (3)
Theodoros of Henna (not in RE)
P. Titius (19) e.R.?
Q. Varius (5) witnesses (to be heard in second actio): Andron of Centuripa (not in RE)
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (216) cos. 72, cens. 70
Poleas of Messana (not in RE)
P. Vettius Chilo (10) e.R. witnesses summoned but absent: Epikrates of Bidis (not in RE)
Herakleios of Syracuse (3) from Aetna, Agyrium, Catina, Centuripa, Halaesa, Herbita, Melita, Panhormus C, after actio prima Verres remained in Rome during the late summer (2 Ver. 4.33; see Marinone [1950] 8-14, Alexander [1976] 51-52), but was condemned when he failed to appear at the second actio. 3,000,000 HS assessed at litis aestimatio Q. Caecilius Niger (101), q. Sicily 73, was defeated in divinatio. He was supported by L. Appuleius (30) pr. 59, See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 14, MRR Suppl. 23. and (A.?) Allienus (1) pr. 49, See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 8. as subscriptores. Cicero was granted 110 days to collect evidence. Caecilius (101), Q. Niger Appuleius (+30), L. Allienus (++1), A. Cic. Div. Caec.; Ver.; Plut. Cic. 7.3-8.1; Quint. Inst. 4.1.20, 4.2.113-14, 6.3.98, 7.4.33 and 36, 10.1.23; Juv. 8.106; [Asc.] 184-264St; Schol. Clun. 273St; Schol. Gronov. ABC 324-351St threatened 70 peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu lex Cornelia de peculatu (money taken as q. 84, and as gov. Sicily 73-71) Verres (++1), C. C. Verres (1) pr. 74 Tullius (+29), M. Cicero M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 Cic. 2 Ver. 1.11 = ? case Münzer RE 2A (1921) 864-65, Gelzer (1969) 38 n. 27, and Marshall (Philologus 1977) suggest that this is case , by which the prosecution of Verres was to be delayed. Marshall correctly argues that McDermott (1972) 384-85 is wrong to believe that the case mentioned in 1 Ver. 6 cannot be this case because that case involved calumnia. He also attacks the objection of Zielinski (1894) 256-57 n. 13 that Cicero’s anonymous description of Curio here does not harmonize with his deferential description of him in 1 Ver. 18. Marshall believes that Cicero takes pains to minimize Curio’s responsibility in the delaying tactic. In any case, Curio might have been quite an unwilling defendant, even if the prosecution was not intended to result in a conviction, and therefore Curio might have borne no responsibility in the affair. 70? repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. perhaps for Macedonia, including Achaea 75-72) Scribonius (+10), C. Curio C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61 For a reference, see case , n. 3. Caecilius (+96), Q. Metellus Nepos Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96) cos. 57 dropped by mutual agreement Asc. 62-64; [Asc.] 207, 232St; Schol. Gron. B 331St 70, post legem tribuniciam (de tribunicia potestate? lex Plotia de vi) senator tenuissimus C Cic. 1 Ver. 46; [Asc.] 221St between 70 and 66 ambitus lex Cornelia de ambitu lex Cornelia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for tribunate?) Popillius (+10), P. Popillius (++4), C. Popillius (++5), C. P. Popillius (10) sen.
or C. Popillius (4) tr. pl. 68? = ? C. Popillius (5) tr. mil. 72? 71? See MRR Suppl. 168 (cf. 105), and case . Note that the codices at Clu. 131 give his praenomen as L. Cornelius (216), Cn. Lentulus Clodianus Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (216) cos. 72, cens. 70 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 112. C Cic. Clu. 98, 131, 132; Quint. Inst. 5.10.108; see also CIL 12.2.744 67 or after peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis lex Cornelia de peculatu See Klebs RE 2 (1896) 2489. or lex Cornelia de repetundis Borzsák RE 18 (1939) 1112. (misconduct as gov. Bithynia-Pontus 73-70) Aurelius (107), M. Cotta M. Aurelius Cotta (107) cos. 74 Papirius (+35), C. Carbo C. Papirius Carbo (35) pr. 62 C Carbo received consular insignia as a reward Taylor (1949) 114 uses this piece of information in her analysis of praemia. Note, however, that this reward was granted not on the basis of a clause in a law, but after some debate, perhaps on the decision of the Senate or consuls. See Alexander (1985) 25. V. Max. 5.4.4; Memnon 39.3-4 in FGrH 3B 367; Dio 36.40.3-4 66, same time as case ambitus lex Calpurnia de ambitu lex Calpurnia de ambitu Aquillius (+23), C. Gallus C. Aquillius Gallus (23) Cic. Clu. 147 66 lex Cornelia de maiestate (conduct as tr. pl. in assemblies) maiestas lex Cornelia de maiestate Cornelius (+18), C. C. Cornelius (18) tr. pl. 67 Cominius (+11), P. Cominius (++4), C. Cominius (++8), L. P. Cominius (11) e.R. (nom. del.)
