]> 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&apostr;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&apostr;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:

  1. date
  2. charge or claim: procedure (offense[s])
  3. defendant
  4. advocate(s): speaker(s) for the defendant and/or the plaintiff (includes procurator and cognitor)
  5. prosecutor(s) or plaintiff(s)
  6. presiding magistrate (includes praetor, urban praetor, peregrine praetor, aedile, iudex quaestionis, quaesitor, and duumvir perduellionis)
  7. jurors (includes advisory council and arbiter)
  8. witnesses (includes informer, character witness, advocatus, laudator, supplicator, and delator)
  9. party (parties) to a civil suit, where it is not known who is the defendant and who the plaintiff
  10. other individuals directly involved in the trial, or miscellaneous information (see below)
  11. 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 , , and ), since they provide necessary background for the following four trials (cases , , , and ). I have also included case , also apud pontifices, as possibly relevant background to case , and the two companion cases to , cases and .

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&apostr;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 to are listed chronologically; cases to 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&apostr;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 , for example, the date 104, the charge and procedure, and the date of the prosecutor&apostr;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&apostr;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 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 . 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&apostr;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&apostr;s The Orators in Cicero&apostr;s Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology, Drumann/Groebe&apostr;s still useful Geschichte Roms, and, for equites Romani, the second volume of C. Nicolet&apostr;s L&apostr;Ordre équestre à l&apostr;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&apostr;s Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, or, for Cicero, to Crawford&apostr;s M. Tullius Cicero, the Lost and Unpublished Orations; further consultation can be made to Schoell&apostr;s or Puccioni&apostr;s collections of Cicero&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;Ordre équestre à l&apostr;époque républicaine ORF Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta liberae rei publicae4, ed. H. Malcovati RE Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft RP R. Syme, Roman Papers Sch. R.G. Schettler, ‘Cicero&apostr;s Oratorical Career’ (unpublished U. of Pennsylvania dissertation) 1961 Shackleton Bailey, CLA Cicero&apostr;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&apostr;s Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology Wilkins, De Oratore Cicero, De oratore libri tres, ed. A.S. Wilkins
The Trials
date: 149 On the date see Cic. Att. 12.5b.
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (proposed) See Douglas, Brutus p. 77. (misconduct as gov. Lusitania 150)
Sulpicius (+58), Ser. Galba defendant: Ser. Sulpicius Galba (58) cos. 144 spoke pro se (ORF 19.II, III)
Fulvius (+95), Q. Nobilior advocate: Q. Fulvius Nobilior (95) cos. 153, cens. 136
Cornelius (+91), L. Cethegus prosecutors: L. Cornelius Cethegus (91)
Porcius (++9), M. Cato M. Porcius Cato (9) cos. 195, cens. 184 (ORF 8.LI)
Scribonius (+18), L. Libo L. Scribonius Libo (18) tr. pl. 149 (promulgator)
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

date: 145
perduellio iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio So Bauman (1967) 22. However, the phrase used by Diodorus (epi t&omacron;i tetapein&omacron;kenai t&emacron;n arch&emacron;n) is a translation of maiestatem minuere. (failure as commander in Farther Spain)
Plautius (++9), C. defendant: C. Plautius (9) pr. 146
outcome: C, exile

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

date: uncertain Fraccaro (1912) 349-50 argues that the fragments preserved are more likely to refer to the warfare of the defendant&apostr;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.
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi
Laelius (++3), C. Sapiens 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

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

V. Max. 8.1. ambust. 1

date: 141
quaestio extraordinaria Servilius (+46), Cn. Caepio Mucius (+17), P. Scaevola charge: quaestio extraordinaria (money accepted as bribe when praetor, judging cases inter sicarios) 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.
Hostilius (+26), L. Tubulus 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

date: early 140
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi (for irregularities in performing lustrum as cens. 142)
Cornelius (335), P. Scipio Aemilianus defendant: P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (335) cos. 147, 134, cens. 142, spoke pro se (ORF 21.V)
Claudius (+63), Ti. Asellus 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?; 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. 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

date: 140
repetundae lex Calpurnia de repetundis charge: lex (Calpurnia?) de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia)
Iunius (161), D. Silanus Manlianus defendant: D. Iunius Silanus Manlianus (161) pr. 141 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.
Manlius (+83), T. Torquatus outcome: trial halted by investigation conducted by defendant&apostr;s father, The defendant&apostr;s father referred to here is his natural father, T. Manlius Torquatus (83) cos. 165, who had emancipated him. who found his son guilty; suicide by son 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.

