TLRR

Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC-50 BC

Michael C. Alexander

Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to acknowledge the support, financial and other, which I have received from various sources in working on this project. In 1981 I received a grant from the American Philosophical Society to complete research on this book, and in 1988 a publication subvention from the Campus Research Board of the University of Illinois at Chicago. I also worked on the book while holding a Fellowship for College Teachers, awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, in 1983-84, when I was a Fellow at the National Humanities Center, and while a Fellow at the Institute for the Humanities at the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1986-87. I received computer facilities and/or assistance from the Center for Research in Law and Justice at UIC, the Department of Classics at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, the UNC Social Science Statistical Laboratory in the Institute for Research in Social Science, the UIC Computer Center, and especially from Tajudeen Sokoya, UIC Publications Services, who helped me in preparing camera-ready copy. Joan A. Bulger, editor at the University of Toronto Press, has patiently shepherded the manuscript through the publication process, and Kathy Gaca has improved the manuscript through her copy-editing. I would also like to thank my colleague John T. Ramsey for the suggestions and corrections he has made on sections on the manuscript which he has had occasion to look at in detail. Any errors and omissions which remain are, of course, my responsibility.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge my debt to the late Professor G.V. Sumner of the University of Toronto, to whose memory this book is dedicated. My dissertation, written under his supervision, contains an appendix covering trials from the years 81 to 50 BC. As I have worked on this project in the years following, I have realized how much I owe to him.

Introduction

In this work I have attempted to tabulate, as exhaustively as possible, the known legal facts pertaining to the 391 trials and possible trials, criminal and civil, which date from the last century of the Roman Republic, and about which some information has survived. The purpose of this work is to convey the sort of information which we might expect to find in court records, although, of course, it is not in reality such a documentary source, and should not be treated as one. I hope that this designedly austere recitation of the facts which we know about the Late Republic will prove to be of use to scholars working in Roman political history, legal history, and rhetoric.

The model which I have followed, mutatis mutandis, is Broughton’s Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Like MRR, this work takes a general body of previously known information and, by compressing it into a standardized format, seeks to make it easier for other scholars to use. Whether this work accomplishes that goal as successfully as Broughton’s has done, and whether the subject matter here is of as encompassing an interest and importance as that which MRR covers, are different questions entirely. But if this book provides to some extent the kind of help which MRR has provided to scholars, I will be well satisfied.

The following types of data are recorded for each trial when it is available, although in virtually all cases some of these categories are not represented because of a lack of information:

date
charge or claim: procedure (offense[s])
defendant
advocate(s): speaker(s) for the defendant and/or the plaintiff (includes procurator and cognitor)
prosecutor(s) or plaintiff(s)
presiding magistrate (includes praetor, urban praetor, peregrine praetor, aedile, iudex quaestionis, quaesitor, and duumvir perduellionis)
jurors (includes advisory council and arbiter)
witnesses (includes informer, character witness, advocatus, laudator, supplicator, and delator)
party (parties) to a civil suit, where it is not known who is the defendant and who the plaintiff
other individuals directly involved in the trial, or miscellaneous information (see below)
verdict

Wherever one or more of these items is absent, the implication is that information on that item (or those items) is not available. In the text, individuals are listed by praenomen, nomen, and cognomen, and by the identifying number from the Real-Encyclopädie., e.g., M. Tullius Cicero (29). (In the indexes, to allow computer-driven alphabetization, the order nomen, praenomen, and cognomen is used, e.g., Tullius [29], M. Cicero.)

In the case of senators, I have followed the standard practice of listing the year in which they held the consulate (and also the year they held the censorship, if that office was reached). If a senator did not reach the consulate, I list the highest political office that senator attained. This information helps identify the individual, and also, because of the nature of the Roman political system, provides the reader with some idea of the political stature of any senator at the time of the trial.

In addition, any office relevant to the trial, or held during the year of the trial, is listed. The date when an office was held is given, unless the office was held during the year of the trial. Equites Romani are also identified as such. For Italians the city of origin is listed. After this information the reader will find citations of ancient sources, first the directly relevant sources, and second (following the suggestion ‘see also’), sources which provide indirectly relevant material. In some cases further bibliographic references are then given to scholarly works not mentioned in the footnotes, and finally, in most cases, there are footnotes on difficult and disputed details. Following the text there is a bibliography of works cited, and indexes of all individuals and legal procedures. Trials which took place outside Rome (such as before a provincial governor) and trials falling under military or religious jurisdictions are not included. I have made an exception for the three trials of the Vestals apud pontifices (cases #38, #39, and #40), since they provide necessary background for the following four trials (cases #41, #42, #43, and #44). I have also included case #167, also apud pontifices, as possibly relevant background to case #236, and the two companion cases to #167, cases #168 and #169.

As much as possible, I have used English words to designate the roles which the participants have in the trials (defendant, prosecutor, etc.). However, there may be many readers, especially those whose first language is not English, who will feel more at home with the Latin terms which these English words approximate, and so I include a list of the translations which I have chosen:

advisory council

concilium

advocate

patronus

character witness

advocatus

defendant

reus

informer

index

juror

iudex

legate

legatus

plaintiff

petitor

prosecutor

accusator

witness

testis

I have not translated the following Latin terms: arbiter, cognitor, duumvir perduellionis, laudator, procurator, quaesitor, and triumvir capitalis. The term ‘party’ has been used when we know that an individual was involved in a trial, criminal or civil, either as a plaintiff or prosecutor, or as a defendant, but we do not know which of those roles he played.

The rubrics of ‘charge’ (for criminal matters) and ‘claim’ (for civil matters) call for special comment. I have divided this material into two sections, first the procedural aspect of the case, and then (inside parentheses) the substantive aspect of the case. For criminal cases, the procedural aspect is usually defined by the statute under which the trial was held. Thus, for example, the entry ‘charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia 115)’ should be understood to mean ‘charge was laid against the defendant under the provisions of the lex Acilia de repetundis, for alleged misconduct as governor of Macedonia in 115 BC.’ If there is reason to believe that a legal sanction against a certain type of crime existed, but we do not know the name of its specific statute, the procedural aspect is listed generically, e.g., ambitus. Thus, the entry ‘charge: ambitus (campaign for consulate of 115)’ should be understood to mean ‘charge was laid against the defendant under some provision against ambitus, for alleged violations committed in a campaign for the consulate of 115.’

If the name of the statute is known, the charge is indexed under Procedures, both by the name of that statute (e.g., lex Cornelia de repetundis) and generically, according to the type of legislation (e.g., repetundae). Obviously, if the name of the statute is not known, then the charge is only indexed generically. I have used generic indexing even where we do know the name of the statute for the benefit of readers who wish to study a particular type of crime.

I should add that, if I were to follow the view which I expressed in Alexander (1982) in its most extreme form, I would not have included, in the case of trials before quaestiones perpetuae, the substantive allegations, for I argued that they may not have been formally defined and thus would not be relevant to this work. Considering that my view is not necessarily applicable to all quaestiones, however, and considering that my view can hardly be described as a communis opinio, I have included under ‘charge’ the substantive allegations in this reference work, since they are generally thought to have been formally defined. In the case of iudicia populi, I have indicated that the trial took place before a iudicium populi, along with any other procedural fact of which we know, and then put the substantive allegations in parentheses. Thus, for example, ‘charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio (treasonous dealings with Gauls)’ should be understood to mean ‘charge was laid against the defendant before a iudicium populi on perduellio, for having allegedly committed treasonous dealings with the Gauls.’ For civil cases, I have described the claim first procedurally, and then substantively. Thus, for example, ‘claim: actio furti (theft of vase)’ should be understood to mean ‘claim was laid against the defendant under the actio furti, for having allegedly stolen a vase.’

For some trials, I include a category of ‘other’ to include material which pertains to the formal aspects of the trial, but which does not appear regularly enough to justify its own rubric.

The work begins with trials in 149 BC and ends with trials in 50 BC. The reason for the latter date is fairly obvious; Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, and the ensuing civil war, marked the end of normal functioning of Republican institutions, even if they had already begun to break down in the 50s. The beginning date of 149 BC is a somewhat less obvious choice. It is the year in which a lex Calpurnia established the first quaestio perpetua, or standing criminal court, an institution which expanded over the next seventy years, until it constituted the dominant element in Roman criminal jurisdiction. Admittedly, the date 149 has little importance for civil law, but since most of the trials listed here are criminal, it seemed appropriate to use this date as the beginning of the period which the book covers.

The footnotes are designed to make the reader aware of any dubious or controversial points which relate to the formal aspects of the trial. In those instances where I have an original contribution to put forward, I have expressed it as concisely as possible, but normally I simply cite publications of other scholars (or occasionally my own) as the places to find discussion of these points, and summarize the views very briefly. I also cite publications which are relevant either to the trial as a whole or to aspects of it at the bottom of the listing for that trial. For the sake of brevity, however, I do not repeat there a citation to an article or book which I have already cited in the notes. Therefore, the reader should consider that both the citations in the notes and those at the bottom of the listing comprise the list of publications relevant to the formal aspects of these trials.

The trials are listed in chronological order with trials of unknown or very indefinite date listed at the end. Cases #1 to #351 are listed chronologically; cases #352 to #391 are of indefinite date. Because of the Roman system of annual magistracies, it is usually possible to date a trial to a particular year. Since extortion trials figure quite prominently in this period, readers should be aware that they are often dated to the year after the defendant held provincial office. This is a reasonable surmise, but, if there is no other information dating the trial, not a known fact. It is often very difficult to date a trial to a particular day or month. Trials consisted of several stages, and some trials lasted longer than others. For example, the nominis delatio for trial A might occur before that of trial B, but the actual hearing of trial A might end after that of trial B; in this case, it would be difficult to say whether trial A preceded or followed trial B. One might suggest using one stage in each trial, say the nominis delatio, as the criterion by which the trials are to be chronologically ordered, but this procedure would not be practical, in view of the fact that for one trial we may know something about the date of one stage, and for another trial the date of another stage. Therefore, the order of trials is often based on limited evidence for dating, and should be viewed as giving merely a relative indication of the chronological order of trials within any given year.

I have not included what I consider to be inherently speculative matter. By ‘inherently speculative’ I do not mean questions which are speculative because relevant facts which would have decided the questions no longer survive. Rather, I mean questions which would have been speculative even at the time of the trial, such as possible political forces behind a prosecution or the political consequences of a verdict, no matter how plausible or well-founded such speculation may be. Since I have excluded inherently speculative matters from the presentation of information about the trials, it makes sense not to cite modern publications which deal solely with those matters. I should therefore emphasize that this book does not attempt to cite all the bibliography on any given trial, but includes only those works which pertain to the formal and legal aspects of the trial. The exclusion of other works should not be seen as a reflection on their value, but as dictated by considerations of relevance.

There is nonetheless one piece of information which is often a matter of speculation now, and probably was at the time of the trial, which I have included in this list under the ‘other’ category, and that is allegations of bribery. I did so for two reasons. First, such information is not inherently speculative, since it involves a question of fact, such as the sale of a juror’s vote, even if such an act is usually hard to detect. Second, it does pertain to the legal aspects of the trial, for bribery could lead to hearings and judgments of praevaricatio or calumnia.

Some readers will doubtless be surprised to see these trials divorced from the political context in which they are usually discussed. The reason is not that I reject out of hand any connection between law and politics, especially in view of the fact that in most of these trials the defendant and many other participants were politicians. Rather, I believe that in the absence of extant court records, such as the sort most scholars of legal history have at their disposal, Roman historians can profit from this distillation of what we actually know about each trial. This work serves as a basis for further research in legal or political history. In order to exclude any bias which our preconceptions might impart to the study of late Republican legal history, I have not highlighted or distinguished those trials which political histories of the Late Republic generally view as crucial.

The use of ‘?’ within the entries calls for comment. Because of the limits and gaps in our sources, there are many pieces of information in this volume which represent guesses, however educated and plausible these guesses may be. For these data, I have set a ‘?’ immediately to the right of the relevant word, phrase, or number. In case #62, for example, the date 104, the charge and procedure, and the date of the prosecutor’s tribunate, are all in question, and this uncertainty is indicated by question marks. Further information should be sought either in notes, when they accompany the particular piece of information, or, especially in the case of prosopographical information, in standard reference works such as MRR or Sumner’s Orators.

I would like to make one other point about the purpose of this book. Its focus is on the trials of the period, not on the individuals who participated in them; in this respect, it is different from Magistrates of the Roman Republic, which obviously focuses on individual careers. Although I do record the highest magistracy acquired, in order to identify senators and help place them in terms of their careers, the book is not meant to be a prosopographical analysis of those individuals who happen to participate in trials. But a considerable amount of prosopographical information is included in the text and footnotes, and if there is doubt about a magistracy, I so indicate with a question mark in the text and/or footnote. In the case of a consulate, there is usually no doubt, and the entry is simple, e.g., ‘M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63.’ But especially when a senator reaches only a lower-level magistracy, there may be some dispute about what magistracy was held, or when it was held, or who held it. In many cases, this dispute is relevant to an aspect of the trial itself. For example, the identity of the praetor in case #173 is relevant to the date of the trial. In many other cases, however, the highest office held by an individual may have no bearing on the trial. For example, the date when T. Albucius was praetor has no bearing on when he prosecuted Q. Mucius Scaevola in case #32. Nevertheless, if there is a question about the highest office held by an individual, I provide at least minimal references to the prosopographical sources, so that the reader does not take as given what is in fact open to question. I hope that prosopographical information of this type will not distract the reader from the information which is relevant to the trials.

There are several standard works which are so fundamental to this project that it would have been otiose to refer to them at each point where I have consulted them, or where the reader might want to consult them. These are the many prosopographical articles in the Real-Encyclopädie, especially those written by F. Münzer, and T.R.S. Broughton’s Magistrates of the Roman Republic, a work which, as I have mentioned, served as a model and inspiration to me in writing this volume. Also to be mentioned in this regard are G.V. Sumner’s The Orators in Cicero’s Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology, Drumann/Groebe’s still useful Geschichte Roms, and, for equites Romani, the second volume of C. Nicolet’s L’Ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine. Most of all, in spite of the apolitical nature of this work, my debt to the publications of Erich S. Gruen, especially to his two books Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149-50 B.C. and The Last Generation of the Roman Republic will be obvious to all scholars in the field. One additional point is that, in citations of articles from the Real-Encyclopädie, I cite the date of publication of the RE volume.

This work does not attempt to cite all fragmenta of forensic orations. For those individuals who made forensic speeches, a citation is made, next to their name, either to Malcovati’s Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, or, for Cicero, to Crawford’s M. Tullius Cicero, the Lost and Unpublished Orations; further consultation can be made to Schoell’s or Puccioni’s collections of Cicero’s fragmenta.

Although a version of this manuscript was originally submitted in the fall of 1984, I have had the opportunity to make several revisions. The current version incorporates all publications available to me as of June 1988. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for me to consult D.R. Shackleton Bailey’s new Onomasticon.

Readers will likely find errors and omissions in this book. As it is possible that I will be able to publish revisions at some point, I would be very grateful if suggestions for changes could be sent to me at the following address:

Department of Classics, m/c 129,
University of Illinois at Chicago,
P.O. Box 4348,
Chicago, IL 60680.

Abbreviations

For Latin sources the OLD abbreviations have been used; for Greek sources the OCD (2nd ed.) abbreviations have been used. ‘C’ stands for ‘condemnation,’ ‘A’ for ‘acquittal,’ ‘NL’ for ‘non liquet,’ ‘nom. del.’ for nominis delator and ‘subscr.’ for subscriptor. The following abbreviations have been used for modern works; complete bibliographic citations of these works, as well as of other works referred to in this book, can be found in the Works Cited.

Badian, Studies

E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History

Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil.

C. Cichorius, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius

Crawford, Orations

J. Crawford, M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations

Crawford, RRC

M.H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage

D.-G.

Drumann Geschichte Roms², rev. Groebe

Douglas, Brutus

Cicero, Brutus, ed. A.E. Douglas

Frier, RRJ

Bruce W. Frier, The Rise of the Roman Jurists: Studies in Cicero’s pro Caecina

FTP

Niccolini, I fasti dei tribuni della plebe

Gabba, Appian

Appian, Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus,

ed. E. Gabba

Gabba, RR

E. Gabba, Republican Rome, the Army, and the Allies

Gruen, LGRR

E.S. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic

Gruen, RPCC

E.S. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.

Magie, RRAM

D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor

Marshall, Asconius

Bruce A. Marshall, A Historical Commentary on Asconius

Mommsen, StR.

Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht

Mommsen, Strafr.

Th. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht

MRR

T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic

MRR Suppl.

T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Vol. 3, Supplement

Nicolet, Ordre équestre

C. Nicolet, L’Ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine

ORF

Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta liberae rei publicae⁴, ed. H. Malcovati

Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

R. Syme, Roman Papers

Sch.

R.G. Schettler, ‘Cicero’s Oratorical Career’ (unpublished U. of Pennsylvania dissertation) 1961

Shackleton Bailey, CLA

Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey

Shackleton Bailey, CLF

Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey

Shackleton Bailey, CQF

Cicero, Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum, ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey

Shackleton Bailey, Studies

D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature

Sumner, Orators

G.V. Sumner, The Orators in Cicero’s Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology

Wilkins, De Oratore

Cicero, De oratore libri tres, ed. A.S. Wilkins

General Index of Names

Index of Defendants

Index of Advocates

Index of Prosecutors and Plaintiffs

The Trials

1

date: 149¹
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (proposed)² (misconduct as gov. Lusitania 150)
defendant: Ser. Sulpicius Galba (58) cos. 144 spoke pro se (ORF 19.II, III)
advocate: Q. Fulvius Nobilior (95) cos. 153, cens. 136
prosecutors: L. Cornelius Cethegus (91)
M. Porcius Cato (9) cos. 195, cens. 184 (ORF 8.LI)
L. Scribonius Libo (18) tr. pl. 149 (promulgator)
outcome: 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

1 On the date see Cic. Att. 12.5b.

2 See Douglas, Brutus p. 77.

2

date: 145
charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio¹ (failure as commander in Farther Spain)
defendant: C. Plautius (9) pr. 146
outcome: C, exile

Diod. Sic. 33.2; see also Liv. Per. 52; App. Hisp. 64

1 So Bauman (1967) 22. However, the phrase used by Diodorus (epi tōi tetapeinōkenai tēn archēn) is a translation of maiestatem minuere.

3

date: uncertain¹
charge: iudicium populi
defendant: C. Laelius Sapiens (3) cos. 140, spoke pro se (ORF 20.II)
outcome: A?

Fest. 198.5, 210.5, 416.21L; see also Cic. Tusc. 5.54

1 Fraccaro (1912) 349-50 argues that the fragments preserved are more likely to refer to the warfare of the defendant’s praetorship (145) than to the tranquillity of his consulate. Therefore, a date of 144 would be likely. Note, however, that a comitial trial for extortion would be somewhat odd (though not impossible) when a quaestio for the crime had already been established. Perhaps, as Fraccaro notes, the trial pertained to his unsuccessful candidature in 142 for the consulate of 141. See Gruen, RPCC 56 n. 54.

4

date: by 142
charge: uncertain (matricide)
defendant: an unnamed female
praetor: M. Popillius Laenas (22) pr. by 142, cos. 139
outcome: neither C nor A

V. Max. 8.1. ambust. 1

5

date: 141
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (money accepted as bribe when praetor, judging cases inter sicarios)¹
defendant: L. Hostilius Tubulus (26) pr. 142
outcome: self-exile before trial, suicide when recalled

Cic. Att. 12.5b; Scaur. frag. k; Fin. 2.54, 4.77, 5.62; N.D. 1.63 = Lucil. 1312M, 3.74; Asc. 23C; Gel. 2.7.20
Mommsen, Strafr. 71 n. 1, 197 n. 2; 203 n. 1; 633 n. 4; Münzer (1912) 167-68; (Hermes 1920) 427f.; Richardson (1987) 11

1 The charge was to be investigated by a quaestio extraordinaria under consul Cn. Servilius Caepio (46), according to a plebiscite passed by P. Mucius Scaevola (17) cos. 133 as tr. pl.

6

date: early 140
charge: iudicium populi (for irregularities in performing lustrum as cens. 142)
defendant: P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (335) cos. 147, 134, cens. 142, spoke pro se (ORF 21.V)
prosecutor: Ti. Claudius Asellus (63) tr. pl.
outcome: almost certainly A
other: Scipio delivered at least five orations against Claudius Asellus.

Cic. de Orat. 2.258?;¹ 2.268; Gel. 2.20.6; 3.4.1; 4.17.1 = Lucil. 394M, 6.11.9; Fest. 360.29-32L?
Fraccaro (1912) 376-82; Scullard (1960) 69; Astin (1967) 127, 175-77, 256

1 See Astin (1967) 256 #22 on whether the interchange between Scipio and Asellus recorded in de Orat. 2.258 should be attributed to this trial, or to a recognitio equitum, in which Scipio as censor attempted to have Asellus deprived of his horse.

7

date: 140
charge: lex (Calpurnia?) de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia)
defendant: D. Iunius Silanus Manlianus (161) pr. 141¹
outcome: trial halted by investigation conducted by defendant’s father,² who found his son guilty; suicide by son³

Cic. Fin. 1.24; Liv. Per. 54; Per. Oxy. 54; V. Max. 5.8.3
Richardson (1987) 9, 11

1 Morgan (1974) 195-98 argues that his praetorship and governorship must have occurred in 142 in order for the Macedonian envoys to have gathered evidence and appeared in Rome by early 140.

2 The defendant’s father referred to here is his natural father, T. Manlius Torquatus (83) cos. 165, who had emancipated him.

3 The trial might have continued after the suicide (see lex Acilia line 29); if we can judge by this later law, a continuation of the trial would appear to be necessary if the injured parties were to receive monetary compensation.

8

date: 138?¹
charge: lex (Calpurnia?) de repetundis (misconduct as consul and proconsul in Hither Spain)²
defendant: Q. Pompeius (12) cos. 141, cens. 131 (ORF 30.II)³
witnesses: L. Caecilius Metellus Calvus (83) cos. 142
Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (94) cos. 143, cens. 131
Cn. Servilius Caepio (46) cos. 141
Q. Servilius Caepio (48) cos. 140
outcome: A

Cic. Font. 23, V. Max. 8.5.1
Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 139 n. 1

1 Gruen, RPCC 37 n. 65 suggests a date of 139 on the basis of App. Hisp. 79. However, allowance must be made for Q. Servilius Caepio to return from Lusitania to Rome to testify, probably in 138. See Münzer RE 2 (1923) 1783, Morgan (1974) 197 n. 63.

2 See Richardson (1987) 11-12.

3 There is no evidence that he spoke pro se (so ORF p. 140), other than that he was a good orator (Cic. Brut. 96).

9

date: 138¹
charge: lex (Calpurnia?) de repetundis² (gravissima crimina)
defendant: L. Aurelius Cotta (98) cos. 144³
advocate: Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (94) cos. 143, cens. 131 (ORF 18.I)
prosecutor: P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (335) cos. 147, 134, cens. 142 (ORF 21.VI)
outcome: A, after eighth actio
other: bribery of jurors by defendant widely suspected

Cic. Div. Caec. 69; Font. 38; Mur. 58; Brut. 81; Liv. Per. Oxy. 55; V. Max. 8.1. abs. 11; App. BCiv. 1.22; Tac. Ann. 3.66

1 Liv. Per. Oxy. 55 gives a date of 138. However, Cicero (Div. Caec. 69) wrongly claims that the trial took place after Scipio Aemilianus had twice been consul, and in the Pro Murena (58) makes the same claim, and also the claim that Scipio had destroyed Numantia (therefore after 133). See Kornemann (1904) 104-6, Badian, Studies 105-6 and n. 4, and Richardson (1987) 12. Crawford, RRC 1.72 is wrong to use this error as an example of Cicero’s inability to provide accurate historical information; the error only shows that, in his speeches, Cicero takes liberties with the facts.

2 V. Max. 8.1. abs. 11 mistakenly puts the trial apud populum.

3 On the identity of the defendant as L. Aurelius Cotta (98) rather than L. Aurelius Cotta (99) cos. 119, see Gruen, RPCC 297.

10

date: 138
charge: (murders of noti homines in forest of Sila)
defendants: slaves and free workers of publicani¹
advocates: at first C. Laelius Sapiens (3) cos. 140 (ORF 20.III)
thereafter Ser. Sulpicius Galba (58) cos. 144 (ORF 19.IV)
quaesitores: P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio (354) cos. 138
D. Iunius Brutus (57) cos. 138
outcome: A

Cic. Brut. 85-88
Fraccaro (1912) 351-56; Münzer (Hermes 1920) 429

1 The slaves and free workers were associated with a company described as societatis eius, quae picarias de P. Cornelio L. Mummio censoribus redemisset.

11

date: 138
charge: iudicium populi¹
defendants: C. Matienus (3)
others prosecutor: tr. pl.
outcome: C, flogged and sold into slavery for one sesterce

Liv. Per. 55; Per. Oxy. 55; Fron. Str. 4.1.20

1 Mommsen, Strafr. 43 n. 2, 561 believes that this trial constitutes an appeal to the tribunes against consular coercitio.

12

date: 136?¹
charge: iudicium populi (military failure as proconsul in Spain in 137)
defendant: M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina (83) cos. 137
prosecutor: unknown, but certainly not L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla (72) cos. 127, cens. 125²
outcome: C, fine

V. Max. 8.1. damn. 7; App. Hisp. 83; Oros. 5.5.13; see also Liv. Per. 56

1 See MRR 1.488 n. 4.

2 Pace V. Max. 8.1. damn. 7, who confuses this trial with a censorial proceeding which resulted in a nota placed against the name of Lepidus in 125 by Cassius during the latter’s censorship (Vell. 2.10.1).

13

trial only threatened
date: 133
claim: sponsio¹
party: T. Annius Luscus (63, 64)² cos. 153 (ORF 17.1)
opposing party: Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (54) tr. pl. 133
outcome: challenge not taken up, no trial

Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14.4-5; see also Liv. Per. 58

1 On this procedure see Crook (1976), especially 133; Lintott (ZPE 1976) 212.

2 See Fraccaro (1914) 144; Badian Studies 248; MRR Suppl. 16.

14

date: 133
defendant: T. Annius Luscus (63, 64) cos. 153
prosecutor: Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (54) tr. pl. 133
outcome: dropped¹

Liv. Per. 58; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 14.5
Fraccaro (1914) 144

1 Apparently, Gracchus was planning to initiate a four-part tribunician prosecution in a iudicium populi, perhaps for having summoned a tr. pl. into court (see case #13).

15

date: 132
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (for parricidium: killing of father? or for association with Ti. Gracchus)
defendant: C. Villius (2)
quaesitores: P. Popillius Laenas (28) cos.
P. Rupilius (5) cos.
juror?:¹ C. Laelius Sapiens (3) cos. 140
outcome: C, execution (by culleus as if for parricidium?)²

Plut. Ti. Gracch. 20.3; cf. Cic. Amic. 37; V. Max. 4.7.1

1 Cic. Amic. 37, quod aderam Laenati et Rupilio consulibus in consilio...

2 See Mommsen, Strafr. 922; Brecht (1938) 247-48, n. 62.

16

date: 132
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (for association with Ti. Gracchus?)
defendants: Diophanes (4)
many others (approx. 200)
quaesitores: P. Popillius Laenas (28) cos.

P. Rupilius (5) cos.
juror?:¹ C. Laelius Sapiens (3) cos. 140
outcome: C, execution

Plut. Ti. Gracch. 20.3; Oros. 5.9.3; cf. Cic. Amic. 37; V. Max. 4.7.1

1 See #15, n. 1.

17

date: 132
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (association with Ti. Gracchus?)
defendant: C. Blossius (1) of Cumae

quaesitores: P. Popillius Laenas (28) cos.

P. Rupilius (5) cos. juror?:¹ C. Laelius Sapiens (3) cos. 140
outcome: fled, probably before trial

Cic. Amic. 37; V. Max. 4.7.1; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 20.3-4

1 See #15, n. 1.

18

date: 132
charge: senatorial quaestio¹ (homicide of Ti. Gracchus)
defendant: P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio (354) cos. 138 (ORF 38.III [addenda A.2])
prosecutor: M. Fulvius Flaccus (58) pr. by 128
outcome: trial ended when defendant sent on libera legatio
other: P. Mucius Scaevola (17) cos. 133 rejected as juror

Cic. de Orat. 2.285; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 21.2; see also V. Max. 5.3.2e
Magie, RRAM 2.1033, n. 1

1 When the prosecutor was objecting to Scaevola as juror, he was addressing senators. Gruen, RPCC 63 correctly interprets iudicem ferre in a legal sense, pace Wilkins, de Oratore ad loc.; cf. Cic. de Orat. 2.263, Q. Rosc. 45.

19

date: between 132 and 127
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (the same quaestio as for cases #15, #16, #17?) (for association with Ti. Gracchus?)
defendant: Vettius (2) Sabinus¹
advocate: C. Sempronius Gracchus (47) tr. pl. 123, 122 (ORF 48.I)

Plut. C. Gracch. 1.3

1 He is referred to in Quint. Inst. 1.5.56 = Lucil. 1322M. So Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 349.

20

date: 131
charge: appeal to iudicium populi concerning fine imposed on defendant as flamen Martialis by pontifex maximus P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus (72) cos.
defendant: L. Valerius Flaccus (175) cos. 131, flamen Martialis 154—
outcome: remission of fine

Cic. Phil. 11.18

21

trial unlikely¹
charge: lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu populi iudicetur (123 BC)
defendant: P. Rupilius (5) cos. 132, the ‘defendant,’ had probably died by 130 BC

Vell. 2.7.4

1 The trial probably never occurred. Velleius is the only source which claims that Rupilius along with Popillius (see case #25) was tried under this law. See Münzer RE 1A (1914) 1230.

22

date: 127 or 126?¹ 121?²
claim: civil suit (mismanagement of ward’s affairs)
advocate for defendant: Cn. Octavius (18) cos. 128
advocate for plaintiff: M. Plautius Hypsaeus (21) cos. 125
praetor: M. Licinius Crassus (Agelastus) (57)
juror: P. Mucius Scaevola (17) cos. 133

Cic. de Orat. 1.166-67

1 The argument in favor of this date is that only Octavius (not Plautius) is referred to as consularis. See Münzer, RE 13 (1926) 269, RE 17 (1937) 1814. However, Wilkins, de Oratore (p. 159) may be right that Cicero probably described Octavius as consularis to contrast his legal ineptitude with his high rank.

2 Wilkins, de Oratore (see n. 1, above) argues that Cicero’s account implies that Q. Mucius Scaevola (21) cos. 117 was away at the time, and therefore the trial must have occurred in 121 when he was governor of Asia.

23

date: 125 or 124¹
charge: lex (Iunia?) de repetundis?, or quaestio extraordinaria² (receipt of bribes from Mithridates)
defendant: M’. Aquillius (10) cos. 129
prosecutors: P. Cornelius Lentulus (202) cos. suff., princeps sen. 162 (nom. del.)
C. Rutilius Rufus (33) (subscr.)
outcome: A

Cic. Div. Caec. 69; Font. 38; App. Mith. 57; BCiv. 1.22; [Asc.] 204St
Richardson (1987) 12

1 On date see Badian (Foreign Clientelae 1958) 183 n. 9. Aquillius returned to Rome to celebrate a triumph on Nov. 11, 126. See Gruen, RPCC 77 n. 164, Morgan (1974) 197 n. 63. Cicero’s description of Lentulus (Div. Caec. 69) as is qui princeps senatus fuit may merely serve to identify which P. Cornelius Lentulus prosecuted the defendant, rather than to state that he was princeps senatus at the time when he was prosecutor.

2 See Jones (1972) 54.

24

date: 124
charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio? (involvement in revolt of Fregellae)¹
defendant: C. Sempronius Gracchus (47) tr. pl. 123, 122, spoke pro se? (ORF 48.VI)
outcome: A

Plut. C. Gracch. 3.1; Vir. Ill. 65.2
Fraccaro (1913) 87-88

1 This was not a formal trial, according to Badian, Foreign Clientelae (1958) 180 n. 3.

25

date: 123
charge: perhaps a quaestio extraordinaria?¹ (involvement in tribunal aimed against supporters of Ti. Gracchus; see also cases #15, #16, and #17)
defendant: P. Popillius Laenas (28) cos. 132
prosecutor: C. Sempronius Gracchus (47) tr. pl. 123, 122
outcome: 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

1 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.

26

date: 121?, shortly after death of C. Gracchus
claim: actio rei uxoriae (failure on the part of Licinia, wife of C. Gracchus, to get res dotales returned)
plaintiff: Licinia (180)
other: P. Mucius Scaevola (17) cos. 133 gave a sententia as jurisconsult for Licinia

Plut. C. Gracch. 17.5; Javol. dig. 24.3.66 pr.
Daube (1965); Waldstein (1972); Bauman (1978) 238-43

27

date: 120
charge: lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu populi iudicetur,¹ tribunician prosecution (murder of C. Gracchus and followers)
defendant: L. Opimius (4) cos. 121
advocate: C. Papirius Carbo (33) cos. 120 (ORF 35.II)
prosecutor: P. Decius Subolo (9) tr. pl. 120, pr. 115 (ORF 36.I)²
outcome: A
other: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 was present.

Cic. Sest. 140; de Orat. 2.106, 132, 165, 169, 170; Part. 106; Brut. 128; Liv. Per. 61

1 The charge was quod indemnatos cives in carcerem coniecisset (Liv. Per. 61), or in carcere necasset, or in carcerem coniectos necasset (Mommsen, StR. 2.111 n. 2).

2 See Fraccaro (1912) 444-45; Badian (JRS 1956) 92. Badian (JRS 1956) 91 suggests that the form ‘Subulo’ for the cognomen may also be possible. Livy Per. 61 incorrectly gives the praenomen as ‘Quintus.’

28

trial uncertain¹
date: 120
defendant: P. Cornelius Lentulus (202) cos. suff. 162, princeps sen.
outcome: threat of trial avoided by libera legatio

V. Max. 5.3.2f

1 Münzer RE 4 (1900) 1375 believes that this case might be a doublet of case #18, and of the fate of P. Scipio Nasica Serapio; contra Gruen, RPCC 106.

29

date: ca 119?
charge: lex (Acilia?) de repetundis (misconduct as promag.?)
defendant: (M’.?)¹ Valerius Messalla (248) pr. and promag.? ca 120, in Asia?
prosecutor: Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (97) cos. 109, cens. 102 (ORF 58.IV)

Gel. 15.14.1-3

1 Syme suggests this praenomen. See Historia 1955, 70-71 = RP 1.290-91 and JRS, 1955, 158 = RP 1.265-66. Reynolds (1982) 67-68 is also relevant to the stemma of the Valerii Messallae, specifically to the son of this man. See also Münzer RE 8A (1955) l25 and MRR Suppl. 213. Syme notes, on the basis of OGIS 460, an apparent hereditary connection between the province of Asia and the Valerii Messallae, that is, the family traditionally looked after Asian interests.

30

date: 119
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis?¹
defendant: C.² Papirius Carbo (33) cos. 120
prosecutor: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.I)
praetor: Q. Fabius Maximus Eburnus (111)³ cos. 116, cens. 108
outcome: C, suicide

Cic. 2 Ver. 3.3; de Orat. 1.40, 121, 154; 2.170; 3.74; Brut. 103, 159; Fam. 9.21.3; V. Max. 3.7.6, 6.5.6; Tac. Dial. 34.7
Münzer (1912) 169

1 Fraccaro (1912) 445-48 makes this suggestion, since there were iudices and it was not a quaestio extraordinaria, or inter sicarios. Maiestas has also been suggested (see Mommsen [1888-94] 2.126). The identity of the law under which this trial was held depends upon the number of quaestiones existing at this time; see Kunkel RE 24 (1963) 737-40 s.v. ‘quaestio.’ The fact that a slave of Carbo brought Crassus a scrinium full of material damaging to the defendant (V. Max. 6.5.6) suggests a crime in which records would be crucial, such as extortion.

2 V. Max. 6.2.3 and 6.5.6 have ‘Cn.’

3 So MRR 1.526, contra Gruen, RPCC 108 n. 9.

31

date: 119?
charge: either lex Acilia de repetundis or lex Sempronia ne quis iudicio circumveniatur¹
defendant: P. Decius (9) Subolo tr. pl. 120, pr. 115
outcome: A

Cic. de Orat. 2.135; Part. 104

1 Badian (JRS 1956) 92-93 argues that Decius was charged with extortion, in a trial separate from that of Opimius (case #27), with the charge being that he had taken money to conduct the prosecution of Opimius. Gruen, RPCC 110 counters with the observation that, whereas the receipt of money ob accusandum vel non accusandum did constitute a violation of the lex Iulia de repetundis, there is no evidence that the same sort of provision existed under the lex Acilia. (Of course, our text of the statute is fragmentary.) He suggests that this may have been a comitial trial under the lex Sempronia ne quis iudicio circumveniatur, possibly the same as the lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu populi iudicetur.

32

date: 119¹
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Asia, 119; homicide accusations also made)
defendant: Q. Mucius Scaevola (21) cos. 117 (ORF 50.I) spoke pro se
prosecutor: T. Albucius (2) pr. 107? 105?²
witnesses: Aemilius (not in RE)
Albius (2) q. 120 or L. Atilius Nomentanus?³ (44) leg. or pref. Asia 120? other: account books of Albius (2) q. 120? perhaps used as evidence
outcome: A

Lucil. II 55-94M; Cic. de Orat. 2.281; Brut. 102; Orat. 149; Fin. 1.9

1 See Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 88-89.

2 See Gruen (1964) 104; Badian (Klio 1984) 306-9; MRR Suppl. 14, 166.

3 See Crawford, RRC 1.261, #225.

33

trial uncertain¹
date: 117?
defendant: Q. Marcius Rex (91) cos. 118
advocate?: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97

Cic. de Orat. 2.125

1 Quite possibly this case did not come to trial. Cf. case #64, n. 1.

34

date: 116
charge: ambitus (in campaign for consulate)
defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.I)
prosecutor: P. Rutilius Rufus (34) cos. 105 (ORF 44.I)
outcome: A

Cic. Brut. 113; see also de Orat. 2.280

35

date: 116
charge: ambitus (in campaign for consulate)
defendant: P. Rutilius Rufus (34) cos. 105
prosecutor: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.I)
present for defendant: C. Canius (a, RE Supp. 1, p. 274) e.R.
outcome: A

Cic. de Orat. 2.280; Brut. 113; see also Tac. Ann. 3.66.2¹

1 Badian, Studies 106-7 claims that Mam. Scaurus (cos. AD 21) did not cite this case when he prosecuted C. Iunius Silanus for maiestas in AD 22; see Tac. Ann. 3.66.2. See case #94, n. 2.

36

date: 116, after elections for praetor
charge: ambitus (help alleged to have been provided by friend of Cassius Sabaco [85] sen. held against defendant)
defendant: C. Marius (14, RE Supp. 6) pr. 115, cos. 107, 104-100, 86
witness: C. Herennius (5)¹
outcome: A on tie vote

V. Max. 6.9.14; Plut. Mar. 5

1 Herennius claimed that Marius had been his client, and that therefore he could not be required to bear witness against Marius. Although Herennius would have been a hostile witness, Marius claimed that his own holding of an aedileship had severed the patron/client bond, and that Herennius should be permitted to testify. See Mommsen, StR. 3.69 n. 2, 78; Mommsen, Strafr. 402 n. 2; T.F. Carney (1959) 232-34.

37

date: after 115¹
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis
defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.II) (spoke pro se)
prosecutor: M. Iunius Brutus (50) (ORF 56.I) e.R.?
outcome: A

Cic. Font. 38; Fron. Str. 4.3.13; Char. 164.10; 272.3
Bloch (1909) 26-27, 35

1 We know that the case occurred after the triumph of Scaurus in 115 (Char. 272.3), if Scaurus is referring to his own triumph. Klebs RE 1 (1893) 586 and Münzer RE 10 (1917) 972 entertain the possibility that this Brutus, along with Caepio, prosecuted Scaurus in 92 (see case #96). According to this view we would then place in close proximity the two cases in which we know that Brutus took part (#96 and #98). For the possibility that the charge in this trial involved misconduct by Scaurus while holding a praetorian command before 116, see Marshall (AJP 1977) 417-19; Marshall, Asconius 125. However, the apparent mention of Scaurus’ triumph tells against Marshall’s view that Scaurus was prosecuted in 117 or 116. On the other hand, it is possible that Scaurus referred to the triumph celebrated in 122 by L. Aurelius Orestes (180) cos. 126, under whom Scaurus served in some capacity (Auct. Vir. Ill. 72.3). See also MRR Suppl. 10.

38

date: 114, condemned on XV Kal. Ian.
charge: incestum, apud pontifices
defendant: Aemilia (153)
informer: slave (perhaps named Manius [not in RE]) of T. Betucius Barrus (Betitius 1) e.R.¹
outcome: C

Fenestella 21 fr. 11 Peter = Macr. 1.10.5; Liv. Per. 63; Asc. 45-46C; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 83; Dio 26, fr. 87; Porphyrion ad Hor. S. 1.6.30; Obsequens 37; Oros. 5.15.22

1 See Porphyrion. His nomen is variously given as Betucius, Betutius, and Veturius. He is possibly related to, or even identical to, the prosecutor in case #88. See Sumner, Orators 102, Marshall, Asconius 197. Gruen, RPCC 130 implies that Barrus, who was Aemilia’s lover, was also instrumental in bringing information against the Vestals. But, as J.I. McDougall has pointed out to me, Dio says that Manius, slave of Barrus, was angry at his master for not giving him his freedom, and therefore could not have been acting at his master’s instigation.