C. (or L.?) Asc. 59.18C has ‘C.’; Cic. Clu. 100 has ‘L.’ See Badian, Studies 248, Marshall, Asconius 222. Cominius (4, = ? 8) of Spoletium (subscr.) Cassius (+64), L. Longinus Cassius (+64), P. Longinus L. (or P.?) Asc. 82.7C has ‘L.’; Asc. 59.17C has ‘P.’ Cf. Q. Cic.? Comm. Pet. 7, Crawford, RCC 1.403 (#386). See Sumner, Orators 49; Marshall, Asconius 64. Cassius Longinus (64) praetor failed to appear for case; mob violence against the Cominii forced them to drop case, giving rise to suspicions that they had been bribed to do so. Cic. Brut. 271; Asc. 59-60C; Quint. Inst. 5.13.25 Griffin (1973) summer of 65 civil suit civil suit (res dolo malo mancipio acceptae) The case involved fraud allegedly perpetrated on creditors. Caninius (+15), A. Satyrus (A.?) Caninius Satyrus (15) Caecilius (+23), Q. Caecilius (+99), Q. Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica Licinius (104), L. Lucullus Pontius (+10), L. Q. Caecilius (23) e.R.
Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (99) cos. 52
L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74
L. Pontius (10) Cic. Att. 1.1.3-4 64, acquitted after consular elections de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of those proscribed under Sulla) Marshall (CQ 1985) argues that the murder of M. Marius Gratidianus (42) may have been one of the charges against the defendant. He also maintains that the charge was false. Marius (+42), M. Gratidianus Sergius (+23), L. Catilina L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68 Lucceius (++6), L. L. Lucceius (6) perhaps pr., date uncertain According to McDermott (1969), this was the son of Quintus (Q.f.), to be distinguished from the consular candidate in 60, the son of Marcus (M.f.) (pace Asconius). Dio 36.41.1-2 perhaps does not furnish evidence for his praetorship. See David and Dondin (1980), and MRR Suppl. 127-28. Iulius (131), C. Caesar See case , n. 4. C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44 consulares A Cic. Att. 1.16.9; Sul. 81; Pis. 95; Asc. 91-92C; Suet. Jul. 11; Dio 37.10.3 Marshall (SCI 1976/77) 62 vis lex Plautia de vi lex Plautia de vi (participation in conspiracy) followers of Catiline Novius (+12), Niger Novius (++7), L. quaestor in Suetonius Novius Niger (12) = ? L. Novius (7) tr. pl. 58 Vettius (++6), L. L. Vettius (6) e.R. C Suet. Jul. 17; Dio 37.41.2-4; see also Cic. Att. 2.24.2 threatened spring of 62 vis lex Plautia de vi lex Plautia de vi (participation in conspiracy) Iulius (131), C. Caesar C. Iulius Caesar (131) pr. 62, cos. 59, 48, 46. 45, 44 Novius (+12), Niger Novius (++7), L. quaestor in Suetonius Novius Niger (12), = ? L. Novius (7) tr. pl. 58 Vettius (++6), L. L. Vettius (6) e.R. aborted; Novius, Vettius put in prison Suet. Jul. 17 59, by Sept.? This is the possible date of Att. 2.25.1. The trial occurred after the condemnation of C. Antonius (case ), and after the two acquittals of A. Thermus (cases , ); see Webster (1931) 111. On the length of the trial, see Clark (1927) 76. repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis lex Cornelia de repetundis The lex Iulia de repetundis was apparently not yet in effect (Flac. 13). (misconduct as gov. Asia). Valerius (179), L. Flaccus L. Valerius Flaccus (179) pr. 63, gov. Asia 62 Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XVIII) See Webster (1931) 109-10.