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

date: 138? 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.
repetundae lex Calpurnia de repetundis charge: lex (Calpurnia?) de repetundis (misconduct as consul and proconsul in Hither Spain) See Richardson (1987) 11-12.
Pompeius (+12), Q. defendant: Q. Pompeius (12) cos. 141, cens. 131 (ORF 30.II) There is no evidence that he spoke pro se (so ORF p. 140), other than that he was a good orator (Cic. Brut. 96).
Caecilius (+83), L. Metellus Calvus witnesses: L. Caecilius Metellus Calvus (83) cos. 142 Caecilius (+94), Q. Metellus Macedonicus
Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (94) cos. 143, cens. 131
Servilius (+46), Cn. Caepio Cn. Servilius Caepio (46) cos. 141
Servilius (+48), Q. Caepio Q. Servilius Caepio (48) cos. 140
outcome: A

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

date: 138 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&apostr;s inability to provide accurate historical information; the error only shows that, in his speeches, Cicero takes liberties with the facts.
repetundae lex Calpurnia de repetundis charge: lex (Calpurnia?) de repetundis V. Max. 8.1. abs. 11 mistakenly puts the trial apud populum. (gravissima crimina)
Aurelius (+98), L. Cotta defendant: L. Aurelius Cotta (98) cos. 144 On the identity of the defendant as L. Aurelius Cotta (98) rather than L. Aurelius Cotta (99) cos. 119, see Gruen, RPCC 297.
Aurelius (+99), L. Cotta Caecilius (+94), Q. Metellus Macedonicus advocate: Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (94) cos. 143, cens. 131 (ORF 18.I)
Cornelius (335), P. Scipio Aemilianus 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

date: 138
charge: (murders of noti homines in forest of Sila)
defendants: slaves and free workers of publicani The slaves and free workers were associated with a company described as societatis eius, quae picarias de P. Cornelio L. Mummio censoribus redemisset. Laelius (++3), C. Sapiens
advocates: at first C. Laelius Sapiens (3) cos. 140 (ORF 20.III)
Sulpicius (+58), Ser. Galba thereafter Ser. Sulpicius Galba (58) cos. 144 (ORF 19.IV)
Cornelius (354), P. Scipio Nasica Serapio quaesitores: P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio (354) cos. 138 Iunius (+57), D. Brutus
D. Iunius Brutus (57) cos. 138
outcome: A

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

date: 138
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi Mommsen, Strafr. 43 n. 2, 561 believes that this trial constitutes an appeal to the tribunes against consular coercitio.
Matienus (++3), C. 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

date: 136? See MRR 1.488 n. 4. iudicium populi
charge: iudicium populi (military failure as proconsul in Spain in 137)
Aemilius (+83), M. Lepidus Porcina defendant: M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina (83) cos. 137
Cassius (+72), L. Longinus Ravilla prosecutor: unknown, but certainly not L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla (72) cos. 127, cens. 125 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&apostr;s censorship (Vell. 2.10.1).
outcome: C, fine

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

trial only threatened
date: 133
sponsio claim: sponsio On this procedure see Crook (1976), especially 133; Lintott (ZPE 1976) 212.
Annius (+63), T. Luscus Annius (+64), T. Luscus party: T. Annius Luscus (63, 64) See Fraccaro (1914) 144; Badian Studies 248; MRR Suppl. 16. cos. 153 (ORF 17.1)
Sempronius (+54), Ti. Gracchus 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

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

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

date: 132
quaestio extraordinaria parricidium charge: quaestio extraordinaria (for parricidium: killing of father? or for association with Ti. Gracchus)
Villius (++2), C. defendant: C. Villius (2)
Popillius (+28), P. Laenas quaesitores: P. Popillius Laenas (28) cos.
Rupilius (++5), P. P. Rupilius (5) cos.
Laelius (++3), C. Sapiens juror?: Cic. Amic. 37, quod aderam Laenati et Rupilio consulibus in consilio... C. Laelius Sapiens (3) cos. 140
outcome: C, execution (by culleus as if for parricidium?) See Mommsen, Strafr. 922; Brecht (1938) 247-48, n. 62.

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

date: 132 Diophanes (++4)
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (for association with Ti. Gracchus?)
defendants: Diophanes (4)
many others (approx. 200)
Popillius (+28), P. Laenas quaesitores: P. Popillius Laenas (28) cos.
Rupilius (++5), P.
P. Rupilius (5) cos.
Laelius (++3), C. Sapiens juror?: See , n. 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

date: 132
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (association with Ti. Gracchus?)
Blossius (++1), C. defendant: C. Blossius (1) of Cumae
Popillius (+28), P. Laenas
quaesitores: P. Popillius Laenas (28) cos.
Rupilius (++5), P.
P. Rupilius (5) cos. Laelius (++3), C. Sapiens juror?: See , n. 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

date: 132
senatorial quaestio charge: senatorial quaestio 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. (homicide of Ti. Gracchus)
Cornelius (354), P. Scipio Nasica Serapio defendant: P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio (354) cos. 138 (ORF 38.III [addenda A.2])
Fulvius (+58), M. Flaccus 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

date: between 132 and 127
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (the same quaestio as for cases , , ?) (for association with Ti. Gracchus?)
Vettius (++2), Sabinus defendant: Vettius (2) Sabinus He is referred to in Quint. Inst. 1.5.56 = Lucil. 1322M. So Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 349.
Sempronius (+47), C. Gracchus advocate: C. Sempronius Gracchus (47) tr. pl. 123, 122 (ORF 48.I)