39

date: 114, acquitted XIII Kal. Ian.
charge: incestum, apud pontifices
defendant: Licinia (181)
informer: slave (perhaps named Manius [not in RE]) of T. Betucius Barrus (Betitius 1) e.R.¹
outcome: 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

1 See case #38, n. 1.

40

date: Dec. 114¹
charge: incestum, apud pontifices
defendant: Marcia (114)
informer: slave (perhaps named Manius [not in RE]) of T. Betucius Barrus (Betitius 1) e.R.²
outcome: A

Liv. Per. 63; Asc. 45-46C; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 83; Dio 26, fr. 87; Obsequens 37; Oros. 5.15.22; Crawford, RRC no. 413, 428¹

1 The date is incorrectly given as 115 by Münzer RE 14 (1930) 1601.

2 See case #38, n. 1.

1 Crawford believes that this coin is relevant, as does Taylor (1966) 35-36 on no. 413; contra Nicolet (1959) 206-7.

41

date: 113
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (on scandal of Vestal Virgins)
defendant: Licinia (181)
advocate: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.III)
quaesitor: L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla (72) cos. 127,¹ cens. 125
outcome: C

Cic. Brut. 160; N.D. 3.74; Liv. Per. 63; V. Max. 3.7.9, 6.8.1; Asc. 46C; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 83; Dio 26 fr. 87; Crawford, RRC 413, 428¹

1 V. Max. (3.7.9) calls him ‘praetor.’ Gruen (RhM 1968) 59-61 maintains that Valerius Maximus is using anachronistic post-Sullan terminology for a presiding magistrate, and on this basis refutes an interpretation (given by Carney [1962] 303-4) of this trial which relies on this misinformation.

1 See case #40, n. 3.

42

date: 113¹
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (on scandal of Vestal Virgins)
defendant: Marcia (114)
quaesitor: L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla (72) cos. 127,² cens. 125
outcome: C

Cic. Brut. 160; N.D. 3.74; Liv. Per. 63; V. Max. 3.7.9, 6.8.1; Asc. 46C; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 83; Dio 26 fr. 87; Crawford, RRC 413, 428¹

1 The date is given incorrectly as 114 by Münzer RE 14 (1930) 1601.

2 See case #41, n. 1.

1 See case #40, n. 3.

43

date: 113
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (on scandal of Vestal Virgins)¹
defendant: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (spoke pro se)
quaesitor: L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla (72) cos. 127,² cens. 125
witness: slave of defendant
outcome: A

Cic. N.D. 3.74; V. Max. 3.7.9, 6.8.1; Crawford, RRC 413, 428¹

1 Antonius could have claimed a privilege granted by the lex Memmia, which forbade the presiding magistrate of a quaestio from entering the name of someone absent rei publicae causa as a defendant. But he waived this right. See Weinrib (1968) 37-38.

2 See case #41, n. 1.

1 See case #40, n. 3.

44

date: 113?
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (on scandal of Vestal Virgins)
defendant?: Ser. Fulvius Flaccus (64) cos. 135¹
advocate: C. Scribonius Curio (9) pr. 121? (ORF 47.I)
outcome: A

ad Her. 2.33; Cic. inv. 1.80; Brut. 122, 124; N.D. 3.74; Schol. Bob. 85St

1 We know that the defendant was a Ser. Fulvius. Ser. Fulvius Flaccus is considered a possible identification by Münzer RE 7 (1910) 248. Gruen, RPCC 130 n. 141 thinks that he was probaby too old (in his sixties) to be a likely suspect in a case of this sort.

45

date: 113
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia)¹
defendant: C. Porcius Cato (5) cos. 114
outcome: C, exile, litis aestimatio of only 8,000 sesterces²

Cic. 2 Ver. 3.184, 4.22; Vell. 2.8.1

1 Sherwin-White (1952) 44-45 satisfactorily refutes the contention of Henderson (1951) 85 that this case is the same as #55.

2 Velleius gives a figure of 4,000 sesterces; Cicero, 8,000. Possibly, the damages were calculated at the former figure, and then the amount paid by the defendant was double that amount. See lex Acilia, line 59. But manuscript error is a possibility; see D.-G. 5.162 n. 11.

46

date: 113? after defendant’s return from Sicily
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis?¹ (misconduct as gov. Sicily)
defendant: M. Papirius Carbo (39) pr. 114?,² governor in Sicily
prosecutor: P. (Valerius?)³ Flaccus (183)
outcome: C

Cic. Fam. 9.21.3

1 Since the defendant is described as fur, a charge de repetundis is possible.

2 The fact that he was monetalis in 122 (Crawford, RRC no. 276) perhaps indicates the date of his praetorship; see Sumner, Orators 59.

3 The prosecutor was not a Fulvius: Kroll, RE 18 pt. 3 (1949) 1031, Shackleton Bailey, CLF 2.329; contra Gruen, RPCC 132 n. 153.

47

date: 112?
charge: perduellio?¹ (defeat fighting Cimbri)
defendant: Cn. Papirius Carbo (37) cos. 113
prosecutor: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97
outcome: A?²

Cic. Fam. 9.21.3; Apul. Apol. 66

1 Malcovati (1955) 217-18 suggests perduellio, pointing to the case of C. Papirius Carbo (#30) as a parallel.

2 The phrase sutorio atramento absolutus has given rise to debate. Malcovati (1955) suggests that the defendant committed suicide by drinking copper sulphate. Note that, at least under the lex Acilia, line 2, death did not produce automatic acquittal (see Venturini [1980] 161-63). Shackleton Bailey, CLF 2.330 suggests that the phrase may have been a proverbial one to signify a corrupt acquittal. Perhaps there was a way in which sutorium atramentum, which could be produced in different shades (Plin. Nat. 34.123-27), was used to mark the jurors’ ballots.

48

date: 114? or 111? 110?¹
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct either as praetor, consul, or proconsul)
defendant: L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (88) pr. by 115, cos. 112
advocates: ? M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109²
L. Licinius Crassus (55) q. by 109,³ cos. 95, cens. 92
prosecutor: C. Claudius Pulcher (302) cos. 92⁴
witnesses: ? Aquillius Gallus sen.?⁵
(M. Sergius?) Silus (42) q. 116 or 115⁶
outcome: A?

Cic. de Orat. 2.265; 2.285; V. Max. 8.1. abs. 6?
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 55-56

1 The date is presumably either the year after the defendant’s praetorship or after his consulship, and by his death in 107. See MRR Suppl. 47.

2 See Fraccaro Opuscula 2.139.

3 He was quaestor probably in 111 or 110. See Sumner, Orators 96-97, MRR Suppl. 118.

4 Syme (1956) 133-34 (= RP 1.303) connects an anecdote in V. Max. with this trial, emending L. Claudius Pulcher to C. Claudius Pulcher. See also case #378.

5 Badian (1961) 495-96 suggests that he was probably an Aquillius Gallus, and almost certainly a senator.

6 On the date of his quaestorship, see Crawford, RRC no. 286; MRR 2.13 has q. 94. See MRR Suppl. 193.

49

date: 111
charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio?¹
prosecutor: C. Memmius (5) tr. pl., pr. between 107 and 102²
witness?: Iugurtha (1)
outcome: veto by C. Baebius (10) tr. pl.

Sal. Jug. 31.25-34

1 Gruen, RPCC 141 maintains that this was a iudicium populi on a charge of perduellio.

2 See Sumner, Orators 85-86.

50

date: 110
charge: apud praetorem peregrinum or apud triumvirum capitalem¹ (for murder of Massiva)
defendant: Bomilcar (5)
outcome: none (defendant smuggled away)

Sal. Jug. 35.6-9; App. Nom. fr. 1
Paul (1984) 107

1 Kunkel (1962) 49 n. 186 and Gruen, RPCC 141 n. 26 suggest that the praetor peregrinus probably presided over the trial.

51

date: 111? or 106?¹
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct as promag. 111? or as procos. Numidia 108-106)
defendant: Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (97) pr. by 112, cos. 109, cens. 102 (spoke pro se, ORF 58.I)
iudices: equites
outcome: A
other: Jurors, who were of equestrian rank, refused to inspect defendant’s records.

Cic. Att. 1.16.4; Balb. 11; V. Max. 2.10.1

1 Gruen, RPCC 133 argues for the year after the defendant’s praetorship (when, according to Gruen, the defendant may have been governor [see 2 Ver. 3.209]). Carney (1962) 308 and Badian, Imperialism (1968) 103 n. 19 argue for 107 or 106. The controversy revolves around two issues: 1) does Valerius Maximus’ statement quid plus tribuit consuli imply that the defendant was consul or that he was not consul (‘to him as consul’ or ‘to a consul’); and 2) does this prosecution and outcome accord with the friendly reception given to the defendant in 107, as reported by Sallust Jug. 88.1? The act of prosecution was unfriendly, but the jurors’ conduct was very friendly. See MRR 1.539 n. 3, and MRR Suppl. 40. As stated in the latter, if the trial occurred after the defendant’s consular command, it must have been after his triumph in 106 and before the passage of the lex Servilia Caepionis in 106.

52

date: 109
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) (treason with Jugurtha)
defendant: C. Sulpicius Galba (51) sacerdos¹ by 109
quaesitores: three, one of whom was M. (Aurelius?)² Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
outcome: C

Cic. Brut. 127-28; Sal. Jug. 40

1 Brut. 128 identifies the defendant as sacerdos. It is highly unlikely that he is the augur condemned for extortion mentioned in ad Her. 1.20, if that augur is indeed a historical figure; see Münzer RE 4A (1931) 755, MRR 1.547, and case #72.

2 Sallust Jug. 40.4 (cf. 28.5) makes it clear that he believes that M. Aemilius Scaurus (140), cos. 115, was a quaesitor in this court. But he also appeared as an advocatus for Bestia (case #54, de Orat. 2.283). Four solutions have been formulated to avoid the apparently anomalous situation where the same man appears as quaesitor and advocatus:
a) Bloch (1909) 68. There were three separate courts. Scaurus must have appeared at a court presided over by another quaesitor.
b) Fraccaro (1911) 174 = Opuscula 2.129 n. 10. There was one court, presided over by each quaesitor in succession.
c) Wilkins, de Oratore 374. Scaurus appeared at a different trial of Bestia.
d) Sumner (1976). Sallust has confused M. Aemilius Scaurus with M. Aurelius Scaurus; the latter served as quaesitor. See MRR, Suppl. 10.
It should be noted that the Roman courts were not as punctilious about a separation of judicial roles as their modern counterparts are. A modern judge cannot appear as an attorney at a trial presided over by another judge. But Cicero, while serving as the praetor in the extortion court in 66, appeared as advocate on behalf of Cluentius in the homicide court (case #198).

53

date: 109
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) (treason with Jugurtha)
defendant: L. Opimius (4) cos. 121
quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others¹
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
outcome: C, exile, at Dyrrachium?²

Cic. Sest. 140; Pis. 95; Planc. 69, 70; Brut. 128; Vell. 2.7.3; Asc. 17C; Plut. C. Gracch. 18.1; see also Cic. N.D. 3.74; Sal. Jug. 40.1

1 See case #52, n. 2.

2 The defendant was buried there (Sest. 140).

54

date: 109
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) (treason with Jugurtha)
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (23) cos. 111
prosecutor: C. Memmius (5) pr. between 107 and 102¹
quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others²
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
advocatus: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109
outcome: C?

Cic. de Orat. 2.283; Brut. 128; Sal. Jug. 40.5

1 See case #49, n. 2.

2 For a reference, see case #52, n. 2.

55

date: 109
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia)¹ (treason with Jugurtha)
defendant: C. Porcius Cato (5) cos. 114
quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others²
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
outcome: C, exile at Tarraco

Cic. Balb. 28; Brut. 128

1 See case #45, n. 1.

2 See case #52, n. 2.

56

date: 109
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) (treason with Jugurtha)
defendant: Sp. Postumius Albinus (45) cos. 110, procos. Africa and Numidia 109
quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others¹
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
outcome: C

Cic. Brut. 128

1 See case #52, n. 2.

57

trial uncertain¹
date: 109
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) (treason with Jugurtha)
defendant: (A.?) Postumius Albinus (32) pr. by 111?,² leg. 110 (? = A. Postumius Albinus [33] cos. 99)
quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others³
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
outcome: A?

Sal. Jug. 36.3, 37-39, 44.4; Liv. Per. 64; Flor. Epit. 1.36.9; Eutrop. 4.26.3; Oros. 5.15.6

1 We do not know that this trial took place. Münzer RE 22 (1953) 908-9 assumes that Postumius (32) must have stood trial because of his overwhelming guilt. If Postumius (32) = Postumius (33), then his continued career constitutes evidence for acquittal, if the trial did take place. See MRR Suppl. 173.

2 See Sumner, Orators 84.

3 See case #52, n. 2.

58

date: 109
charge: ambitus¹
defendant: (L.or Q.?) Hortensius (2) cos. des.?² 108
outcome: C

Fast. Cap. (Degrassi) p. 73; Chronogr. of 354¹
Bloch (1909) 79-80; D.-G. 3.77; Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 351; de Franciscis (1950) 129-30; MRR 1.548; MRR Add. and Corr. 2.645

1 Sumner (1976) 75 suggests as a possibility prosecution before the quaestio Mamilia. In that case, for quaesitores, see other trials before this quaestio.

2 Since a magistrate in office could not be prosecuted, it seems likely that he was convicted before taking office. See Atkinson (1960) 462 n. 108; Swan (1966) 239-40; and Weinrib (1971) 145 n. 1.

1 646 A.U.C. The name is listed as ‘Kotensio.’

59

date: 107? 106?¹
charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio² (disgraceful treaty with Tigurini)
defendant: C. Popillius Laenas (19) leg. 107
prosecutor: C. Coelius Caldus (12) tr. pl., cos. 94³
outcome: C, exile at Nuceria (later restored)

ad Her. 1.25, 4.34; Cic. Inv. 2.72-73; Balb. 28; Leg. 3.36; Oros. 5.15.24

1 The year depends on the date of the prosecutor’s tribunate, which in turn depends on how quickly the trial could have taken place after the defeat of L. Cassius Longinus (62) cos. 107. See FTP 187.

2 Cicero’s statement (Leg. 3.36) that the trial was for perduellio should be preferred to the statement (ad Her.) that maiestas was the charge. Last’s attempt (CAH 9 [1932] 159) to square the evidence by positing an acquittal for perduellio and then a later trial under the lex Appuleia de maiestate is unnecessary; see Gruen, RPCC 151 n. 79, and Bauman (1967) 38.

3 He introduced the lex tabellaria for secret ballot in such trials.

60

date: 106¹
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis?
defendant: C. Memmius (5) pr. between 107 and 102² (spoke pro se)
witness: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109
outcome: A

Cic. Font. 24; V. Max. 8.5.2
Passerini (1934) 133 n. 4; D’Arms (1972) 84; Gabba RR 227 n. 89

1 Sumner, Orators 86 points out that, whereas Cicero (Font. 26) says that the jurors in case #61 were equites, he fails to say this about this trial. Therefore, he argues, this trial might date from the brief period (106-104? 101? 100?) when, under Caepio’s lex Servilia, equites were excluded from the extortion courts. But V. Max. 8.5.2 says that the two defendants were both tried eadem lege, and if he does not merely mean that both were tried for extortion, his statement would imply that the two trials took place when equites staffed the extortion courts, either before 106 or after the passage of Glaucia’s lex Servilia (104? 101? 100?). Since M. Gratidius, the prosecutor in the trial of Fimbria (case #61), died in 102 (see MRR 1.569, MRR Suppl. 92), the earlier date and a trial under the lex Acilia are the more likely choices. Memmius’ actions as praetor in 107 (a possible date for his praetorship) and Fimbria’s actions as praetor by that date could have provided the grounds for an extortion trial. However, a date of 104 or 103 for Glaucia’s lex Servilia would allow for these two trials to have been held under that law. See Nicolet, Ordre équestre 1.541.

2 For a reference, see case #49, n. 2.

61

date: 106?¹
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis?
defendant: C. Flavius Fimbria (87) cos. 104
prosecutor: M. Gratidius (2) e.R.
witness: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109
jurors: equites
outcome: A

Cic. Font. 24, 26; Brut. 168; V. Max. 8.5.2

1 See case #60, n. 1.

62

date: 104?¹
charge: iudicium populi?² (abuse of power ius vitae ac necis? or for killing of son, who was suspected of either immorality or parricide)
defendant: Q. Fabius Maximus Eburnus (111) cos. 116, cens. 108
prosecutor: Cn. Pompeius Strabo (45) tr. pl. 104?,³ cos. 89
outcome: C, exile at Nuceria

Cic. Balb. 28; V. Max. 6.1.5; [Quint.] Decl. 3.17; Oros. 5.16.8
Rowland (1968) 213-14

1 Shortly after the battle of Arausio. See Gruen (1964) 102 n. 14.

2 Mommsen, Strafr. 614 n. 1, followed by Jones (1972) 5, assumes that the phrase diem dicere is used by Orosius (5.16.8) in a technical sense for a trial before the comitia. But Kunkel (1962) 47 n. 179 argues that a technical sense should not be pressed; contra Badian (Klio 1984) 308 n. 66. Cloud (1971) 40 argues that the trial took place inter sicarios. To date his tribunate, Badian uses the argument that for this case, Pompeius prosecuted while tr. pl.

3 On the date, see Badian (Klio 1984) 306-9, MRR Suppl. 166.

63

date: 104? after Dec. 10?¹
charge: iudicium populi (illegal war poorly conducted by defendant against Cimbri, injury to Aegritomarus)²
defendant: M. Iunius Silanus (169) cos. 109
prosecutor: Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (21) tr. pl. 104? 103? cos. 96, cens. 92 (ORF 69.II)
outcome: A, by large majority (only tribes Sergia and Quirina voted to condemn)³

Cic. Div. Caec. 67; 2 Ver. 2.118; Corn. fr. 2.7; Asc. 80-81C

1 Sumner, Orators 98-99 maintains that the date given by Velleius (2.12.5) for the tribunate of Domitius, 103, can be squared with Asconius’ (80-81C) date of 104 for the trial by postulating a trial at the end of 104, after Domitius had become tr. pl., but while Marius and Fimbria were still consuls. See Marshall, Asconius 277-78, MRR Suppl. 82.

2 Aegritomarus is not listed in RE The name could be Aegritomarius. The injury may have been a cause for the prosecution, rather than grounds for the charge. Also, there is some question whether Cicero and Asconius are referring to the same trial. See Marshall (AJP 1977) 419-23.

3 Marshall (LCM 1977) tentatively suggests the possibility that the prosecutor issued a ‘rigged’ voting tablet. See also Gruen (1964) 108-10.

64

date: 103
charge: iudicium populi (defeat at Arausio under the command of defendant and Caepio [see case #66])
defendant: Cn. Mallius Maximus (13) cos. 105
advocate?: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.III)¹
prosecutor: uncertain²
outcome: C, exile

Cic. de Orat. 2.125; Liv. Per. 67; Gran. Licin. 13 Flemisch

1 The evidence that M. Antonius served as patronus in this trial is the phrase Cn. Manli, Q. (Marci) Regis commiseratio (de Orat. 2.125, so interpreted by Münzer, RE 14 [1928] 912; see also Münzer [1920] 388). But Meyer’s view (1842) 290, which is followed by Wilkins in his note ad loc., is preferable, that the phrase may have formed part of Antonius’ defense of Norbanus (see case #86), in order to arouse pity for Mallius’ two sons lost at Arausio and anger against Caepio, the prosecutor in that case, whose father was also in command along with Mallius. Note that Mallius’ loss of his two sons (Oros. 5.16.2) was a standard exemplum illustrating the theme of the father bereft of his sons.

2 Badian, Studies 35 claims that Saturninus prosecuted this defendant. But the evidence (Gran. Licin. 13 Flemisch) shows only that Saturninus passed the bill establishing the quaestio before which Mallius and Caepio were prosecuted; the prosecutor of Caepio (case #66) was someone else, i.e., Norbanus, and the prosecutor of Mallius could also have been someone else.

65

trial uncertain
date: 103
charge: quaestio extraordinaria, peculatus? (on theft of aurum Tolosanum)
defendants: Q. Servilius Caepio (49) cos. 106 and others
outcome: A? C?¹

Cic. N.D. 3.74; Liv. Per. 67; vir. ill. 73.5; Dio 27 fr. 90; Oros. 5.15
MRR 1.566 n. 8

1 According to Lengle (1931), Caepio was either acquitted or assessed a pecuniary penalty.

66

date: 103, after case #65
charge: iudicium populi? (over defeat at Arausio, defendant as procos. 105 shared command with Mallius, see case #64)¹
defendant: Q. Servilius Caepio (49) cos. 106 spoke pro se (ORF 62.I)
prosecutor: C. Norbanus (5) tr. pl. 103,² cos. 83
outcome: C, confiscation of goods, retraction of imperium, threat of execution?, exile at Smyrna³
other: tr.pl. L. Aurelius Cotta (100) pr. ca. 95 and tr. pl. T. Didius (5) cos. 98 driven off from veto

ad Her. 1.24; Cic. Balb. 28; Brut. 135; Liv. Per. 67; Strab. 4.1.13; V. Max. 4.7.3, 6.9.13; Gran. Licin. 13 Flemisch

1 See Lengle (1931).

2 On the date of the prosecutor’s tribunate and of the trial, see MRR 1.565-66, n. 7.

3 V. Max. (6.9.13) claims that the defendant was executed at some time, but contradicts himself at 4.7.3; contra Cic. Balb. 28, Strabo 4.1.13, V. Max. 4.7.3. See Münzer (1912) 170-71.

67

date: ca 103¹
charge: lex Servilia (Caepionis?) de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sardinia)
defendant: T. Albucius (2) pr. 107? 105?²
prosecutor: C. Iulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus (135) aed. cur. 90
witnesses: Sardinians
outcome: C, exile at Athens³
other: Cn. Pompeius Strabo (45) q. ca. 106,⁴ cos. 89 was rejected as prosecutor.

Cic. Div. Caec. 63; Pis. 92; Scaur. 40; Off. 2.50; Tusc. 5.108; Suet. Jul. 55.2; see also Apul. Apol. 66.4; [Asc.] 203St

1 See Sumner, Orators 77-78, 104; also Rowland (1968) 213-14.

2 For references that discuss the date of his praetorship, see case #32, n. 2. For the three errors which Apuleius (Apol. 66.4) makes, see Apuleius, Apologia, ed. Butler and Owen (1914) 131.

3 Carney (1958) 243 suggests the outcome was merely a censorial nota on the basis of Cic. Prov. 15; this suggestion is refuted by Gruen (1964) 101 n. 11.

4 Thompson (1969) suggests that Caepio’s lex Servilia made praevaricatio easier; therefore, there were three attempts by ex-quaestors to prosecute the governor under whom they had served (this case, #70, #91).

68

date: 103?¹
charge: iudicium populi (for failure to perform properly duties as priest [augur?])²
defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109
prosecutor: Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (21) tr. pl. 104? 103? cos. 96, cens. 92 (ORF 69.I)³
outcome: 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

1 See case #63, n. 1.

2 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.

3 Plutarch incorrectly says that Scaurus prosecuted Domitius.

69

date: 102?
charge: lex Servilia (Caepionis?) de repetundis?¹ peculatus? (misconduct during command in Sicily against slaves in 103)
defendant: L. Licinius Lucullus (103) pr. 104
prosecutor: (M.?) Servilius (12) augur²
outcome: C³
other: Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (97) cos. 109, cens. 102 refused to be laudator of defendant.

Cic. 2 Ver. 4.147; Prov. 22; Ac. 2.1; Off. 2.50; Diod. Sic. 36.8.5, 36.9.1-2; Plut. Luc. 1; Quint. Inst. 12.7.4; Vir. Ill. 62.4

1 Plutarch uses the term klopē, Luc. 1. See Badian (PBSR 1984) 62 n. 26. Gruen, RPCC 177 suggests peculatus.

2 There is no agreement as to whether Servilius the augur is the same person as C. Servilius pr. 102. Münzer, RE 2A (1923) 1762-63, ORF p. 308 n. 1, and MRR 1.573 n. 6 lean to identification. Klein (1878) 56, van Ooteghem (1959) 14-15 n. 4, and Gruen, RPCC 177 n. 94 argue against identification.

Van Ooteghem argues: a) Diodorus does not mention that Servilius had prosecuted Lucullus, though to do so would have been relevant in the context; b) Plutarch does not say that the prosecutor succeeded the convicted defendant as governor, as would have been natural, had this been the case, and thus Servilius should be identified as augur to distinguish him from the praetor; c) Servilius the augur was acquitted (of maiestas? see Plut. Luc. 1), but Servilius the praetor was condemned for some sort of malfeasance. In my opinion, while there may not be the discrepancy in the charges which van Ooteghem claims, there is a discrepancy in the verdicts. See Badian (Klio 1984) 302, (PBSR 1984) 59; and d) Servilius the augur is C. Servilius Vatia (91) according to Mommsen (1860) 535-36, followed by Gruen, RPCC 178. Münzer RE 2A (1923) 1812 holds that the praetor of 102 was his son. For a stemma of the Servilii, see Crawford RRC 1.270, modified by Badian (PBSR 1984). By means of complex argument (59-62), Badian proposes that one M. Servilius Augur was the first cousin of C. Servilius, praetor in Sicily in 102.

3 The argument that the defendant went into exile at Heraclea (D.-G. 4.214 n. 4) is based on Arch. 8 and on an emended reading of Arch. 6. But these two passages (as emended) mention the activities only of the defendant’s son M. Lucullus.

70

date: 101?¹
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae?) de repetundis? (misconduct as gov. Sicily)
defendant: C. Servilius (11, cf. 12)² pr. 102?
other: L. (Sempronius?) Pit(h)io? L. (Veturius?) Philo?³ (Veturius 21) q. 102? rejected as prosecutor.
outcome: C, exile

Cic. Div. Caec. 63; [Asc.] 203St; Diod. Sic. 36.9.1

1 Gruen, RPCC 178 n. 104 and Sumner, Orators 80 are probably wrong to interpret the word propiora in [Asc.] 203St in a chronological sense. Therefore, that passage does not tell us anything about the chronological relationship between this case, case #67, and case #91. The scholiast is pointing out that Cicero in Div. Caec. saves his closest (qualitative, not chronological) parallel for last. On this point see Sumner, Orators 82. Sumner, Orators 80-81 notes that the last securely identifiable L. Philo is the cos. of 206, and that the trial should perhaps be much earlier. But that nomen may be irrelevant. See below, n. 3. On the other hand, the existence of the divinatio to select the prosecutor points to an extortion law after the lex Acilia, probably the lex Servilia of Caepio according to Serrao (1956) 500.

2 See case #69, n. 3.

3 See Badian (Klio 1984) 291-96. Preserving the manuscript reading, Badian suggests that this individual is the son or grandson of L. Sempronius Pitio (74) monetalis 148. Previously, the rejected prosecutor had been named as L. Veturius Philo, with the nomen ‘Veturius’ supplied on the basis of the cognomen ‘Philo,’ which is itself a doubtful emendation.

71

date: after case #69¹
defendant: (M.?) Servilius (12) augur²
prosecutors: L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74 (ORF 90.I)
M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) (ORF 91.I)³ cos. 73
outcome: A⁴
other: This case is perhaps the same as case #72.⁵

Cic. Prov. 22; Ac. 2.1; Off. 2.50; Quint. Inst. 12.7.4; [Asc.] 222St; see also Cic. Arch. 6¹

1 Badian (Klio 1984) 304 suggests a date of 91.

2 On his identity see case #69, n. 2.

3 [Asc.] 222St has the Luculli prosecuting L. Cotta.

4 See case #72, n. 3, for the possibility of condemnation.

5 Cicero’s rhetorical question (Prov. 22), quae fuerunt inimicitiae in civitate graviores quam Lucullorum atque Servilii? implies that only one Servilius was involved in a feud with the Luculli. This might seem to be an argument for identifying the two Servilii. But since there is no direct evidence that the Luculli were involved in the prosecution of Servilius the praetor (case #70), this passage does not help us decide whether Servilius the augur is the same man as Servilius the praetor.

1 ‘L. Lucullo’ has been emended to ‘M. Lucullo.’ See D.-G. 4.214 n. 4.

72

trial uncertain¹
date: by 81²
charge: lex Servilia? (Glauciae?) de repetundis
defendant: augur
outcome: C
other: = ? case #71.³

ad Her. 1.20
Marx (1894) 108

1 It is possible that this case is merely a fictional, schoolbook example of a legal problem, since the author does not mention specific names.

2 The terminus ante quem would be the latest possible date of composition of ad Her.

3 It is tempting to connect this case with case #71. However, the outcome is different. On the other hand, if case #71 = case #72, then perhaps Plutarch is wrong to record that Servilius the augur was acquitted.

73

date: after 104,¹ before 91
claim: sponsio (ni vir bonus esset)
party: M. Lutatius Pinthia (21) e.R.
juror: C. Flavius Fimbria (87) cos. 104
outcome: juror refused to adjudicate

Cic. Off. 3.77; V. Max. 7.2.4

1 V. Max. refers to the juror as consularis. But if he does so only to distinguish him from the C. Flavius Fimbria active in the 80s, then the term consularis does not provide a terminus post quem.

74

date: 101
charge: quaestio extraordinaria? (violation of immunity of envoys)
defendant: L. Appuleius Saturninus (29) tr. pl. 103, 100, tr. pl. des. for 99¹
jurors: senators
outcome: A

Diod. Sic. 36.15

1 See MRR Suppl. 21-22.

75

date: 101
charge: iudicium populi? for parricide (killing of mother)
defendant: Publicius Malleolus (17)
outcome: C, execution by being thrown into sea in leather sack

ad Her. 1.23; Liv. Per. 68; Oros. 5.16.23
Cloud (1971) 44

76

date: 100
claim: civil suit (for retention of dowry: retentio propter mores)¹
defendant: C. Titinius (8) of Minturnae
plaintiff: Fannia (21)
juror: C. Marius (14, RE Supp. 6) cos. 107, 104-100, 86
outcome: Fannia allowed to recover all but a token amount (one sesterce) from her ex-husband

V. Max. 8.2.3; Plut. Mar. 38.3-5

1 See Wolff (1934) 318; Watson (1967) 68-69; Gardner (1986) 90.

77

trial uncertain¹
date: 100?
charge: iudicium populi for perduellio? lex Appuleia de maiestate?
defendant: Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (97) cos. 109, cens. 102
prosecutor: L. Appuleius Saturninus (29) tr. pl. 103, 100, tr. pl. des. for 99²
outcome: exile to Rhodes, Tralles

Cic. Clu. 95; Dom. 82, 87; Sest. 37, 101; Pis. 20; Planc. 89; Leg. 3.26; Liv. Per. 69; Vell. 2.15.4; V. Max. 3.8.4; Amp. 18.14; Plut. Cat. Min. 32.3; Mar. 29.4-8; Dio 38.7.1; Vir. Ill. 62.2, 73.8; Schol. Bob. 168, l74St; Flor. Epit. 2.4.3, 2.5.3; Oros. 5.17.4

1 The legal details of this trial are not at all clear; in fact, it is not at all clear that a trial actually took place, or was even threatened. Metellus refused to swear the oath required by Saturninus’ agrarian law; the penalty for this failure was expulsion from the Senate and a fine of 20 talents (= ca HS 480,000; see Gabba, Appian p. 104 on c. 29). This penalty, while high, would not have bankrupted Numidicus. Two sources (Liv. Per. 69 and Oros. 5.17.4) imply that a trial at least began, by using the phrase diem dicere. Gabba (1951) 21-23 suggests that Saturninus prosecuted Numidicus under the lex Appuleia de maiestate. Brecht (1938) 297-301 and Gruen (Latomus 1965) suggest a perduellio trial before the comitia. Crifò (1961) 275-88 suggests that no trial occurred. It seems clear that the aquae et ignis interdictio could not be a penalty, but merely confirmed the exile of Numidicus, which, the sources agree, was voluntary. Perhaps it was voluntary in the sense that Numidicus could have paid the fine, but refused. Alternatively, perhaps Saturninus persuaded the people to pass the interdiction, which the Periochae and Orosius perceived as a trial.

2 For references to a third election to the tribunate, see case #74, n. 1.

78

date: 99, perhaps late in the year¹
charge: iudicium populi²
defendant?: L. Valerius Flaccus (178) cur. aed. 99? 98?, cos. suff. 86³
prosecutor: C. Appuleius Decianus (21) tr. pl. 99? 98?
outcome: A⁴

Cic. Flac. 77; Schol. Bob. 95, 105St

1 Münzer RE 8A (1955) 26 accepts the suggestion of Seidel (1908) 46 that the prosecution might have taken place between Dec. 10 and Dec. 31, 99, when Flaccus was still aedile, but Appuleius was already tribune.

2 See Gruen (Historia 1966) 37 n. 31.

3 See Sumner, Orators 81.

4 If the defendant was the future consul of 86, then his advancement is evidence for acquittal. See Gruen (Historia 1966) 37 n. 28.

79

date: 99 or 98¹
charge: iudicium populi (acts as tribune)
defendant: P. Furius (22) tr. pl. 100 or 99
prosecutors: C. Appuleius Decianus (21) tr. pl. 99 or 98²
C. Canuleius (3) tr. pl. 99?³
outcome: killed by mob before verdict was delivered⁴

Cic. Rab. Perd. 24-25; V. Max. 8.1 damn. 2; App. BCiv. 1.33; Dio 28 fr. 95.3

1 The trial took place the year after Furius was tribune, and the year when Appuleius was tribune. See FTP 204, MRR 2.2, 2.4, Seager (1967), and Tyrrell (1978) 124-25 for the later date; see also Gabba, Appian 1.33 p. 114, Gruen (Historia 1966) 35, Badian (Chiron 1984) 133, and MRR Suppl. 22 for the earlier date.

2 It is disputed whether there was only one prosecution by one man, in which case Canuleius would be a confusion on Appian’s part for Appuleius (so FTP 209), one prosecution by two men (so Gruen [Historia 1966] 35), or two separate prosecutions with the first ending in acquittal (so Münzer RE 7 [1910] 317, MRR 2.6 n. 5, and Badian Chiron [1984] 130-33).

3 See MRR Suppl. 21-23.

4 V. Max. (8.1. damn. 2) says that the defendant was not condemned; whereas Appian (BCiv. 1.33) says that he was killed by a mob while under indictment. If the same trial is in question, the evidence can be squared by assuming that the mob acted during the course of the trial before the conclusion was reached. Note that Dio says that the defendant was killed in the assembly.

80

date: 98?
charge: lex Appuleia de maiestate?¹
defendant: Sex. Titius (23) tr. pl. 99
jurors: equites
witness: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.IV)
outcome: C, exile

Cic. Rab. Perd. 24-25; de Orat. 2.48, 2.253, 2.265; V. Max. 8.1. damn. 3

1 Gruen (Historia 1966) 38 n. 36 suggests a maiestas trial for seditious conduct, although V. Max. claims that the trial took place in a contio (i.e. a tribunician prosecution apud populum). Cicero, however, clearly states that the defendant was condemned by equites (i.e. as iudices), and therefore before a quaestio.

81

date: 98 or 97¹
charge: uncertain²
defendant: C. Appuleius Decianus (21) tr. pl. 99 or 98
outcome: C, exile to Pontus

Cic. Rab. Perd. 24; Flac. 5, fr. 3, 77; V. Max. 8.1. damn. 2; Schol. Bob. 95, 105St

1 The date is the year after the defendant’s tribunate.

2 Gruen (Historia 1966) 38 suggests a maiestas trial for seditious behavior as tribune.

82

date: after 98¹
defendant: Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (95) cos. 98 (possibly spoke pro se)²
prosecutor: C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61 (ORF 86.I)³
outcome: C?

Asc. 63C; Apul. Apol. 66; see also Cic. Brut. 206

1 If condemnation was the outcome, a date after the defendant’s consulate is dictated. Gruen (Historia 1966) 42 n. 61 suggests the early 90s because the prosecutor (born ca 124/3, according to Sumner, Orators 110) was young at the time (Apul. Apol. 66). But the other exempla in this error-ridden passage allow for Curio to be as old as 31 (the age of Antonius when he prosecuted Carbo); thus, the year could have been 93, and perhaps later.

2 This may be the Metellus for whom L. Aelius Stilo composed a speech (ORF 74.I), and this trial may be the occcasion when the speech was delivered (Cic. Brut. 206). Asconius’ testimony shows that Butler and Owen (comm. on Apuleius Apol. 131) cannot be correct in suggesting that Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (85) was tribune in 90.

3 See MRR Suppl. 186.

83

date: second half of 97, or 96¹
charge: ambitus (for misconduct as candidate for censor)
defendant: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97²
prosecutor: M. Duronius (3) tr. pl. by 97
witness: C. Coelius Caldus (12) cos. 94
outcome: A, or dropped

Cic. de Orat. 2.257, 2.274; see also V. Max. 2.9.5

1 The trial took place after the censors had expelled the prosecutor from the Senate. Münzer RE 5 (1905) 1862 claims that the trial took place during the defendant’s censorship. Gruen (Historia 1966) 41 n. 58 suggests a trial during Antonius’ campaign for the censorship. But Cicero (de Orat. 2.274) claims that Antonius was censor when prosecuted, and perhaps it was possible to prosecute a censor, whose status was different from that of other magistrates; see Shackleton Bailey (1970) 163.

2 Perhaps the alleged failure of one Antonius to keep accurate records (2 Ver. 1.60) can be connected with this trial.

84

date: 97?¹
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis²
defendant: M’. Aquillius (11) cos. 101, procos. Sicily 100-99
advocate: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.V)
character witness: C. Marius (14, RE Supp. 6) cos. VI 100, VII 86
prosecutor: L. Fufius (5) tr. pl. 91 or 90?³ (ORF 75.I)
outcome: A

Cic. 2 Ver. 5.3; Flac. 98; de Orat. 2.124, 188, 194-96; Off. 2.50; Brut. 222; Liv. Per. 70; Quint. Inst. 2.15.7; Apul. Apol. 66

1 Liv. Per. 70 gives 98, but see Badian Studies 45-46, Gruen (Historia 1966) 39.

2 Liv. Per. 70; MRR 2.2 gives peculatus.

3 See Sumner (1963) 350 n. 57. Apuleius gives the name as C. Furius.

85

date: 96?
advocate: P. Sulpicius Rufus (92) tr. pl. 88

Cic. de Orat. 2.88¹

1 Münzer RE 4A (1931) 844 suggests a possible connection between this passage and case #88. But Gabba (1953) 264 n. 4 argues that the trial of Caepio could not be the causa parvula to which Cicero here refers. A civil case, similar to #126, in which Cicero spoke for Quinctius, is more likely at the start of Sulpicius’ forensic career.

86

date: not before 96¹
charge: lex Appuleia de maiestate (seditious conduct as tr. pl. 103)
defendant: C. Norbanus (5) cos. 83²
advocate: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.VI)
prosecutor: P. Sulpicius Rufus (92) tr. pl. 88 (ORF 76.II)
witness: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109
outcome: A

Cic. de Orat. 2.89, l07, 124, 164, 167, 197-204; Off. 2.49; Part. 104; V. Max. 8.5.2; Apul. Apol. 66

1 Antonius (cens. 97) was an ex-censor (de Orat. 2.198).

2 See Gruen (CP 1966), Badian Studies 49-50, 84-86, and MRR Suppl. 149.

87

date: by 91¹
defendant: M. (Claudius?) Marcellus (226) pr. at an uncertain date²
witness: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.XV) (against defendant)
outcome: A

Cic. Font. 24; V. Max. 8.5.3

1 Badian, Studies 44, 53 suggests a date around 95, and a charge of extortion. There is, in fact, no direct evidence about date or charge other than 91 as the year of Crassus’ death. See Münzer RE 3 (1899) 2760, Gruen (Historia 1966) 51, Sumner, Orators 91.

2 On the question of the relationship of this individual to M. Claudius Marcellus (227) aed. cur. 91, see Badian, Studies, 53, Sumner, Orators 91, and MRR Suppl. 55.

88

date: 95
charge: lex Appuleia de maiestate (misconduct as q. 100)
defendant: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91? (ORF 85.IV) 90¹
advocates: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.VI)
? P. Sulpicius Rufus (92) tr. pl. 88? (ORF 76.I?)²
prosecutor: T. (Betutius?) Barrus (Betitius 1), (perhaps e.R.) (ORF 84.I)³

ad Her. 1.21, 2.17; Cic. Brut. 162; see also ad Her. 4.35; Sal. Hist. 1.62M; Cic. de Orat. 2.88; Brut. 169

1 Gruen (JRS 1965) 63 n. 48, (Historia 1966) 45 maintains that this trial was the occasion for which L. Aelius Stilo composed a speech for Caepio (ORF 74.II), and Caepio delivered the speech pro se; contra Münzer (1920) 30l, Douglas Brutus 130, who maintain that Aelius’ speech must have been written for a prosecution of Caepio under the lex Varia (see case #106).

2 It is doubtful whether this is the causa parvula (de Orat. 2.88) in which Sulpicius spoke (see case #85).

3 Gabba (1953) 271 (see also 264 n. 4) connects this prosecutor with this case on political grounds; Badian (Studies 66 n. 85) denies that there is any evidence that this case was politically important. Sumner, Orators 102 distinguishes Betucius from the eques who was a witness in the Vestal scandal (cases #38, #39, #40).

89

date: 95
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (challenge to citizenship under lex Licinia Mucia)
defendant: T. Matrinius (3) of Spoletium e.R.¹
advocate: C. Marius (14, RE Supp. 6) cos. 107, 104-100, 86²
prosecutor: L. Antistius (12) (ORF 77.I)
outcome: A

Cic. Balb. 48-49

1 See Nicolet, Ordre équestre 2.950.

2 Brunt (1965) 106 is wrong to conclude from Balb. 49 that Crassus defended Matrinius; see Badian (Historia 1969) 491.

90

date: 95
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis?¹ (misconduct as praetor [in Africa?] by 96) (ORF 70 frags. 15, 16, [17]?)
defendant: L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86
prosecutor: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.I)
juror: L. Aurifex (1) e.R.
witness?: Q. Lutatius Catulus (7) cos. 102
outcome: A?²

Cic. de Orat. 2.220, 245, 249; 3.228-29; Quint. Inst. 6.3.81

1 On the basis of jokes reported in the de Oratore, especially 2.220 (cf. Quint. Inst. 6.3.81), Münzer RE 14 (1930) 1563 claims that this was an extortion case. See also Gruen (Historia 1966) 49-50.