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 28) Appuleius (+22), C. Decianus Caetra (++1) Fannius (+17), C. Chaerea Cornelius (+69), L. Balbus C. Appuleius Decianus (22) e.R. (subscr.)
Caetra (1), See Webster (1931) 56. = ? C. Fannius Chaerea (17) (subscr.)
L. Cornelius So Münzer RE 4 (1900) 1262, RE 12 (1924) 411; but D.-G. 5.614 has L. Laelius Balbus. Balbus (69) praefectus fabrum 62, 61-60?, 59, cos. suff. 40 (subscr.)
D. Laelius (6) tr. pl. 54 (nom. del.)
Lucceius (2) (subscr.) Laelius (++6), D. Lucceius (++2) Vettius (+14), T. Sabinus T. Vettius Sabinus (14) See Münzer RE 8A (1955) 34; Gundel RE 8A (l958) 1853. Gruen (1973) 308 n. 40 holds that he was a iudex. The jury was composed of twenty-five senators, twenty-five equites Romani, twenty-five tribuni aerarii (Flac. 4). Licinius (104), L. Lucullus Peducaeus (++2), L. Stloga (++1), Sex. Peducaeus L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74
L. Peducaeus (2) pref.? 62, e.R. or trib. aer. See Nicolet, Ordre équestre vol. 2, no. 264.
Sex. (Peducaeus?) Stloga (Stloga [1]) Agrius (++2), L. Publeianus L. Agrius Publeianus (2) e.R.
Asclepiades (+16) Aufidius (+25), M. Lurco Aufidius (+27), M. Lurco Caecilius (+87), Q. Metellus Creticus Caelius (+11), M. Cestius (++2), C. Domitius (+43), Cn. Calvinus Eppius (++1), L. Falcidius (++1) Heraclides (+34) Hermobius (++1) Lysanias (++5) Maeandrius (++2) Mithridates (+36) Nicomedes (++7) Philippus (+29) Septimius (+12), P. Septimius (+11), P. Servilius (+93), P. Vatia Isauricus Asclepiades (16) of Acmonia
M. Aufidius See Mitchell (1979) on this family, also on Sestullii (not Sextilii). Linderski (1974) 472 and MRR Suppl. 29 argue for probable identification of the two Aufidii. Lurco (27) sen. = ? (M. Aufidius?) Lurco (25) tr. pl. 61
Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus (87) cos. 69
M. Caelius (11)
C. Cestius (2) e.R.
Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) tr. pl. 59, cos. 53, 40
L. Eppius (1) e.R.
Falcidius (1) (not present, but mother there)
Heraclides (34) of Temnos
Hermobius (1) of Temnos
Lysanias (5) of Temnos
Maeandrius (2) of Tralles
Mithridates (36) of Dorylaion
Nicomedes (7) of Temnos
Philippus (29) of Temnos
P. Septimius See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 65. (12 = 11) q., date uncertain
P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55
vicanus of Tmolus (Flac. 8)
representatives of Achaea, Athens, Boeotia, Cyme, Dorylaion, Loryma, Massilia, Pergamum, Rhodes, Sparta, Thessalia A two actiones Contra Lezius (1901). Cic. Flac.; Att. 2.25.1; Macr. 2.1.13; V. Max. 7.8.7; Schol. Bob. 93-108St du Mesnil (1883); Webster (1931) after case , before Cicero’s exile in 58 L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59? See case , n. 1. Calpurnius (+24), L. Bestia Calpurnius (+25), L. Bestia Tullius (+29), M. Cicero M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 47) A Cic. Phil. 11.11; see also 13.26 Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 69 early 57 vis lex Plautia de vi lex Plautia de vi (violence against Milo and followers) Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56 Annius (+67), T. Milo T. Annius Milo (67) tr. pl. 57, pr. 55 trial obstructed by Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96) cos. 57, Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) pr. 57, cos. 54, cens. 50, and by a tr. pl. 57 Caecilius (+96), Q. Metellus Nepos Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher Cic. Red. Sen. 19; Sest. 85, 89; Mil. 35, 40; Att. 4.3.2 and 5; Fam. 5.3.2; Plut. Cic. 33.3; Dio 39.7; see also Q. fr. 2.1.2 Meyer (1922) 109 n. 3 56 Hearings were held on Feb. 2, Feb. 7, Feb. 17, and May 7. iudicium populi iudicium populi Gruen, LGRR 298 n. 139 argues that there were three informal contiones and then a trial before a quaestio de vi. However, Cicero’s language (Q. fr. 2.3) strongly suggests that this was a iudicium populi held according to the procedure described in Cic. Dom. 45. See Lintott (1976) 242. (misconduct as tr. pl. 57) Annius (+67), T. Milo T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55 Claudius (229), M. Marcellus M. Claudius Marcellus (229) aed. cur.? 56, See Sumner (1971) 251 n. 19 and Crawford, Orations 44. cos. 51 Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. Vatinius (++3), P. P. Vatinius (3) cos. 47 Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 dropped Cic. Sest. 95; Vat. 40-41; Fam. 1.5b.1; Q. fr. 2.3.1-2; 2.6.4; Dio 39.18-19; Schol. Bob. 122St 56? after 57 and before case ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu lex Tullia de ambitu? (campaign for tr. pl. 57?) Cispius (++4), M. M. Cispius (4) tr. pl. 57 Tullius (+29), M. Cicero M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 57) C Cic. Planc. 75-77; Schol. Bob. 165St uncertain Gruen, LGRR 314 gives a date of 55. Ampius (++1), T. Balbus T. Ampius Balbus (1) pr. 59, procos. Asia 58 See Magie, RRAM 2.1247; MRR Suppl. 15; Crawford, Orations 175. (spoke pro se) The speech was written by Cicero. Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 (ORF 111.XI)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 59) Cic. Leg. 2.6; Quint. Inst. 3.8.50 Trials of Indefinite Date uncertain Appian places the defendant’s name between that of Aurelius Cotta (case ) and M’. Aquillius (case ). Münzer, RE 1A (1920) 1903, takes this arrangement as chronological, thus dating the trial between 138 and 126. But Appian might not be using chronological order; in that case, one could date the trial merely to the years 149-123. See Gabba, Appian ad loc. repetundae lex Calpurnia de repetundis lex Iunia de repetundis lex Calpurnia (or Iunia) de repetundis Livius (+30), Salinator Livius Salinator (30) A App. BCiv. 1.22 Richardson (1987) 12 between 81 and 43 Appius (not in RE), M. M. Appius? Oppius? (not in RE) Oppius (not in RE), M. Tullius (+29), M. Cicero M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 Plut. Cic. 26.7 Sallustius (+10), C. Crispus C. Sallustius Crispus (10) pr. 46 [Cic.] Sal. 15-16 sometime between 80 and 50 Maesia (+10) Maesia (10) of Sentinum, spoke pro se Titius (+14), L. L. Titius (14) A (in first actio) by almost all votes V. Max. 8.3.1 between 54 and 44 This was the time span during which Servilius was censorius. Servilius (+93), P. Vatia Isauricus P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55 C V. Max. 8.5.6; Dio 45.16.2 unknown lex Cornelia de aleatoribus lex Cornelia? de aleatoribus Licinius (+80), Denticula Licinius (+80), Lenticulus Licinius Denticula (or Lenticulus) (80)? sen.? See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 47, MRR Suppl. 120. C, exile Cic. Phil. 2.56; Dio 45.47.4
Works Cited

[Omitted from sample]

INDEXES

N.B. the numbering of trials in this index matches their sequential numbers in this sample, not their numbers in the full work.

Index of Procedures General Index of Names Index of Defendants Index of Advocates Index of Prosecutors and Plaintiffs Index of Magistrates Index of Jurors Index of Witnesses Index of Parties