2 Since the defendant went on to hold the consulate, he was probably acquitted.

91

date: shortly after 95?¹
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis (provincial malfeasance after governorship of Asia in 95? 94?)
defendant: L. Valerius Flaccus (178) pr. 96? 95?, cos. suff. 86
outcome: A²
other: M. Aurelius Scaurus (cf. 215)³ q. ca 95? 94? former quaestor of defendant, rejected as prosecutor.

Cic. Div. Caec. 63; 2 Ver. 1.85; [Asc.] 203St

1 Sumner, Orators 80-82, following Münzer, RE 8A (1955) 26-27, argues that, rather than create an otherwise unknown Scaurus q. ca. 103, we should set the case in the late 90s, and record the man who later became cos. suff. as the defendant. The fact that Scaurus’ quaestorship is described by Cicero in 70 as nuper (2 Ver. 1.85), he argues, is not an insurmountable obstacle to this view (cf. Off. 2.58). Sumner’s view, now accepted by Badian (Klio 1984) 298-99, is the most economical. See MRR Suppl. 32, 212. Previously, it had been thought that the three cases mentioned together in Cic. Div. Caec. 63 (this one, and cases #67 and #70) must have all occurred in the last years of the second century BC; see Badian Studies 86-87.

2 The defendant’s later election to consulate would indicate acquittal.

3 Son of M. Aurelius Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108.

92

date: 95? 93? 91?¹
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis² (misconduct as gov. Cilicia)
defendant: L. Cornelius Sulla (392) gov. Cilicia 96-95? 94? 92?, cos. 88, 80
prosecutor: C. Marcius Censorinus (43) leg. 82 (ORF 82.I)
outcome: charges dropped

Plut. Sull. 5; Firm. Mat. 1.7.28

1 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.

2 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.

93

date: 94? 93?¹
claim: hereditatis petitio, apud centumviros (inheritance)²
party: M’. Curius (5)
opposing party: M. Coponius (5)
advocate for Curius: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.VII)
advocate for Coponius: Q. Mucius Scaevola (22) cos. 95 (ORF 67.I)
outcome: in favor of Curius

Cic. Inv. 2.122; Caec. 53, 69; de Orat. 1.180, 238, 242; 2.24, 140-41, 221; Brut. 144-46, 195, 256; Top. 44; Quint. Inst. 7.6.9-10
Watson (1974) 129-31; Tellegen (1983) 296-98; Frier, RRJ 135-36

1 Judging by Brut. 145, both advocates were consulars, but Crassus was not yet a censor. If Badian (Athenaeum 1956) 104-12 is right that Scaevola was procos. Asia in 94 rather than 97, then 94 would probably be impossible. See MRR Suppl. 145-46 for sources and summary of the chronological problem.

2 The issue was whether Curius, the residuary heir, could receive an inheritance, given that the precise legal conditions for so doing had not been met; the testator’s son had not actually died, for the testator had had no son. See Wilkins, de Oratore 11-12, Vaughn (1984).

94

date: 92
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis (misconduct as legate to Asia)¹
defendant: P. Rutilius Rufus (34) cos. 105 (ORF 44.III) spoke pro se
advocates: Q. Mucius Scaevola (22) cos. 95 (ORF 67.II)
C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 (ORF 80.I)
prosecutor: Apicius (1)²
outcome: C, exile to Asia (Mytilene and Smyrna),³ loss of property

Posidonius in Athen. 4.66, 168DE = FGrH 2A.27, 233; Cic. Font. 38; Balb. 28; Pis. 95; Rab. Post. 27; de Orat. 1.229-30; Brut. 85, 115; N.D. 3.80, 86; Diod. Sic. 37.5.1; Liv. Per. 70; Vell. 2.13.2; V. Max. 2.10.5, 6.4.4; Sen. Ben. 5.17.2, 6.37.2; Ep. 24.4; Quint. Inst. 11.1.13; Tac. Ann. 4.43; Dio 28, fr. 97; [Asc.] 202St; Flor. Epit. 2.5.3; Oros. 5.17.12-13; see also Tac. Ann. 3.66.2
Pais (1918) 46-49

1 Ps.-Asconius incorrectly refers to the defendant as quaestor, 202St. Badian’s argument (Studies 101 n. 94) for a late date (94-93) both for his legateship and for the proconsulship of Q. Mucius Scaevola has been challenged by Marshall (1976), who argues for an earlier date, 97. See also Sumner (GRBS 1978) 147-48, Marshall, Asconius 110-12.

2 The prosecutor was not M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109, contrary to what his great-grandson claimed (Tac. Ann. 3.66.2); see Badian Studies 108.

3 V. Max. 6.4.4 notes that the defendant refused to return to Rome ne quid Dio says that he was under compulsion to leave Rome.

95

date: 92
charge: perhaps ambitus¹
defendant: L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86
prosecutor: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91?

Flor. Epit. 2.5.5

1 Note, however, that Florus goes on to make the incorrect statement that Caepio accused Scaurus of ambitus; see case #96.

96

date: late 92 or early 91¹
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis²
defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.II?, III)
prosecutors: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91?
Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (135) pr. 81
? M. Iunius Brutus (50)³
outcome: A (or none)⁴
other: two actiones⁵

Cic. Font. 38; Scaur. fr. d; Plin. Nat. 36.116; Asc. 21C; Fron. Str. 4.3.13; Flor. Epit. 2.5.5

1 The trial occurred just before, or during the early part of, the tribunate of M. Livius Drusus.

2 The charge did not stem, contrary to general belief (Badian [Athenaeum 1956] 117-22, and others), from the defendant’s actions as legate to Asia; the phrase legatio Asiatica refers to Rutilius and to his service as assistant to Scaevola (Asc. 21C). See Alexander (1981) and MRR Suppl. 11. The accusation made pro rostris that he had received a bribe from Mithridates (V. Max. 3.7.8) may be irrelevant here. The charge was not ambitus, contrary to the statement of Florus (Epit. 2.5.5). See Sumner, Orators 117.

3 Brutus may have prosecuted Scaurus in a separate extortion case (see case #37). The passage from Frontinus probably refers to the discipline displayed by Scaurus’ troops when he was consul in 115. For that reason Bloch (1909) 26-27 and Gruen, RPCC 125 place that prosecution in 114. But this passage could also have served as part of Scaurus’ defense in the late 90s, and in that case Brutus would have served as subscriptor with Caepio. See Klebs RE 1 (1893) 586, Gelzer RE 10 (1917) 972.

4 Scaurus went on to be politically active in this year, and was later accused under the lex Varia (see case #100).

5 These were either in this case or in case #37; see Char. 186.30.

97

date: late 92 or early 91¹
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis, not ambitus²
defendant: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91? (ORF 85.II)³
prosecutor: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.III)
outcome: A (or none)
other: two actiones?⁴

Cic. Scaur. fr. d; Asc. 21C

1 See case #96, n. 1. By requesting a shorter period for an inquisitio, Scaurus managed to have the trial of Caepio occur before his own, even though Caepio brought his case first. See n. 3 below.

2 Münzer (1920) 300 suggests an ambitus charge. Sumner, Orators 117 points out that this must be an extortion trial, since Scaurus launched the prosecution in order to delay case #96, in which he was the defendant on an extortion charge; therefore, this case and case #96 must involve the same type of charge.

3 There is no evidence to show that Caepio spoke pro se, pace ORF p. 295. Malcovati perhaps relies on the phrase causam dicere, which, however, merely means ‘to be a defendant’ (cf. Cic. S. Rosc. 13, where causam dicere is used of a defendant who almost certainly does not speak in his own defense).

4 Gruen (Historia 1966) 56 n. 149 concludes, on the basis of a quotation recorded in Char. 186.30, that the case went into the second (and final) actio, and that therefore a verdict was reached; this verdict would have been an acquittal, since Caepio saw service in the Social War. This reconstruction is quite possible, but the quotation of Charisius may also come from the prosecution of Scaurus by Caepio (case #96), if Scaurus was going to speak pro se on that occasion. In that case, that trial could have come to a verdict, even if this trial (of Caepio) had been dropped by Scaurus. But, on the other hand, Scaurus was evidently trying to delay the trial in which he was the defendant, and would be unlikely to drop his prosecution. Gruen is right to attack Bloch’s belief (1909) 30 that the trial of Scaurus must have been postponed till Caepio died in battle. See Marshall, Asconius 136.

98

date: after 101? and before 91¹
charge: quaestio
defendant: Cn. (Munatius?) Plancus or Plancius (Plancius 2) e.R.
advocate: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.XII)
prosecutor: M. Iunius Brutus (50)
jurors: equites
outcome: A²

Cic. Clu. 140-41; de Orat. 2.220, 223-26; Quint. Inst. 6.3.44; Plin. Nat. 36.7

1 Gruen (Historia 1966) 59-60 argues against definitely placing the trial in the late 90s.

2 On the basis of de Orat. 2.225, refutatum esse Brutum, it is clear that the defendant was acquitted.

99

date: 91 (late summer)¹
claim: civil suit (repayment of debt)
urban praetor: Q. Pompeius Rufus (39) cos. 88
on advisory council: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92

Cic. de Orat. 1.168

1 The date is inferred from the phrase in his paucis diebus, before the death of Crassus, Sept. 20, 91.

100

date: 90
charge: lex Varia (aid to rebellious allies)¹
defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (spoke pro se)
prosecutors: Q. Varius Severus Hibrida of Sucro (7) tr. pl. 90
Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91?, promag. 90 (ORF 85.III)
outcome: dropped?²

Cic. Sest. 101; Scaur. fr. e; V. Max. 3.7.8; Asc. 22C; Quint. Inst. 5.12.10; Vir. Ill. 72.11

1 The legal problem raised by this trial is whether it took place before a quaestio staffed by jurors, or as a tribunician prosecution apud populum. The latter explanation is suggested by the following passages:
a) Asc. 22C says that Q. Varius tr. pl. summoned Scaurus. The language appears too formal to allow for the hypothesis of Gruen (JRS 1965) 63 that Varius was using a contio to whip up feeling aganst Scaurus.
b) V. Max. 3.7.8 says that the trial took place pro rostris, and Scaurus addressed his audience as Quirites. V. Max. connects the trial with a charge of having accepted a bribe from Mithridates. A connection between a trial under the lex Varia and such a trial is easy to believe (see Fraccaro Opuscula 2.142).
c) Vir. Ill. 72.11 says that the trial occurred apud populum.
The most economical explanation of this evidence is that trials under the lex Varia were apud populum until the passage of the lex Plautia (see case #109, n. 3). It is possible that Caepio merely served as subscriptor. See Pais (1918) 156-64. But Appian (BCiv. 1.37) implies that Mummius (see case #102) was convicted by equites, that is, before a quaestio. It is also possible that there were two trials, one apud populum, and then one before a quaestio (Fraccaro Opuscula 2.140-44). Note that this possibility does not raise the question of double jeopardy, because it is clear that no verdict was reached in the trial apud populum (Gruen [JRS 1965] 62). If there was a separate trial before a quaestio, acquittal is likely to have been the verdict.

2 On the outcome, see Gruen (JRS 1965) 63.

101

date: 90
charge: lex Varia
defendant: Q. Pompeius Rufus (39) cos. 88 (spoke pro se)¹ (ORF 83.I).
witness: L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86, against defendant²
outcome: A³

Cic. Brut. 206, 304

1 The speech may have been written by L. Aelius Stilo (144) (ORF 74.IV).

2 Gruen (JRS 1965) 65 n. 84 is correct to refute the suggestion of van Ooteghem (1961) 134 that Philippus spoke for the defense.

3 Acquittal is suggested by the defendant’s future election to the consulate.

102

date: 90
defendant: L. Memmius (13) monetalis 109 or 108
jurors: equites
witness: L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86, against defendant (ORF 70.III)
outcome: C? exile to Delos?¹

Sis. Hist. 3, fr. 44 Peter (Nonius 393L); Cic. Brut. 304 (see also 136); App. BCiv. 1.37

1 The sources for this trial raise two related problems: 1) when did the tribunate of L. Memmius occur (if he did hold that office)? 2) is the ‘Mummius the conqueror’ whom Appian mentions the same as this Memmius? If Memmius had been tr. pl. in 90, as the position of the statement in Book III of Sisenna’s Histories implies, he could not have been prosecuted till 89. Yet Appian seems to place the trial in 90, and therefore Memmius would have had to be tried and acquitted in 90 to hold office in 89. Therefore, he would not be the same as Mummius, who, Appian writes, was convicted, and went into exile. However, according to Biedl (1930), followed by Wiseman (CQ 1967) 164-65, and Frassinetti (1972) 90 n. 70, the relevant passage from Nonius should be read so as to apply tr. pl. to C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, who was indeed tr. pl. in 90. Thus, Memmius could have been tried in 90, as Appian states, and one does not need to resort to Gruen’s suggestion (JRS 1965, p. 67), attacked by Wiseman, that Memmius had been tr. pl. in 91 while advising Drusus. It is very difficult to decide whether Appian’s ‘Mummius’ was this Memmius. Biedl accepts identification, but Münzer (RE 15 [1931] 621), Gabba, Appian p. 125 and Badian (Historia 1969) 469 n. 65 argue for retaining the manuscript reading in Appian. Badian points out that there were Mummii in the first century BC. It may well be, then, that we are dealing with two trials here: one of Memmius, of which we do not know the verdict, and another of Mummius, which ended in conviction. See MRR Suppl. 142.

103

trial only threatened
date: 90
charge: lex Varia
defendant: C. Scribonius Curio (10) tr. pl., cos. 76, cens. 61¹
outcome: no trial

Sis. Hist. 3, fr. 44 Peter (Nonius 393L); cf. Asc. 74C

1 See case #82, n. 3.

104

date: 90
charge: lex Varia
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (23) cos. 111
outcome: went into exile after trial began

App. BCiv. 1.37
Gruen (JRS 1965) 64-65

105

date: 90
charge: lex Varia
defendant: C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 (spoke pro se)¹ (ORF 80.II)
outcome: C, exile before vote of jurors taken

Cic. de Orat. 3.11; Brut. 205, 207, 303, 305; App. BCiv. 1.37
Gruen (JRS 1965) 64

1 The speech was written by L. Aelius Stilo (144) (ORF 74.III).

106

trial uncertain¹
date: 90
charge: lex Varia
defendant: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91?, promag. 90 (spoke pro se)²
prosecutor: T. (Betutius?) Barrus (Betitius 1) (perhaps e.R.)

Cic. Brut. 169, 206

1 Gruen (JRS 1965) 63 argues that this trial did not occur, since Servilius was killed in battle in 90.

2 The speech was written by L. Aelius Stilo (144).

107

date: 90? 89?¹
charge: ambitus
defendant: P. Sextius (9) pr. des.²
prosecutor: T. Iunius (32) tr. pl. between ca 95 and ca 85³
outcome: C

Cic. Brut. 180

1 Münzer, RE 10 (1917) 965 and Gruen, RPCC 300 tentatively suggest a date of 90 for the trial.

2 See Sumner, Orators 77, 109, and MRR Suppl. 111, 198-99.

3 See Sumner, Orators 109. He notes that Cicero’s language does not necessarily imply that T. Iunius had already been tribune when he was prosecutor.

108

date: 90? 89?
charge: lex Varia
defendant: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97, leg.? 90, leg. 87 (spoke pro se) (ORF 65.X)
outcome: A?¹

Cic. Brut. 304; Tusc. 2.57
Seager (1967)

1 Klebs (RE 1 [1894] 2591) and Gruen (JRS 1965) 68 interpret aberat (Brut. 304) to mean that Antonius had been acquitted, and perhaps was serving in the Social War, as he did later in 87 (Gran. Licin. 19). Badian (Historia 1969) 457-58 argues that we know too little about the trial to determine the outcome. See MRR Suppl. 19.

109

date: 89¹
charge: lex Varia²
defendant: Q. Varius Severus Hibrida (7) tr. pl. 90
jurors: 15 from each tribe³
outcome: C, exile⁴

Cic. Brut. 305; N.D. 3.81; V. Max. 8.6.4

1 On the basis of the pluperfect excesserat (Brut. 305), Badian (Historia 1969) 461 argues for a trial early in the year.

2 Münzer (Adelsparteien 1920) 301 believes that the defendant’s doubtful citizenship constituted the basis for prosecution; Gruen (JRS 1965) 69 argues that passage of the lex Varia in the face of tribunician intercession was the reason. But, as Badian (1969) 461-62 has ingeniously noted, a prosecution on that basis would involve the claim that the lex Varia was defective, and therefore all trials held under it would be defective.

3 Gruen (JRS 1965) 69 argues that Varius was tried before the passage of the lex Plautia, because his trial occurred before that of Cn. Pompeius Strabo (cos. 89, case #110), who could have been tried only in 88. But Badian (Historia 1969) 466, 474-75 justifiably notes the incongruity involved in positing a condemnation of Varius by the equites. He solves the problem by 1) positing passage of the lex Plautia (establishing juries drawn from the tribes [Asc. 79C]) early in 89 (i.e., before the trial of Varius) and 2) changing Pompeius to Pomponius Strabo (tr. pl. 90), who could have been tried early in 89. See case #110. According to this suggestion, even if Appian (BCiv. 1.37) is right that Varius was tightly allied with the equestrian order, the equites on the juries could have been outvoted by the other members of the jury, now chosen from the entire citizenry.

4 The defendant was not executed. Badian (1969) 463 is right to maintain that the phrase domesticis laqueis constrictum (V. Max. 8.6.4) is metaphorical.

110

date: 89
charge: lex Varia
defendant: Cn. Pomponius (3) tr. pl. 90¹

Asc. 79C

1 The manuscript reading is Pompeius, i.e., Cn. Pompeius Strabo (45), cos. 90. Badian (1969) 474 convincingly points out the difficulties involved in this reading. See Marshall, Asconius 273-74, MRR Suppl. 166, and case #109, n. 3.

111

date: early 80s?¹
charge: lex Aquilia (de damno iniuria dato?)²
defendant: L. Sabellius (1)³
prosecutor: L. Caesulenus (1)

Cic. Brut. 131

1 Cicero heard this case being argued when the plaintiff was already an old man. Sumner, Orators 77 suggests a date in the early 80’s, pointing to Brut. 303-4, where Cicero describes his entrance into the forum at that time.

2 The manuscript reading is vexed at this point, making it difficult to identify the law under which this trial was held. Mommsen Strafr. 826 n. 4 argues that the case must have been held under a different lex Aquilia, since Cicero speaks of the plaintiff seeking a multa, whereas the lex Aquilia de damno iniuria dato did not prescribe a multa. On the other hand, it did prescribe monetary damages, so perhaps Cicero, writing loosely, could have used the phrase multam petere of a case under this law. It was a very well-known statute, with which Cicero could have expected his readers to be familiar; this was probably not true of any other lex Aquilia.

3 Badian (1967) 227 suggests ‘L. Saleuius’ as a possibility, and argues (Studies 247) against ‘Saufeius.’

112

date: before 87
charge: uncertain, described as gravissimum crimen
defendant: Sextilius (1), = ? P. Sextilius (12)¹ pr. 92?, promag. by 90-87?²
advocate: C. Iulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus (135) aed. cur. 90
outcome: A

V. Max. 5.3.3

1 Carney (1962) 324 identifies the two; the identification is refuted by Gruen, RPCC 299.

2 So Badian in Studies 71-72 and (1965) 113; see MRR Suppl. 198.

113

date: early 87
charge: iudicium populi (perhaps the illegal execution of P. Sulpicius Rufus without trial)¹
defendant: L. Cornelius Sulla (392) cos. 88, 80
prosecutor: M. Vergilius (4) tr. pl. 87²
outcome: none, Sulla went east

Cic. Brut. 179; Plut. Sull. 10.4; see also ad Her. 1.25

1 See Bennett (1923) 7, Weinrib (1968) 42, and also Gundel RE 8A (1955) 1019.

2 Plutarch (Sull. 10.4) has ‘Verginius’; Badian (Studies 85 and 100 n. 87) considers this reading plausible.

114

date: 87
charge: iudicium populi
defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (296) promag. 87, cos. 79
prosecutor: unnamed tribunus plebis 87
outcome: C in absence, exile

Cic. Dom. 83
Bennett (1923) 29; FTP 236; Weinrib (1968) 43 n. 45

115

date: late 87
charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio?
defendant: Q. Lutatius Catulus (7) cos. 102
prosecutor: M. Marius Gratidianus (42) tr. pl. 87 or 86, pr. 85? and 82?¹
outcome: suicide²

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

1 On these dates of the prosecutor’s career, see Sumner, Orators 118-19, and MRR Suppl. 140-41.

2 On the suicides of this period, see Weinrib (1968) 43, n. 45.

116

date: late 87
charge uncertain¹
defendant: L. Cornelius Merula (272) cos. suff. 87
outcome: suicide²

Fast. Cap. Degrassi, p. 75; V. Max. 9.12.5; Vell. 2.22.2; Tac. Ann. 3.58; App. BCiv. 1.74; Flor. Epit. 2.9.16; Dio 31, fr. 102.11a?; August. C.D. 3.27
Brecht (1938) 301

1 Bennett (1923) 27 suggests that Cinna’s removal from the consulate was illegal, and that Merula may have been put on trial for having replaced him illegally.

2 See case #115, n. 2.

117

date: 86
charge: iudicium populi
defendants: Sex. Lucilius (15) tr. pl. 87
two other former tribunes
prosecutor: P. Popillius Laenas (27) tr. pl.
outcome: C; Lucilius thrown from Tarpeian rock, the other two suffered aquae et ignis interdictio

Vell. 2.24.2; Plut. Mar. 45.1; see also Dio 31 fr. 102.12
FTP 235-36; Weinrib (1968) 43 n. 45

118

trials uncertain¹
prosecutor: C. Marius (15) cos. 82
outcome: one tr. pl. decapitated, another tr. pl. thrown from Tarpeian rock, two praetors deprived of fire and water

Dio 31 fr. 102.12

1 The relationship between these trials, if they were indeed trials, and case #117 is difficult to determine from Dio’s account.

119

date: 86
charge: iudicium populi¹
defendant: Q. Mucius Scaevola (22) cos. 95
prosecutor: C. Flavius Fimbria (88) q.? 86, leg. 86-85
outcome: dropped by prosecutor

Cic. S. Rosc. 33; V. Max. 9.11.2

1 Strabo (13.1.27) says that the prosecutor was quaestor. For the theory of quaestorian prosecution see Weinrib (1968) 43 n. 45; Lintott (1971) 696-98. Bauman (1974) 251 n. 34 argues that Weinrib is wrong to suggest that Fimbria could have been a quaestor parricidii.

120

date: 86? 85?¹
claim: civil procedure relating to inheritance?²
defendant: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.III)
L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86 (ORF 70.IV)³
Cn. Papirius Carbo (38) cos. 85, 84, 82
aedile or iudex quaestionis: P. Antistius (18) aed. 86?, iudex quaestionis 85
outcome: A

Cic. Brut. 230; V. Max. 5.3.5, 6.2.8; Sen. Con. 7.2.6; Plut. Pomp. 4.1-3
Gelzer KS 2.125-26

1 See Sumner, Orators 111. P. Antistius was ex-aedile in 82 (Vell. 2.26.2). Having been tribune in 88, he is likely to have been aedile in 86. If he presided over the court as iudex quaestionis, rather than as aedile, the likely date for the trial would be 85, in spite of Plutarch’s statement that the trial took place immediately upon the death of Pompey’s father (87). But in these troubled and abnormal years, a trial presided over by an aedile should not be ruled out; the year 86 therefore remains a possibility.

2 See Shatzman (1972) 194-95. The case seems to have been a civil one, not a criminal case involving peculatus, an issue which would not pertain to the general’s use of booty, and which would probably not involve a general’s son; contra Bona (1960) 163-64. Griffin (CQ 1973) 111 n. 1, taking this as a peculatus trial, accepts 86 as a terminus ante quem for the quaestio de peculatu (see also Kunkel RE 24 [1963] 739 ‘quaestio’) because iudices gave a binding decision, and because of the presence of a iudex quaestionis.

3 It is not certain that Philippus did speak in this case; unfortunately, the correct reading in Brut. 230 is obscure. If Antonio and Philippo are parallel in that sentence, then the sentence cannot mean that Philippus spoke for Pompey in this case, since M. Antonius, having died in 87, could not have appeared in this case. Münzer, RE 14 (1930) 1565 admits the possibility that Philippus’ speech on behalf of Pompey (Plut. Pomp. 2.2) might have occurred at a later date. However, Cicero’s comment that Hortensius was princeps in that case makes more sense if another speaker is mentioned in the same pasage. The phrase cum Philippo sene (if that should be read) must be construed in the sense of ‘accompaniment,’ and so Philippus must have appeared in this case.

121

date: 83
claim: civil suit for missio in possessionem
defendant: P. Quinctius (16)
advocate: M. Iunius Brutus (52) tr. pl.
procurator: Sex. Alfenus (1) e.R.
plaintiff: Sex. Naevius (6)
praetor: P.? Burrenus? (1)¹
outcome: granted

Cic. Quinct. 22-29

1 The praenomen and nomen are uncertain. On the name see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 19 and CQF 192-93, MacAdam and Munday (1983), and MRR Suppl. 35.

122

date: 83 or after
charge: incendium (burning of tabularium, probably the tabularium on the Capitolium in 83)
defendant: Q. Sosius (3) of Picenum, e.R.
outcome: C

Cic. N.D. 3.74

123

date: 83 or after?
charge: peculatus? (destruction of tabularium by fire?)¹
defendant: C. Curtius (5) e.R.
outcome: A

Cic. Rab. Perd. 8; see also Rab. Post. 3-4, 45, N.D. 3.74

1 Mommsen, Strafr. 767 n. 1 suggests that there might possibly be a connection between this case and case #122.

124

threat
date: 80s? by 81
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis? (murder of M. Aurius [5])¹
prosecutor: A. Aurius Melinus (2)
outcome: none, accusator proscribed

Cic. Clu. 24, 25

1 Presumably the prosecution would eventually have been made under this charge, if it had taken place, although this law had not yet been passed at the time when a prosecution was being threatened.

125

date: fifteen¹ years before case #166.
claim: lex Aquilia (de damno iniuria dato; for murder of slave Panurgus, who was owned jointly by the plaintiff and cognitor)
defendant: Q. Flavius (22) of Tarquinii
plaintiff: Q. Roscius Gallus (16) e.R.
cognitor: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)
outcome: defendant gave up farm worth 100,000 sesterces

Cic. Q. Rosc. 32, 38, 53-55
Frier, RRJ 66

1 See Q. Rosc. 37. The number of years is emended by some editors from fifteen to four.

126

date: spring of 81¹
claim: sponsio (dispute over partnership)
defendant: Sex. Naevius (6)
advocate (of defendant): Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.IV)
character witness (for defendant): L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86
plaintiff: P. Quinctius (16)
advocate (of plaintiff): M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 1)
judge: C. Aquillius Gallus (23) pr. 66
jurors (on advisory council): M. Claudius Marcellus (226) pr. uncertain date, = ? M. Claudius Marcellus (227) aed. cur. 91²
L. Lucilius Balbus (19) = ? L. Lucilius (8) pr. 91?³
P. Quinctilius Varus (2)⁴
witness: L. Albius (6)
outcome: against plaintiff⁵
other: 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

1 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 #121). In 81 the praetor Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (135) had ruled that the sponsio should occur.

2 See case #87, n. 2.

3 He was gov. Asia 90 and beginning 89. See Sumner (GRBS 1978) 149-50, MRR Suppl. 128.

4 Cicero’s praise of Varus does not demonstrate that Varus was a senator, pace Sumner (CP 1978) 161; see MRR Suppl. 177.

5 See Kinsey’s comment in his edition of Cicero’s pro Quinctio, p. 5.

127

date: 81
claim: civil suit
defendant: C. Volcacius (Volcatius 3)
urban praetor: Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (135)
outcome: against reus

Cic. Corn. (Asc. 74C)

128

date: after 86?,¹ before case #129
charge: under lex Cornelia? de sicariis et veneficis
iudex quaestionis: M. Fannius (15) pr. 80

Cic. S. Rosc. 11

1 The year 86 is the date of the plebeian aedileship of Fannius. See MRR Suppl. 90.

129

date: late 81-early 80¹
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (parricidium, murder of father Sex. Roscius [6])²
defendant: Sex. Roscius (7)
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 2)
prosecutors: C. Erucius (2) (ORF 79.I)
T. Roscius Magnus (18)
praetor: M. Fannius (15)
witnesses: T. Roscius Capito (12)
T. Roscius Magnus (18)
outcome: A?³

Cic. S. Rosc.; Off. 2.51; Brut. 312; Orat. 107; Quint. Inst. 12.6.4; Plut. Cic. 3.2-4; Gel. 15.28; Vir. Ill. 81.2; Schol. Gronov. D 301-316St
Cloud (1971)

1 On the date, see Kinsey (1967) 64-67.

2 On the status of the father, see Sedgwick (1934), Kinsey (1966) and (1981), and Stroh (1975).

3 Despite the possibility of acquittal, Kinsey (1985) shows that Erucius had a real case to present against the defendant.

130

trial uncertain
date: 80?
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu¹ (misconduct as q. 81)
defendant: P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura (240) cos. 71
outcome: A

Cic. Att. 1.16.9; Plut. Cic. 17.2-3

1 But Plutarch says that the trial (if indeed it was a trial) took place in the Senate.

131

date: 79¹
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sicily, 80)
defendant: M. Aemilius Lepidus (72) cos. 78
prosecutors: Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (86) cos. 60 (ORF 199.I)
Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96) cos. 57 (ORF 120.I)
outcome: dropped, after legibus interrogari²

2 Ver. 3.212; [Asc.] 187St, 259St; see also Cic. 2 Ver. 2.8

1 This date is more probable than 80, when the defendant was still pro-magistrate, pace Münzer RE 3 (1897) 1209, s.v. ‘Caecilius (86).’

2 The legibus interrogari procedure gave the defendant an opportunity to plead ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ before the presiding magistrate, who decided whether the case would go to trial. See [Asc.] 207St, Berger RE 9 (1916) 1728-9.

132

= ? case #133
date: 79 or 78¹
claim: legis actio sacramento (causa liberalis, free status of defendant)²
defendant: Arretina mulier
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 1)
prosecutor: C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 (ORF 80.III)
jurors: decemviri
outcome: for defendant in second actio

Cic. Caec. 97; see also Dom. 79

1 Harris (1971) 274-76 suggests these two dates as possibilities, arguing that Sulla vivo implies that Sulla was alive but not in office. See also Dunn (1902).

2 On the legal issue see Desserteaux (1907), Frier, RRJ 99-100.

133

= ? case #132
date: 79?
claim: iudicium privatum¹
defendant: Titinia (26)
advocates: ? C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75²
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 2)
prosecutors: Ser. Naevius (5)
C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61³ (ORF 86.VI)

Cic. Brut. 217; Orat. 129

1 The fact that the prosecutors claimed that the defendant had cast a spell on them which made them forget their speech does not show that this was the substance of the charge against her. See Crawford, Orations 35-36.

2 The form Cottae in Brut. 217 is probably genitive, i.e. ‘Titinia (the wife) of Cotta;’ thus Cotta probably appeared as patronus. See Douglas, Brutus p. 158.

3 For a reference, see case #82, n. 3.

134

date: 78
claim: civil suit for bonorum possessio
defendant: Cn. Cornelius (23)
plaintiff: Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (99) cos. 52
urban and peregrine praetor: L. Cornelius Sisenna (374)
outcome: for plaintiff

Asc. 74C
Lintott (1977)

135

date: 78
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Cilicia, 80-79)
defendant: Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (135) pr. 81
prosecutor: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56 (ORF 139.I)
witness: C. Verres (1) pr. 74
outcome: C, litis aestimatio of HS 3,000,000
other: the advocate was not Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69, pace [Asc.] 194;¹ (ORF 92.V).

Cic. 1 Ver. 11; 2 Ver. 1.41-42, 63, 72, 77, 95-100; 2 Ver. 2.109; 2 Ver. 3.177; Scaur. 45; Asc. 26, 74C; Juv. 8.105; [Asc.] 194, 206, 208, 234, 242St; Schol. Gronov. B 325, 329, 333St

1 See [Asc.] 234St; Münzer RE 8 (1913) 2472; D.-G. 2.485-86; Gruen (AJP 1966) 347 n. 52; Twyman (1972) 855-56.

136

date: before 77 or 76
claim: lex testamentaria
defendant: L. (Alenus?)(not in RE)
outcome: C?

Cic. N.D. 3.74

137

date: 77?¹
charge: homicide (murder of Asuvius [1])
defendant: Avillius (2)
judge (triumvir capitalis): Q. Manlius (34)²
delatores: liberti Asuvi et non nulli amici
outcome: confession, case dropped in exchange for defendant’s testimony against Oppianicus

Cic. Clu. 36-38

1 Sometime before 74, i.e., the date of case #149.

2 Shackleton Bailey, Studies 50 argues that the triumvir is not the same as the tr. pl. 69.

138

date: 77?¹
charge: homicide (murder of Asuvius [1])
defendant: Statius Albius² Oppianicus (10) e.R.?
judge (triumvir capitalis): Q. Manlius (34)³
delator: Avillius (2)
outcome: A or dismissal
other: Cicero claims bribery by defendant.

Cic. Clu. 36-39

1 The trial occurred sometime before 74, i.e., the date of case #149.

2 Nicolet Ordre équestre 2.756 n. 1 gives the name as Abbius.

3 See case #137, n. 2.

139

date: 77
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis? (misconduct as gov. Hither Spain 78)
defendant: Q. Calidius (5) pr. 79
prosecutor: Q. (Lollius? [14]) e.R.¹
outcome: C
other: suspicion of bribery of jurors by prosecution

Cic. 1 Ver. 38; 2 Ver. 3.63; [Asc.] 219St

1 Cicero gives the prosecutor’s name as Lollius; ps.-Asconius as Gallus. Münzer RE 13 (1927) 1388 argues that [Asc.] 219St has confused this prosecutor with the prosecutor of his son M. Calidius (see case #330).

140

date: 77¹
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia 80-77)
defendant: Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (134) cos. 81 (spoke pro se, ORF 94.I)
advocates: C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 (ORF 80.V)
Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.VII)
prosecutor: C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44
witnesses: from Greek cities
other: trial consisted of divinatio and two actiones.
outcome: A

Cic. Brut. 317; Vell. 2.43.3; V. Max. 8.9.3; Quint. Inst. 12.6.1, 12.7.3-4; Asc. 26C; Plut. Caes. 4.1; Tac. Dial. 34.7; Gel. 4.16.8; Suet. Jul. 4, 49, 55; [Asc.] 194, 234St; Vir. Ill. 78.2
Taylor (1941) 119; Gruen (AJP 1966) 387-89

1 Tac. Dial. 34.7 mistakenly puts this trial in Caesar’s twenty-first year, i.e., 79; see Sumner, Orators 149.

141

date: 76
claim: probably a civil suit (actions committed as prefect in Greece by 84)¹
defendant: C. Antonius (19) cos. 63
plaintiffs: Graeci
advocate (of plaintiffs): C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44 (ORF 121.II)
peregrine praetor: M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) cos. 73
outcome: defendant lost case, some goods sold, appeal made to tribunes

Cic. Tog. Cand. fr. 2; Q. Cic.? Com. Pet. 8; Asc. 84, 87C; Quint. Inst. 12.6.1, 12.7.3, 4; Plut. Caes. 4.1; Juv. 8.105
Mommsen, Strafr. 711 n. 5, 722 n. 3; Taylor (1941) 119

1 Buckland (1937) 43 argues that the defendant did not possess imperium at the time of the acts of which the Greeks complained.

142

date: 76
claim: civil suit
defendant: Safinius Atella (1) (or his pupillus?)
advocate: C. Aelius Paetus Staienus¹ (Staienus [1]) q. 77
other: suspicion that Staienus used bribery

Cic. Clu. 68, 99

1 On the name, see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 101.

143

trial only threatened
date: 75
defendant: C. Verres (1) pr. 74
outcome: dropped
other: suspicion that prosecutor had been bribed

Cic. 2 Ver. 1.101, 4.45
Shackleton Bailey (1970) 164

144

date: 75
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Asia, or leg. Asia 82)¹
defendant: Terentius Varro (see 82) pr. 78?, promag. 77? = ? A. Terentius Varro (82) leg. in Asia 84?-82
advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.VIII)
praetor: L. Turius (2), or L. Furius (18)²
outcome: postponement³

Cic. Brut. 237; [Asc.] 193, 218St; see also Cic. Att. 1.1.2; Hor. S. 2.1.49; [Acro] ad loc.

1 On the magistracy involved and its date, see Magie, RRAM 2.1125 n. 42, and MRR 2.91, 97.

2 On the name see MRR Suppl. 209-10.

3 See case #158, n. 1.

145

date: before 74
claim: actio liberalis? (Roman citizenship of Martiales of Larinum)
for citizenship: Statius Albius¹ Oppianicus (10) e.R.
against citizenship: A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R.
outcome: perhaps in favor of citizenship²

Cic. Clu. 43-44

1 See case #138, n. 2.

2 Cicero’s failure to mention the outcome may indicate that his client Cluentius was unsuccessful.

146

date: before 74 (the date of Cotta’s command)
defendant: M. Canuleius (10)
advocates: C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 (ORF 80.IV)
Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.VI)

Cic. Brut. 317

147

date: 74
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (attempt to poison Cluentius)
defendant: Scamander (3) libertus
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 4)
prosecutors: P. Cannutius (2) (subscr.) (ORF 114.II)
A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. (nom. del.) iudex quaestionis: C. Iunius (15) aed. 75
juror: C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (Staienus [1]) q. 77¹
witnesses: M. Baebius (18) sen.
P. Quinctilius Varus (2)² other: one actio
outcome: C; all jurors voted C except Staienus, who voted A.

Cic. Clu. 46-56, 105; Quint. Inst. 11.1.74

1 For a reference, see case #142, n. 1.

2 See case #126, n. 4.

148

date: 74
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (attempt to poison Cluentius)
defendant: C. Fabricius (2) of Alatrium
advocates: C. Caepasius (1) q. before 70 (ORF 115.I)
L. Caepasius (1) q. before 70 (ORF 116.I) prosecutors: P. Cannutius (2) (subscr.) (ORF 114.II)
A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. (nom. del.) iudex quaestionis: C. Iunius (15) aed. 75
jurors: all the same as in case #147
outcome: C, unanimous vote

Cic. Clu. 56-61, 86, 105, 189; Quint. Inst. 6.3.39-40

149

iudicium Iunianum
date: 74
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (poison attempts)
defendant: Statius Albius¹ Oppianicus (10) e.R.
advocate: L. Quinctius (12) tr. pl. 74, pr. 68 (ORF 107.I)
prosecutors: P. Cannutius (2) (subscr.) (ORF 114.II)
A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. (nom. del.) iudex quaestionis: C. Iunius (15) aed. 75?²
jurors (thirty-two in all): C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (Staienus [1]) q. 77 (voted C)³
M’. Aquillius (not in RE) sen.
? M. Atilius Bulbus (34) sen. (voted C)⁴
M. Caesonius (1) pr. by 66
L. Cassius Longinus (13)⁵ pr. 66 (voted NL)
C. Caudinus (not in RE)⁶ sen. (voted NL)
L. Caulius Mergus (not in RE) sen. (voted NL)
Q. Considius (7) sen. (voted NL)
Cn. Egnatius (8)⁷ sen. (voted C)
C. Fidiculanius Falcula (1, see also RE 17 [1937] 1443) sen. (voted C)
Ti. Gutta (1) sen. (voted C)
Cn. Heiulius? (Heius 3)⁸ sen. (voted NL)
? C. Herennius (7)⁹ sen. (voted C)
M. Minucius Basilus (39) sen. (voted C)
L. Octavius Balbus (45), = ? P. Octavius Balbus (46)¹⁰ sen. (voted NL)
? C. Popillius (3) sen. (voted C)¹¹
P. Popillius (10) sen. (voted C)
P. Saturius (1) sen. (voted NL)
P. Septimius Scaevola (51) sen. (voted C)
outcome: C¹²

Cic. 1 Ver. 29, 39; 2 Ver. 1.157; 2 Ver. 2.31, 79; Caec. 28, 29; Clu. 66-77, 105; Quint. Inst. 4.5.11; [Asc.] 206, 216, 219, 255, 263St; Schol. Gronov. B 339St; Schol. Pers. 2.19; see also Cic. Brut. 241, 244, 251

1 See case #138, n. 2.

2 He was condemned to pay a fine for failure to observe formalities correctly. See case #153.

3 On the name, see case #142, n. 1.

4 Cic. 1 Ver. 39 says that M. Atilius, C. Herennius, and C. Popillius had accepted bribes as jurors. See Syme (Historia 4 [1955] 63 = RP 2.564) and Shackleton Bailey, Studies 44. This could have been the trial. Staienus is surely the juror, mentioned at the end of this sentence, described as accepting bribes from both the prosecutor and defense.

5 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 24, MRR Suppl. 50.

6 C. Caudinus was not a Cornelius Lentulus. See Wiseman (1971) 223, Gruen, LGRR 202 n. 155, Shackleton Bailey, Studies 25, MRR Suppl. 53.

7 See Syme (Historia 1955) 61 = RP 1.280-81, Shackleton Bailey, Studies 36.

8 The form ‘Heiulius’ is a suggestion made in Shackleton Bailey, Studies 43.

9 See n. 4 above.

10 These two names probably refer to one person with the praenomen Lucius. See Wiseman (1964) 124, Gruen, LGRR 202 n. 155, Shackleton Bailey, Studies 56, MRR Suppl. 151. This suggestion was originally put forward by Münzer in RE 17 (1937) 1828.

11 See n. 4 above.

12 One more vote for acquittal would have prevented condemnation (Cic. Caec. 29).

150

date: 74¹
claim: civil suit
advocate: C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (Staienus [1])² q. 77

Cic. Clu. 74

1 This case was simultaneous with case #149.

2 For a reference, see case #142, n. 1.

151

date: 74
claim: civil suit (inheritance)¹
praetor: C. Verres (1)

2 Ver. 1.107-13, 118

1 The goods of P. Annius Asellus (31) had been granted to the reversionary heir, instead of to the deceased’s daughter, Annia (102), by the retroactive application of the lex Voconia.

152

date: 74
claim: civil suit (inheritance)¹
praetor: C. Verres (1)

2 Ver. 1.115-17

1 The goods of deceased Minucius (not in RE) were to go to a man who claimed to be heir, rather than to the gens Minucia.

153

date: 74, end of year, before Dec. 10
charge: iudicium populi (failure to take oath or illegal seating of juror during tenure as iudex quaestionis)
defendant: C. Iunius (15) aed. 75
advocates: M. Pupius Piso Frugi (Calpurnianus)(10) cos. 61
or L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (98)? pr. 74 prosecutor: L. Quinctius (12) tr. pl. 74, pr. 68 (ORF 107.III)
outcome: C, multa

Cic. 1 Ver. 29; 2 Ver. 1.157-58; Cic. Clu. 89-96, 103, 108, 119, 139; [Asc.] 216St; Schol. Gronov. C 351St

154

date: 74, before Dec. 10
charge: iudicium populi, for multa
defendant: C. Fidiculanius Falcula (1, see also RE 17 [1937] 443) sen.
prosecutor: L. Quinctius (12) tr. pl. 74, pr. 68 (ORF 107.IV)
outcome: uncertain¹

Cic. Caec. 29; Clu. 103, 108

1 The defendant was tried again in 73. See case #170.

155

date: around 74
charge: uncertain (misconduct as juror?)
defendant: M. Caesonius (1) pr. by 66
outcome: A

[Asc.] 216St; see also Cic. 1 Ver. 29

156

date: 74
claim: civil suit (over succession)
defendant: M. Octavius Ligus (69) sen.
advocate: L. Gellius Publicola (17) cos. 72, cens. 70 (ORF 101.II)
procurator: L. (Octavius) Ligus (68) sen.?
plaintiff: Sulpicia (109)
urban praetor: C. Verres (1)

Cic. 2 Ver. 1.125-27, 133; 2 Ver. 2.119

157

date: 74
charge: lex Cornelia de tribunis plebis (intercessio contrary to this law)

defendant: Q. Opimius (11) tr. pl. 75
prosecutors?:¹ Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69
Q. Lutatius Catulus (8) cos. 78, cens. 65
C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61² urban praetor: C. Verres (1)
outcome: C, loss of civic status, property sold

Cic. 2 Ver. 1.155-57; [Asc.] 255St; Schol. Gronov. B 341

1 Cicero says that a few men (identified by ps.-Asconius as the above three) brought about the ruin of Opimius. Whether they did so as prosecutors themselves is open to question.

2 The participation of C. Scribonius Curio in this trial is particularly problematic, since he is thought to have been gov. Macedonia 75-73.

158

date: 74¹
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis? (misconduct as gov. Asia 77 to early 75?)
defendant: (A.?) Terentius Varro (82) pr. 78?
advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.VIII)
prosecutor: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens. 50 (ORF 130.I)
praetor: P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura (240) cos. 71
outcome: A, with many charges of corruption (bribery, improperly colored voting tablets)²

Cic. Div. Caec. 24; 1 Ver. 17, 35, 40; Clu. 130; [Asc.] 193, 218St; Schol. Gronov. B 336St, C 349St; [Acro] on Hor. S. 2.1.49

1 The trial occurred after the iudicium Iunianum. See Magie, RRAM 2.1125, n. 42. See case #144, and also see Münzer RE 2.5 (1934) 679 for the suggestion that there were two hearings in 76 and 75.

2 For the argument that each juror received three voting tablets, one of which was improperly colored, see Vince (1893).

159

date: between 74 and 70
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (mutiny as q. 77 against Mam. Aemilius Lepidus [80] cos. 67)
defendant: C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (Staienus [1]) q. 77¹
prosecutors: P. Cominius (11) e.R. (ORF 143.I)
C. (or L.?) Cominius (4 = ? 8)² e.R. (ORF 144.I)
witnesses: legati, praefecti, tr. mil. of Mam. Aemilius Lepidus (80) cos. 67 outcome: C

Cic. 2 Ver. 2.79; Clu. 99, 100; Brut. 241; [Asc.] 216St

1 On the name, see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 101.

2 See Münzer RE 4 (1900) 607-8.

160

date: between 74?¹ and 70
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (tampering with legion in Illyria)
defendant: M. Atilius Bulbus (34) sen.
witnesses: many
outcome: C

Cic. 1 Ver. 39; 2 Ver. 2.79; Clu. 71, 72, 75, 97

1 See case #162 n. 1.

161

date: between 74 and 70
charge: lex Cornelia de ambitu
defendant: Ti. Gutta (1) sen.
prosecutors: people condemned for electoral bribery (ambitus condemnati)
outcome: C

Cic. Clu. 98, 103, 127; Quint. Inst. 5.10.108; [Asc.] 216St

162

date: between 74¹ and 70
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu (receiving bribe ob rem iudicandam as juror in 74[?])
defendant: C. Herennius = ? C. Herennius (7) tr. pl. 88? 80?²
outcome: C

Cic. 1 Ver. 39; Plut. Pomp. 18; see also Sal. Hist. 2.98.6M

1 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 (#175), and M. Atilius Bulbus (#160) are to be separated from the juror (clearly Staienus) who accepted bribes from both sides when Verres was praetor (74 B.C.). Therefore trials #160, #162, and #175 do not have to be dated to 74 B.C.

2 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.

163

date: 74, or shortly after
claim: civil suit (possibly condictio?, i.e., a claim of obligation to give or do something)
defendant: C. Mustius (2) e.R.
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 5)
outcome: A

Cic. 2 Ver. 1.135-39; [Asc.] 252St
D.-G. 5.271 n. 2

164

date: three years before case #166
claim: compromissum? (claim of HS 50,000)
defendant: Q. Roscius Gallus (16) e.R.
plaintiff: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)
arbiter: C. Calpurnius Piso (63) cos. 67¹
outcome: defendant to pay HS 100,000 to plaintiff, but the latter to pay half of any damages received by him from Flavius (see case #165)

Cic. Q. Rosc. 12, 13, 37, 38

1 See case #166, n. 1.

165

date: three years before case #166
claim: civil suit (condictio? restipulatio?)
defendant: Q. Flavius of Tarquinii (22)
plaintiff: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)
juror: C. Cluvius (3) e.R.
outcome: HS 100,000 paid to Fannius

Cic. Q. Rosc. 42, 45

166

date: between 76 and 68¹
claim: civil suit (condictio certae pecuniae)² for HS 50,000
defendant: Q. Roscius Gallus (16) e.R.
advocate of defendant: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 3)
plaintiff: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)
advocate of plaintiff: P. Saturius (1) (ORF 106.I)
juror: C. Calpurnius Piso (63) cos. 67

witnesses: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)
C. Luscius Ocrea (2) sen.
C. Manilius (10), or T. Manlius (16) sen.³
M. Perperna (5) cos. 92, cens. 86

Cic. Q. Rosc.; see also Macr. 3.14.13
Baron (1880); Axer (Philologus 1977), (Eos 1977); Stroh (1975) 104-56

1 There are essentialy three passages which help establish the date of this trial: Q. Rosc. 33, 37, and 44. According to the first, the defendant had bought the farm at a time of great economic uncertainty; these rei publicae calamitates could presumably fit any year between the Social War of 91 and Sulla’s victory of 81. Since, according to the second passage, these events happened fifteen years before the trial, the two passages together yield a date between 76 and 66. Furthermore, the fact that Cicero speaks of mea adulescentia in the third passage may establish 66, the year of his praetorship, as a terminus ante quem. We can rule out 75, Cicero’s year in Sicily. C. Piso was consul in 67 and praetor probably in 72. See Frier (1983) 224-25, and MRR Suppl. 46. Presumably Piso could not have served in the year of his praetorship, either as iudex in this trial, or as arbiter in case #164 three years earlier.

2 See Greenidge LP App. II.2.

3 See Sumner, Orators 131.

167

date: 73¹
charge: apud pontifices, for incestum (sexual relations with L. Sergius Catilina [23] pr. 68)²
defendant(s): Fabia (172) Vestal Virgin (and others?)
advocates: Q. Lutatius Catulus (8) cos. 78, pont. by 73, cens. 65
M. Pupius Piso Frugi (Calpurnianus) (10) pr. 72?, cos. 61 (ORF 104.I)
prosecutor?:³ P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
outcome: A

Cic. Catil. 3.9; Brut. 236; Sal. Cat. 15.1; Q. Cic.? Com. Pet. 10; Asc. 91C; Plut. Cat. Min. 19.3; Schol. Gron. 287St; Oros. 6.3.1

1 See MRR 2.107-8.

2 Only Orosius provides evidence that Catiline himself was prosecuted (see Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.319).

3 Moreau (1982) 233-39 attributes the Plutarch passage to Clodius’ abuse of Fabia before a contio in 61 after case #236, rather than to a formal prosecution by Clodius in 73. If this interpretation is correct, it undermines the analysis of Epstein (1986) 232-3 on this trial.

168

date: 73?¹
charge: apud pontifices, for incestum (sexual relations with M. Licinius Crassus [68] cos. 70, 55, cens. 65)
defendant: Licinia (185) Vestal Virgin
advocate: M. Pupius Piso Frugi (Calpurnianus) (10) pr. 72?, cos. 61 (ORF 104.I)
prosecutor: Plautius (or Plotius?) (4), = ? Plautius (3) tr. pl. 70?²
outcome: A

Cic. Catil. 3.9; Plut. Crass. 1.2; see also comp. Nicias Crass. 1.2

1 The date is probably the same as the one for case #169.

2 See Taylor (1941) 121 n. 32; MRR 2.130 n. 4.

169

date: 73?¹
charge: apud pontifices, for incestum
defendant: M. Licinius Crassus (68) pr. 73?² cos. 70, 55, cens. 65
outcome: A³

Plut. Crass. 1.2; de capienda ex inimicis utilitate 6; see also comp. Nicias Crass. 1.2

1 The date is probably the same as the one for case #168.

2 See MRR Suppl. 120.

3 Plutarch’s language in Crassus (hupo tōn dikastōn apheithē) implies a verdict, pace Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.319.

170

date: 73
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (improper conduct as juror in case #149)
defendant: C. Fidiculanius Falcula (1) sen.
outcome: A, in first actio

Cic. 1 Ver. 39; Caec. 29; Clu. 103, 104, 108, 112, 114; [Asc.] 219St; Schol. Gronov. B 339St

171

date: 73?¹
charge: iudicium populi (de locis religiosis ac de lucis violatis)²
defendant: C. Rabirius (5) sen.
prosecutor: C. Licinius Macer (112) tr. pl. 73, pr. by 68 (ORF 110.II)
outcome: A

Cic. Rab. Perd. 7

1 One cannot assume that Macer was tr. pl. when he conducted this prosecution (Vonder Mühll RE 1A [1914] 24). If not, then the trial may perhaps not have been a iudicium populi. But if he was tr. pl. at this time, then a tribunician prosecution is very plausible.

2 The defendant was charged with violating sacred places and groves.

172

date: 72
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct in Apulia?)¹
defendant: P. Septimius Scaevola (51) sen.
praetor: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69
witnesses: Apulians
outcome: C
other: In litis aestimatio, high damages were assessed against defendant because of bribes allegedly accepted by him in iudicium Iunianum (case #149).

Cic. 1 Ver. 38; Clu. 115-16

1 Venturini (1979) 84 points out that the appearance of Apulians (by this time Roman citizens) in an extortion case suggests that Roman citizens could be the victims under the lex Cornelia de repetundis.

173

date: 71?¹
claim: civil suit, apud recuperatores, damnum datum vi hominibus armatis (land dispute)²
defendant: P. Fabius (28)
advocate (for defendant): L. Quinctius (12) tr. pl. 74, pr. 68 (ORF 107.V)
plaintiff: M. Tullius (12)
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 7)
praetor: ? L. Caecilius Metellus (74) pr. 71, cos. 68³
outcome: uncertain⁴
other: two actiones

Cic. Tul.; Tac. Dial. 20.1
Greenidge (1901) App. II.3

1 The date 71 is more likely than 72 because Thurii was held by Spartacus in 72 (App. BCiv. 1.117); see Tul. 14, 19. However, L. Quinctius was a legate of Crassus in 71 (Fron. Str. 2.5.23; Plut. Crass. 11.4). See Frier (1983) 225, Frier, RRJ 52 n. 39.

2 See Frier, RRJ 79-80.

3 Another possible alternative for the presiding praetor is Q. Caecilius Metellus (Creticus) (87) pr. 73? cos. 69; see Balzarini (1968) 323 n. 2, and Frier (1983) 224-25.

4 Münzer RE (1939) 804 describes Cicero’s speech as ‘probably successful.’ But in fact we have no definite information on the outcome.

174

date: before 70, after 76?¹
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Achaea 87-80?)
defendant: P. Gabinius (13) pr. 89?²
prosecutor: L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (90) cos. 58, cens. 50
or L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (98) pr. 74³ outcome: C
other: Q. Caecilius Niger (101) q. 73 defeated in divinatio⁴

Cic. Div. Caec. 64; Arch. 9; Fenestella fr. 18 Peter = Lactant. Div. Inst. 1.6.14
D.-G. 3.58

1 In 70, Cicero stated that this trial occurred nuper, which provides a vague terminus ante quem. A man named Gabinius was quindecimvir sacris faciundis, and therefore presumably free of condemnation, in 76 according to Lactantius.

2 The date of 89 is argued by Keaveney and Madden (1983) and accepted by MRR Suppl. 98, against the view of Badian, Studies 75-80, that 88 was the year of his praetorship.

3 Münzer RE 3 (1899) 1395 and Gruen (1968) 162 favor Frugi; Badian Studies 82 favors Caesoninus.

4 Marshall (Philologus 1977) 84 reasons that this case cannot be case #181, because the divinatio in this case occurred before the divinatio in the trial of Verres, whereas the divinatio in case #181 occurred after the trial of Verres.

175

date: by 70¹
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu
defendant: C. Popillius (3) sen.
outcome: C

Cic. 1 Ver. 39

1 On the date see case #162 n. 1.

176

trial perhaps only threatened
date: 70
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sicily 73-71)
defendant: C. Verres (1) pr. 74
prosecutor: Q. Lollius (14) e.R.
outcome: dropped, Lollius killed on way to Sicily¹

Cic. 2 Ver. 3.61-63

1 Cicero claims that Lollius was killed on Verres’ orders, because Lollius was about to prosecute Verres. Because neither of these assertions is provable, it is uncertain whether Lollius did intend to prosecute Verres.

177

date: ca Jan.-ca Oct. 70¹
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sicily 73-71)
defendant: C. Verres (1) pr. 74
advocates: 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)²
prosecutor: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 6-11, 123) (nom. del.)
praetor: M’. Acilius Glabrio (38) cos. 67, cens. 64?³
jurors: M. Caecilius Metellus (78) pr. 69
M. Caesonius (1) pr. by 66
L. Cassius Longinus (13) pr. 66⁴
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.⁵ Octavius Balbus (45)
P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55
P. Sulpicius (15) q. 69⁶
Q. Titinius (17) sen.
Cn. Tremellius Scrofa (5) tr. mil. 69, pr. by early 50s⁷ jurors rejected by defense: C. Cassius (Longinus?) (58) cos. 73
P. Cervius (1) leg. Sicily 72?⁸
Q. Considius (7) sen.
Q. Iunius (30) sen.
Sex. Peducaeus (5) pr. 77
P. Sulpicius Galba (55) pr. 66⁹ jurors rejected by prosecution: M. Lucretius (9) sen.,¹⁰ and others¹¹ 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)
legates: from Aetna, Agyrium, Catina, Centuripa, Halaesa, Herbita, Melita, Panhormus
outcome: C, after actio prima¹² 3,000,000 HS assessed at litis aestimatio
other: Q. Caecilius Niger (101), q. Sicily 73, was defeated in divinatio. He was supported by L. Appuleius (30) pr. 59,¹³ and (A.?) Allienus (1) pr. 49,¹⁴ as subscriptores. Cicero was granted 110 days to collect evidence.

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

1 On the date, see Marinone (1950) 8-14.

2 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.

3 See MRR Suppl. 2.

4 For references, see case #149, n. 4.

5 His praenomen is not ‘P.’ See case #149, n. 9.

6 See Box (1942) 72, Gabba (1976) 60-61, and MRR Suppl. 200.

7 See MRR Suppl. 208.

8 See Marinone (1965-66) 238-46; MRR Suppl. 43, 53.

9 His curule aedileship in 69 and candidacy for consulate of 63 fix his praetorship to 66.

10 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.

11 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).

12 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.

13 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 14, MRR Suppl. 23.

14 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 8.

178

threatened
date: 70
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu (money taken as q. 84, and as gov. Sicily 73-71)
defendant: C. Verres (1) pr. 74
prosecutor: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63

Cic. 2 Ver. 1.11

179

trial only threatened
date: 70
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (military mismanagement as gov. Sicily 73-71)
defendant: C. Verres (1) pr. 74
prosecutor: M. Tullius (29) Cicero cos. 63

Cic. 2 Ver. 1.12, 5.79

180

trial only threatened
date: 70
charge: iudicium populi
defendant: C. Verres (1) pr. 74
prosecutor: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63

Cic. 2 Ver. 1.13-14; 2 Ver. 5.173, 179

181

date: 70¹
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia, including Achaea)
defendant: L. Hostilius (13) Dasianus? tr. pl. 68?
or Oppius? (4)
or Piso
or C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61,² procos. Macedonia 75-72 prosecutors: Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos? (96) cos. 57
? Oppius (4)
Rupilius (2) outcome: dropped³
other: The prosecutor was given 108 days to collect evidence, but he never went to the province.

Cic. 1 Ver. 6, 9; 2 Ver. 1.30; Sal. Hist. 4.55M; [Asc.] 207St, 232St; Schol. Gronov. B 331St

1 See case #182, and #174 n. 4. This prosecution was designed to precede, and thereby delay, the prosecution of Verres (#177).

2 For a reference, see case #82, n. 3.

3 Griffin (1973) 213 n. 165 argues that there is nothing to indicate that the case was not pursued to acquittal, but it is quite possible that the prosecutor, having failed to delay the trial of Verres (case #177), dropped the case.

182

= ? case #181¹
date: 70?
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. perhaps for Macedonia, including Achaea 75-72)
defendant: C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61²
prosecutor: Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96) cos. 57
outcome: dropped by mutual agreement

Asc. 62-64; [Asc.] 207, 232St; Schol. Gron. B 331St

1 Münzer RE 2A (1921) 864-65, Gelzer (1969) 38 n. 27, and Marshall (Philologus 1977) suggest that this is case #181, 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.

2 For a reference, see case #82, n. 3.

183

date: 70?
claim: causa liberalis (see case #182)
outcome: dropped by mutual agreement between Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96) cos. 57, who claimed a citizen as his slave, and C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61,¹ who furnished an assertor libertatis for this citizen.

Asc. 62-64C

1 See case #82, n. 3.

184

date: 70, post legem tribuniciam (de tribunicia potestate? lex Plotia de vi)
defendant: senator tenuissimus
outcome: C

Cic. 1 Ver. 46; [Asc.] 221St

185

date: between 70 and 66
charge: lex Cornelia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for tribunate?)
defendant: P. Popillius (10) sen.
or C. Popillius (4) tr. pl. 68? = ? C. Popillius (5) tr. mil. 72? 71?¹ laudator: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (216) cos. 72, cens. 70²
outcome: C

Cic. Clu. 98, 131, 132; Quint. Inst. 5.10.108; see also CIL 1².2.744

1 See MRR Suppl. 168 (cf. 105), and case #175. Note that the codices at Clu. 131 give his praenomen as L.

2 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 112.

186

date: 69?¹
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as q. 84, as gov. Gaul 75-73 or 74-72)²
defendant: M. Fonteius (12) pr. 76? 75?
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 10)
prosecutors: M. Fabius (26) (subscr.)
M. Plaetorius Cestianus (16)³ pr. 64? (nom. del.) witnesses: Indutiomarus (1)
Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 laudatores: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
people of Narbo, Massilia outcome: uncertain whether A or C⁴
other: two actiones

Cic. Font.; Att. 1.6.1; Sal. Hist. 3.46M; Quint. Inst. 6.3.51

1 The trial must have occurred after the lex Aurelia of 70 was passed, since equites, as well as senators, were in court (Font. 36).

2 On the offenses charged, see Jouanique (1960); Alexander (1982) 158. On the years, see Badian (1966) 911-12, and MRR Suppl. 93.

3 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 123.

4 The fact that Fonteius (if that name is the correct reading) bought a house in Naples (from Cicero?) may suggest that he was acquitted, either because he had the money for the purchase, and/or because he was rewarding Cicero for a successful defense. But it could also imply exile from Rome due to condemnation.

187

date: 69¹
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu? (theft of supplies, mutiny)
defendant: P. Oppius (17) q. 74
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 69, 70)
jurors: partly equites
outcome: uncertain²

Sal. Hist. 3.59M; Quint. Inst. 5.10.69, 5.13.17, 20-21, and 30, 6.5.10, 11.1.67; Dio 36.40.3-4; [Asc.] 236St
Ward (1968) 805

1 The trial occurred after the passage of the lex Aurelia, and before the trial of M. Aurelius Cotta (case #192). See D.-G. 5.367-68; Gruen (AJP 1971) 14 n. 61.

2 Oppius’ disappearance from the political scene might suggest a condemnation, but we know nothing more which might indicate the outcome (see Münzer RE 18 [1939] 740).

188

date: 69 or 68?¹
defendant: Manilius Crispus (23) = ? C. Manilius (10) tr. pl. 66
advocate?: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
prosecutor: Cn. Calpurnius Piso (69) q. 65-64

V. Max. 6.2.4

1 See Gruen (CSCA 1968) 160-62.

189

date: 69?¹
claim: sponsio, unde vi hominibus coactis armatisve (dispute over land)
defendant: Sex. Aebutius (9)
advocate (for defendant): C. Calpurnius Piso (63) cos. 67 (ORF 108.I)
plaintiff: A. Caecina (6) of Volaterra (e.R.)
advocate (for plaintiff): M. Tullius Cicero (29) aed. pl. 69 (Sch. 13)
urban praetor: P. Cornelius Dolabella (140) pr. 69 or 68²
jurors: recuperatores
jurisconsult (for defendant): ? Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (95) cos. 51³
jurisconsult (for plaintiff): C. Aquillius Gallus (23) pr. 66
witnesses: A. Atilius (10)
L. Atilius (17)
L. Caelius (8)
P. Caesennius (3)
Sex. Clodius Phormio (43)
C. Fidiculanius Falcula (1) sen. in 74
P. Memmius (17)
P. Rutilius (10)
A. Terentius (17)
P. Vetilius (2) other: three actiones (two non liquet votes)
outcome: in favor of the plaintiff?⁴

Cic. Caec.; Orat. 102; Quint. Inst. 6.3.56; see also Cic. Fam. 6.6.3; 6.9.1; 13.66.1
D.-G. 5.360; Greenidge LP App. II.4; Harris (1971) 276-84

1 The date 68 is also possible. See MRR 2.132, 2.142 n. 9. Nicosia (1965) 149-52 incorrectly argues for a date by 71; see also Frier (1983) 222-27 and RRJ 45-46; and MRR Suppl. 65.

2 The dating of this case depends on the dating of Dolabella’s praetorship. See n. 1.

3 This name is the suggestion of Frier (RRJ l53-55) for the identity of the jurisconsult mentioned at Caec. 79. He also considers as possibilities P. Orbius (3) pr. 65 and A. Cascellius (4) q. before 73.

4 See Frier, RRJ 231-32.

190

date: 68
charge: lex Cornelia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate)
defendant: C. Calpurnius Piso (63) cos. 67
outcome: aborted by bribery

Sal. Hist. 4.81M; Dio 36.38.3
Shackleton Bailey (1970) 164

191

date: before 67 (death of Sisenna)
defendant: C. Hirtilius (Hirtuleius 2)
advocate: L. Cornelius Sisenna (374) pr. 78 (ORF 89.II)
prosecutor: C. Rusius (1)

Cic. Brut. 259-60

192

date: 67 or after
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu¹ or lex Cornelia de repetundis² (misconduct as gov. Bithynia-Pontus 73-70)
defendant: M. Aurelius Cotta (107) cos. 74
prosecutor: C. Papirius Carbo (35) pr. 62
outcome: C
other: Carbo received consular insignia as a reward³

V. Max. 5.4.4; Memnon 39.3-4 in FGrH 3B 367; Dio 36.40.3-4

1 See Klebs RE 2 (1896) 2489.

2 Borzsák RE 18 (1939) 1112.

3 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.

193

date: 67?¹
charge: uncertain²
defendant: D. Matrinius (2)
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 11)
jurors: C. Flaminius (4) aed. cur. 68 or 67
M. Iunius (25) pr. 67?
M. Plaetorius Cestianus (16)³ pr. 64?
Q. Publicius (13) pr. 67?⁴

Cic. Clu. 126

1 See D.-G. 5.357 n. 7; MRR 2.150 n. 3; Crawford, Orations p. 59.

2 Mommsen (StR. 1.339 n. 5) claims that this is a Disciplinarprozess.

3 For a reference, see case #186, n. 3.

4 Frier (1983) 228 expresses doubt that he was praetor in this year.

194

date: before 66
claim: actio furti
defendants: servi of A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R.
plaintiff: Ennius¹

Cic. Clu. 163

1 See RE 5 (1905) 2588.

195

date: 66, completed before July
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as promagistrate 67?)
defendant: C. Licinius Macer (112) pr. by 68
praetor: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63¹
outcome: C, suicide

Cic. Att. 1.4.2; V. Max. 9.12.7; Plut. Cic. 9.1-2

1 See Crawford, Orations App. II.1.

196

date: 66
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu (de pecuniis residuis)¹ (money taken by father, L. Cornelius Sulla Felix (392) cos. 88, 80, from treasury)

defendant: Faustus Cornelius Sulla (377) q. 54
prosecutor: tr. pl. 66
praetor: C. Orchivius (l)
outcome: jurors refused case²

Cic. Clu. 94; Mur. 42; Asc. 73C

1 See Bona (1960) 161-63; Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 56-57.

2 It is rather surprising to read in Cic. Clu. 94 that it was the jurors who refused the case: illi iudices statuerunt iniqua condicione reum causam dicere.... According to Mommsen, Strafr. 372 n. 2, this particular prosecutor was rejected in a divinatio.

197

date: 66
claim: actio furti
defendant: A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R.
prosecutor: Ennius¹
outcome: undecided at time of case #198

Cic. Clu. 163

1 For a reference, see case #194, n. 1.

198

date: 66
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (‘judicial murder’¹ and/or poison attempts)
defendant: A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R.
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) pr. 66, cos. 63 (Sch. 15)
prosecutors: Statius Albius² Oppianicus (8) e.R. (nom. del.)
T. Attius³ (Accius 1a RE Supp. I) of Pisaurum e.R. (ORF 145.I) juror: P. Volumnius (6) sen.?
witnesses: L. Plaetorius (Cestianus?) (14) q. 71⁴
Cn. Tudicius (1) sen. laudatores: Cn. Tudicius (1) sen.
people of Bovianum, Ferentum, Luceria, Marrucia, Samnium, Teanum outcome: A

Cic. Clu.; Brut. 271; Quint. Inst. 2.17.21, 4.5.11, 11.1.61-63 and 74; Tryph. Dig. 48.19.39; see also Plin. Ep. 1.20.8
Humbert (1938); Hoenigswald (1962); van Ooteghem (1969); Classen (1972); Kumaniecki (1970)

1 Pugliese (1970) argues that this did not constitute a formal charge; Stroh (1975) 228-42, that it did. See also Alexander (1982) 162-63.

2 See case #138, n. 2.

3 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies .

4 See Hersh and Walker (1984), Table 2.

199

date: 66, same time as case #198
charge: lex Calpurnia de ambitu
praetor: C. Aquillius Gallus (23)

Cic. Clu. 147

200

date: 66
charge: lex Calpurnia de ambitu (campaign for consulate of 65)
defendant: P. Autronius Paetus (7) cos. des. 65
prosecutor: L. Aurelius Cotta (102) cos. 65, cens. 64
praetor: C. Aquillius Gallus (23)
outcome: C

Cic. Sul. 15; Sal. Cat. 18.2; Liv. Per. 101; Asc. 75, 88C; Suet. Jul. 9; Dio 36.44.3, 37.25.3

201

date: 66
charge: lex Calpurnia de ambitu (campaign for consulate of 65)
defendant: P. Cornelius Sulla (386) cos. des. 65
prosecutors: L. Manlius Torquatus (79) cos. 65 (nom. del.)¹
L. Manlius Torquatus (80) pr. 50 or 49 (subscr.)² outcome: C

Cic. Sul. 15, 49, 50, 90; Fin. 2.62; Sal. Cat. 18.2; Liv. Per. 101; Asc. 75, 88C; Suet. Jul. 9; Dio 36.44.3, 37.25.3

1 Badian Studies 248, McDermott (1969) 242 n. 2, and Marshall, Asconius 262 accept the traditional view that Asconius has made an error, confusing the Torquati, father and son. However, Cicero’s words do not necessarily conflict with the testimony of Asconius. Asconius says that L. Torquatus (the father) and L. Cotta had condemned (damnarant) their rivals in the consular elections in 66 for 65. Cicero in the pro Sulla refers to the attack from both Torquati, father and son, against P. Sulla. The phrase insignia honoris ad te (viz. the younger Torquatus) delata sunt (50) could refer to the consular insignia which, because of the prosecution and the second election, made their way to the family of the Torquati, rather than to praemia gained by a successful prosecution led by the younger Torquatus. Therefore, there is nothing in the Ciceronian passages which positively contradicts the apparent belief of Asconius that the father was the chief prosecutor. The son would have then been the subscriptor. See Mello (1963) 51 n. 59; Alexander (1985) 26-27 and n. 20. Münzer, in his articles on each Torquatus (79, 80: RE 14 [1928] 1201 and 1203), has the elder Torquatus as the principal accuser of Paetus (see case #200), and Cotta as the principal accuser of Sulla, the latter with help from the younger Torquatus as subscriptor. He is followed by Gray (1979) 64.

2 See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 4.342-43, and MRR Suppl. 136.

202

date: 66? (by 63)
charge: lex Calpurnia de ambitu
defendant: L. Vargunteius (3) sen.
advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XIII)
praetor: C. Aquillius Gallus (23)
outcome: C?, expulsion from Senate¹

Cic. Sul. 6; see also Catil. 1.9; Sal. Cat. 28.1

1 According to Linderski (1963), Vargunteius was expelled from the Senate and then made an eques; contra Nicolet, Ordre équestre 2.1060-61.

203

date: 66
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (conduct as tr. pl. in assemblies)
defendant: C. Cornelius (18) tr. pl. 67
prosecutors: P. Cominius (11) e.R. (nom. del.)
C. (or L.?)¹ Cominius (4, = ? 8) of Spoletium (subscr.) praetor: L. (or P.?)² Cassius Longinus (64)
outcome: 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)

1 Asc. 59.18C has ‘C.’; Cic. Clu. 100 has ‘L.’ See Badian, Studies 248, Marshall, Asconius 222.

2 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.

204

date: 66
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu? iudicium populi? (misconduct as q. or leg. 83)
defendant: M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) cos. 73
prosecutor: C. Memmius (8) tr. pl. 66 or 65¹ pr. 58 (ORF 125.I)
outcome: A

Plut. Luc. 37.1; see also Sul. 27.7
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 57-58; Jones (1972) 5

1 See Sumner, Orators 134.

205

date: last days of 66
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (quo ea pecunia pervenerit?)¹
defendant: C. Manilius (Crispus?) (10) tr. pl. 66
praetor: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 13)
outcome: incomplete

Q. Cic.? Com. Pet. 51; Asc. 60C; Plut. Cic. 9.4-6; Dio 36.44.1-2
D.-G. 5.400 n. 8; Ward (1970); Phillips (1970); Fantham (1975) 439-40 n. 34; Marshall (CP 1977)

1 Ramsey suggests that this trial took place under the procedure quo ea pecunia pervenerit, which allowed extorted funds which were in the hands of a party other than the defendant to be recovered. His reconstruction provides the most economical explanation of the evidence. This kind of procedure implies that this trial was subsidiary to a full-scale extortion trial, which, however, we cannot identify. See Ramsey (1980) 329 n. 27.

206

date: 66?¹
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu or lex Cornelia de repetundis (misappropriation of booty as procos. 73-63)
defendant: L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74
prosecutor: C. Memmius (8) tr. pl. 66 or 65²
outcome: dropped

Plut. Cat. Min. 29.3; Luc. 37.1-3; Serv. 1.161, 4.261
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 58; Shatzman (1972); Shatzman (1975) 379

1 The trial took place at least before the defendant’s triumph in 63.

2 See Sumner, Orators 134.

207

date: 66 or 65
defendant: C. Fundanius (1) tr. pl. 68?
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 73)
outcome: A

Q. Cic.? Com. Pet. 19; Quint. Inst. 1.4.14

208

date: summer of 65
claim: civil suit (res dolo malo mancipio acceptae)¹
defendant: (A.?) Caninius Satyrus (15)
plaintiffs: 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

1 The case involved fraud allegedly perpetrated on creditors.

209

date: 65
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (illegal actions as tr. pl. 67)
defendant: C. Cornelius (18) tr. pl. 67
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 76-77)
prosecutors: C. (or L.?) Cominius (4, = ? 8)¹ of Spoletium (subscr.) (ORF 143/144.II)
P. Cominius of Spoletium (11) (nom. del.) (ORF 143/144.II) praetor: Q. Gallius (6)
witnesses: Mam.² Aemilius Lepidus Livianus (80) cos. 77, princeps sen.? 70, cens.? 64³
Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (98) cos. 80
Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XII)
Q. Lutatius Catulus (8) cos. 78, cens. 65 (ORF 96.V)
P. Servilius Globulus (66) tr. pl. 67
M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) cos. 73⁴ (ORF 91.II)
outcome: A, by a wide margin
other: two actiones, four days of defense

Cic. Orat. 225; V. Max. 8.5.4; Asc. 57-81C; Quint. Inst. 5.13.18, 6.5.10, 8.3.3, 10.5.13; Plin. Ep. 1.20.8; see also Cic. Brut. 271
Kumaniecki (1970)

1 See Münzer RE 4 (1900) 607-8; and Marshall, Asconius 64, 222.

2 On the praenomen, see Sumner (1964), not refuted by Griffin (1973) 213. See also Shackleton Bailey, CLA 102, Syme (1970) 141, and MRR Suppl. 8.

3 See MRR Suppl. 8-9.

4 V. Max. 8.5.4 incorrectly adds L. Licinius Lucullus as witness; see Gelzer RE 7A (1939) 860.

210

date: 65
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (actions as tr. pl. 66)
defendant: C. Manilius (Crispus?) (10) tr. pl. 66
advocate?: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 75)¹
prosecutor: Cn. Minucius (13)
praetor: C. Attius Celsus (not in RE)²
outcome: C

Cic. Corn. fr. 10, 12; Asc. 60, 66C; Plut. Cic. 9.6; Schol. Bob. 119St; Schol. Gronov. 322St
Marshall (CP 1977)

1 In spite of Nonius’ citation (700L) of a speech by Cicero pro Manilio, Ramsey (Phoenix 1980) 332-36 argues that it should be regarded as a speech delivered before a contio (‘de Manilio’), and that, therefore, Cicero probably did not speak at the trial of Manilius. See also Phillips (1970) 606.

2 See Ward (1970) 549 n. 15, Marshall, Asconius 234, and MRR Suppl. 28-29.

211

date: 65
defendant: C. Orchivius (1) pr. 66
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 15)
outcome: A

Q. Cic.? Com. Pet. 19

212

date: second half of 65¹
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Africa 67-66)
defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68
advocate: uncertain, but not M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63²
prosecutor: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
character witness: L. Manlius Torquatus (79) cos. 65 (ORF 109.I)
witnesses: Africans
laudatores: consulares
outcome: A (senators for C, equites and tribuni aerarii for A)
other: praevaricatio³

Cic. Att. 1.1.1, 1.2.1; Catil. 1.18; Sul. 81; Cael. 10, 14; Har. 42; Pis. 23; Q. Cic.? Com. Pet. 10; Asc. 9, 85, 89, 92

1 A jury was constituted shortly before July 17. It is possible that the prosecution of Catiline had already begun in 66; however, a separate trial in that year seems unlikely. See John (1876) 417-18; Mello (1963) 37; d’Ippolito (1965) 43; Sumner (1965) 227-28.

2 See Asc. 85C; contra Fenestella fr. 20 Peter.

3 Cicero’s statement (Att. 1.2.1), written when he was considering defending Clodius in this trial, that the prosecutor was cooperative (summa accusatoris voluntate) has been taken to suggest that the prosecutor was working with the defense to secure an acquittal. Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 59-62, however, argues that Clodius did not commit praevaricatio.

213

date: before 64
claim: actio furti
defendant: Q. Mucius (Scaevola?)¹ Orestinus (12) tr. pl. 64
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 16)
plaintiff: L. Fufius Calenus (8)
outcome: dropped by mutual agreement

Cic. Tog. Cand. 6, 13; Asc. 86C

1 For ‘Scaevola,’ see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 122-23.

214

date: 64¹
charge: lex Calpurnia de ambitu (campaign for the praetorship of 65)
defendant: Q. Gallius (6) pr. 65
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 74)
prosecutor: M. Calidius (4) pr. 57² (ORF140.I)
outcome: A?

Cic. Brut. 277-78; Q. Cic.? Com. Pet. 19; V. Max. 8.10.3; Asc. 88C; Quint. Inst. 11.3.155

1 Asconius gives 64 as the date of the trial. Others (D.-G. 5.398-99 and Vonder Mühll RE 7 [1910] 672) suggest 66, on the ground that the year of his campaign is more likely to be the year of the trial. This is not necessarily the case, and, if it is not, then the defendant’s praetorship in 65 cannot serve as evidence for an acquittal. See Balsdon (1963) 248-49, Gruen, LGRR 270 n. 33, and Ramsey (Historia 1980). Ramsey argues that the author of the Com. Pet. may have linked this trial to three earlier trials (cases #207, #209, and #211) because he is thinking of the date when Cicero agreed to take the case, not the date of the trial.

2 Douglas (1966) 301-2 disputes this date; refuted by Sumner, Orators 147.

215

date: 64¹
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of Q. Lucretius Afella [25])²
defendant: L. Bellienus (5) pr. 105³
iudex quaestionis:⁴ C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44
outcome: C

Asc. 91C; Suet. Jul. 11; App. BCiv. 1.101; Dio 37.10.2

1 The trial occurred before consular elections, about the same time as case #216.

2 Heraeus (1934) suggests the reading ‘Afella’ over ‘Ofella’; his reading is accepted by Badian (1967) 227-28.

3 On the name, see Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.489, and MRR Suppl. 34.

4 Gruen, LGRR 76 n. 124 argues that Caesar was accusator rather than iudex quaestionis.

216

date: 64¹
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (three murders of people proscribed under Sulla)
defendant: L. Luscius (1) centurio
iudex quaestionis:² C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44
outcome: C

Asc. 90-91C; Suet. Jul. 11; Dio 37.10.2

1 The trial occurred before consular elections, about same time as case #215.

2 See case #215, n. 4.

217

date: 64, acquitted after consular elections
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of those proscribed under Sulla)¹
defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68
prosecutor: L. Lucceius (6) perhaps pr., date uncertain²
iudex quaestionis:³ C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44
laudatores: consulares
outcome: A

Cic. Att. 1.16.9; Sul. 81; Pis. 95; Asc. 91-92C; Suet. Jul. 11; Dio 37.10.3
Marshall (SCI 1976/77)

1 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.

2 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.

3 See case #215, n. 4.

218

date: 64 or 63¹
defendant: Q. Curius (7) q. by 71 (and II?)² = ? L. Turius (2) pr. 75³
outcome: C

Asc. 93C

1 The trial occurred after Cicero delivered In Toga Candida in 64 BC.

2 Marshall (AC 1978 and Asconius 316-17) maintains that Q. Curius regained status by holding the quaestorship a second time.

3 See Syme CP (1955) 134, and MRR Suppl. 209-10.

219

date: before 63
defendant: P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura (240) cos. 71
other: charges of bribery
outcome: A by two votes

Cic. Att. 1.16.9; Plut. Cic. 17.3

220

date: first half of 63
charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio (rioting in 100 leading to the death of L. Appuleius Saturninus [29] tr. pl. 103, 100, tr. pl. des. for 99)¹
defendant: C. Rabirius (5) sen.
duumviri perduellionis: C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44
L. Iulius Caesar (143) cos. 64, cens. 61 outcome: conviction, provocatio, trial stopped

Cic. Att. 2.1.3; Rab. Perd.; Pis. 4; Suet. Jul. 12; Dio 37.26-27; see also App. BCiv. 1.32; Plut. Vir. Ill. 73.12
Heitland’s commentary (1882) on Cicero’s speech; Strachan-Davidson (1912) 1.188-204; Ciaceri (1918) 169-95; Lengle (1933); van Ooteghem (1964); Bauman (1969) 9-21; Jones (1972) 40-44; Tyrrell (1973); Tyrrell (1974); Phillips (1974); Tyrrell (1978)

1 For reference, see case #74, n. 1.

221

date: 63, after trial #220
charge: possibly a pecuniary case before people in comitia tributa (various offenses)¹
defendant: C. Rabirius (5) sen.
advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XIV)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 20)
prosecutor: T. Labienus (6) tr. pl. 63 (ORF 133.I), pr. by 59²
outcome: aborted by fictitious enemy raid For sources, bibliography, and further discussion, see case #220.

1 This case, along with #220, constitutes the most difficult legal conundrum of all the trials in this period. Only one possible solution has been presented here, according to which the extant speech of Cicero was delivered at this trial, which was ended by the raising of the flag on the Janiculum. This signified an enemy attack and the suspension of civilian business.

2 See MRR Suppl. 116 on his praetorship.

222

trial only threatened
date: 63 (before consular elections, July)
defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. by 68
prosecutor: M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54

Cic. Mur. 51

223

date: after Oct. 21, 63
charge: lex Plautia de vi
defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68
prosecutor: L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus (81) cos. 50
outcome: incomplete

Cic. Vat. 25; Sal. Cat. 31.4; Dio 37.31.3-32.2; Schol. Bob. 149St

224

date: late November 63
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (campaign for consulate of 62)
defendant: L. Licinius Murena (123) cos. 62
advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XV)
M. Licinius Crassus (68) cos. 70, 55, cens. 65 (ORF 102.I)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 25)¹ prosecutors: M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54 (ORF 126.IV) (subscr.)
C.² Postumius (4, monetalis ca 74, candidate for praetorship of 62) (subscr.)
Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (95) cos. 51 (nom. del.)
Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (96) (subscr.) sen.? outcome: A

Cic. Mur.; Plut. Cat. Min. 21.3-5; Cic. 35.3; Plut. De capienda ex inimicis utilitate 91D
Ayers (1953/54); Michel (1972)

1 Speech given between Nov. 9 and Dec. 1.

2 So Sumner (1971) 254 n. 26 and Orators 144.

225

date: by Dec. 63
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Cisalp. and Transalp. Gaul 66-65)
defendant: C. Calpurnius Piso (63) cos. 67
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 17)
prosecutor?: C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44
outcome: A

Cic. Flac. 98; Sal. Cat. 49.2

226

date: 62
charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in conspiracy)
defendants: followers of Catiline
quaesitor:¹ Novius Niger (12) = ? L. Novius (7) tr. pl. 58
informer: L. Vettius (6) e.R.
outcome: C

Suet. Jul. 17; Dio 37.41.2-4; see also Cic. Att. 2.24.2

1 quaestor in Suetonius

227

threatened
date: spring of 62
charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in conspiracy)
defendant: C. Iulius Caesar (131) pr. 62, cos. 59, 48, 46. 45, 44
quaesitor:¹ Novius Niger (12), = ? L. Novius (7) tr. pl. 58
informer: L. Vettius (6) e.R.
outcome: aborted; Novius, Vettius put in prison

Suet. Jul. 17

1 quaestor in Suetonius

228

date: 62, before case #234
charge: possibly lex Plautia de vi
defendant: C. Cornelius (19) e.R.
outcome: C?

Cic. Sul. 6, 18, 51; Sal. Cat. 17, 28.1; see also [Sal.] Cic. 3

229

date: 62, before case #234
charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in Catilinarian conspiracy, attempted murder of Cicero)
defendant: P. Autronius Paetus (7) cos. des. 65
witnesses: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 24)
‘many people’ (plerique Sul. 7)
Allobroges outcome: C, exile in Greece

Cic. Sul. 7, 10, 18, 71; see also Cic. Att. 3.2, 3.7.1

230

date: 62, before case #234
charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in Catilinarian conspiracy)
defendant: P. Cornelius Sulla (385) sen.
outcome: C

Cic. Sul. 6; Cic. Off. 2.29; Sal. Cat. 17.3

231

date: 62, before case #234
charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in Catilinarian conspiracy)
defendant: M. Porcius Laeca (18) sen.
outcome: C

Cic. Catil. 1.9; Sul. 6; Sal. Cat. 17.3, 27.3

232

date: 62, before case #234
charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in Catilinarian conspiracy)
defendant: L. Vargunteius (3) e.R.?¹
advocate: none
outcome: C?

Cic. Catil. 1.9; Sul. 6; Sal. Cat. 17.3

1 See case #202, n. 1.

233

date: 62, before case #234
defendant: Ser. Cornelius Sulla (389) sen.
outcome: C?

Cic. Sul. 6; Sal. Cat. 17.3, 47.1

234

date: 62¹
charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in two Catilinarian conspiracies, in the [probably fictitious] one of 66 and in that of 63, attempted massacre at consular elections in 63 for 62, creating disturbance in Farther Spain)
defendant: P. Cornelius Sulla (386) cos. des. 65
advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XVI)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 26) prosecutors: Cornelius (7) (subscr.)
L. Manlius Torquatus (80) pr. 50 or 49² (nom. del.) (ORF 146.I) present for defense: coloni of Pompeii; Pompeiani³
outcome: A
other: Cicero said to have profited financially from the defense (Gel. 12.12.2)

Cic. Sul.; Schol. Bob. 77-84St; Gel. 1.5.3, 12.12.2

1 M. Valerius Messalla Niger (266) cos. 61 is not referred to as consul-designate (Sul. 20, 42); therefore, the trial is likely to have taken place before the consular elections.

2 For references, see case #201, n. 2.

3 Sul. 60-61 says that coloni and Pompeiani were present. They were presumably in the corona.

235

date: 62
charge: lex Papia (illegal grant of citizenship)
defendant: A. Licinius Archias (Archias 20)
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 27)
prosecutor: Grattius (1)
(urban?) praetor: Q. Tullius Cicero (31)
witnesses: M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) cos. 73
Heraclienses outcome: A

Cic. Arch.; Schol. Bob. 175-179St; see also Cic. Att. 1.16.15; Div. 1.79
Husband (1913-14, 1914-15); Radin (1913-14, 1914-15); Dillon (1941-42)

236

date: 61, over by May 15
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (sacrilege at rites of Bona Dea)¹
defendant: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) q. 61-60, aed. cur. 56
advocate: C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61² (ORF 86.IV)
prosecutors: L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus (218) cos. 49 (nom. del.) (ORF 157.I)
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (228) cos. 56 (subscr.)
L. Cornelius Lentulus Niger (234) pr. by 61 (subscr.)
C. Fannius (9) pr. by 54 or in 50 (subscr.)³ jurors:⁴ P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (238) cos. 57 (voted C)
(Iuventius?) Talna (26) (voted A)
Plautus (2) sen.? (voted A)
Spongia (2) (voted A)⁵ witnesses: Aurelia (248)
C. Causinius Schola (1) of Interamna, e.R.
Habra? (not in RE) ⁶
Iulia (546?)
C. Iulius Caesar (131) procos. Farther Spain 61, cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44⁷
L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74
M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 27) outcome: A (twenty-five for C, thirty-one for A)⁸
other: suspicion of bribery

Cic. Att. 1.12.3, 1.16.1-6, 1.17.8; Har. 37; Pis. 95; Mil. 46, 73, 87; Liv. Per. 103; V. Max. 4.2.5, 8.5.5, 9.1.7; Asc. 49C; Sen. Ep. 97.2-10; Quint. Inst. 4.2.88; Suet. Jul. 74; App. BCiv. 2.14; Plut. Caes. 10; Cic. 29; Dio 39.6.2; Schol. Bob. 85-91 (in Clod. et Cur.)
Lacey (1974)

1 This sacrilege was treated by the Senate as if de incestu; see Moreau (1982) 83-89.

2 For references, see case #82, n. 3.

3 See MRR 2.222. Sumner, Orators 145 points out that his praetorship is not attested, though he admits that he was in some way senior.

4 Moreau (1982) 143 shows that they were fifty-six in number, on the basis of Cicero’s statement (in Clod. et Cur. fr. 29) that only four votes were missing for a guilty verdict.

5 Tyrrell and Purser in their commentary on Cicero’s Letters (Correspondence [1904] 1.214) argue that the names of the three jurors who voted for acquittal are fictitious, added for comical effect; contra, Münzer RE 21 (1951) 54, Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.318, Moreau (1982) 147-50.

6 She was one of several ancillae of Pompeia (52) whose evidence was obtained under torture.

7 Gelzer (1968) 60 n. 3 argues that Caesar had already left for his province of Farther Spain by the time of the trial, and that his remark about his wife must have been uttered in the Senate, although Suetonius and Plutarch both specify that he was a witness; contra Moreau (1982) 199 n. 606.

8 So Cic. Att. 1.16.5. Plutarch gives the number thirty for votes of acquittal, but Cicero is probably more accurate. See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.317.

237

date: after 61
defendant: either L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus (218) cos. 49
or Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (228) cos. 56
or L. Cornelius Lentulus Niger (234) pr. by 61 advocate: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
outcome: A?

V. Max. 4.2.5; Schol. Bob. 89St

238

date: 60, by early June
charge: lex Cornelia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for suffect quaestorship held in 60)¹
defendant: Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (99) q.? suff. 60, cos. 52
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 34)
prosecutor: M. Favonius (1) pr. 49 (ORF 166.II)
outcome: A

Cic. Att. 2.1.9

1 See Sumner, Orators 112, who arrives at a quaestorship by a process of elimination, Crawford, Orations p. 115 n. 2, and MRR Suppl. 41-42.

239

date: December 60
defendant: M. Valerius Messalla Rufus (268) cos. 53¹
advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XVII)
outcome: A

Cic. Att. 2.3.1

1 See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.355. Malavolta (1977) 275 suggests that the defendant was M. Valerius Messalla Niger (266) cos. 61, cens. 55, and that he might have been accused for ambitus for his activities in the campaign of Afranius for the consulate of 60 (see Att. 1.16.12). The lateness of the trial in the year, however, tells against the idea that the trial arose out of a crime committed in 61.

240

date: 59 or before
witnesses:¹ Archidemus (1)
Parrhasius (2)
Philodorus of Tralles (not in RE)

Cic. Flac. 53

1 The entirety of what we know about this case is limited to Cicero’s statement vidi ego in quodam iudicio nuper Philodorum testem Trallianum, vidi Parrhasium, vidi Archidemum....

241

date: 59¹
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate,² or lex Plautia de vi³ (complicity in Catilinarian conspiracy? incompetence as gov. Macedonia 62-60?)
defendant: C. Antonius (19) cos. 63, gov. Macedonia 62-60
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 37)
prosecutors: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (ORF 162.I)
either L. Caninius Gallus (3) tr. pl. 56
or L. Caninius Gallus (4) cos. 37⁴
Q. Fabius Sanga (143) = ? Fabius Maximus (Sanga?) (108) cos. suff. 45⁵ praetor: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (217) ⁶
outcome: C, exile to Cephallenia

Cic. Flac. 5, 95; Dom. 41; Vat. 27; Cael. 15, 47, 74, 78; Att. 2.2.3; V. Max. 4.2.6; Quint. Inst. 4.2.123-124, 9.3.58; Asc. 87C; Plut. Cic. 11-12; Suet. Jul. 20.4; Dio 38.10.3, 51.26.5; Obsequens 61A; Schol. Bob. 94, 126St; see also Cic. Att. 1.12.1-2; Fam. 5.5, 5.6.3; Strab. 10.2.13-fin.

1 The jury was already being empanelled in December of 60 (Att. 2.2.3), and the trial was taking place on the day in mid-April when Clodius received plebeian status (Att. 2.12.1; Dom. 41). This case precedes case #247.

2 There is no evidence against the belief that this lex Cornelia was the law under which the case was prosecuted. For possible links to Catiline see Cic. apud Asc. 87C, Plut. Cic. 11-12, Schol. Bob. 94, 126St. But note the Catilinarians’ delight at the condemnation (Flac. 95), and Antonius’ claim to be the victor over Catiline (Flac. 5, Dio 37.40.2). Military incompetence could apparently also provide grounds for a maiestas trial (Scaev. Dig. 48.4.4). Quintilian quotes from the speech of Caelius allegations that the defendant participated in drunken debauches while on campaign. See D.-G. 5.601-2; Austin 158-59.

3 This procedure was often used against Catilinarians (Cael. 15). See Heinze (1925) 210 n. 3, D.-G. 5.601-2. Extortion is unlikely as T. Vettius Sabinus was probably praetor in the extortion court (see case #247); contra Schol. Bob. 94St, Gruen (1973) 308-9, Crawford, Orations 124 n. 4, 125 n. 8, and MRR Suppl. 18, 67.

4 The possibility that the younger Caninius was prosecutor was noted by Münzer RE 3 (1899) 1477. But the prosecutor must be the man prosecuted by M. Colonius (see case #280).

5 Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.348 accepts identification of the two Fabii; contra, Münzer RE 6 (1909) 1868.

6 In Dec. 60 P. Nigidius Figulus (3) pr. 58 was threatening any absent jurors with prosecution (Cic. Att. 2.2.3). Since there was a praetor at this trial, it is unnecessary to suppose that Nigidius was a iudex quaestionis (MRR Suppl. 147 considers this possibility). As Badian (1959) 83 points out, he could have been acting as a private citizen when he made his threat in 60.

242

date: 59, perhaps August
charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in plot against Pompey)
defendant: L. Vettius (6) e.R.
prosecutor: P. Vatinius (3) tr. pl. 59, cos. 47
iudex quaestionis: P. Licinius Crassus Dives (71) pr. 57
outcome: defendant died in prison

Cic. Att. 2.24.4; Vat. 25, 26; Suet. Jul. 20.4; Plut. Luc. 42; App. BCiv. 2.12; Dio 38.9; Schol. Bob. 139St

243

date: by 59 (many times)¹
claim: civil suit
defendant: L. Valerius Flaccus (179) pr. 63
plaintiff: L. Cornelius Balbus (69) praefectus fabrum 62, 61-60?, 59, cos. suff. 40

V. Max. 7.8.7

1 The defendant is said to have been compluribus privatis litibus vexatus.

244

date: 59?, after the defendant’s promagistracy
charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu? or lex (Cornelia? Iulia?) de repetundis? (malfeasance as gov. Bithynia-Pontus)
defendant: C. Papirius Carbo (35) pr. 62, promag. 61-59?
prosecutor: M. Aurelius Cotta (108)
outcome: C

V. Max. 5.4.4; Dio 36.40.4

245

date: 59, before cases #246 and #247
defendant: either A. Minucius Thermus (61)¹ = ? (60) pr.? 67? = ? C. Marcius Figulus (63) cos. 64
or Q. Minucius Thermus (67) tr. pl. 62, pr. by 58? or 53?² advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 38)
outcome: A

Cic. Flac. 98

1 For the conjecture about this other possible identification with A. Minucius Thermus (61), see Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.292, Studies 122.

2 The date 53 is suggested by Shackleton Bailey, Studies 54-55.

246

date: 59, after case #245 and before case #247
defendant: either A. Minucius Thermus (61) = ? (60) pr. 67 = ? C. Marcius Figulus (63) cos. 64¹
or Q. Minucius Thermus (67) tr. pl. 62, pr. by 58? or 53?² advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 39)
outcome: A

Cic. Flac. 98

1 See case #245, n. 1.

2 See case #245, n. 2.

247

date: 59, by Sept.?¹
charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis² (misconduct as gov. Asia).
defendant: L. Valerius Flaccus (179) pr. 63, gov. Asia 62
advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XVIII)³
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 28)
prosecutors: C. Appuleius Decianus (22) e.R. (subscr.)
Caetra (1),⁴ = ? C. Fannius Chaerea (17) (subscr.)
L. Cornelius⁵ Balbus (69) praefectus fabrum 62, 61-60?, 59, cos. suff. 40 (subscr.)
D. Laelius (6) tr. pl. 54 (nom. del.)
Lucceius (2) (subscr.) praetor: T. Vettius Sabinus (14)⁶
jurors:⁷ L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74
L. Peducaeus (2) pref.? 62, e.R. or trib. aer.⁸
Sex. (Peducaeus?) Stloga (Stloga [1]) witnesses: L. Agrius Publeianus (2) e.R.
Asclepiades (16) of Acmonia
M. Aufidius⁹ 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. Septimius¹⁰ (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
outcome: A
other: two actiones¹¹

Cic. Flac.; Att. 2.25.1; Macr. 2.1.13; V. Max. 7.8.7; Schol. Bob. 93-108St
du Mesnil (1883); Webster (1931)

1 This is the possible date of Att. 2.25.1. The trial occurred after the condemnation of C. Antonius (case #241), and after the two acquittals of A. Thermus (cases #245, #246); see Webster (1931) 111. On the length of the trial, see Clark (1927) 76.

2 The lex Iulia de repetundis was apparently not yet in effect (Flac. 13).

3 See Webster (1931) 109-10.

4 See Webster (1931) 56.

5 So Münzer RE 4 (1900) 1262, RE 12 (1924) 411; but D.-G. 5.614 has L. Laelius Balbus.

6 See Münzer RE 8A (1955) 34; Gundel RE 8A (l958) 1853. Gruen (1973) 308 n. 40 holds that he was a iudex.

7 The jury was composed of twenty-five senators, twenty-five equites Romani, twenty-five tribuni aerarii (Flac. 4).

8 See Nicolet, Ordre équestre vol. 2, no. 264.

9 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.

10 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 65.

11 Contra Lezius (1901).

248

date: 59, late in the year
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (campaign for the consulate of 58)
defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
prosecutor: C. Porcius Cato (6) tr. pl. 56, pr. 55?¹
outcome: praetor refused to accept case

Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.15; Sest. 18

1 For references, see case #283, n. 1.

249

date: before Cicero’s exile in 58
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24)¹ aed. pl. ca 59?
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 45)
outcome: A

Cic. Phil. 11.11; see also 13.26
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 69

1 MRR Suppl. 46 favors identification of RE 24 and RE 25.

250

date: after case #249, before Cicero’s exile in 58
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59?¹
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 46)
outcome: A

Cic. Phil. 11.11; see also 13.26
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 69

1 See case #249, n. 1.

251

date: after case #250, before Cicero’s exile in 58
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59?¹
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 47)
outcome: A

Cic. Phil. 11.11; see also 13.26
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 69

1 See case #249, n. 1.

252

date: after case #251, before Cicero’s exile in 58
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25, = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59?¹
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 48)
outcome: A

Cic. Phil. 11.11; see also 13.26
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 69

1 See case #249, n. 1.

253

date: 58
defendant: Sex. Propertius (1)
prosecutor: Aelius Ligus (83) tr. pl.
outcome: dropped¹

Cic. Dom. 49

1 A nominis delatio did occur, but there was no trial.

254

date: 66? 65? 58?
iudex quaestionis: C. Visellius Varro (3) aed. 67? 66? 59?¹

Cic. Brut. 264; see also Vitr. 2.8.9; Plin. Nat. 35.173

1 On his identity see Sumner (CP 1978) 163-64. Cicero says that he died while serving as iudex quaestionis the year after his aedileship. See Sumner, Orators 139, and MRR Suppl. 222.

255

date: 58, first half
charge: lex Licinia et Iunia (promotion of laws confirming Pompey’s acta)¹
defendant: P. Vatinius (3) leg. 58?, cos. 47
prosecutor: C. Licinius Macer Calvus² (113) (ORF 165.I)
praetor: C. Memmius (8)
outcome: defendant appealed to tr. pl. P. Clodius Pulcher (48), trial stopped by violence

Cic. Sest. 135; Vat. 33, 34; Quint. Inst. 6.3.60; 12.6.1; Tac. Dial. 21.2, 34.7; Schol. Bob. 140, 150St
Greenidge (1901) 517

1 Pocock (1926) 169-75 argues that Pompey’s acts were ratified by a lex Vatinia.

2 The participation of Calvus is disputed by Gruen (HSCP 1966) 217-18. See Sumner, Orators 149.

256

date: perhaps 58, after quaestorship of defendant
charge: lex Licinia et Iunia

defendant: q. for 59 or 58¹ of C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59
outcome: A?

Suet. Jul. 23

1 Bauman (1967) 93-104 argues that this quaestor was P. Vatinius (3) tr. pl. 59. Gelzer (1968) 97, Badian (CQ 1969) 200 n. 5, and Badian (1974) 146-48 argue that the defendant was the former quaestor of 59. See Weinrib (1968) 44-45; Weinrib (1971) 150 n. 10; and Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 62-67.

257

date: 58?¹ 56?²
charge: iudicium populi (defendant’s acta as consul)
defendant: C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44
prosecutor: either L. Antistius (13) tr. pl. 58³
or L. Antistius Vetus (47) tr. pl. 56,⁴ cos. suff. 30 outcome: other tr. pl. stopped trial

Suet. Jul. 23
Jones (1972) 5

1 So Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 62-64.

2 So Badian (CQ 1969) 200-4, (1974) 148-54, MRR Suppl. 17, 18, and, with reservations, Shackleton Bailey, Studies 11-12.

3 See n. 1. If a date of 58, then this tr.pl.

4 See n. 2. If a date of 56, then this tr.pl.

258

date: after Sept. 58, before latter part of 57?
defendant: L. Livineius Regulus (2) pr. (uncertain date)
outcome: C

Cic. Fam. 13.60; see also Att. 3.17.1

259

date: before 57
claim: civil suit
parties: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 spoke against M. Cispius (4) tr. pl. 57 and the latter’s brother and father

Cic. Red. Sen. 21

260

date: 57 or before
charge: lex Cornelia de iniuriis
defendant: L. Sergius (15)
outcome: C

Cic. Dom. 13, 14, 21, 89; CIL 1².1882

261

date: early 57
charge: lex Plautia de vi (violence against Milo and followers)
defendant: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
prosecutor: T. Annius Milo (67) tr. pl. 57, pr. 55
outcome: 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

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

262

date: after Nov. 23, 57
charge: lex Plautia de vi (violence)
defendant: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
prosecutor: T. Annius Milo (67) tr. pl. 57, pr. 55
outcome: dropped because Clodius assumed aedileship

For sources and bibliography, see case #261.

263

trial threatened in 58, never took place
date: set for 57
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Asia 61-58)
defendant: Q. Tullius Cicero (31) pr. 62
prosecutor?: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38¹
praetor: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens. 50

Cic. Dom. 59; Sest. 68; Att. 2.4.2, 2.18.3, 3.8.2-4, 3.9.1, 3.13.2, 3.17.1; Q. fr. 1.3.5, 1.4.2 and 4-5
Fallu (1970)

1 Marshall, Asconius 172.

264

trial threatened, never took place
date: Nov. or Dec. 57
charge: quaestio extraordinaria (violence against Cicero)

Cic. Att. 4.3.3; Q. fr. 2.1.2

265

date: before 56, the date of case #276
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu
prosecutor: L. Cornelius Balbus (69) cos. suff. 40
outcome: C, as award prosecutor allowed to enter tribus Clustumina¹

Cic. Balb. 57

1 See Alexander (1985) 23.

266

date: 56¹
charge: iudicium populi² (misconduct as tr. pl. 57)
defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
advocate?: M. Claudius Marcellus (229) aed. cur.? 56,³ cos. 51
prosecutor: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur.
witness: P. Vatinius (3) cos. 47
character witness: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
outcome: 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

1 Hearings were held on Feb. 2, Feb. 7, Feb. 17, and May 7.

2 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.

3 See Sumner (1971) 251 n. 19 and Crawford, Orations 44.

267

date: early in 56, before case #275
charge: lex Plautia de vi (murder of Alexandrian ambassador)
defendant: P. Asicius (1)
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 43)
prosecutor: C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113) (ORF 165.IV)
outcome: A
other: possibly praevaricatio¹

Cic. Cael. 23-24, 51; Tac. Dial. 21.2

1 The prosecutor of Caelius (case #275) claimed that the acquittal had been due to collusion.

268

date: 56, Cicero’s speech on Feb. 11
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (campaign for praetorship of 56 or 55)¹
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25, = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59?²
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 49)
prosecutor: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (ORF 162.II)
praetor or iudex quaestionis: ? Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) cos. 53, 40 = ? Domitius (11) iud. quaest. 56?, pr.? 54³
outcome: A⁴

Cic. Cael. 1, 16, 26, 56, 76, 78; Phil. 13.26; Q. fr. 2.3.6; Plin. Nat. 27.4; Tac. Dial. 39.5

1 See Alexander (1982) 148-49.

2 See case #249, n. 1.

3 See MRR 2.208, Suppl. 81, Gruen, LGRR 166 n. 8, Shackleton Bailey, CQF 195.

4 So Gruen, LGRR 300, 305 correctly; contra, Münzer RE 3 (1897) 1367.

269

date: 56, after case #268¹
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for praetorship of 55)
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25, = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59?²
prosecutor: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (ORF 162.II)
outcome: dropped³ or C⁴

Cic. Cael. 1, 16, 26, 56, 76, 78; Phil. 13.26; Plin. Nat. 27.4; Tac. Dial. 39.5

1 This case had begun, but was still pending, when Cicero spoke in case #275. See Gruen, LGRR 300 n. 146.

2 See case #249, n. 1.

3 That the case was dropped is the suggestion of Heinze (1925) 1195 n. 2, on the basis of Cic. Brut. 273, which mentions three prosecutions mounted by Caelius (of Antonius, #241; of Bestia, #268; and of Pompeius Rufus, #328). However, Cicero might be counting in a loose fashion the two prosecutions of Bestia as one. See Alexander (1982) 149.

4 Cicero’s somewhat coy wording in Phil. 11.11 seems to imply a conviction. See Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 68; Alexander (1982) 148 n. 23; Crawford, Orations 144-45.

270

date: 56, postulatio on Feb. 10
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu
defendant: P. Sestius (6) tr. pl. 57, pr. by 54?¹
prosecutor: (Cn.?) Nerius (Pupinia?) (3) q. 49
witnesses: C. Cornelius (not in RE)
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Vatia (241) = ? Batiatus (209)² outcome: A?

Cic. Q. fr. 2.3.5

1 See Badian (ZPE 1984) 106.

2 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 31-32 and CQF 177-78, and Sumner (CP 1978) 162-63.

271

date: 56, postulatio on Feb. 10, verdict reached on March 14
charge: lex Plautia de vi (political violence in 57)
defendant: P. Sestius (6) tr. pl. 57, pr. by 54?¹ (may have spoken pro se)²
advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XIX)
M. Licinius Crassus (68) cos. 70, 55, cens. 65 (ORF 102.III)
C. Licinius Macer Calvus³ (113) (ORF 165.II)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 33) character witness: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
prosecutors: P. Albinovanus (1, cf. 3) pont. min. before 69-after 57 (nom. del.)
M. Tullius (13)⁴
T. Claudius (not in RE) (subscr.)⁵
praetor: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141)
jurors: L. Cornelius Lentulus Niger (234) pr. by 61
C. Cosconius (5) pr. 54?⁶
L. Cosconius (not in RE) witnesses: L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus (81) aed. cur. 56?, cos. 50
(Cn.?) Gellius (1) e.R.⁷
P. Vatinius (3) cos. 47
legati from Capua outcome: A (unanimous)

Cic. Sest.; Vat.; Fam. 1.9.7; Q. fr. 2.3.5, 2.4.1; Quint. Inst. 11.1.73; Plut. Cic. 26.5; Schol. Bob. 125-144St

1 See case #270, n. 1.

2 Plut. Cic. 26.5 tells an anecdote about a trial of a Publius Sestius, represented by Cicero and others, who insisted on speaking for himself.

3 He may have been a witness instead of an advocate. See D.-G. 5.655.

4 He made the original postulatio (Q. fr. 2.3.5), but Albinovanus was the original nominis delator. Tullius either lost out to Albinovanus in the divinatio, or was a subscriptor; see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 7 and CQF 177.

5 Vat. 3. Münzer RE 2A (1923) 1887-88.

6 See Sumner (1971) 251, MRR Suppl. 77.

7 For the Gellii, see Wiseman (1974) 119-29, and Evans (1983) 124-26.

272

date: by March 56
defendant: Sevius? = ? Servius Pola (5)¹
outcome: C²

Cic. Q. fr. 2.5.4

1 Shackleton Bailey (1955) 35, Studies 66, and CQF 182-83, and Gruen, LGRR 305 n. 167 maintain that this Sevius was different from Servius Pola, since the latter was active in 54 (see case #282), and could not have been condemned in 56. However, if Shackleton Bailey is right that Sevius was condemned ‘for some private offence’ (CQF 182-83), it is possible that the penalty was not so severe as to preclude him from political activity.

2 See Shackleton Bailey, CQF 183.

273

date: March 56
defendant: Sex. Cloelius (Clodius 12)¹
prosecutor?: T. Annius Milo (67)² pr. 55
outcome: A (by three votes; senators for A, tribuni aerarii for C, equites equally divided)

Cic. Q. fr. 2.5.4; Cael. 78

1 On the name see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 27.

2 Cicero in his letter says that Clodius was prosecuted by imbecilli accusatores, and holds Milo responsible for the acquittal. It is not absolutely clear that Milo himself prosecuted.

274

trial only threatened?¹
date: 56, during or after March
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (perhaps for misconduct in campaign for praetorship of 55)

defendant: P. Vatinius (3) pr. 55, cos. 47
prosecutor: C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113) (ORF 165.I)
outcome: dropped?

Cic. Sest. 133; Vat. 10, 37, 39; Q. fr. 2.4.1; Catul. 53; Sen. Con. 7.4.6; Quint. Inst. 6.1.13, 6.3.60, 9.2.25; Tac. Dial. 21.2; Macr. 2.6.1

1 Gruen (HSCP 1966) 218-19 doubts that the trial actually occurred. It is very difficult to separate this prosecution of Vatinius by Calvus from the two others (cases #255 and #292).

275

date: 56, trial held on April 3 and 4¹
charge: lex Plautia de vi² (civil disturbance at Naples, assault on Alexandrians at Puteoli, property damage to Palla [3], murder of Dio [14], receiving gold for the murder of Dio, attack on a senator, plot to murder Clodia)
defendant: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (spoke pro se, ORF 102.III)
advocates: M. Licinius Crassus (107) cos. 70, 55, cens. 65 (ORF 102.IV)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 34) prosecutors: P. Clodius,³ = ? Pulcher [48] aed.cur. 56 (ORF l64.I) (subscr.)
L. Herennius Balbus (18) (ORF 163.I) (subscr.)
L. Sempronius Atratinus⁴ (26) cos. suff. 34 (nom. del.) praetor or iudex quaestionis: Cn. Domitius (11) iud. quaest. 56?, pr.? 54 = ? Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) cos. 53, 40⁵
witnesses: ? C. Coponius (3) pr. 49
? T. Coponius (9)
Q. Fufius Kalenus (10) cos. 47
? familiares Clodiae (66) (Cael. 66) outcome: A

Cic. Cael.; Strab. 17.1.11; Quint. Inst. 4.2.27, 11.1.51 and 68; Suet. Gram. 26; Dio 39.14.3
Münzer (1909); Heinze (1925); Pacitti (l961); Linderski (1961); Liebs (1967) 126

1 The trial was held a few days after the acquittal of Sex. Cloelius, case #273. See Austin ed. and comm. on Cicero Pro Caelio App. IV, 151.

2 See Austin (n. 1 above) 42; Lintott (1968) 111-12; Stroh (1975) 238, n. 45

3 But the identification with the notorious Clodius is unlikely. See Heinze (1925) 196, Austin 155.

4 See Austin (n. 1 above) 154-55; Shackleton Bailey, Studies 129.

5 For references, see case #268, n. 3.

276

date: 56, after early summer¹
charge: lex Papia (illegal grant of citizenship under lex Gellia Cornelia)²
defendant: L. Cornelius Balbus (69) cos. suff. 40
advocates: M. Licinius Crassus (68) cos. 70, 55, cens. 65 (ORF 102.V)
Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 (ORF 111.IX)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 37)
prosecutor: someone from Gades who had lost caput (civic standing) through iudicium publicum
witnesses: legati from Gades
outcome: A

Cic. Balb.

1 This is the date of de provinciis consularibus, referred to in Balb. 56.

2 Brunt (1982) defends the orthodox view that the attack on the citizenship of Balbus was legally unjustified, against the arguments of Braunert (1966) and Angelini (1980) that Balbus ought to have been stripped of his citizenship.

277

date: ca 56¹
charge: sacrilegium?²
defendant: C. Sallustius Crispus (10) q. 55?, pr. 46
outcome: A (by a few votes)

[Cic.] Sal. 15-16

1 The trial occurred just before quaestorship of defendant.

2 The case is dubious, since the source is unreliable.

278

date: c. 56?¹
charge: sacrilegium
defendant: P. Nigidius Figulus (3) pr. 58

[Cic.] Sal. 14; see also Cic. Vat. 14; Tim. 1; Apul. Apol. 42

1 See case #277, n. 2.

279

date: 56? after 57 and before case #293
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu? (campaign for tr. pl. 57?)
defendant: M. Cispius (4) tr. pl. 57
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 57)
outcome: C

Cic. Planc. 75-77; Schol. Bob. 165St

280

date: by Sept. 55
defendant: L. Caninius Gallus (3) tr. pl. 56¹
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 58)
prosecutor: M. Colonius (not in RE)
outcome: C²

Cic. Fam. 7.1.4; V. Max. 4.2.6

1 V. Max. says that M. Colonius successfully prosecuted a Caninius Gallus; Münzer RE 3 (1899) 1477 argues that this Caninius is the son, cos. 37.

2 The defendant was in Athens, and perhaps also in exile (Fam. 2.8.3). See Gruen, LGRR 313 n. 15.

281

date: uncertain¹
defendant: T. Ampius Balbus (1) pr. 59, procos. Asia 58² (spoke pro se)³
advocates: 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

1 Gruen, LGRR 314 gives a date of 55.

2 See Magie, RRAM 2.1247; MRR Suppl. 15; Crawford, Orations 175.

3 The speech was written by Cicero.

282

date: 54, nominis delatio on Feb.3 or 4, trial began on Feb. 13
defendant: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48
prosecutor: Servius Pola (5)

praetor: Cn. Domitius (11) iud. quaest. 56?, pr. 54? = ? Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) cos. 53, 40¹
outcome: apparently case not completed

Cic. Q. fr. 2.12.2

1 For references, see case #268, n. 3.

283

date: 54, verdict before July
charge: lex Licinia et Iunia (activity as tr. pl. 56)
defendant: C. Porcius Cato (6) tr. pl. 56, pr. 55?¹
prosecutors: ? C. Asinius Pollio (25)² cos. 40 (ORF 174.I)
? C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113)³
M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19) pr. or iudex 50⁴ outcome: A
other: praevaricatio

Cic. Att. 4.16.5, 4.15.4; Sen. Con. 7.4.7

1 See Linderski (1969) 287-88, MRR Suppl. 170.

2 He was a prosecutor, either in this case, or in case #286, or in both. See Marshall, Asconius 121.

3 Gruen (HSCP 1966) 223-24 and Linderski (1969) 296 n. 70 argue that Calvus was the patronus of Cato. However, a more natural interpretation of rei sui and accusatori suo (Sen. Con. 7.4.7) makes Calvus an accusator along with Pollio--either in this case, or case #286, or in both. See Münzer RE 13 (1927) 432; Marshall, Asconius 121.

4 He may have been pr. in 55. See Taylor (1964) 23 n. 30. He may have committed praevaricatio; see case #291. The argument for praevaricatio is very complicated. See Linderski (1969); Alexander (1977) 128 n. 44.

284

date: 54, verdict reached on July 4
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of paterfamilias)
defendant: Procilius (1)¹
advocate?: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XVI)
prosecutor?: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56 (ORF 137.VI)
outcome: C, by a vote of twenty-eight to twenty-two

Cic. Att. 4.16.5; 4.15.4
Linderski (1969) 293-95; Shackleton Bailey, CLA 2.208; Gruen, LGRR 315 n. 25

1 There is no evidence that he was tr. pl. in 56. See MRR Suppl. 175.

285

date: 54, verdict reached on July 4
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu? (misconduct in campaign for praetorship of 55)¹
defendant: M. Nonius Sufenas (52) tr. pl. 56?, pr. 55?
outcome: A

Cic. Att. 4.15.4; Plin. Nat. 37.81; see also Dio 39.27.3
See Linderski (1969) 284-87; also Taylor (1964) 18-22, Shackleton Bailey, CLA 3.246, and Crawford, RRC 1.445, #421.

1 For arguments relating to the date of his praetorship, see MRR Suppl. 148.

286

date: 54, verdict reached on July 4¹
charge: lex Fufia (activities as tr. pl. 56)
defendant: C. Porcius Cato (6) tr. pl. 56, pr. 55?²
advocate: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56 (ORF 139.II)
prosecutors: ? C. Asinius Pollio (25)³ cos. 40 (ORF 174.I)
? C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113)⁴ (ORF 165.III) outcome: A
other: praevaricatio?

Cic. Att. 4.16.5, 4.15.4; Asc. 18, 19C; Sen. Con. 7.4.7
Linderski (1969)

1 See Marshall, Asconius 121.

2 For references, see case #283, n. 1.

3 See case #283, n. 2.

4 See case #283, n. 3.

287

date: before cases #288 and #289
defendant: C. Messius (2) aed. (cur.?)¹ 55
outcome: A?

Sen. Con. 7.4.8

1 See case #289, n. 2.

288

date: before case #289
defendant: C. Messius (2) aed. (cur.?)¹ 55
outcome: A?

Sen. Con. 7.4.8

1 See case #289, n. 2.

289

date: summer 54, in progress on July 27
charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (perhaps for misconduct in campaign for aedileship of 55)
defendant: C. Messius (2) aed. (cur.?)¹ 55, leg. 54
advocates: C. Licinius Macer Calvus² (113) (ORF 165.VI)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 61) praetor: P. Servilius Isauricus³ (67) cos. 48, 41
jurors: from tribus Maecia, Pomptina, and Velina⁴
outcome: uncertain⁵

Cic. Att. 4.15.9; Sen. Con. 7.4.8

1 See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 2.211-12.

2 See Gruen (HSCP 1966) 222. To be precise, we know that Calvus spoke for Messius in his third trial; conceivably, Cicero’s defense could have occurred at one of the two previous trials (see Shackleton Bailey, CLA 2.211). The case in which Cicero spoke occurred before a trial of Drusus (Att. 4.15.9), either #290 or #291. I am grateful to my colleague J.T. Ramsey for pointing out this sequence to me.

3 By edict he forced the defendant to return to Rome, although the defendant was a legate to Caesar.

4 See Badian (ZPE 1984) 104-5.

5 See Gruen, LGRR 316; Badian (ZPE 1984) 106.

290

date: 54 (defendant charged before July 1, rejection of jurors July 3, trial had not yet occurred on July 27)¹
defendant: M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19) pr. or iudex 50²
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 62)
prosecutors: C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113) (ORF 165.V)
Lucretius (1) = ? Q. Lucretius (12) sen. outcome: A³

Cic. Att. 4.16.5; 4.15.9; 4.17.5; Q. fr. 2.16.3; Tac. Dial. 21.2

1 Though case #291 might be the same as this one, this case is probably distinct. Case #291, involving praevaricatio, would probably not have employed the rejection of jurors, but would have used the same jurors as in the original trial (see lex Acilia 75 = 82). See Münzer RE (1926) 882, Gruen (HSCP 1966) 221, and Alexander (1977) 126-28.

2 See Taylor (1964) 23. n. 30.

3 Cicero (Att. 4.17.5, written Oct. 1) describes Drusus as having been acquitted, and probably refers to this case rather than case #291, if the two cases are indeed to be distinguished. Drusus’ continued career in public life indicates that he was not convicted of any major crime.

291

date: 54, after case #290; verdict reached by Aug., on the same day as Cicero’s defense of Vatinius, case #292)
charge: praevaricatio (perhaps as a result of prosecution in case #283)
defendant: M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19) pr. or iudex 50
outcome: A (by four votes, senators and equites for C, tribuni aerarii for A)

Cic. Q. fr. 2.16.3; see also Att. 4.15.9, 4.17.5

292

date: late August 54, defense speech delivered by Cicero occurred on the same day as the verdict was given in case #291
charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (misconduct in campaign for praetorship of 55)¹
defendant: P. Vatinius (3) pr. 55, cos. 47
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29)² cos. 63 (Sch. 100)
prosecutor: C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113) (ORF 165.I)
outcome: A

Cic. Fam. 1.9.4 and 19, 5.9.1; Q. fr. 2.16.3; [Sal.] Cic. 7; [Cic.] Sal. 12; V. Max. 4.2.4; Quint. Inst. 6.1.13, 6.3.60, 11.1.73; Asc. 18C; Schol. Bob. 160St; Hieron. Contra Ruf. 3.39
Gruen (HSCP 1966) 219-21

1 See Schol. Bob. 160St. Since Roman laws could have a retroactive force (Weinrib [1970] 430-31), there is no reason to contradict the scholiast’s assertion that he was tried under this law, which was passed in 55, even if the alleged violation of the law had occurred before its passage.

2 The contention of Shackleton Bailey, CLF (1.309) that Cicero could not have been both the patronus and laudator of Vatinius is disproved by such a double role in the prosecution of Scaurus (#295) by both Cicero and Hortensius (Asc. 20, 28C).

293

date: 54, end of August or early September
charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (misconduct in campaign for aedileship of 54)
defendant: Cn. Plancius (4) aed. cur. 55? 54?¹
advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus² (13) cos. 69
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 39) prosecutors: L. Cassius Longinus (65) tr. pl. 44 (subscr.) (ORF 168.I)
M. Iuventius Laterensis (16) pr. 51 (nom. del.) (ORF 167.I) praetor:³ C. Alfius Flavus (7)
jurors: from tribus Lemonia, Ufentina, Crustumina
outcome: A
other: tribus Maecia rejected as jurors by defendant

Cic. Planc.; Q. fr. 3.1.11; Schol. Bob. 152-69St
Jones (1972) 59; Grimal (1975)

1 Sumner (1971) 249 n. 12 supports a date of 54; in favor of 55 are Taylor (1964) 23 n. 30 and MRR Suppl. 158.

2 See Linderski (PP 1961).

3 He was perhaps quaesitor instead. See MRR 2.227 n. 3.

294

date: by 54, before case #295
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis?
defendant: C. Megabocchus (1)
witnesses: Sardinians

Cic. Scaur. 40

295

date: 54, postulatio July 6, trial ended Sept. 2
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sardinia 55)
defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56 (spoke pro se, ORF 139.III)
advocates: M. Calidius (4) pr. 57 (ORF 140.IV)
M. Claudius Marcellus (229) cos. 51 (ORF 155.II)
P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56 (ORF 137.VII)
Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XXII)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 40)
M. Valerius Messalla Niger (266) cos. 61, cens. 55 (ORF 124.I) prosecutors: L. Marius (20), = ? Marius (4) q. 50 (subscr.)
M. Pacuvius Claudius¹ (4) (subscr.)
Q. Pacuvius Claudius² (5) (subscr.)
P. Valerius Triarius (367) (nom. del.) (ORF 148.I) praetor: M. Porcius Cato (16)
witnesses: Aris (not in RE)
Valerius (10) character witnesses:³ Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96) cos. 57
L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (90) cos. 58, cens. 50
Faustus Cornelius Sulla (377) q. 54 (ORF 156.I)
? Cn. Domitius Sincaicus (82)
Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69
L. Marcius Philippus (76) cos. 56
M. Perperna (5) cos. 92, cens. 86
Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63
L. Volcacius Tullus (8) cos. 66
? boni viri ex Sardinia supplicatores: M’. Acilius Glabrio (39)
L. Aemilius Buca (37) monetalis 44
L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus (81) cos. 50
M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56
T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
(L.? P.?) Cornelius Lentulus (205)
Faustus Cornelius Sulla (377) q. 54
C. Memmius (9) tr. pl. 54
C. Peducaeus (1) leg. 43
C. Porcius Cato (6) tr. pl. 56?, pr. 55?⁴
M. (Popillius?) Laenas Curtianus (not in RE)⁵ outcome: A, four out of twenty-two senators voted C, two out of twenty-three equites did so, and two out of twenty-five tribuni aerarii did so.
other: Sixty days were granted for inquisitio. Ten jurors voted that M. and Q. Pacuvius had committed calumnia, and three that L. Marius had done so.

Cic. Scaur.; Att. 4.16.6, 4.15.9, 4.17.4; Q. fr. 2.16.3, 3.1.11 and 16; V. Max. 8.1. abs. l0; Asc. 18-29C; Schol. Amb. 274-76St

1 On the name Claudius (or Caldus?) see Courtney (1961) 151; Gruen, LGRR 333 n. 107; Shackleton Bailey (1975) 442; Rawson (1977) 348-49; and Marshall, Asconius 123-24.

2 See n. 1.

3 Some were not present.

4 For references, see case #283, n. 1.

5 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 125.

296

date: 54, postulatio by Sept. 20; nominis delatio Sept. 28; verdict reached on Oct. 23
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (restoration of Ptolemy contrary to SC)
defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
advocate?: M. Calidius¹ (4) pr. 57
prosecutor: L. Cornelius Lentulus (Cruscellio?) (l97) pr. 44
praetor: C. Alfius Flavus (7)²
jurors: L. Aelius Lamia (75) pr. 42?
Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) cos. 53, 40 (voted A)³
C. Porcius Cato (6)⁴ tr. pl. 56, pr. 55⁵ witness: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 64)
outcome: 32 votes for C, 38 for A
other: praevaricatio suspected

Cic. Att. 4.18.1; Q. fr. 2.12.2, 3.1.15 and 24; 3.2.3, 3.3.3, 3.4.1-3, 3.7.1; App. BCiv. 2.24; Dio 39.55.3-5, 62.3; Schol. Bob. 168St

1 He tried to speak for Gabinius at some public meeting (Q. fr. 3.2.1). Fantham (1975) 433-34 points out that Valerius Maximus (8.1.3) tells of a public disturbance when C. Memmius was accuser, and suggests that, as tr. pl., Memmius led a iudicium populi against Gabinius; contra D.-G. 3.54 n. 4. Possibly, then, Calidius was patronus for Gabinius in at least one trial.

2 He was possibly quaesitor instead. See MRR 2.227 n. 3; Jones (1972) 59, and 128 n. 91.

3 For references, see case #268, n. 3.

4 See Linderski (1969) 287-88, Shackleton Bailey, CQF 215, and MRR Suppl. 169-70.

5 For references, see case #283, n. 1. There were seventy jurors total, including these three whose names are known.

297

date: 54, verdict reached Oct. 23, within one hour after verdict in case #296
charge: lex Papia
defendant: Gabinius Antiochus (14)
outcome: C

Cic. Att. 4.18.4
Fasciato (1947)

298

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 53)
defendant: C. Memmius (8) pr. 58 (probably spoke pro se) (ORF 125.V)
prosecutor: Q. Acutius (not in RE) = ? Q. Curtius (13) or = ? Acutius (3) Rufus¹
outcome: uncertain²

Cic. Att. 4.17.3; Q. fr. 2.15.4, 2.16.2, 3.1.16, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, 3.6.3

1 Shackleton Bailey makes this suggestion at CQF 213.

2 See case #320, which is possibly a continuation of this case.

299

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 53)
defendant: M. Valerius Messalla Rufus (268) cos. 53
prosecutor: Q. Pompeius Rufus (41) tr. pl. 52
outcome: uncertain¹
other: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 working on behalf of defendant (as patronus?)²

Cic. Att. 4.15.7, 4.17.3 and 5; Q. fr. 2.15.4, 2.16.2, 3.1.16, 3.2.3, 3.3.2, 3.6.3

1 See case #329, which is possibly a continuation of this case.

2 See Wiseman (1966) 109; Gruen, LGRR 332; Shackleton Bailey, CQF 214; Crawford, Orations 63.

300

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 53)
defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 66)
prosecutor: P. Valerius Triarius (367)¹ outcome: incomplete? (cf. case #319)

Cic. Att. 4.15.7, 4.17.5, 4.18.3, Q. fr. 2.15.4, 3.2.3, 3.6.3; Off. 1.138; Quint. Inst. 4.1.69; see also App. BCiv. 2.24

1 L. Iulius Caesar (144) leg. 49 was considered as a possible prosecutor (see Att. 4.17.5).

301

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for 53)
defendant: Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43, cf. 11) cos. 53, 40¹
prosecutor: C. Memmius (8) pr. 58, or (9) tr. pl. 54² (ORF 125.IV)
outcome: condemned? in 52?³

Cic. Att. 4.15.7, 4.17.5, 4.18.3; Q. fr. 2.15.4, 2.16.2, 3.1.16, 3.2.3, 3.3.2

1 For references, see case #268, n. 3.

2 See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 2.218, and Gruen (1969) 319 n. 2.

3 D.-G. 3.7 n. 11 maintains that there is no evidence that the case was resumed.

302

date: 54, verdict reached before Nov. 2
defendant: M. Fulvius Nobilior (94) e.R.
outcome: C

Cic. Att. 4.18.3; see also Sal. Cat. 17.4

303

date: 54,¹ divinatio on Oct. 12
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (accepting bribes from Ptolemy while gov. Syria 57-54)
defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63² (Crawford, Orations 65)
prosecutor:³ C. Memmius (9) tr. pl. 54
praetor: M. Porcius Cato (16)
witnesses: people from Alexandria
outcome: C, exile
other: According to Q. fr. 3.2.1, the candidates at the divinatio were C. Memmius, Ti. Claudius Nero (254), and C. Antonius (20) pr. 44 and L. Antonius (23) cos. 41.

Cic. Rab. Post. 8, 21, 30, 34, 38; Q. fr. 3.1.15, 3.2.2; V. Max. 4.2.4, 8.1. abs. 3; Quint. Inst. 11.1.73; Plut. Ant. 3.2; App. BCiv. 2.24; Dio 39.63, 46.8.1; Schol. Bob. 168, 177St

1 As to whether the trial could have continued into 53, see Lintott (1974) 67, and Fantham (1975) 439-40 n. 34 and 443.

2 Dio 46.8.1 records the charge that Cicero committed praevaricatio by pleading the case in such a way that the defendant was condemned.

3 According to Q. fr. 3.1.15, the expected prosecutors were L. Cornelius Lentulus (Cruscellio?) (197) pr. 44, Ti. Claudius Nero (cum bonis subscriptoribus), and Memmius, with L. Ateius Capito (9: q. by 52, pr. date uncertain) as subscriptor.

304

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 58?)¹
defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
prosecutors: L. Caecilius Rufus (110) pr. 57 (subscr.)
P. Cornelius Sulla (386) (nom. del.) cos. des. 65
P. Cornelius Sulla (387) (subscr.), sen.?²
C. Memmius (9) tr. pl. 54 (subscr.) outcome: dropped after condemnation of defendant in case #303
other: L. Manlius Torquatus (80) pr. 50 or 49 was defeated in the divinatio.

Cic. Att. 4.18.3; Q. fr. 3.2.3, 3.3.2

1 The charge possibly arose from alleged misconduct in a campaign much closer to the date of the trial.

2 See MRR Suppl. 73.

305

date: Dec. 54 to mid-Jan. 53¹
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (quo ea pecunia pervenerit) (actions as assistant to A. Gabinius (11), gov. Syria 57-54)
defendant: C. Rabirius Postumus (6) e.R. at time of trial, pr., perhaps in 48²
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 41)
prosecutor: C. Memmius (9) tr. pl. 54
witnesses: representative of people of Alexandria
outcome: uncertain³

Cic. Rab. Post.; Quint. Inst. 3.6.11, 4.2.10
Fascione (1974)

1 On the procedure, see case #205, and Fantham (1975) 439-40; Ramsey (Phoenix 1980) 330 n. 31

2 See MRR Suppl. 181.

3 The defendant’s later career may indicate that he was acquitted. See Vonder Mühll, RE 1A (1914) 27-28.

306

date: 52, late Feb. or early intercalary month¹
claim: actio ad exhibendum to produce servi²
defendants: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
Fausta Cornelia (436)
plaintiffs: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38
and Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.?³
P. Valerius Nepos (278)
and P. Valerius Leo (218)
present for defendants: M. Calidius (4) pr. 57
M. Claudius Marcellus (229) cos. 51
Faustus Cornelius Sulla (377) q. 54
Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XXIII)
M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63
outcome: uncertain

Asc. 34,¹ 41

1 See Ruebel (1979) 239.

2 See Ruebel (n. 1 above) 239 n. 20; Lintott (1974) 71. The action was probably a preliminary to an action against the owners of the slaves.

3 See MRR Suppl. 57.

1 See Clark’s commentary on the pro Milone, 99, and Marshall, Asconius 173, for discussion of possible emendation and alternative punctuations: L. Herennius Balbus (18) may have been involved in this case, rather than in case #307.

307

date: 52
claim: actio ad exhibendum to produce servi¹
defendants: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
comites of Clodius plaintiff: L. Herennius Balbus (18) Lupercus 56²

Asc. 34C

1 For a reference, see #306, n. 2.

2 See case #306, n. 4.

308

date: 52
claim: actio ad exhibendum to produce servi¹
defendants: P. Plautius Hypsaeus (23) pr. by 55?
Q. Pompeius Rufus (41) tr. pl. 52 plaintiff?: M. Caelius Rufus (35) tr. pl. 52, pr. 48

Asc. 34C
Lintott (1974) 71

1 For a reference on this date, see #306, n. 2.

309

date: 52, Milo charged on March 26, trial on April 4-7/[8])¹
charge: lex Pompeia de vi (murder of Clodius)²
defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
advocates: M. Claudius Marcellus (229) cos. 51
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 72)³ prosecutors: M. Antonius (30) q. 51,⁴ cos. 44, 34 (subscr.)
Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38 (nom. del.)
Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.? (subscr.)⁵
P. Valerius Nepos (278) (subscr.) quaesitor: L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (27) cos. 54
jurors:⁶ Q. Petilius (5 or 6)
M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54 (voted A)
P. Varius (4) witnesses: Q. Arrius (8) pr. before 63 = ? Q. Arrius (7) pr. 73⁷
C. Causinius Schola (1) of Interamna
C. Clodius (7)
Fulvia (113)
M. Porcius Cato (20) pr. 54
Sempronia (102)
residents of Bovillae (Asc. 40C)
virgines Albanae (Asc. 40C)⁸ outcome: C, exile to Massilia, and perhaps confiscation;⁹ twelve senators, thirteen equites, and thirteen tribuni aerarii voted C; six senators, four equites, and three tribuni aerarii voted A.

Cic. Mil.; Liv. Per. 107; Vell. 2.47.4-5; Asc. 30-56; Quint. Inst. 3.6.93, 3.11.15 and 17; 4.1.20; 4.2.25, 4.3.17, 6.3.49, 10.1.23; Plut. Cic. 35; App. BCiv. 2.21-22, 24; Dio 40.54-55.1; Schol. Bob. 111-125St; Schol. Gronov. D 322-323St; see also Cic. Att. 5.8.2-3, 6.4.3, 6.5.1-2

1 On the chronology of this trial and related trials, see Ruebel (1979) 245-47.

2 On the meeting of Clodius and Milo, see Davies (1969); contra Wellesley (1971).

3 Cicero alone spoke for the defense (Asc. 414C), but he, Marcellus, and the defendant cross-examined witnesses.

4 See MRR Suppl. 19-20.

5 For a reference, see case #306, n. 3.

6 Eighty-one jurors were selected; then the prosecution and defense each rejected five from each order. Fifty-one jurors voted.

7 See MRR Suppl. 25 for sources and bibliography on whether these two Arrii are in fact the same person.

8 On their identity see Marshall, Asconius 188-89.

9 See Lintott (1974) 76-78, and Marshall, Asconius 209.

310

date: 52¹
charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 52)
defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
prosecutors: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38 (nom. del.)
Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.?² (subscr.)
Domitius (11) pr.? in 54
P. Valerius Leo (218) (subscr.) quaesitor: A. Manlius Torquatus (76)³ pr. ca 70
outcome: C, praemium offered to nominis delator⁴
other: C. Ateius Capito⁵ (7, = ? C. Ateius [3]) tr. pl. 55 (subscr.), and L. Cornificius (4) sen.?⁶ rejected in divinatio.

Asc. 38, 39, 54C; Dio 40.53.2
Syme (Historia 1955) 60 = RP 1.280.

1 The charge was laid March 26;, divinatio took place between March 27 and April 3, and the verdict was reached on April 8 or 9; see Ruebel (1979) 243.

2 For a reference, see case #306, n. 1.

3 See Mitchell (1966) 26 and Linderski (1972) 195-96 n. 59.

4 Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) was offered a reward for his successful prosecution, but refused it.

5 Other conjectures as to the correct reading are C. Cethegus (90), Q. Patulcius (2).

6 See Syme (CP 1955) 134 and MRR Suppl. 76.

311

date: 52¹
charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 52)
defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
prosecutor: P. Fulvius Neratus (89)
quaesitor: M. Favonius (1) aed. 53 or 52,² pr. 49
outcome: C, prosecutor received praemium

Asc. 38-39, 54C

1 The charge was laid on March 26, and the verdict reached on April 11 or 12; see Ruebel (1979) 243, 247.

2 See MRR 2.240 n. 2, Suppl. 90.

312

date: 52, verdict reached on April 11 or 12
charge: lex Plautia de vi (murder of Clodius)
defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
prosecutors: L. Cornificius (4) sen.?¹
Q. Patulcius (2) quaesitor: L. Fabius (22)
outcome: condemned in absence

Asc. 54C

1 For references, see case #310, n. 6.

313

date: 52, on or after ca April 12
charge: lex Pompeia de vi (participation in murder of P. Clodius Pulcher [48] aed. cur. 56)
defendant: M. Saufeius (6)
advocates: M. Caelius Rufus (35) tr. pl. 52, pr. 48 (ORF 162.V)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 73) prosecutors: L. Cassius Longinus (65) tr. pl. 44
L. Fulcinius (3)
C. Valerius (52) outcome: A, twenty-six for A, twenty-five for C (for C, ten senators, nine equites, and six tribuni aerarii; for A, eight senators, eight equites, and ten tribuni aerarii)

Asc. 55C

314

date: 52, on or after ca April 18
charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in murder of Clodius)
defendant: M. Saufeius (6)
advocates: M. Terentius Varro Gibba (89) tr. pl. 43
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 74) prosecutors: Cn. Aponius (4)
C. Fidius (1)
M. Seius¹ (4) e.R. quaesitor?:² Considius (2), = either C. Considius Longus (11) pr. by 54 or M. Considius Nonianus (13) propr. 49³
outcome: A (thirty-two for A, nineteen for C; tribuni aerarii mainly for C)

Asc. 55C

1 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 65.

2 Mommsen, StR. 2³.584 argues that the quaestio de vi was always presided over by a quaesitor, never a praetor; see also Linderski (1972) 195-96, n. 59.

3 See MRR 2.240 n. 3, Suppl. 61, and Marshall, Asconius 210. On M. Considius Nonianus (13), see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 109-11.

315

date: 52, after April 22
charge: lex Pompeia de vi (movement of Clodius’ body into curia)
defendant: Sex. Cloelius (Clodius 12)¹
advocate: T. Flacconius (1)
prosecutors: M. Alfidius (Aufidius 9?)²
C. Caesennius Philo (11) outcome: C (46 votes for condemnation; five for acquittal: two senators, three equites)

Asc. 55-56C

1 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 17.

2 He does not have the cognomen ‘Lurco.’ See Wiseman (1965) 334, Linderski (1974) 478-80, and MRR Suppl. 14.

316

date: 52?¹
charge: lex Pompeia de vi?²
defendant: P. Cornelius Dolabella (141) cos. suff. 44
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 76)
outcome: A³

Cic. Fam. 3.10.5; see also Fam. 6.11.1; Phil. 11.9

1 The trial occurred before Cicero’s departure for Cilicia in 51. See Gruen LGRR 526.

2 D.-G. 6.85 n. 9 maintains that the defendant was charged with ‘Mord.’ But Phil. 11.9 is too vague to determine the nature of the charge.

3 Crawford, Orations 225 points out that the defendant’s prosecution of Appius in 50 (case #344) shows that he was acquitted in this trial.

317

date: 52?¹
charge: perhaps for lex Scantinia² (perhaps for pederasty)
defendant: P. Cornelius Dolabella (141) cos. suff. 44
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 109)
outcome: A³

Cic. Fam. 3.10.5; see also Fam. 6.11.1; Phil. 11.9

1 See Gruen, LGRR 526, Crawford, Orations p. 225 n. 1.

2 D.-G. (6.85 n. 9) maintains that the defendant was charged with pederasty (‘Knabenschänderei’). But the evidence is too vague. See case #316, n. 2 on the passage from the Philippics.

3 See case #316, n. 3.

318

date: 52
defendant: T. Fadius¹ (9) tr. pl. 57²
outcome: C, by one vote

Cic. Fam. 5.18

1 His cognomen is probably not ‘Gallus’; see Shackleton Bailey (1962) and Studies 38, and MRR Suppl. 89.

2 Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.350 suggests that he became aedile and/or praetor 55-53.

319

date: 52
charge: lex (Pompeia?) de ambitu (campaign for consulate of 53)¹
defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 108)
prosecutor: C. Valerius Triarius (365) praef. class. 49-48 = ? P. Valerius Triarius (367)²

outcome: C

Cic. Off. 1.138; Quint. 4.1.69; App. BCiv. 2.24; see also Cic. Att. 4.17.5; Q. fr. 3.2.3; Brut. 324

1 This case is perhaps a continuation of case #300.

2 See Douglas, Brutus p. 194 on Brut. 265, MRR Suppl. 215, and Marshall, Asconius 122.

320

date: 52
charge: lex (Pompeia?) de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate in 53)¹
defendant: C. Memmius (8) pr. 58
outcome: C, exile in Athens

Cic. Fam. 13.1.1; App. BCiv. 2.24

1 This case is perhaps a continuation of case #298.

321

date: 52, after case #320, before defendant takes office in August
charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 52)
defendant: Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (99) cos. 52
prosecutors: C. Memmius (9)¹ tr. pl. 54 and one other prosecutor
outcome: dropped (cf. case #301, n. 2)

V. Max. 9.5.3; Asc. 30C; Plut. Cat. Min. 48.4; Pomp. 55.4; Tac. Ann. 3.28; App. BCiv. 2.24; Dio 40.51.3, 40.53.1-2

1 He was attempting to be restored to civic status after his condemnation

(see case #320) by successful prosecution; see Mommsen, Strafr. 509 n. 4; Alexander (1985) 29.

322

date: 52
charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 52)
defendant: P. Plautius Hypsaeus (23) pr. by 55?
outcome: C

V. Max. 9.5.3; Asc. 30C; Plut. Pomp. 55.6; App. BCiv. 2.24; Dio 40.53.1

323

date: 52 (same time as case #324)
charge: lex Pompeia (de ambitu?) (perhaps for misconduct during campaign for praetorship of 55)
defendant: P. Sestius (6) tr. pl. 57, pr. perhaps by 54¹
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 75)
outcome: A?²

Cic. Att. 13.49.1; Fam. 7.24.2; App. BCiv. 2.24

1 For a reference, see case #270, n. 1.

2 Appian has C for a ‘Sextus.’ But Sestius went on to serve as governor in 49. See Gruen, LGRR 349 n. 186.

324

date: 52, same time as case #323
defendants?: sons of Cn. Octavius (23?)
plaintiff?: Phamea (1)
other: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 was to have spoken for Phamea, but failed to do so because of a commitment to speak for Sestius (case #323).

Cic. Att. 13.49.1; Fam. 7.24.2

325

date: possibly before case #327, certainly just before case #326
defendant: Munatius (1), perhaps the same as T. Munatius Plancus Bursa (32) tr. pl. 52¹
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 78)
outcome: A

Plut. Cic. 25.1

1 Case #327 is a terminus ante quem only if Munatius (1) is the same person as Munatius (32).

326

date: possibly before case #327, just after case #325¹
defendant: Sabinus (1)
prosecutor: Munatius (1), perhaps the same as T. Munatius Plancus Bursa (32) tr. pl. 52

Plut. Cic. 25.1

1 See case #325, n. 1.

327

date: between Dec. 10, 52 and end of Jan. 51,¹ after case #325
charge: lex Pompeia de vi (activities as tr. pl. 52, burning of senate house)
defendant: T. Munatius Plancus Bursa (32) tr. pl. 52
prosecutor: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 79)
juror: M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54²
outcome: C, exile to Ravenna
other: Cato prevented Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 from delivering a laudatio

Cic. Fam. 7.2.2-4, 8.1.4; Phil. 6.10, 13.27; V. Max. 6.2.5; Plut. Cato Min. 48.4; Pomp. 55.4; Dio 40.55

1 See Gruen, LGRR 346 n. 172, and Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.351. The trial must have occurred after the defendant’s tribunate, although Plut. Pomp. 55.6 says that it occurred before trial #322.

2 He was rejected after the trial had begun.

328

date: by May 51
charge: lex Pompeia de vi (activities as tr. pl. 52, burning of senate house)
defendant: Q. Pompeius Rufus (41) tr. pl. 52
prosecutor: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (ORF 162.VI)
outcome: C, exile to Bauli

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.1.4; V. Max. 4.2.7; Dio 40.55.1

329

date: by June 51
charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 53)¹
defendant: M. Valerius Messalla Rufus (268) cos. 53
advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XXIV)
outcome: A by three votes (by one vote in each order)

Cic. Brut. 328; Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.2.1, 8.4.1; Cic. Att. 5.12.2; V. Max. 5.9.2

1 This case may be a continuation of case #299.

330

date: 51, just before case #333, charged before Aug. 1, verdict before Sept. 2
charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 50)
defendant: M. Calidius (4) pr. 57, spoke pro se (ORF 140.VI)
prosecutor: M. Gallius (5) pr. by 45¹
or Q. Gallius (7) (Axianus?) pr. 43² outcome: A

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.4.1, 8.9.5

1 See Sumner (1971) 366-67 n. 55, and MRR Suppl. 98.

2 See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.390, Studies 62; MRR Suppl. 98-99.

331

date: by Aug. 1, 51
charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (misconduct in campaign for consulate 53)
defendant: M. Valerius Messalla Rufus (268) cos. 53
outcome: C, payment of fine

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.2.1, 8.4.1; Brut. 328; V. Max. 5.9.2
D.-G. 3.7 n. 11

332

date: by Aug. 1, 51
charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu¹ (misconduct in campaign for tr. pl. 50)
defendant: Servaeus (3) tr. pl. des. for 50 = ? Servius Pola (5)²
outcome: C

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.4.2

1 So Münzer RE 2A (1923) 1754; Shackleton Bailey (1970) l65.

2 Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.390 argues that this is not Servius Pola (5), since the latter went on to prosecute under the lex Scantinia (case #347). Note, however, that it was possible for those convicted of ambitus to prosecute others on that charge; the possibility should also be entertained that a man condemned for ambitus could conduct a prosecution under another law not relating to ambitus.

333

date: mid Sept. 51
charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (campaign for consulate of 50)
defendant: C. Claudius Marcellus (216) cos. 50
prosecutor: M. Calidius (4) pr. 57
outcome: A

Cic. Fam. 8.9.2, 5
Shackleton Bailey (1970) 165

334

date: mid-Sept.to mid-Oct. 51, before case #335
charge: lex Plautia de vi?¹ or lex Cornelia de iniuriis?²
defendant: C. Sempronius Rufus (79) mag.-des.?³
prosecutor: M. Tuccius (6) (Galeo?)
outcome: C and exile?⁴

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.8.1; see also Att. 14.14.2

1 See Lintott (1968) 122 n. 2.

2 See Mommsen, Strafr. 399 n. 1.

3 That the defendant was mag. des. is a suggestion made by Weinrib (1971) 149 n. 8.

4 Broughton MRR 2.465 claims that the defendant was in the Senate by 44; this would suggest that he had been acquitted in this trial. There are two pieces of evidence which are said to support this view. First, according to Porphyrion on Hor. Sat. 2.2.50, the defendant at some time reached the praetorship, and second, Cic. Fam. 12.29.2 refers to a Sempronianum SC. However, Badian (PACA 1968) 4 n. 18, following Mommsen StR. 3.997 and 1012, points out that this sort of phrase cannot necessarily be interpreted for the Republican period as implying that the named individual was author of the SC or presiding magistrate when it was passed. Rather, as Mommsen points out, this sort of phrase could refer to the individual affected by the SC, and therefore, as CLF 2.514 notes, could refer to a decree recalling Sempronius from exile. Indeed, Cic. Att. 14.14.2 seems to refer to such a recall from exile. A guilty verdict in this trial could have been the cause of exile. The scholiast, then, would have made an error resulting from the problematic reading of the passage from Horace (on which see Münzer, RE 2A [1923] 1436-37).

335

date: mid-Sept. to mid-Oct. 51
charge: lex Plautia de vi¹
defendant: M. Tuccius (6) (Galeo?)
advocate?: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (ORF 167.VII), but he may have been a character witness instead.
prosecutor: C. Sempronius Rufus (79) mag.-des.?²
outcome: A
other: calumnia believed by some

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.8.1; see also Att. 6.2.10

1 On the basis of material found in the shipwreck off the island of Planier, D’Arms (1981) 48-55 speculates that the Vestorius mentioned by Caelius Rufus was a partner in a shipping venture with the accusator and reus, and that their disagreement may have stemmed from a dispute over the share of damages resulting from the shipwreck.

2 See case #334, n. 3.

336

date: over by Oct. 51
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Asia, 55-53)
defendant: C. Claudius Pulcher (303) pr. 56
praetor: M. Iuventius Laterensis (16)
outcome: C, litis aestimatio, exile

Cic. Fam. 8.8.2
Cicero, Correspondance ed. Tyrrell and Purser 3.109-12; Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.398-401

337

date: begun by Oct. 51
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis, quo ea pecunia pervenerit (possession of funds extorted by C. Claudius Pulcher)¹
defendant: M. Servilius (20) = ? M. Servilius (21) tr. pl. 43²
advocate: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48
prosecutor: Pausanias (13)
praetor: M. Iuventius Laterensis (16)
outcome: praetor refused to accept case

Cic. Fam. 8.8.2
Cicero, Correspondance ed. Tyrrell and Purser 3.109-12; Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.398-401

1 See case #336. On the procedure, see case #205.

2 Münzer RE 2A (1923) 1766 argues that they may be identical, but Douglas, Brutus 197 and Sumner, Orators 146 show that they cannot be, since the orators listed in the Brutus were dead by 46.

338

date: divinatio by Oct. 51, trial not over at end of #339
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis
defendant: M. Servilius (20) sen.? = ? M. Servilius (21) tr. pl. 43¹
advocate?: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48
prosecutor: Q. Pilius Celer (2)
praetor: M. Iuventius Laterensis (16)

Cic. Fam. 8.8.2-3; Att. 6.3.10

1 See case #337, n. 2.

339

date: divinatio by Oct. 51
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis, (possibly quo ea pecunia pervenerit; regarding funds deposited with the defendant praevaricationis causa in case #336)
defendant: M. Servilius (20) sen.? = ? M. Servilius (21) tr. pl. 43¹
prosecutor: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.?²
praetor: M. Iuventius Laterensis (16)
jurors: same as in litis aestimatio of case #336
outcome: tie vote, A?³

Cic. Fam. 8.8.3

1 See case #337, n. 2.

2 For a reference, see case #306, n. 3.

3 There was some confusion as to whether the defendant was actually acquitted, or whether there was no decision.

340

date: begun by Oct. 51
charge: lex Iulia de repetundis
defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) perhaps sen.¹
prosecutors: Servilii²

Cic. Fam. 8.8.3

1 For a reference, see case #306, n. 3.

2 The prosecutors were presumably M. Servilius (20) sen.? = ? M. Servilius (21) tr. pl. 43 (see case #337, n. 2), and relatives.

341

date: 51, charge laid by October
charge: lex Pompeia de vi
defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.?¹
prosecutor: uncertain²

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.8.3

1 For a reference, see case #306, n. 3.

2 The prosecutor was probably not Sex. Tettius (4). See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.401.

342

date: 50, perhaps Feb.?
claim: civil suit
plaintiff: L. Custidius¹ (1, RE Supp. I)
urban praetor: C. Titius Rufus (37)

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 13.58

1 The plaintiff’s nomen may instead have been Cuspidius. See CLF 1.479.

343

date: 50, perhaps March?
party: M. Fabius¹ Gallus (Fadius 6)
party: Q. Fabius Gallus (Fadius 8)
advocate?: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48
peregrine? praetor:² M. Curtius Peducaeanus (23)

Fam. 2.14, 9.25.3, 13.59

1 See Shackleton Bailey (1962) 195-96 and CLF 1.417.

2 See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.417, 480; MRR Suppl. 79.

344

date: 50, prosecuted by Feb., verdict reached close to April 5)
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (misconduct as gov. Cilicia 53-51? went to province without lex curiata? remained in province too long)¹
defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens. 50
prosecutor: P. Cornelius Dolabella (141) cos. suff. 44
outcome: A

Fam. 3.11.1-3; Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.6.1

1 Auct. Vir. Ill. 82.4 gives the charge as repetundae.

345

date: 50, verdict reached by late May¹
charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in election for office [censorship of 50?])
defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens. 50
advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XXV)
M. Iunius Brutus (53) pr. 44 (ORF 158.III)
prosecutor: P. Cornelius Dolabella (141) cos. suff. 44
outcome: A

Cic. Fam. 3.11.2, 3.12.1; Brut. 230, 324

1 See Sumner, Orators 122-23 on the chronology of this trial and of #344, and on the reasons for assigning the defense by Hortensius and Brutus to this trial rather than to the preceding one.

346

date: 50, charge laid by Aug. 8
charge: uncertain¹
defendant: Cn. Sentius Saturninus (Appuleius 27) q. or leg. 68-67,² sen. by 54
prosecutor: Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (23) cos. 32

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.14.1; see also V. Max. 9.1.8

1 Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.431 suggests that the defendant was one of Curio’s friends convicted for vis in support of M. Antonius (30) cos. 44, 34. See Cic. Phil. 2.4.

2 The defendant was not an Appuleius; see Syme’s two articles (Historia 1964) 121-22, 162 = RP 2.600-1, 611; Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.431.

347

date: 50, after ludi Romani of Sept. 19
charge: lex Scantinia
defendant: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48
prosecutor: Sevius or Servius¹ (Servius 5) Pola
praetor: M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19)²

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.14.4, 8.12.2-3

1 On this nomen, see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 66.

2 He may instead have been a juror. The phrase apud Drusum fieri (Fam. 8.14.4) could refer to either a praetor or a juror, probably the former.

348

date: Sept. 50
charge: lex Scantinia
defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens.
prosecutor: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48
praetor: M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19)¹

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.12.1 and 3, 8.14.4

1 See #347, n. 2 above.

349

date: 50
charge: lex Pompeia? de vi
defendants: friends of C. Scribonius Curio (11) tr. pl. 50

Cic. Phil. 2.4

350

date: 50
defendant: Sex. Peducaeus (6) pr.? ca 49?
outcome: A

Cael. in Cic. Fam. 8.14.1

351

date: Sept. 50
claim: failure of defendant as censor to keep a sacellum, which was on his property, open to the public¹
defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens.
plaintiff: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48

Cic. Fam. 8.12.3; see also Liv. 40.51.8

1 On the prosecution of censors, see Courtney (1960) 99, Shackleton Bailey (1970) 163, CLF 1.435.

Trials of Indefinite Date

352

date: 136?¹
claim: actio de iniuriis (ne quid infamandi causa fiat, libel of Accius)
plaintiff?: L. Accius (1)
juror?: P. Mucius Scaevola (17) cos. 133
outcome: C

ad Her. 1.24, 2.19

1 See Münzer RE 16 (1933) 426, MRR 1.488 n. 3.

353

date: late second century
claim: actio de iniuriis (ne quid infamandi causa fiat, libel of Lucilius)
plaintiff?: C. Lucilius (4)
juror: C. Coelius Caldus (12) cos. 94
outcome: A

ad Her. 2.19

354

date: late second century
claim: civil suit (inheritance from a man with two wives)

Cic. de Orat. 1.183

355

date: uncertain¹
charge: lex Calpurnia (or Iunia) de repetundis
defendant: Livius Salinator (30)
outcome: A

App. BCiv. 1.22
Richardson (1987) 12

1 Appian places the defendant’s name between that of Aurelius Cotta (case #9) and M’. Aquillius (case #23). 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.

356

date: after 106? after the enactment of lex Servilia (of Glaucia or Caepio)¹
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae?) de repetundis
defendant: C. Cosconius (not in RE)²
prosecutor: Valerius Valentinus (372)
outcome: A

V. Max. 8.1. abs. 8
Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 343-45, Gruen, RPCC 302

1 The trial might have taken place in the 80s, when C. Cosconius (3) was active in the Social War (Cic. Leg. 89; see Münzer, RE 4 [1901] 1668). However, the prosecutor can perhaps be linked to legislation ridiculed by the circle of Opimius, who was banished in 109 (case #53). Therefore, a date in the last years of the second century is likely; see Volkmann RE 8A (1955) 236-37.

2 See Cosconius (3) pr.? 89, promag. 78-76?, and Münzer RE 4 (1901) 1668, and RE Supp. 3 (1918) 262.

357

date: sometime within ca 104 to 81
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae?) de repetundis¹
defendant: T. Caelius (not in RE) sen.?²
prosecutor: L. Cossinius (1, = ? 2) of Tibur, pr. 73?³
outcome: C, prosecutor received reward of citizenship

Cic. Balb. 53; see also 54

1 Gruen, RPCC 301 points out that Balb. 54 implies that the two trials mentioned in Balb. 53 occurred under a lex Servilia, since it is implied that the lex Licinia et Mucia of 95 might have affected part of it. Tibiletti (1953) 74 n. 2 points out that this would most naturally be not the extinct lex Servilia Caepionis but the lex Servilia Glauciae. But the point is vexed. See Alexander (1977) 64-66, n. 22. For the view that it is the lex Servilia Caepionis, see Badian (1954); contra Levick (1967). See also Sherwin-White (1972) 96-97, Griffin (CQ 1973) 123-26.

2 See Badian (1961) 493, who argues from the status of Caelius as a defendant in an extortion suit that he was probably a senator.

3 See MRR Suppl. 77.

358

date: sometime within ca 104 to 81
charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae?)¹ de repetundis²
defendant: C. Papirius Masso (59) sen.?³
prosecutor: T. Coponius (8) of Tibur
outcome: C, prosecutor received reward of citizenship

Cic. Balb. 53, see also 54
Gruen, RPCC 301

1 See case #60, n. 1.

2 See case #357, n. 1.

3 Broughton MRR Suppl. 154 suggests that the prosecutor’s admission to citizenship may show that the defendant was a senator. See also Badian (1961) 493.

359

date: by 91
advocate?:¹ L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86 (ORF 269, #16)
juror: L. Aurifex (1) e.R.
witness: uncertain²

Cic. de Orat. 2.245

1 See Nicolet, Ordre équestre 2.798.

2 A pusillus is mentioned by Cicero as a witness.

360

date: by 91
claim: apud centumviros (issue unknown)
party: fratres (Cornelii?) Cossi (110a)
advocate (for Cossi): C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61¹ (ORF 86.II)
advocate (against Cossi): M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.VIII)

Cic. de Orat. 2.98
Münzer RE Supp. 1 (1903) 328

1 For a reference, see case #82, n. 3.

361

date: by 91
claim: civil suit (obstruction of daylight to house purchased by plaintiff)
defendant: M. Buculeius (1)
plaintiff: L. Fufius (5) tr. pl. 91 or 90¹

Cic. de Orat. 1.179
Roby (1886) 67-75

1 See case #84, n. 3.

362

date: by 91
claim: civil suit (sale of house with undisclosed servitude [easement])
defendant: M. Marius Gratidianus (42) pr. 85?, 82 II ?¹
advocate (for Marius): M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.IX)
plaintiff: C. Sergius Orata (33)
advocate (for Orata): L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.X)

Cic. de Orat. 1.178; Off. 3.67
Münzer RE 2A (1923) 1713-14

1 On defendant’s name see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 122. On the date of his praetorships, see Sumner, Orators 118-19.

363

date: by 91
claim: apud centumviros (inheritance by patron from an exile from an allied state)

Cic. de Orat. 1.177

364

date: by 91
claim: apud centumviros (dispute between plebeian Claudii Marcelli and patrician Claudii from other families over inheritance from a freedman’s son)

Cic. de Orat. 1.176
Wilkins, de Oratore ad loc.

365

date: by 91
claim: civil suit (suit over use of public water)
defendant: C. Sergius Orata (33)
advocate (for Orata): L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.XIII)
plaintiff: Considius (1)

V. Max. 9.1.1
Münzer RE IIA (1923) 1713

366

date: by 91
claim: civil suit?
party: C. Visellius Aculeo (1) e.R.
advocate (for Aculeo): L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.XI)
party: M. Marius Gratidianus (42) pr. 85? 82 II ?¹
advocate (for Marius): L. Aelius Lamia (74)
juror: M. Perperna (5) cos. 92, cens. 86

Cic. de Orat. 2.262, 269

1 See case #362, n. 1.

367

date: uncertain¹
charge: parricidium (murder of T. Cloulius monetalis 128)
defendant: T. Cloelius of Tarraco = T. Cloulius (monetalis 98, q. ca 95), and either is the same as or is the brother of the Cloelius mentioned in Plut. Pomp. 7.1 (Cloelius 5) e.R.?.
outcome: A

Cic. S. Rosc. 64; V. Max. 8.1. abs. 13

1 On the defendant’s name, see Wiseman (CR 1967). See Tuplin (1979) and Cloud (1971) 46; Cloud suggests a date in the early 90s. Cicero places the trial non ita multis ante annis in relation to the trial of Roscius (case #129).

368

date: in 80 or in early 70s after case #129 and before Cicero’s trip east
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of C. Varenus and Salarius; wounding of Cn. Varenus)
defendant: L. Varenus (3)
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 60)
prosecutors: ? C. Ancharius Rufus (6) of Fulginium (nom. del.?)¹
C. Erucius (2) e.R.?
outcome: C

Quint. Inst. 4.1.74, 4.2.26, 5.10.69, 5.13.28, 6.1.49, 7.1.9 and 12, 7.2.10, 7.2.22, 7.2.36, 9.2.56; Plin. Ep. 1.20.7; Prisc. xii (29 595K)

1 Cicero attempted to attribute the crimes to the slaves of Ancharius. Klebs, RE 1 (1894) 2102 suggests that Ancharius was a prosecutor. However, it would appear from Quintilian’s discussion (7.2.10) that Cicero’s strategy was taken as an example of transferring blame from the defendant to someone outside the trial, rather than a retorsio criminis to a prosecutor.

369

date: perhaps by 83
charge: challenge to citizenship
praetor: L. Cornelius Lentulus (194, cf. 195)

Cic. Arch. 9

370

date: long before 67
defendant: Attidius (Atidius 2) sen.
outcome: C, exile, fled to Mithridates

App. Mith. 90

371

date: 80s? 60s?
charge: iudicium populi? before comitia tributa (attempted purchase of matron’s sexual services)
defendant: Cn. Sergius Silus (38)¹
prosecutor: Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (85) tr. pl. 90, aed.? 88?²
outcome: C, pecuniary penalty

V. Max. 6.1.8
MRR 2.41 and 45, n. 5, Gruen, RPCC 300-1, Jones (1972) 6, 15

1 The defendant is perhaps the same as Cn. Sergius (9).

2 The prosecutor was probably functioning in his capacity as aedile (Mommsen, StR. 2.493). Another possible aedile with this name is Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (86) tr. pl.? 68?. aed. pl. 67?, cos. 60. Sumner, Orators 132-33 and Broughton MRR Suppl. 37 suggest that the earlier Metellus Celer is more likely magistrate.

372

date: between 81 and 43
witness?: Octavius (not in RE)
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29)

Plut. Cic. 26.4

373

date: between 81 and 43
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63
witness: P. Consta (1)

Plut. Cic. 26.6

374

date: between 81 and 43
advocate: M. Appius? Oppius? (not in RE)
advocate (opposing): M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63

Plut. Cic. 26.7

375

date: between 81 and 43
charge: parricidium (poisoning of father)
defendant: adulescens
advocate (opposing): M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63

Cic. Plut. 26.5

376

date: 70s
defendant: Cn. Decidius (or Decius?), Samnis (1)
advocate: C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44 (ORF 121.XIII)

Cic. Clu. 161; Tac. Dial. 21.6

377

date: by 74
defendant: M. Seius (3) aed. cur. 74
outcome: C

Cic. Planc. 12; see also Plin. Nat. 15.2

378

date: uncertain
charge: perhaps de repetundis¹
defendant: L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (98) pr. 74² or L. Calpurnius (98?) gov. Asia ca 100? ca. 97?³
prosecutor: (L.?) Claudius Pulcher (not in RE)
outcome: A

V. Max. 8.1. abs. 6

1 Syme (1956) 134 = RP 1.303 tentatively refers this case to case #48.

2 See Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 55-56.

3 See Sumner (GRBS 1978) 151-53; MRR Suppl. 48; and also Syme Historia (1955) 58 = RP 1.277.

379

date: by 64
charge: capital charge
defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68
prosecutor: Licinius (not in RE)

Asc. 93¹

1 The reading of the Ciceronian lemma is vexed; see Marshall, Asconius 316.

380

trial uncertain¹
date: 60s
charge: capital charge
defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63

Cic. Red. Pop. 11

1 Gruen, LGRR 527 doubts the existence of the trial; see also Guerriero (1936) for doubts on the authenticity of the Post reditum ad populum.

381

date: sometime within late 60s to early 50s
charge: lex Plautia de vi¹
defendant: (C.?) Caesernius (not in RE)
outcome: C

Cic. Cael. 71

1 Austin Pro Caelio ad loc. and Lintott (1968) 112 are right that the trial was held under a vis law, pace Gruen, LGRR 286 n. 103. Lintott suggests a date of 62.

382

date: sometime within late 60s to early 50s
charge: lex Plautia de vi¹
defendant: M. Camurtius (not in RE)
outcome: C

Cic. Cael. 71

1 See case #381, n. 1.

383

defendant: C. Sallustius Crispus (10) pr. 46

[Cic.] Sal. 15-16

384

date: sometime between 80 and 50
defendant: Maesia (10) of Sentinum, spoke pro se
praetor: L. Titius (14)
outcome: A (in first actio) by almost all votes

V. Max. 8.3.1

385

date: during or after 65 and by 56¹
charge: lex Papia
defendant: M. Cassius (not in RE)
prosecutors: Mamertini
outcome: prosecution ended when verdict favorable to defendant obvious

Cic. Balb. 52

1 I.e. the terminus post quem is established by the passage of lex Papia, and the terminus ante quem by the date of the pro Balbo.

386

date: by 48¹
charge? claim?: parricidium? iudicium privatum?
defendant: C. Popillius Laenas (16) tr. mil. 43
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 118)
outcome: A

V. Max. 5.3.4; Sen. Con. 7.2.8; App. BCiv. 4.20; Plut. Cic. 48.1; Dio 47.11.1

1 The terminus ante quem is established by the date of death of Caelius, who urged Cicero to appear (V. Max. 5.3.4).

387

date: between 54 and 44¹
witness: P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55
outcome: C

V. Max. 8.5.6; Dio 45.16.2

1 This was the time span during which Servilius was censorius.

388

date: unknown
charge: quaestio
defendant: Fulvius Flaccus (50) = ? Cn. Fulvius Flaccus (54) pr. 212
outcome: C
other: Philippus, slave of defendant was tortured eight times.

V. Max. 8.4.3

389

date: unknown
charge: lex Cornelia? de aleatoribus
defendant: Licinius Denticula (or Lenticulus) (80)? sen.?¹
outcome: C, exile

Cic. Phil. 2.56; Dio 45.47.4

1 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 47, MRR Suppl. 120.

390

date: unknown
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (for the murder of C. Flavius [12] e.R. 150 = ? C. Flavius Pusio [158] e.R.)
defendant: Alexander (slave of P. Atinius [not in RE])
outcome: C, crucifixion at hands of triumvir capitalis L. Calpurnius (14)
other: defendant tortured six times

V. Max. 8.4.2

391

date: 66?¹
claim: civil suit (repayment of debt)
defendant: C. Visellius Varro (3) aed. cur. 67, 66, or 59
plaintiff: Otacilia (19), wife of Laterensis, perhaps the mother of M. Iuventius Laterensis (16) pr. 51²
praetor: perhaps C. Aquillius Gallus (23) pr. 66³
outcome: charge dismissed

V. Max. 8.2.2
Watson (1965) 32-36; Gardner (1986) 73

1 See MRR Suppl. 222.

2 See Münzer RE 18 pt. 2 (1942) 1866.

3 Val. Max. specifically refers to Gallus as a iudex. But given his power to dismiss the case, he may have been the magistrate.

Works Cited

Ancient authors are listed here only when reference has been made in the text to a particular edition and commentary. The journal abbreviations employed here follow the list published in American Journal of Archaeology 90 (1986) 384-94.

Alexander, M.C. ‘Hortensius’ Speech in Defense of Verres.’ Phoenix 30 (1976) 46-53

– ‘Forensic Advocacy in the Late Roman Republic.’ U. of Toronto dissertation, 1977

– ‘The Legatio Asiatica of Scaurus: Did It Take Place?’ TAPA 111 (1981) 1-9

– ‘Repetition of Prosecution, and the Scope of Prosecutions, in the Standing Criminal Courts of the Late Republic.’ CA 1 (1982) 141-66

– ‘Praemia in the Quaestiones of the Late Republic.’ CP 80 (1985) 20-32

Angelini, Virginio. ‘Riflessioni sull’orazione pro L. Cornelio Balbo.’ Athenaeum n.s. 58 (1980) 360-70

Appian. Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus². Ed. Emilio Gabba. Florence, 1967.

Apuleius. Apologia sive pro se de magia liber. Ed. H.E. Butler and A.S. Owen. Oxford, 1914

Astin, A.E. Scipio Aemilianus. Oxford, 1967

Atkinson, Kathleen M.T. ‘Constitutional and Legal Aspects of the Trials of Marcus Primus and Varro Murena.’ Historia 9 (1960) 440-73

Axer, Jerzy. ‘Notes on Cicero’s Pro Q. Roscio comoedo.’ Eos 65 (1977) 231-44

– ‘Selected Notes on Cicero’s Pro Roscio Comoedo.’ Philologus 121 (1977) 226-40

Ayers, Donald M. ‘Cato’s Speech against Murena.’ CJ 49 (1953/54) 245-53

Badian, E. ‘Lex Servilia.’ CR 68 (1954) 101-2

– ‘Q. Mucius Scaevola and the Province of Asia.’ Athenaeum n.s. 34 (1956) 104-23

– ‘P. Decius P. f. Subulo: An Orator of the Time of the Gracchi.’ JRS 46 (1956) 91-96

– Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.). Oxford, 1958, repr. with corrections 1984

– ‘Caesar’s cursus and the Intervals between Offices.’ JRS 49 (1959) 81-89

– Review of MRR Suppl.¹ Gnomon 33 (1961) 492-98

– Studies in Greek and Roman History. Oxford, 1964

– ‘M. Porcius Cato and the Annexation and Early Administration of Cyprus.’ JRS 55 (1965) 110-21

– ‘Notes on Provincia Gallia in the Late Republic.’ Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts à André Piganiol, vol. 2. Paris, 1966

– Review of Brutus, ed. E. Malcovati and of Brutus, ed. A.E. Douglas. JRS 57 (1967) 223-30

– Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic. Oxford, 1968

– ‘Sulla’s Augurate.’ Arethusa 1 (1968) 26-46

– ‘The Sempronii Aselliones.’ PACA 11 (1968) 1-6

– ‘Quaestiones Variae.’ Historia 18 (1969) 447-91

– ‘Two Roman Non-Entities.’ CQ n.s. 19 (1969) 198-204

– ‘The Attempt to Try Caesar.’ In Polis and Imperium, Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon, 145-66. Ed. J.A.S. Evans. Toronto, 1974

– ‘The Death of Saturninus. Studies in Chronology and Prosopography.’ Chiron 14 (1984) 101-47

– ‘Three Non-Trials in Cicero. Notes on the Text, Prosopography and Chronology of Diuinatio in Caecilium 63.’ Klio 66 (1984) 291-309

– ‘The House of the Servilii Gemini. A Study in the Misuse of Occam’s Razor.’ PBSR 52 (1984) 49-71

– ‘Notes on a New List of Roman Senators.’ ZPE 55 (1984) 101-13

Balsdon, J.P.V.D. ‘The Commentariolum Petitionis.’ CQ n.s. 13 (1963) 242-50

Balzarini, Marco. ‘Cic. Pro Tullio e l’Editto di Lucullo.’ Studi in onore di Giuseppe Grosso, vol. 1, 321-82. Torino, 1968

Baron, J. ‘Der Process gegen den Schauspieler Roscius.’ ZSS 1 (1880) 116-51

Bauman, Richard A. The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate. Johannesburg, 1967

– The Duumviri in the Roman Criminal Law and in the Horatius Legend. Historia Einzelschriften 12. Wiesbaden, 1969

– ‘Criminal Prosecutions by the Aediles.’ Latomus 33 (1974) 245-64

– ‘Five Pronouncements by P. Mucius Scaevola.’ RIDA 25 (1978) 223-45

Bennett, Harold. Cinna and His Times, a Critical and Interpretative Study of Roman History during the Period 87-84 B.C. Menasha, Wis., 1923

Biedl, A. ‘De Memmiorum Familia.’ WS 48 (1930) 98-107

Bloch, G. ‘M. Aemilius Scaurus, étude sur l’histoire des partis au VIIe siècle de Rome.’ Mélanges d’Histoire Ancienne 25 (1909) 1-81

Bona, F. ‘Preda di guerra e occupazione privata di res hostium.’ SDHI 25 (1959) 309-70

– ‘Sul concetto di manubiae e sulla responsabilità del magistrato in ordine alla preda.’ SDHI 26 (1960) 105-75

Box, H. ‘Cicero, in Verrem I, 30.’ CR (1942) 72

Braunert, von Horst. ‘Verfassungsnorm und Verfassungswirklichkeit im Spätrepublikanischen Rom: Eine Interpretation zu Ciceros Rede für Balbus.’ Der altsprachliche Unterricht 9 (1966) 51-73

Brecht, Christoph Heinrich. Perduellio, Eine Studie zu ihrer begrifflichen Abgrenzung im römischen Strafrecht bis zum Ausgang der Republik, in Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 29. Munich, 1938

Broughton, T. Robert S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association 15. Cleveland, 1952

– The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Supplement. Atlanta, Ga., 1986

Brunt, P.A. ‘Italian Aims at the Time of the Social War.’ JRS 55 (1965) 90-109

– ‘Patronage and Politics in the “Verrines”.’ Chiron 10 (1980) 273-89

– ‘The Legal Issue in Cicero, Pro Balbo.’ CQ 32 (1982) 136-47

Buckland, W.W. ‘Civil Proceedings against ex-Magistrates in the Republic.’ JRS 27 (1937) 37-47

Carcopino, J. ‘Sur le Pro Roscio Amerino.’ CRAI (1931) 361-63

Carney, T.F. ‘Was Rutilius’ Exile Voluntary or Compulsory?’ Acta juridica (Capetown) 1 (1958) 243-45

– ‘Two Notes on Republican Roman Law.’ Acta juridica (Capetown) 2 (1959) 229-34

– ‘The Picture of Marius in Valerius Maximus.’ RhM n.s. 105 (1962) 289-337

Ciaceri, Emanuele. Processi politici e relazioni internazionali, Studi sulla storia politica e sulla tradizione letteraria della repubblica e dell’impero, vol. II. Ricerche sulla storia e sul diritto romano. Rome, 1918

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Pro C. Rabirio [Perduellionis Reo] Oratio ad Quirites. Ed. W.E. Heitland. Cambridge, 1882

– Ciceros Rede für L. Flaccus. Ed. Adolf Du Mesnil. Leipzig, 1883

– De oratore libri tres. Ed. A.S. Wilkins. Oxford, 1892

– Pro T. Annio Milone ad iudices oratio. Ed. A.C. Clark. Oxford, 1895

– Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero. Ed. R.Y. Tyrrell and L.C. Purser. London, 1904

– Commentary on Cicero in Vatinium with an historical introduction and appendices. Ed. L.G. Pocock. London, 1926

– Pro L. Flacco Oratio. Ed. T.B.L. Webster. Oxford, 1931

– Pro M. Caelio Oratio³. Ed. R.G. Austin. Oxford, 1960

– Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. Ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, 1965-70

– Brutus. Ed. A.E. Douglas. Oxford, 1966

– Pro P. Quinctio oratio. Ed. T.E. Kinsey. Sydney, 1971

– Epistulae ad Familiares. Ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, 1977

– Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M. Brutum. Ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge, 1980

Cichorius, Conrad. Untersuchungen zu Lucilius. Berlin, 1908

Clark, A.C. Review of Jules Humbert, Contribution à l’étude des sources d’Asconius dans ses relations des débats judiciaires, and Les plaidoyers écrits et les plaidoiries réelles de Cicéron. CR 41 (1927) 74-76

Classen, C.J. ‘Die Anklage gegen A. Cluentius Habitus (66 v. Chr. Geb.).’ ZSS 89 (1972) 1-17

Cloud, J.D. ‘Parricidium: From the lex Numae to the lex Pompeia de parricidiis.’ ZSS 88 (1971) 1-66

Courtney, E. ‘Notes on Cicero.’ CR n.s.10 (1960) 95-99

– ‘The Prosecution of Scaurus in 54 B.C.’ Philologus 105 (1961) 151-56

Crawford, Jane W. M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations. Hypomnemata, Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben, Heft 80. Göttingen, 1984

Crawford, Michael H. Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge, 1974

Crifò, Giuliano. Ricerche sull’ ‘exilium’ nel periodo repubblicano. Milan, 1961

Crook, J. ‘Sponsione provocare: Its place in Roman litigation.’ JRS 66 (1976) 132-38

D’Arms, J.H. ‘Pro Murena 16 and Cicero’s Use of Historical Exempla.’ Phoenix 26 (1972) 82-84

– Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, MA, 1981

Daube, David. ‘Licinnia’s Dowry.’ Studi in onore di Biondo Biondi 1, 197-212. Milan, 1965

David, Jean-Michel, and Dondin, Monique. ‘Dion Cassius, XXXVI, 41, 1-2: Conduites symboliques et comportements exemplaires de Lucullus, Acilius Glabrio et Papirius Carbo (78 et 67 a.C.).’ MEFRA 92 (1980) 199-213

Davies, J.C. ‘A Slip by Cicero?’ CQ n.s. 19 (1969) 344-45

de Franciscis, A. ‘Due iscrizioni inedite dei magistri campani.’ Epigraphica 12 (1950) 124-30

Desserteaux, F. ‘Le cas de la femme d’Arretium (Cicéron, pro Caecina, 33, 34).’ Mélanges Gérardin (Paris 1907) 181-96

Dillon, John J. ‘The Defense of Archias.’ CB 18 (1941-42) 7-8

d’Ippolito, Federico. ‘Un caso di ambitus del 66 A.C.’ Labeo 11 (1965) 42-46

Douglas, A.E. ‘Oratorum Aetates.’ AJP 87 (1966) 290-306

Drumann, W, rev. P. Groebe. Geschichte Roms in seinem übergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, oder Pompeius, Caesar, Cicero und ihre Zeitgenossen nach Geschlechtern und mit genealogischen Tabellen². Berlin/Leipzig. 1899-1929

Dunn, F.S. ‘Cicero’s Lost Oration, Pro Muliere Arretina.’ TAPA 33 (1902) page c

Epstein, David F. ‘Cicero’s Testimony at the Bona Dea Trial.’ CP 81 (1986) 229-35

Evans, Richard J. ‘The Gellius of pro Sestio.’ LCM 8 (1983) 124-26

Ewins, Ursula. ‘Ne Quis Iudicio Circumveniatur.’ JRS 50 (1960) 94-107

Fallu, E. ‘La première lettre di Cicéron à Quintus et la lex Julia de repetundis.’ REL 48 (1970) 180-204

Fantham, E. ‘The Trials of Gabinius in 54 B.C.’ Historia 24 (1975) 425-43

Fasciato, Micheline. ‘En marge de l’acquittement de Gabinius. Le procès d’Antiochus Gabinius.’ MEFRA 59 (1947) 84-88

Fascione, L. ‘Riflessioni sull’orazione per Rabirio Postumo.’ Studi Senesi 86 (1974) 335-76

– ‘Aliquem iudicio circumvenire e ob iudicandum pecuniam accipere (da Caio Gracco a Giulio Cesare).’ Archivio Giuridico 189 (1975) 29-52

Ferguson, W.S. ‘The Lex Calpurnia of 149 B.C.’ JRS 11 (1921) 86-100

Fraccaro, P. ‘Scauriana.’ Rendiconti della Accademia dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche ser. 5a, 20 (1911) 169-96

– ‘Studi sull’età dei Gracchi.’ Studi storici per l’antichità classica 5 (1912) 317-448; 6 (1913) 42-136

– Studi sull’età dei Gracchi. La tradizione storica sulla rivoluzione graccana, fasc. I. Città di Castello, 1914

– Opuscula. Pavia, 1956-57

Frassinetti, Paolo. ‘Sisenna e la guerra sociale.’ Athenaeum n.s. 50 (1972) 78-113

Frier, Bruce W. ‘Urban Praetors and Rural Violence: The Legal Background of Cicero’s Pro Caecina.’ TAPA 113 (1983) 221-41

– The Rise of the Roman Jurists: Studies in Cicero’s pro Caecina. Princeton, 1985

Gabba, Emilio. ‘Ricerche su alcuni punti di storia mariana.’ Athenaeum 29 (1951) 12-24

– ‘Politica e cultura in Roma agli inizi del I sec. A.C.’ Athenaeum 31 (1953) 259-72

– tr. by P.J. Cuff. Republican Rome, the Army, and the Allies. Berkeley, 1976

Gardner, Jane F. Women in Roman Law & Society. London, 1986

Gelzer, Matthias, tr. Peter Needham. Caesar: Politician and Statesman. Oxford, 1968

– tr. R. Seager. The Roman Nobility. New York, 1969

Gray, E.W. ‘The Consular Elections held in 65 B.C.’ Antichthon 13 (1979) 56-65

Greenidge, A.H.J. The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time. Oxford, 1901

Griffin, Miriam. ‘The Leges Iudiciariae of the Pre-Sullan Era.’ CQ n.s. 23 (1973) 108-26

– ‘The Tribune C. Cornelius.’ JRS 63 (1973) 196-213

Grimal, Pierre. ‘La Lex Licinia De Sodaliciis,’ in Ciceroniana, Hommages à Kazimierz Kumaniecki. Leiden (1975) 107-115

Gruen, Erich S. ‘Politics and the Courts in 104 B.C.’ TAPA 95 (1964) 99-110

– ‘The Lex Varia.’ JRS 55 (1965) 59-73

– ‘The Exile of Metellus Numidicus.’ Latomus 24 (1965) 576-80

– ‘The Dolabellae and Sulla.’ AJP 87 (1966) 385-99

– ‘The Quaestorship of Norbanus.’ CP 61 (1966) 105-107

– ‘Cicero and Licinius Calvus.’ HSCP 71 (1966) 215-33

– ‘Political Prosecutions in the 90’s BC’ Historia 15 (1966) 32-64

– Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. Cambridge, Mass., 1968

– ‘Pompey and the Pisones.’ CSCA 1 (1968) 155-70

– ‘M. Antonius and the Trial of the Vestal Virgins.’ RhM 111 (1968) 59-63

– ‘The Consular Elections for 53 B.C.’ Hommages à Marcel Renard, vol. 2 in Collection Latomus vol. 102 (1969) 311-21

– ‘Pompey, Metellus Pius, and the Trials of 70-69 B.C.: The Perils of Schematism,’ AJP 92 (1971) 1-16

– ‘Some Criminal Trials of the Late Republic: Political and Prosopographical Problems.’ Athenaeum n.s. 49 (1971) 54-69

– ‘The Trial of C. Antonius.’ Latomus 32 (1973) 301-10

– The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley, 1974

Guerriero, Ettore. ‘Di una supposta causa capitale assunta da Cicerone in favore di Aulo Gabinio, e nuovi dubbi intorno all’autenticità del discorso Post reditum ad Quirites.’ Mondo Classico 6 (1936) 160-66

Harris, W.V. Rome in Etruria and Umbria. Oxford, 1971

Heinze, R. ‘Ciceros Rede pro Caelio.’ Hermes 60 (1925) 193-258

Henderson, M.I. ‘The Process De Repetundis.’ JRS 41 (1951) 71-88

Heraeus, Wilhelm. ‘Furius Pilus u.a. (Zu Ciceros Brutus).’ RhM 83 (1934) 53-65

Hersh, Charles, and Alan Walker. ‘The Mesagne Hoard.’ ANSMN 29 (1984) 103-32

Hinard, François. ‘Le Pro Quinctio, un discours politique?’ REA 77 (1975) 88-107

Hoenigswald, Gabriele S. ‘The Murder Charges in Cicero’s Pro Cluentio.’ TAPA 93 (1962) 109-23

Hoy, L.P. ‘Poltical Influence in Roman Prosecutions 78 B.C. to 60 B.C. with a Listing of the Trials.’ Bryn Mawr dissertation, 1952

Humbert, J. ‘Comment Cicéron mystifia les juges de Cluentius.’ REL 16 (1938) 275-96

Husband, Richard Wellington. ‘The prosecution of Archias.’ CJ 9 (1913-14) 165-71

– ‘A Further Note on the Papian Law.’ CJ 10 (1914-15) 174-75

John, C. ‘Sallustius über Catilinas Candidatur im Jahr 688.’ RhM 31 (1876) 401-31

Jones, A.H.M. The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate. Oxford, 1972

Jouanique, Pierre. ‘Sur l’interprétation du Pro Fonteio, I, 1-2.’ REL 38 (1960) 107-12

Keaveney, Arthur. ‘Deux dates contestées de la carrière de Sylla.’ LEC 48 (1980) 149-59

– ‘Roman Treaties with Parthia circa 95-circa 64 B.C.’ AJP 102 (1981) 195-212

– ‘Sulla Augur.’ AJAH 7 (1982) 150-71

Keaveney, Arthur, and John Madden. ‘Metellus Pius: The Evidence of Livy, Epitome 76.’ Eranos 81 (1983) 47-51

Kinsey, T.E. ‘A Dilemma in the Pro Roscio Amerino.’ Mnemosyne ser. 4, vol. 19 (1966) 270-71

– ‘The Dates of the Pro Roscio Amerino and Pro Quinctio.’ Mnemosyne ser. 4, vol. 20 (1967) 61-67

– ‘A Problem in the Pro Roscio Amerino,’ Eranos 79 (1981) 149-50

– ‘The Case against Sextus Roscius of Ameria.’ AntCl 54 (1985) 188-96

Klein, Josef. Die Verwaltungsbeamten der Provinzen des Römischen Reichs bis auf Diocletian, Bd. I, Abt. 1: Sicilien und Sardinien. Bonn, 1878

Kornemann, Ernst. Die neue Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, Beiheft 2. Leipzig, 1904

Kumaniecki, Kazimierz, ‘Les discours égarés de Cicéron Pro Cornelio.’ Mededeelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren 32 (1970) 1-36

Kunkel, Wolfgang. ‘Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit.’ AbhMünch n.F. 56 (1962) 1-149

Lacey, W.K. ‘Clodius and Cicero. A Question of Dignitas.’ Antichthon 8 (1974) 85-92

Lengle, J. ‘Die Verurteilung der römischen Feldherrn von Arausio.’ Hermes 66 (1931) 302-16

– ‘Die staatsrechtliche Form der Klage gegen C. Rabirius.’ Hermes 68 (1933) 328-40

Levick, B. ‘Acerbissima Lex Servilia.’ CR n.s. 17 (1967) 256-58

Lezius, Joseph. ‘Comperendinatio bei Cicero pro Flacco?’ Philologus 60 (n.F. 14) (1901) 593-600

Liebs, D. ‘Die Herkunft der Regel bis de eadem re ne sit actio.’ ZSS 84 (1967) 104-32

Linderski, Jerzy. ‘Ciceros Rede pro Caelio und die Ambitus- und Vereinsgesetzgebung der ausgehenden Republik.’ Hermes 89 (1961) 106-19

– ‘Two Speeches of Q. Hortensius. A Contribution to the Corpus Oratorum of the Roman Republic.’ PP 16 (1961) 304-11

– ‘Cicero and Sallust on Vargunteius.’ Historia 12 (1963) 511-12

– ‘Three Trials in 54 B.C.: Sufenas, Cato, Procilius and Cicero, “Ad Atticum”, 4.15.4.’ Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra, vol. 2, 281-302. Milan, 1969

– ‘The Aedileship of Favonius, Curio the Younger, and Cicero’s Election to the Augurate.’ HSCP 76 (1972) 181-200

– ‘The Mother of Livia Augusta and the Aufidii Lurcones of the Republic.’ Historia 23 (1974) 463-80

Lintott, A.W. Violence in Republican Rome. Oxford, 1968

– ‘The Offices of C. Flavius Fimbria in 86-5 B.C.’ Historia 20 (1971) 696-701

– ‘Cicero and Milo.’ JRS 64 (1974) 62-78

– Review of Erich S. Gruen, Last Generation of the Roman Republic. CR n.s 26 (1976) 241-43

– ‘The Procedure under the Leges Calpurnia and Iunia de Repetundis and the Actio per Sponsionem.’ ZPE 22 (1976) 207-14

– ‘Cicero on Praetors who Failed to Abide by Their Edicts.’ CQ n.s. 27 (1977) 184-86

Lucilius, C. Carminum reliquae. Edited by F. Marx. Leipzig, 1904

MacAdam, Henry Innes, and Nicholas J. Munday. ‘Cicero’s Reference to Bostra (ad Q. Frat. 2.11.3).’ CP 78 (1983) 131-36

Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ. Princeton, 1950

Malavolta, Mariano. ‘La carriera di L. Afranio (cos. 60 a.C.).’ Miscellanea Greca e Romana 5 (1977) 251-303

Malcovati, H. ‘Ad Cic. Fam. 9, 21, 3.’ Studi in onore di Gino Funaioli, 216-20. Rome, 1955

– Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta Liberae Rei Publicae⁴. Milan, 1976

Marinone, Nino. ‘Quaestiones Verrinae, Cronologia del processo di Verre’. In U. Torino, Facoltà di lettere e di filosofia, vol. 2, fasc. 3, 8-14. Torino, 1950

– ‘I questori e i legati di Verre in Sicilia.’ AttiTor 100 (1965-66) 219-52

Marshall, Bruce A. ‘The Date of Q. Mucius Scaevola’s Governorship of Asia.’ Athenaeum n.s. 54 (1976) 117-30

– ‘Catilina: Court Cases and Consular Candidature.’ SCI 3 (1976/77) 127-37

– ‘The Vote of a Bodyguard for the Consuls of 65.’ CP 72 (1977) 318-20

– ‘Two Court Cases in the Late Second Century B.C.’ AJP 98 (1977) 417-23

– ‘Another Rigged Voting Tablet? The Case of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus against D. Iunius Silanus in 104 B.C.’ LCM 2 (1977) 11-12

– ‘The Case of Metellus Nepos v. Curio: A Discussion of Cicero, Verr. I 6 and 9 and the Scholiasts.’ Philologus 121 (1977) 83-89

– ‘Q. Curius, Homo Quaestorius.’ AntCl 47 (1978) 207-9

– ‘Catilina and the Execution of M. Marius Gratidianus,’ CQ 35 (1985) 124-33

– A Historical Commentary on Asconius. Columbia, Mo., 1985

Marx, F., ed. Incerti Auctoris de ratione dicendi ad C. Herennium libri IV. Leipzig, 1894

McDermott, William C. ‘De Lucceiis,’ Hermes 97 (1969) 233-46

– ‘Curio Pater and Cicero.’ AJP 93 (1972) 381-411

– ‘The Verrine Jury.’ RhM 120 (1977) 64-75

Mello, Mario. ‘Sallustio e le elezioni consolari del 66 a.C.’ PP 18 (1963) 36-54

Meyer, Eduard. Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus. Innere Geschichte Roms von 66 bis 44 v. Chr.³. Stuttgart, 1922

Meyer, H. Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta ab Appio inde Caeco et M. Porcio Catone usque ad Q. Aurelium Symmachum². Zurich, 1842

Michel, J.-H. ‘Le droit romain dans le pro Murena de Cicéron.’ LM 5 (1970) nº 23, 1-5; nº 25, 1-6; 6 (1971) nº 28, 1-6; nº 33-35, 1-5

Miners, N.J. ‘The Lex Sempronia Ne Quis Iudicio Circumveniatur.’ CQ n.s. 8 (1958) 241-43

Mitchell, Jane F. ‘The Torquati.’ Historia 15 (1966) 23-31

Mitchell, S. ‘R.E.C.A.M. Notes and Studies no. 5. A Roman Family in Phrygia.’ AnatSt 29 (1979) 13-22

Mommsen, Theodor. Geschichte des römischen Münzwesens. Berlin, 1860

– Römisches Staatsrecht³. Leipzig, 1887-88

– Römische Geschichte⁸. Berlin, 1888-94

– Römisches Strafrecht. Leipzig, 1899

Moreau, Philippe. Clodiana Religio: Un procès politique en 61 av. J.-C. Paris, 1982

Morgan, M. Gwyn. ‘ “Cornelius and the Pannonians”: Appian, Illyrica 14, 41 and Roman History, 143-138 B.C.’ Historia 23 (1974) 183-216

Münzer, Friedrich. ‘Aus dem Leben des M. Caelius Rufus.’ Hermes 44 (1909) 135-42

– ‘Die Todesstrafe politischer Verbrecher in der späteren römischen Republik.’ Hermes 47 (1912) 161-82

– Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien. Stuttgart, 1920

– ‘Die Fanniusfrage.’ Hermes 55 (1920) 427-42

Niccolini, Giovanni. I fasti dei tribuni della plebe. Milan, 1934

Nicolet, Claude. ‘Confusio suffragiorum. à propos d’une réforme électorale de Caius Gracchus.’ MEFRA 71 (1959) 145-210

– L’ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine (312-43 av. J.-C.)., fasc. 207, vols. 1 and 2: Définitions juridiques et structures sociales and Prosopographie des chevaliers romains. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome. Paris, 1966/1974

Nicosia, Giovanni. Studi sulla deiectio. U. Catania, Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, 54. Milan, 1965

Ooteghem, J. van. Lucius Licinius Lucullus. Mémoires de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, vol. 53, fasc. 4. Brussels, 1959

– Lucius Marcius Philippus et sa famille. Mémoires de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, vol. 55, fasc. 3. Brussels, 1961

– ‘Pour une lecture candide du Pro C. Rabirio.’ LEC 32 (1964) 234-46

– ‘L’affaire Cluentius.’ Hommages à Marcel Renard, vol. 2 in Collection Latomus vol. 102 (1969) 777-88

Pacitti, G. ‘Cicerone al processo di M. Celio Rufo.’ In Atti del I Congresso internazionale di studi ciceroniani 2 (1961) 67-79

Pais, E. ‘L’Autobiografia ed il processo repetundarum di P. Rutilio Rufo.’ In Dalle Guerre Puniche a Cesare Augusto, vol. 1, 35-89. Rome, 1918

Passerini, A. ‘C. Mario come uomo politico.’ Athenaeum 12 (1934) 10-44, 109-43, 257-97, 348-80

Paul, G.M. A Historical Commentary on Sallust’s Bellum Jugurthinum. ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 13. Liverpool, 1984

Phillips, E. John. ‘Cicero and the Prosecution of C. Manilius.’ Latomus 29 (1970) 595-607

– ‘The Prosecution of C. Rabirius in 63 B.C.’ Klio 56 (1974) 87-101

Pugliese, G. ‘Aspetti giuridici della pro Cluentio di Cicerone.’ Iura 21 (1970) 155-81

Radin, Max. ‘De Lege Papia.’ CJ 9 (1913-14) 401

– ‘The Lex Papia Again.’ CJ 10 (1914-15) 272-73

Ramsey, John T. ‘A Reconstruction of Q. Gallius’ Trial for Ambitus: One Less Reason for Doubting the Authenticity of the Commentariolum Petitionis.’ Historia 29 (1980) 402-21

– ‘The Prosecution of C. Manilius in 66 B.C. and Cicero’s Pro Manilio.’ Phoenix 34 (1980) 323-36

Rawson, Elizabeth. ‘More on the Clientelae of the Patrician Claudii.’ Historia 26 (1977) 340-57

Reynolds, Joyce. Aphrodisias and Rome. JRS Monographs 1. London, 1982

Richardson, J.S. ‘The Purpose of the Lex Calpurnia de repetundis.’ JRS 77 (1987) 1-12

Roby, Henry J. ‘Cicero De Oratore, Lib. I. §§ 41; 42; 56; 173; 175; 179.’ JP 15 (1886) 57-75

Rowland, Robert J., Jr. ‘The Date of Pompeius Strabo’s Quaestorship.’ CP 63 (1968) 213-14

Ruebel, James S. ‘The Trial of Milo in 52 B.C.: A Chronological Study.’ TAPA 109 (1979) 231-49

Schettler, R.G. ‘Cicero’s Oratorical Career.’ U. of Pennsylvania dissertation, 1961

Scullard, H.H. ‘Scipio Aemilianus and Roman Politics.’ JRS 50 (1960) 59-74

Seager, Robin. ‘The Date of Saturninus’ Murder.’ CR 17 (1967) 9-10

– ed. The Crisis of the Roman Republic: Studies in Political and Social History. Cambridge, 1969

Sedgwick, W.B. ‘Cicero’s Conduct of the Case pro Roscio.’ CR 48 (1934) 13

Seidl, J. Fasti Aedilicii von der Einrichtung der plebeischen Aedilität bis zum Tode Caesars. Breslau dissertation, 1908

Serrao, Feliciano. ‘Appunti sui “patroni” e sulla legittimazione attiva all’accusa nei processi “repetundarum”.’ Studi in onore di Pietro de Francisci, vol. 2, 471-511. Milan, 1956

Shackleton Bailey, D.R. ‘Notes on Cicero, Ad Q. Fratrem.’ JRS 45 (1955) 34-38

– ‘Two Tribunes, 57 B.C.’ CR n.s. 12 (1962) 195-97

– ‘The Prosecution of Roman Magistrates-Elect.’ Phoenix 24 (1970) 162-65

– Review of Erich S. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. AJP 96 (1975) 436-43

– Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature. American Classical Studies 3. 1976

Shatzman, Israel. ‘Four Notes on Roman Magistrates.’ Athenaeum n.s 46 (1968) 345-54

– ‘The Roman General’s Authority over Booty.’ Historia 21 (1972) 177-205

– Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics. Brussels, 1975. Collection Latomus, vol. 142

Sherwin-White, A.N. ‘The Extortion Procedure Again.’ JRS 42 (1952) 43-55

– ‘The Date of the Lex Repetundarum and Its Consequences.’ JRS 62 (1972) 83-99

– ‘Ariobarzanes, Mithridates, and Sulla.’ CQ 27 (1977) 173-83

– ‘Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167-88 B.C.’ JRS 67 (1977) 62-75

Siber, Heinrich. ‘Analogie, Amtsrecht, und Rückwirkung im Strafrechte des römischen Freistaates.’ AbhLeip 43.3 (1936) 1-77

Stockton, David. The Gracchi. Oxford, 1979

Strachan-Davidson, James Leigh. Problems of the Roman Criminal Law, vols. 1 and 2. Oxford, 1912

Stroh, Wilfried. Taxis und Taktik. Die advokatische Dispositionskunst in Ciceros Gerichtsreden. Stuttgart, 1975

Sumner, G.V. ‘Lex Aelia, Lex Fufia.’ AJP 84 (1963) 337-58

– ‘Manius or Mamercus?’ JRS 54 (1964) 41-48

– ‘The Consular Elections of 66 B.C.’ Phoenix 19 (1965) 226-31

– ‘The Lex Annalis under Caesar.’ Phoenix 25 (1971) 246-71, 357-71

– The Orators in Cicero’s Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology. Phoenix Supplementary Volume 11. Toronto, 1973

– ‘Scaurus and the Mamilian Inquisition.’ Phoenix 30 (1976) 73-75

– ‘Sulla’s Career in the Nineties.’ Athenaeum 56 (1978) 395-96

– Review of D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature. CP 73 (1978) 159-64

– ‘Governors of Asia in the Nineties B.C.’ GRBS 19 (1978) 147-53

Swan, Michael. ‘The Consular Fasti of 23 B.C. and the Conspiracy of Varro Murena.’ HSCP 71 (1966) 235-47

Syme, Sir Ronald. ‘Missing Senators.’ Historia 4 (1955) 52-71

– Review of T. Robert S. Broughton, MRR. CP 50 (1955) 127-38

– Review of A.E. Gordon, Potitus Valerius Messalla Consul Suffect 29 B.C. JRS 45 (1955) 155-60

– ‘Piso and Veranius in Catullus.’ ClMed 17 (1956) 129-34

– ‘Senators, Tribes and Towns.’ Historia 13 (1964) 105-25

– ‘The Stemma of the Sentii Saturnini.’ Historia 13 (1964) 156-66

– Ten Studies in Tacitus. Oxford, 1970

– Roman Papers, vols. 1-2 ed. E. Badian; vol. 3 ed. Anthony R. Birley. Oxford, 1979/1984

Taylor, Lily Ross. ‘Caesar’s Early Career.’ CP 36 (1941) 113-32

– Party Politics in the Age of Caesar. Berkeley, 1949

– ‘Magistrates of 55 B.C. in Cicero’s Pro Plancio and Catullus, 52.’ Athenaeum n.s. 42 (1964) 12-28

– Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar. Ann Arbor, 1966

Tellegen, J.W. ‘Oratores, Jurisprudentes and the Causa Curiana.’ RIDA 30 (1983) 293-311

Thompson, L.A. ‘Pompeius Strabo and the Trial of Albucius.’ Latomus 28 (1969) 1036-39

Tibiletti, Gianfranco. ‘Le leggi de iudiciis repetundarum fino alla Guerra Sociale.’ Athenaeum n.s. 31 (1953) 5-100

Tuplin, Christopher. ‘Coelius or Cloelius? The Third General in Plutarch, Pompey 7.’ Chiron 9 (1979) 137-45

Twyman, B. ‘The Metelli, Pompeius and Prosopography.’ ANRW 1.1 (1972) 816-74

Tyrrell, W.B. ‘The Trial of C. Rabirius in 63 B.C.’ Latomus 32 (1973) 285-300

– ‘The Duumviri in the Trials of Horatius, Manlius, and Rabirius.’ ZSS 91 (1974) 106-25

– A Legal and Historical Commentary to Cicero’s Oratio pro C. Rabirio perduellionis reo. Amsterdam, 1978

Vaughn, John W. ‘Law and Rhetoric in the Causa Curiana.’ CA 4 (1985) 208-22

Venturini, Carlo. Studi sul ‘Crimen repetundarum’ nell’età repubblicana. U. Pisa, Facoltà di Giurisprudenza, vol. 69. Milan, 1979

– ‘La conclusione del processo de Verre (Osservazioni e problemi).’ Atti del Colloquium Tullianum, Ciceroniana n.s. IV (1980) 155-75

Vince, J.H. ‘Tabellae.’ CR 7 (1893) 29-30

Waldstein, W. ‘Zum Fall der dos Licinniae.’ Index 3 (1972) 343-61

Ward, Allen M. ‘Cicero’s Support of Pompey in the Trials of M. Fonteius and P. Oppius.’ Latomus 27 (1968) 802-9

– ‘Politics in the Trials of Manilius and Cornelius.’ TAPA 101 (1970) 545-56

Watson, Alan. The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford, 1965

– The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford, 1967

– Law Making in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford, 1974

Weinrib, E.J. ‘The Prosecution of Roman Magistrates.’ Phoenix 22 (1968) 32-56

– ‘The Judiciary Law of M. Livius Drusus (tr. pl. 91 B.C.).’ Historia 19 (1970) 414-43

– ‘The Prosecution of Magistrates-Designate.’ Phoenix 25 (1971) 145-50

Wellesley, Kenneth. ‘Real and Unreal Problems in the pro Milone.’ ACD 7 (1971) 27-31

Wiseman, T.P. ‘Some Republican Senators and Their Tribes.’ CQ n.s.14 (1964) 122-33

– ‘The Mother of Livia Augusta.’ Historia 14 (1965) 333-34

– ‘The Ambitions of Quintus Cicero.’ JRS 56 (1966) 108-15

– ‘T. Cloelius of Tarracina.’ CR n.s. 17 (1967) 263-64

– ‘Lucius Memmius and His Family.’ CQ 17 (1967) 164-67

– New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.-A.D.14. Oxford, 1971

– Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays. Leicester, 1974

Wolff, H.J. ‘Das iudicium de moribus und sein Verhältnis zur actio rei uxoriae.’ ZSS 54 (1934) 315-321

Zielinski, T. ‘Verrina. (Chronologisches. Antiquarisches. Juristisches).’ Philologus 52 (1894) 248-94

INDEXES

These indexes refer by trial number to the individuals and procedures mentioned in the text. The reader should note that all possibilities are indexed; therefore, where, for example, several individuals have been mentioned as a possible prosecutor, all of them will be listed here, even though we may know that only one of them actually performed that role. The second index is a general index of names; it contains the names listed in the specific indexes that follow, as well as some other names mentioned in the text which do not fall into the categories represented in the other indexes. Names with a questionable praenomen, nomen, or cognomen, which are marked with a question mark in the case entries, are not marked with a question mark in the indexes. Rather, all the possibilities in the names are listed as separate entries for ease of reference. The alphabetizing of names follows the RE order of nomen, cognomen, praenomen.

Index of Procedures

actio ad exhibendum 306, 307, 308

actio de iniuriis 352, 353

actio furti 194, 197, 213

actio liberalis 145

actio rei uxoriae 26

ambitus 34, 35, 36, 58, 83, 95, 107, 161, 185, 190, 199, 200, 201, 202, 214, 224, 238, 248, 265, 268, 269, 270, 274, 279, 285, 298, 299, 300, 301, 304, 310, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 329, 330, 332, 333, 345

apud centumviros 93, 360, 363, 364

apud pontifices 38, 39, 40, 167, 168, 169

apud pr. peregrinum 50

apud triumvirum capitalem 50

bonorum possessio 134

capital charge 379, 380

causa liberalis 183

citizenship 369

civil suit 22, 76, 99, 120, 127, 141, 142, 150, 151, 152, 156, 173, 208, 243, 259, 342, 354, 361, 362, 365, 366, 391

compromissum 164

condictio 163, 165

condictio certae pecuniae 166

damnum datum vi hominibus armatis 173

de sicariis et veneficis 124, 129, 147, 148, 149, 198, 215, 216, 217, 284, 368, 390

homicide 137, 138

incendium 122

incestum 38, 39, 40, 167, 168, 169, 236

iniuriae 260, 334

iudicium populi 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 20, 24, 49, 59, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 75, 77, 78, 79, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 153, 154, 171, 180, 204, 220, 221, 257, 266, 371

iudicium privatum 133, 386

legis actio sacramento 132

lex Acilia de repetundis 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 45, 46, 48, 51, 60, 61

lex Appuleia de maiestate 77, 80, 81, 86, 88

lex Aquilia de damno iniuria dato 111, 125

lex Calpurnia de ambitu 199, 200, 201, 202, 214

lex Calpurnia de repetundis 7, 8, 9, 355

lex Cornelia de aleatoribus 389

lex Cornelia de ambitu 161, 185, 190, 238

lex Cornelia de iniuriis 260, 334

lex Cornelia de maiestate 159, 160, 179, 203, 209, 210, 241, 296, 344

lex Cornelia de peculatu 130, 162, 175, 178, 187, 192, 196, 204, 206, 244

lex Cornelia de repetundis 131, 135, 139, 140, 144, 158, 170, 172, 174, 176, 177, 181, 182, 186, 192, 195, 205, 206, 212, 225, 244, 247

lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis 124, 128, 129, 147, 148, 149, 198, 215, 216, 217, 284, 368, 390

lex Cornelia de tribunis plebis 157

lex Fufia 286

lex Iulia de repetundis 244, 263, 294, 295, 303, 305, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340

lex Iunia de repetundis 23, 355

lex Licinia de sodaliciis 289, 292, 293, 311, 331

lex Licinia et Iunia 255, 256, 283

lex Papia 235, 276, 297, 385

lex Plautia de vi 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 241, 242, 261, 262, 267, 271, 275, 312, 314, 334, 335, 381, 382

lex Pompeia de ambitu 310, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 329, 330, 332, 333, 345

lex Pompeia de vi 309, 313, 315, 316, 327, 328, 341, 346, 349

lex Scantinia 317, 347, 348

lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum... 21, 27, 31, 31

lex Servilia (Caepionis) de repetundis 67, 69

lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis 70, 72, 84, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 356, 357, 358

lex Tullia de ambitu 224, 248, 265, 268, 269, 270, 274, 279, 285, 298, 299, 300, 301, 304

lex Varia 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110

lex de provocatione 25

lex testamentaria 136

maiestas 77, 80, 81, 86, 88, 159, 160, 179, 203, 209, 210, 241, 296, 344

missio in possessionem 121

parricidium 15, 129, 367, 375, 386

peculatus 65, 69, 120, 123, 130, 162, 175, 178, 187, 192, 196, 204, 206, 244

perduellio 2, 24, 47, 49, 59, 77, 115, 220

praevaricatio 291

quaestio 98, 388

quaestio extraordinaria 1, 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, 25, 41, 42, 43, 44, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 65, 74, 89, 236, 264

repetundae 7, 8, 9, 23, 29, 30, 32, 37, 45, 46, 48, 51, 60, 61, 67, 69, 70, 72, 84, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 131, 135, 139, 140, 144, 158, 170, 172, 174, 176, 177, 181, 182, 186, 192, 195, 205, 206, 212, 225, 244, 247, 263, 294, 295, 303, 305, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 355, 356, 357, 358, 378

restipulatio 165

sacrilegium 277, 278

senatorial quaestio 18

sponsio 13, 73, 126, 189

unde vi hominibus coactis armatisve 189

vis 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 241, 242, 261, 262, 267, 271, 275, 309, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 327, 328, 334, 335, 341, 346, 349, 381, 382

General Index of Names

Aelius (144), L. Stilo 82, 101, 105

Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus 94

Alfenus (1), Sex. 121

Allienus (1), A. 177

Antonius (20), C. 303

Antonius (23), L. 303

Antonius (28), M. 27

Appuleius (29), L. Saturninus 220

Appuleius (30), L. 177

Aquillius (23), C. Gallus 189

Ateius (3), C. 310

Ateius (7), C. Capito 310

Ateius (9), L. Capito 303

Aurelius (99), L. Cotta 9

Aurelius (100), L. Cotta 66

Baebius (10), C. 49

Betitius (1) 38, 39, 40

Betucius (Betitius 1), T. Barrus 38, 39, 40

Caecilius (85), Q. Metellus Celer 82

Caecilius (96), Q. Metellus Nepos 183, 261

Caecilius (101), Q. Niger 174, 177

Calidius (4), M. 306

Calpurnius (14), L. 390

Canius (a, RE Supp. 1), C. 35

Cascellius (4), A. 189

Cassius (62), L. Longinus 59

Cassius (72), L. Longinus Ravilla 12

Cassius (85), Sabaco 36

Cethegus (90), C. 310

Claudius (229), M. Marcellus 306

Claudius (254), Ti. Nero 303

Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher 261

Clodia (66) 275

Clodius (48), P. Pulcher 255, 313

Cluentius (4), A. Habitus 194

Cornelius (197), L. Lentulus Cruscellio 303

Cornelius (377), Faustus Sulla 306

Cornelius (392), L. Sulla 196

Cornificius (4), L. 310

Didius (5), T. 66

Dio (14) 275

Flavius (12), C. 390

Flavius (158), C. Pusio 390

Gabinius (11), A. 305

Hortensius (13), Q. Hortalus 306

Iulius (131), C. Caesar 256

Iuventius (16), M. Laterensis 391

Licinius (72), P. Crassus Dives Mucianus 20

Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus 209

Lucretius (25), Q. Afella 215

Manlius (80), L. Torquatus 304

Manlius (83), T. Torquatus 7

Marius (42), M. Gratidianus 217

Minucius (not in RE) 152

Mucius (17), P. Scaevola 5, 26

Mucius (21), Q. Scaevola 22

Nigidius (3), P. Figulus 241

Octavius (23), Cn. 324

Orbius (3), P. 189

Palla (3) 275

Patulcius (2), Q. 310

Pompeia (52) 236

Pompeius (31), Cn. Magnus 186, 271, 327

Pompeius (45), Cn. Strabo 67

Porcius (16), M. Cato 306

Scribonius (10), C. Curio 183

Scribonius (11), C. Curio 349

Sempronius (47), C. Gracchus 27

Sempronius, L. Pithio 70

Sergius (23), L. Catilina 167

Sulpicius (95), Ser. Rufus 189

Tettius (4), Sex. 341

Tullius (29), M. Cicero 212, 229, 299, 306, 324

Veturius (21), L. Philo 70

Index of Defendants

Aebutius (9), Sex. 189

Aemilia (153) 38

Aemilius (72), M. Lepidus 131

Aemilius (83), M. Lepidus Porcina 12

Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus 34, 37, 68, 96, 100

Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus 295, 300, 319

Albius (10), Statius Oppianicus 138, 149

Albucius (2), T. 67

Alenus (not in RE), L. 136

Alexander (not in RE) 390

Ampius (1), T. Balbus 281

Annius (63), T. Luscus 14

Annius (64), T. Luscus 14

Annius (67), T. Milo 266, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312

Antonius (19), C. 141, 241

Antonius (28), M. 43, 83, 108

Appuleius (21), C. Decianus 81

Appuleius (27), Cn. Sentius Saturninus 346

Appuleius (29), L. Saturninus 74

Aquillius (10), M’. 23

Aquillius (11), M’. 84

Archias (20), A. Licinius 235

Arretina mulier 132

Asicius (1), P. 267

Atella (1), Safinius 142

Atilius (34), M. Bulbus 160

Attidius (Atidius 2) 370

Aurelius (96), C. Cotta 105

Aurelius (98), L. Cotta 9

Aurelius (107), M. Cotta 192

Autronius (7), P. Paetus 200, 229

Avillius (2) 137

Bellienus (5), L. Annius 215

Blossius (1), C. 17

Bomilcar (5) 50

Buculeius (1), M. 361

Caecilius (95), Q. Metellus Nepos 82

Caecilius (97), Q. Metellus Numidicus 51, 77

Caecilius (99), Q. Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica 238, 321

Caelius (35), M. Rufus 275, 282, 347

Caelius (not in RE), T. 357

Caesernius (not in RE), C. 381

Caesonius (1), M. 155

Calidius (4), M. 330

Calidius (5), Q. 139

Calpurnius (23), L. Bestia 54, 104

Calpurnius (24), L. Bestia 249, 250, 251, 252, 268, 269

Calpurnius (25), L. Bestia 249, 250, 251, 252, 268, 269

Calpurnius (63), C. Piso 190, 225

Calpurnius (88), L. Piso Caesoninus 48

Calpurnius (98), L. Piso Frugi 378

Camurtius (not in RE), M. 382

Caninius (3), L. Gallus 280

Caninius (15), A. Satyrus 208

Canuleius (10), M. 146

Cassius (not in RE), M. 385

Cispius (4), M. 279

Claudius (216), C. Marcellus 333

Claudius (226), M. Marcellus 87

Claudius (296), Ap. Pulcher 114

Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher 344, 345, 348, 351

Claudius (299), Ap. Pulcher 340, 341

Claudius (303), C. Pulcher 336

Clodius (48), P. Pulcher 236, 261, 262, 307

Cloelius (5), T. 367

Cloelius (Clodius 12), Sex. 273, 315

Cluentius (4), A. Habitus 197, 198

Cornelia (436), Fausta 306

Cornelius (18), C. 203, 209

Cornelius (19), C. 228

Cornelius (23), Cn. 134

Cornelius (69), L. Balbus 276

Cornelius (134), Cn. Dolabella 140

Cornelius (135), Cn. Dolabella 135

Cornelius (141), P. Dolabella 316, 317

Cornelius (202), P. Lentulus 28

Cornelius (218), L. Lentulus Crus 237

Cornelius (228), Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus 237

Cornelius (234), L. Lentulus Niger 237

Cornelius (240), P. Lentulus Sura 130, 219

Cornelius (272), L. Merula 116

Cornelius (335), P. Scipio Aemilianus 6

Cornelius (354), P. Scipio Nasica Serapio 18

Cornelius (377), Faustus Sulla 196

Cornelius (385), P. Sulla 230

Cornelius (386), P. Sulla 201, 234

Cornelius (389), Ser. Sulla 233

Cornelius (392), L. Sulla 92, 113

Cosconius (not in RE, C.) 356

Curius (7), Q. 218

Curtius (5), C. 123

Decidius (1), Cn. Samnis 376

Decius (1), Cn. Samnis 376

Decius (9), P. Subolo 31

Diophanes (4) 16

Domitius (11) 301

Domitius (43), Cn. Calvinus 301

Fabia (172) 167

Fabius (28), P. 173

Fabius (111), Q. Maximus Eburnus 62

Fabricius (2), C. 148

Fadius (9), T. 318

Fidiculanius (1), C. Falcula 154, 170

Flavius (22), Q. 125, 165

Flavius (87), C. Fimbria 61

Fonteius (12), M. 186

Fulvius (50), Flaccus 388

Fulvius (54), Cn. Flaccus 388

Fulvius (64), Ser. Flaccus 44

Fulvius (94), M. Nobilior 302

Fundanius (1), C. 207

Furius (22), P. 79

Gabinius (11), A. 248, 296, 303, 304, 380

Gabinius (13), P. 174

Gabinius (14), Antiochus 297

Gallius (6), Q. 214

Gutta (1), Ti. 161

Herennius (7), C. 162

Hirtilius (Hirtuleius 2), C. 191

Hortensius (2), L. 58

Hortensius (2), Q. 58

Hostilius (13), L. Dasianus 181

Hostilius (26), L. Tubulus 5

Iulius (131), C. Caesar 227, 257

Iunius (15), C. 153

Iunius (161), D. Silanus Manlianus 7

Iunius (169), M. Silanus 63

Laelius (3), C. Sapiens 3

Licinia (181) 39, 41

Licinia (185) 168

Licinius (68), M. Crassus 169

Licinius (80), Denticula 389

Licinius (80), Lenticulus 389

Licinius (103), L. Lucullus 69

Licinius (104), L. Lucullus 206

Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus 204

Licinius (112), C. Macer 195

Licinius (123), L. Murena 224

Livineius (2), L. Regulus 258

Livius (19), M. Drusus Claudianus 290, 291

Livius (30), Salinator 355

Lucilius (15), Sex. 117

Luscius (1), L. 216

Lutatius (7), Q. Catulus 115

Maesia (10) 384

Malleolus (17), Publicius 75

Mallius (13), Cn. Maximus 64

Manilius (10), C. 188, 205, 210

Manilius (23), Crispus 188

Marcia (114) 40, 42

Marcius (63), C. Figulus 245, 246

Marcius (75), L. Philippus 90, 95

Marcius (91), Q. Rex 33

Marius (14), C. 36

Marius (42), M. Gratidianus 362

Matienus (3), C. 11

Matrinius (2), D. 193

Matrinius (3), T. 89

Megabocchus (1), C. 294

Memmius (5), C. 60

Memmius (8), C. 298, 320

Memmius (13), L. 102

Messius (2), C. 287, 288, 289

Minucius (60), A. Thermus 245, 246

Minucius (61), A. Thermus 245, 246

Minucius (67), Q. Thermus 245, 246

Mucius (12), Q. Orestinus 213

Mucius (21), Q. Scaevola 32

Mucius (22), Q. Scaevola 119

Mummius (1), Achaicus 102

Munatius (1) 325

Munatius (32), T. Plancus Bursa 325, 327

Mustius (2), C. 163

Naevius (6), Sex. 126

Nigidius (3), P. Figulus 278

Nonius (52), M. Sufenas 285

Norbanus (5), C. 86

Octavius (69), M. Ligus 156

Opimius (4), L. 27, 53

Opimius (11), Q. 157

Oppius (4) 181

Oppius (17), P. 187

Orchivius (1), C. 211

Papirius (33), C. Carbo 30

Papirius (35), C. Carbo 244

Papirius (37), Cn. Carbo 47

Papirius (39), M. Carbo 46

Papirius (59), C. Masso 358

Peducaeus (6), Sex. 350

Piso 181

Plancius (2), Cn. 98

Plancius (4), Cn. 293

Plautius (9), C. 2

Plautius (23), P. Hypsaeus 308, 322

Pompeius (12), Q. 8

Pompeius (31), Cn. Magnus 120, 188

Pompeius (39), Q. Rufus 101

Pompeius (41), Q. Rufus 308, 328

Pompeius (45), Cn. Strabo 110

Pomponius (3), Cn. 110

Popillius (3), C. 175

Popillius (4), C. 185

Popillius (5), C. 185

Popillius (10), P. 185

Popillius (16), C. Laenas 386

Popillius (19), C. Laenas 59

Popillius (28), P. Laenas 25

Porcius (5), C. Cato 45, 55

Porcius (6), C. Cato 283, 286

Porcius (18), M. Laeca 231

Postumius (32), A. Albinus 57

Postumius (33), A. Albinus 57

Postumius (45), Sp. Albinus 56

Procilius (1) 284

Propertius (1), Sex. 253

Quinctius (16), P. 121

Rabirius (5), C. 171, 220, 221

Rabirius (6), C. Postumus 305

Roscius (7), Sex. 129

Roscius (16), Q. Gallus 164, 166

Rupilius (5), P. 21

Rutilius (34), P. Rufus 35, 94

Sabellius (1), L. 111

Sabinus (1) 326

Sallustius (10), C. Crispus 277, 383

Saufeius (6), M. 313, 314

Scamander (3) 147

Scribonius (10), C. Curio 103, 181, 182

Seius (3), M. 377

Sempronius (47), C. Gracchus 24

Sempronius (79), C. Rufus 334

Septimius (51), P. Scaevola 172

Sergius (15), L. 260

Sergius (23), L. Catilina 212, 217, 222, 223, 379

Sergius (33), C. Orata 365, 365

Sergius (38), Cn. Silus 371

Servaeus (3) 332

Servilius (11), C. 70

Servilius (12), C. 70

Servilius (12), M. 71

Servilius (20), M. 337, 338, 339

Servilius (21), M. 337, 338, 339

Servilius (49), Q. Caepio 65, 66

Servilius (50), Q. Caepio 88, 97, 106

Servius (5), Pola 272, 332

Sestius (6), P. 270, 271, 323

Sevius (cf. Servius 5) 272

Sextilius (1) 112

Sextilius (12), P. 112

Sextius (9), P. 107

Sosius (3), Q. 122

Staienus (1), C. Aelius Paetus 159

Sulpicius (51), C. Galba 52

Sulpicius (58), Ser. Galba 1

Terentius (82), A. Varro 144, 158

Terentius (see 82), Varro 144

Titinia (26) 133

Titinius (8), C. 76

Titius (23), Sex. 80

Tuccius (6), M. Galeo 335

Tullius (31), Q. Cicero 263

Turius (2), L. 218

Valerius (175), L. Flaccus 20

Valerius (178), L. Flaccus 78, 91

Valerius (179), L. Flaccus 243, 247

Valerius (248), M’. Messalla 29

Valerius (266), M. Messalla Niger 239

Valerius (268), M. Messalla Rufus 239, 299, 329, 331

Varenus (3), L. 368

Vargunteius (3), L. 202, 232

Varius (7), Q. Severus Hibrida 109

Vatinius (3), P. 255, 274, 292

Verres (1), C. 143, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180

Vettius (2), Sabinus 19

Vettius (6), L. 242

Villius (2), C. 15

Visellius (3), C. Varro 391

Volcacius (Volcatius 3), C. 127

Index of Advocates

Aelius (74), L. Lamia 366

Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus 48

Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus 286

Antonius (28), M. 33, 64, 84, 86, 360, 362

Appius (not in RE), M. 374

Aurelius (96), C. Cotta 94, 133, 140, 146

Caecilius (94), Q. Metellus Macedonicus 9

Caecilius (99), Q. Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica 177

Caelius (35), M. Rufus 313, 335, 337, 338, 343

Caepasius (1), C. 148

Caepasius (1), L. 148

Calidius (4), M. 295, 296

Calpurnius (63), C. Piso 189

Calpurnius (98), L. Piso Frugi 153

Claudius (229), M. Marcellus 266, 295, 309

Clodius (48), P. Pulcher 237, 295

Cornelius (374), L. Sisenna 177, 191

Fannius (17), C. Chaerea 125

Flacconius (1), T. 315

Fulvius (95), Q. Nobilior 1

Gellius (17), L. Publicola 156

Hortensius (13), Q. Hortalus 120, 126, 140, 144, 146, 158, 177, 202, 221, 224, 234, 239, 247, 271, 284, 293, 295, 329, 345

Iulius (131), C. Caesar 141, 376

Iulius (135), C. Caesar Strabo Vopiscus 112

Iunius (23), M. 126

Iunius (52), M. Brutus 121, 126

Iunius (53), M. Brutus 345

Laelius (3), C. Sapiens 10

Licinius (55), L. Crassus 41, 48, 88, 93, 98, 362, 365, 366

Licinius (68), M. Crassus 224, 271, 276

Licinius (107), M. Crassus 275

Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus 271, 289

Lutatius (8), Q. Catulus 167

Marcius (75), L. Philippus 120, 359

Marius (14), C. 89

Mucius (22), Q. Scaevola 93, 94

Octavius (18), Cn. 22

Octavius (68), L. Ligus 156

Oppius (not in RE), M. 374

Papirius (33), C. Carbo 27

Papirius (38), Cn. Carbo 120

Plautius (21), M. Hypsaeus 22

Pompeius (31), Cn. Magnus 276, 281

Pupius (10), M. Piso Frugi (Calpurnianus) 153, 167, 168

Quinctius (12), L. 149, 173

Saturius (1), P. 166

Scribonius (9), C. Curio 44

Scribonius (10), C. Curio 236, 360

Sempronius (47), C. Gracchus 19

Staienus (1), C. Aelius Paetus 142, 150

Sulpicius (58), Ser. Galba 10

Sulpicius (92), P. Rufus 85, 88

Terentius (89), M. Varro Gibba 314

Tullius (29), M. Cicero 126, 129, 132, 133, 147, 163, 166, 173, 186, 187, 189, 193, 198, 207, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 221, 224, 225, 234, 235, 238, 241, 245, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 267, 268, 271, 275, 276, 279, 280, 281, 289, 290, 292, 293, 295, 300, 303, 305, 309, 313, 314, 316, 317, 319, 323, 325, 368, 372, 373, 374, 375, 380, 386

Valerius (266), M. Messalla Niger 295

Index of Prosecutors and Plaintiffs

Accius (1), L. 352

Acutius (3), Rufus 298

Acutius (not in RE), Q. 298

Aelius (83), Ligus 253

Aemilius (81), L. Lepidus Paullus 223

Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus 35, 97

Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus 135

Albinovanus (1), P. 271

Albius (8), Statius Oppianicus 198

Albucius (2), T. 32

Ancharius, C. Rufus 368

Annius (67), T. Milo 261, 262, 273

Antistius (12), L. 89

Antistius (13), L. 257

Antistius (47), L. Vetus 257

Antonius (28), M. 47

Antonius (30), M. 309

Apicius (1) 94

Aponius (4), Cn. 314

Appuleius (21), C. Decianus 78, 79

Appuleius (22), C. Decianus 247

Appuleius (29), L. Saturninus 77

Asinius (25), C. Pollio 283, 286

Attius (1a), T. 198

Aufidius (9), M. Alfidius 315

Aurelius (96), C. Cotta 132, 133

Aurelius (102), L. Cotta 200

Aurelius (108), M. Cotta 244

Aurelius (215), M. Scaurus 91

Aurius (2), A. Melinus 124

Betitius (1) 88, 106

Betutius (Betitius 1), T. Barrus 88, 106

Caecilius (23), Q. 208

Caecilius (85), Q. Metellus Celer 371

Caecilius (86), Q. Metellus Celer 131, 371

Caecilius (96), Q. Metellus Nepos 131, 181, 182

Caecilius (97), Q. Metellus Numidicus 29

Caecilius (99), Q. Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica 134, 208

Caecilius (110), L. Rufus 304

Caecina (6), A. 189

Caelius (35), M. Rufus 241, 268, 269, 308, 328, 348, 351

Caesennius (11), C. Philo 315

Caesulenus (1), L. 111

Caetra (1) 247

Calidius (4), M. 214, 333

Calpurnius (69), Cn. Piso 188

Calpurnius (90), L. Piso Caesoninus 174

Calpurnius (98), L. Piso Frugi 174

Caninius (3), L. Gallus 241

Caninius (4), L. Gallus 241

Cannutius (2), P. 147, 148, 149

Canuleius (3), C. 79

Cassius (65), L. Longinus 293, 313

Claudius (63), Ti. Asellus 6

Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher 158

Claudius (298), Ap. Pulcher 263, 306, 309, 310

Claudius (299), Ap. Pulcher 306, 309, 310, 339

Claudius (302), C. Pulcher 48

Claudius (not in RE), L. Pulcher 378

Claudius (not in RE), T. 271

Clodius (48), P. Pulcher 167, 212, 266, 275, 284

Cluentius (4), A. Habitus 147, 148, 149

Coelius (12), C. Caldus 59

Colonius (not in RE), M. 280

Cominius (4), C. 159, 203, 209

Cominius (8), C. 159

Cominius (8), L. 203, 209

Cominius (11), P. 159, 203, 209

Considius (1) 365

Coponius (8), T. 358

Cornelius (7) 234

Cornelius (69), L. Balbus 243, 247, 265

Cornelius (91), L. Cethegus 1

Cornelius (135), Cn. Dolabella 96

Cornelius (141), P. Dolabella 344, 345

Cornelius (197), L. Lentulus Cruscellio 296

Cornelius (202), P. Lentulus 23

Cornelius (218), L. Lentulus Crus 236

Cornelius (228), Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus 236

Cornelius (234), L. Lentulus Niger 236

Cornelius (335), P. Scipio Aemilianus 9

Cornelius (386), P. Sulla 304

Cornelius (387), P. Sulla 304

Cornificius (4), L. 312

Cossinius (1), L. 357

Cossinius (2), L. 357

Curtius (13), Q. 298

Cuspidius 342

Custidius (1), L. 342

Decius (9), P. Subolo 27

Domitius (11) 310

Domitius (21), Cn. Ahenobarbus 63, 68

Domitius (23), Cn. Ahenobarbus 346

Duronius (3), M. 83

Ennius 194, 197

Erucius (2), C. 129, 368

Fabius (26), M. 186

Fabius (108), Maximus Sanga 241

Fabius (143), Q. Sanga 241

Fannia (21) 76

Fannius (9), C. 236

Fannius (17), C. Chaerea 164, 165, 166, 247

Favonius (1), M. 238

Fidius (1), C. 314

Flavius (88), C. Fimbria 119

Fufius (5), L. 84, 361

Fufius (8), L. Calenus 213

Fulcinius (3) 313

Fulvius (58), M. Flaccus 18

Fulvius (89), P. Neratus 311

Gallius (5), M. 330

Gallius (7), Q. Axianus 330

Gratidius (2), M. 61

Grattius (1) 235

Herennius (18), L. Balbus 275, 306, 307

Hortensius (13), Q. Hortalus 90, 157

Iulius (131), C. Caesar 140, 225

Iulius (135), C. Caesar Strabo Vopiscus 67

Iulius (144), L. Caesar 300

Iunius (32), T. 107

Iunius (50), M. Brutus 37, 96, 98

Iuventius (16), M. Laterensis 293

Labienus (6), T. 221

Laelius (6), D. 247

Licinia (180) 26

Licinius (55), L. Crassus 30

Licinius (104), L. Lucullus 71, 208

Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus 71

Licinius (112), C. Macer 171

Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus 255, 267, 274, 283, 286, 290, 292

Licinius (not in RE) 379

Livius (19), M. Drusus Claudianus 283

Lollius (14), Q. 139, 176

Lucceius (2) 247

Lucceius (6), L. 217

Lucilius (4), C. 353

Lucretius (1) 290

Lucretius (12), Q. 290

Lutatius (8), Q. Catulus 157

Manlius (79), L. Torquatus 201

Manlius (80), L. Torquatus 201, 234

Marcius (43), C. Censorinus 92

Marius (4), L. 295

Marius (15), C. 118

Marius (20), L. 295

Marius (42), M. Gratidianus 115

Memmius (5), C. 49, 54

Memmius (8), C. 204, 206, 301

Memmius (9), C. 301, 303, 304, 305, 321

Minucius (13), Cn. 210

Munatius (1) 326

Munatius (32), T. Plancus Bursa 326

Naevius (5), Sex. 133

Naevius (6), Sex. 121

Nerius (3), Cn. 270

Norbanus (5), C. 66

Oppius (4) 181

Otacilia (19) 391

Pacuvius (4), M. Claudius 295

Pacuvius (5), Q. Claudius 295

Papirius (35), C. Carbo 192

Patulcius (2), Q. 312

Pausanias (13) 337

Phamea (1) 324

Pilius (2), Q. Celer 338

Plaetorius (16), M. Cestianus 186

Plautius (3) 168

Plautius (4) 168

Plotius (Plautius 4) 168

Pompeius (41), Q. Rufus 299

Pompeius (45), Cn. Strabo 62

Pontius (10), L. 208

Popillius (27), P. Laenas 117

Porcius (6), C. Cato 248

Porcius (9), M. Cato 1

Porcius (16), M. Cato 222, 224

Postumius (4), C. 224

Quinctius (12), L. 153, 154

Quinctius (16), P. 126

Roscius (16), Q. Gallus 125

Roscius (18), T. Magnus 129

Rupilius (2) 181

Rusius (1), C. 191

Rutilius (33), C. Rufus 23

Rutilius (34), P. Rufus 34

Scribonius (10), C. Curio 82, 133, 157

Scribonius (18), L. Libo 1

Seius (4), M. 314

Sempronius (26), L. Atratinus 275

Sempronius (47), C. Gracchus 25

Sempronius (54), Ti. Gracchus 14

Sempronius (79), C. Rufus 335

Sergius (33), C. Orata 362

Servilius (12), C. 69

Servilius (12), M. 69

Servilius (20), M. 340

Servilius (21), M. 340

Servilius (50), Q. Caepio 95, 96, 100

Servius (5), Pola 282, 347

Sevius (cf. Servius 5) 347

Sulpicia (109) 156

Sulpicius (92), P. Rufus 86

Sulpicius (95), Ser. Rufus 224

Sulpicius (96), Ser. Rufus 224

Tuccius (6), M. Galeo 334

Tullius (12), M. 173

Tullius (13), M. 271

Tullius (29), M. Cicero 177, 178, 179, 180, 327

Valerius (52), C. 313

Valerius (183), P. Flaccus 46

Valerius (218), P. Leo 306, 310

Valerius (278), P. Nepos 306, 309

Valerius (365), C. Triarius 319

Valerius (367), P. Triarius 295, 300, 319

Valerius (372), Valentinus 356

Varius (7), Q. Severus Hibrida 100

Vatinius (3), P. 242

Vergilius (4), M. 113

Index of Magistrates

Acilius (38), M’. Glabrio 177

Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus 271

Alfius (7), C. Flavus 293, 296

Antistius (18), P. 120

Aquillius (23), C. Gallus 126, 199, 200, 202, 391

Attius (not in RE), C. Celsus 210

Aurelius (215), M. Scaurus 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

Burrenus (1), P. 121

Caecilius (74), L. Metellus 173

Caecilius (87), Q. Metellus Creticus 173

Cassius (64), L. Longinus 203

Cassius (64), P. Longinus 203

Cassius (72), L. Longinus Ravilla 41, 42, 43

Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher 263

Considius (2) 314

Considius (11), C. Longus 314

Considius (13), M. Nonianus 314

Cornelius (135), Cn. Dolabella 127

Cornelius (140), P. Dolabella 189

Cornelius (194), L. Lentulus 369

Cornelius (217), Cn. Lentulus Clodianus 241

Cornelius (240), P. Lentulus Sura 158

Cornelius (354), P. Scipio Nasica Serapio 10

Cornelius (374), L. Sisenna 134

Curtius (23), M. Peducaeanus 343

Domitius (11) 268, 275, 282, 282

Domitius (27), L. Ahenobarbus 309

Domitius (43), Cn. Calvinus 268, 275, 282

Fabius (22), L. 312

Fabius (111), Q. Maximus Eburnus 30

Fannius (15), M. 129

Favonius (1), M. 311

Furius (18), L. 144

Gallius (6), Q. 209

Hortensius (13), Q. Hortalus 172

Iulius (131), C. Caesar 215, 216, 217, 220

Iulius (143), L. Caesar 220

Iunius (15), C. 147, 148, 149

Iunius (57), D. Brutus 10

Iuventius (16), M. Laterensis 336, 337, 338, 339

Licinius (57), M. Crassus (Agelastus) 22

Licinius (71), P. Crassus Dives 242

Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus 141

Livius (19), M. Drusus Claudianus 347, 348

Manlius (34), Q. 137, 138

Manlius (76), A. Torquatus 310

Memmius (8), C. 255

Novius (7), L. 226, 227

Novius (12), Niger 226, 227

Orchivius (1), C. 196

Pompeius (39), Q. Rufus 99

Popillius (22), M. Laenas 4

Popillius (28), P. Laenas 15, 16, 17

Porcius (16), M. Cato 295, 303

Rupilius (5), P. 15, 16, 17

Servilius (46), Cn. Caepio 5

Servilius (67), P. Isauricus 289

Titius (14), L. 384

Titius (37), C. Rufus 342

Tullius (29), M. Cicero 195, 205

Tullius (31), Q. Cicero 235

Turius (2), L. 144

Verres (1), C. 151, 152, 156, 157

Vettius (14), T. Sabinus 247

Visellius (3), C. Varro 254

Index of Jurors

Aelius (75), L. Lamia 296

Aquillius (not in RE), M’. 149

Atilius (34), M. Bulbus 149

Aurifex (1), L. 90, 359

Caecilius (78), M. Metellus 177

Caesonius (1), M. 149, 177

Calpurnius (63), C. Piso 164, 166

Cassius (13), L. Longinus 149, 177

Cassius (58), C. Longinus 177

Caudinus (not in RE), C. 149

Caulius (not in RE), L. Mergus 149

Cervius (1), P. 177

Claudius (214), C. Marcellus 177

Claudius (226), M. Marcellus 126

Claudius (227), M. Marcellus 126

Cluvius (3), C. 165

Coelius (12), C. Caldus 353

Considius (7), Q. 149, 177

Cornelius (234), L. Lentulus Niger 271

Cornelius (238), P. Lentulus Spinther 236

Cornificius (7), Q. 177

Cosconius (5), C. 271

Cosconius (not in RE), L. 271

Crepereius (1), M. 177

Domitius (43), Cn. Calvinus 296

Egnatius (8), Cn. 149

Fidiculanius (1), C. Falcula 149

Flaminius (4), C. 193

Flavius (87), C. Fimbria 73

Gutta (1), Ti. 149

Heius (3), Cn. Heiulius 149

Herennius (7), C. 149

Iunius (25), M. 193

Iunius (30), Q. 177

Iuventius (26), Talna 236

Laelius (3), C. Sapiens 15, 16, 17

Licinius (55), L. Crassus 99

Licinius (104), L. Lucullus 247

Lucilius (8), L. 126

Lucilius (19), L. Balbus 126

Lucretius (9), M. 177

Lutatius (8), Q. Catulus 177

Manlius (34), Q. 177

Marius (14), C. 76

Minucius (39), M. Basilus 149

Mucius (17), P. Scaevola 22, 352

Octavius (45), L. Balbus 149, 177

Octavius (46), P. Balbus 149

Peducaeus (2), L. 247

Peducaeus (5), Sex. 177

Perperna (5), M. 366

Petilius (5), Q. 309

Petilius (6), Q. 309

Plaetorius (16), M. Cestianus 193

Plautus (2) 236

Popillius (3), C. 149

Popillius (10), P. 149

Porcius (6), C. Cato 296

Porcius (16), M. Cato 309, 327

Publicius (13), Q. 193

Quinctilius (2), P. Varus 126

Saturius (1), P. 149

Septimius (51), P. Scaevola 149

Servilius (93), P. Vatia Isauricus 177

Spongia (2) 236

Staienus (1), C. Aelius Paetus 147, 148, 149

Stloga (1), Sex. Peducaeus 247

Sulpicius (15), P. 177

Sulpicius (55), P. Galba 177

Titinius (17), Q. 177

Tremellius (5), Cn. Scrofa 177

Varius (4), P. 309

Volumnius (6), P. 198

Index of Witnesses

Acilius (39), M’. Glabrio 295

Aemilius (37), L. Buca 295

Aemilius (80), Mam. Lepidus Livianus 209

Aemilius (81), L. Lepidus Paullus 271, 295

Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus 54, 60, 61, 86

Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus 295

Agrius (2), L. Publeianus 247

Albius (6), L. 126

Andron (not in RE) 177

Annius (67), T. Milo 295

Antonius (28), M. 80

Apollodoros Pyragros (not in RE) 177

Aquillius (not in RE), Gallus 48

Archidemus (1) 240

Aris (not in RE) 295

Arrius (7), Q. 309

Arrius (8), Q. 309

Asclepiades (16) 247

Atilius (10), A. 189

Atilius (17), L. 189

Aufidius (25), M. Lurco 247

Aufidius (27), M. Lurco 247

Aurelia (248) 236

Avillius (2) 138

Baebius (18), M. 147

Caecilius (52), Q. Dio 177

Caecilius (83), L. Metellus Calvus 8

Caecilius (87), Q. Metellus Creticus 247

Caecilius (94), Q. Metellus Macedonicus 8

Caecilius (96), Q. Metellus Nepos 295

Caecilius (98), Q. Metellus Pius 209

Caecilius (not in RE), L. Dio 177

Caelius (8), L. 189

Caelius (11), M. 247

Caelius (35), M. Rufus 335

Caesennius (3), P. 189

Calpurnius (90), L. Piso Caesoninus 295

Causinius (1), C. Schola 236, 309

Cestius (2), C. 247

Charidemos (not in RE) 177

Clodius (7), C. 309

Clodius (43), Sex. Phormio 189

Coelius (12), C. Caldus 83

Consta (1), P. 373

Coponius (3), C. 275

Coponius (9), T. 275

Cornelius (205), L. Lentulus 295

Cornelius (205), P. Lentulus 295

Cornelius (209), Cn. Batiatus 270

Cornelius (216), Cn. Lentulus Clodianus 177, 185

Cornelius (241), Cn. Lentulus Vatia 270

Cornelius (377), Faustus Sulla 295, 295

Cornelius (not in RE), C. 270

Cottius (not in RE), M. 177

Cottius (not in RE), P. 177

Diodoros (29) 177

Domitius (43), Cn. Calvinus 247

Domitius (82), Cn. Sincaicus 295

Domitius (not in RE), L. 177

Epikrates (not in RE) 177

Eppius (1), L. 247

Falcidius (1) 247

Fannius (11), Cn. 177

Fannius (17), C. Chaerea 166

Fidiculanius (1), C. Falcula 189

Flavius (16), L. 177

Fufius (8), L. Calenus 177

Fufius (10), Q. Kalenus 275

Fulvia (113) 309

Gellius (1) 271

Habra (not in RE) 236

Heius (2) C. 177

Heraclides (34) 247

Heraclienses 235

Herakleios (3) 177

Herakleios (4) 177

Herennius (5), C. 36

Hermobius (1) 247

Hortensius (13), Q. Hortalus 209, 295

Indutiomarus (1) 186

Iugurtha (1) 49

Iulia (546) 236

Iulius (131), C. Caesar 236

Licinius (55), L. Crassus 87

Licinius (104), L. Lucullus 236

Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus 177, 209, 235

Lucceius (9), Q. 177

Luscius (2), C. Ocrea 166

Lutatius (7), Q. Catulus 90

Lutatius (8), Q. Catulus 209

Lysanias (5) 247

Maeandrius (2) 247

Manilius (10), C. 166

Manilius (16), T. 177

Manius (not in RE) 38, 39, 40

Manlius (16), T. 166

Manlius (41), T. 177

Manlius (79), L. Torquatus 212

Marcius (75), L. Philippus 101, 102, 126

Marcius (76), L. Philippus 295

Marius (14), C. 84

Matrinius (1), C. 177

Memmius (9), C. 295

Memmius (17), P. 189

Minucius (26), Q. 177

Mithridates (36) 247

Modius (6), M. 177

Nicomedes (7) 247

Nikasio (1) 177

Numenios (3) 177

Numitorius (2), C. 177

Octavius (68), L. Ligus 177

Octavius (69), M. Ligus 177

Octavius (not in RE) 372

Parrhasius (2) 240

Peducaeus (1), C. 295

Perperna (5), M. 166, 295

Philippus (29) 247

Philodorus (not in RE) 240

Plaetorius (14), L. Cestianus 198

Poleas (not in RE) 177

Pompeius (27), Sex. Chlorus 177

Pompeius (31), Cn. Magnus 186, 266, 295

Pompeius (46), Cn. Theodorus 177

Popillius (not in RE), M. Laenas Curtianus 295

Porcius (6), C. Cato 295

Porcius (16), M. Cato 236

Porcius (20), M. Cato 309

Posides (not in RE) Macro 177

Quinctilius (2), P. Varus 147

Roscius (12), T. Capito 129

Roscius (18), T. Magnus 129

Rutilius (10), P. 189

Sempronia (102) 309

Septimius (11), P. 247

Septimius (12), P. 247

Sergius (42), M. Silus 48

Sertius (1), Cn. 177

Servilius (46), Cn. Caepio 8

Servilius (48), Q. Caepio 8

Servilius (66), P. Globulus 209

Servilius (93), P. Vatia Isauricus 247, 295, 387

Tadius (2), Q. 177

Terentius (17), A. 189

Tettius (3), P. 177

Theodoros (not in RE) 177

Titius (19), P. 177

Tudicius (1), Cn. 198

Tullius (29), M. Cicero 229, 236, 295, 296

Valerius (10) 295

Varius (5), Q. 177

Vatinius (3), P. 266, 271

Verres (1), C. 135

Vetilius (2), P. 189

Vettius (6), L. 226, 227

Vettius (10), P. Chilo 177

Volcacius (8), L. Tullus 295

Index of Parties

Albius (10), Statius Oppianicus 145

Annius (63), T. Luscus 13

Annius (64), T. Luscus 13

Cispius (4), M. 259

Cluentius (4), A. Habitus 145

Coponius (5), M. 93

Cornelii Cossi (110a) 360

Curius (5), M’. 93

Fadius (6), M. Fabius Gallus 343

Fadius (8), Q. Fabius Gallus 343

Lutatius (21), M. Pinthia 73

Marius (42), M. Gratidianus 366

Sempronius (54), Ti. Gracchus 13

Tullius (29), M. Cicero 259

Visellius (1), C. Aculeo 366

Trials in the Late Roman Republic

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Abbreviations

CONTENTS

The Trials

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74