Plut. C. Gracch. 1.3

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

Cic. Phil. 11.18

trial unlikely The trial probably never occurred. Velleius is the only source which claims that Rupilius along with Popillius (see case ) was tried under this law. See Münzer RE 1A (1914) 1230. lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum...
charge: lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu populi iudicetur (123 BC)
Rupilius (++5), P. defendant: P. Rupilius (5) cos. 132, the ‘defendant,’ had probably died by 130 BC

Vell. 2.7.4

date: 127 or 126? 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. 121? Wilkins, de Oratore (see n. 1, above) argues that Cicero&apostr;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. Mucius (+21), Q. Scaevola
civil suit claim: civil suit (mismanagement of ward&apostr;s affairs)
Octavius (+18), Cn. advocate for defendant: Cn. Octavius (18) cos. 128
Plautius (+21), M. Hypsaeus advocate for plaintiff: M. Plautius Hypsaeus (21) cos. 125
Licinius (+57), M. Crassus (Agelastus) praetor: M. Licinius Crassus (Agelastus) (57)
Mucius (+17), P. Scaevola juror: P. Mucius Scaevola (17) cos. 133

Cic. de Orat. 1.166-67

date: 125 or 124 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&apostr;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.
repetundae lex Iunia de repetundis quaestio extraordinaria charge: lex (Iunia?) de repetundis?, or quaestio extraordinaria See Jones (1972) 54. (receipt of bribes from Mithridates)
Aquillius (+10), M&apostr;. defendant: M&apostr;. Aquillius (10) cos. 129
Cornelius (202), P. Lentulus prosecutors: P. Cornelius Lentulus (202) cos. suff., princeps sen. 162 (nom. del.)
Rutilius (+33), C. Rufus C. Rutilius Rufus (33) (subscr.)
outcome: A

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

date: 124
iudicium populi perduellio charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio? (involvement in revolt of Fregellae) This was not a formal trial, according to Badian, Foreign Clientelae (1958) 180 n. 3.
Sempronius (+47), C. Gracchus 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

date: 123
quaestio extraordinaria lex de provocatione charge: perhaps a quaestio extraordinaria? Possibly the trial was held under the lex de provocatione. See Siber (1936) 10-11; Miners (1958) 242; Ewins (1960) 97; Kunkel (1962) 28 n. 89; Weinrib (1970) 431; Stockton (1979) 119. (involvement in tribunal aimed against supporters of Ti. Gracchus; see also cases , , and )
Popillius (+28), P. Laenas defendant: P. Popillius Laenas (28) cos. 132
Sempronius (+47), C. Gracchus 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

date: 121?, shortly after death of C. Gracchus
actio rei uxoriae claim: actio rei uxoriae (failure on the part of Licinia, wife of C. Gracchus, to get res dotales returned)
Licinia (180) plaintiff: Licinia (180)
Mucius (+17), P. Scaevola 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

date: 120
lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum... charge: lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu populi iudicetur, 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). tribunician prosecution (murder of C. Gracchus and followers) Sempronius (+47), C. Gracchus
Opimius (++4), L. defendant: L. Opimius (4) cos. 121
Papirius (+33), C. Carbo advocate: C. Papirius Carbo (33) cos. 120 (ORF 35.II)
Decius (++9), P. Subolo prosecutor: P. Decius Subolo (9) tr. pl. 120, pr. 115 (ORF 36.I) 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.’
Antonius (+28), M. 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

trial uncertain Münzer RE 4 (1900) 1375 believes that this case might be a doublet of case , and of the fate of P. Scipio Nasica Serapio; contra Gruen, RPCC 106.
date: 120 Cornelius (202), P. Lentulus
defendant: P. Cornelius Lentulus (202) cos. suff. 162, princeps sen.
outcome: threat of trial avoided by libera legatio

V. Max. 5.3.2f

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

Gel. 15.14.1-3

date: 119
repetundae lex Acilia de repetundis charge: lex Acilia de repetundis? 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.
Papirius (+33), C. Carbo defendant: C. V. Max. 6.2.3 and 6.5.6 have ‘Cn.’ Papirius Carbo (33) cos. 120
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus prosecutor: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.I)
Fabius (111), Q. Maximus Eburnus praetor: Q. Fabius Maximus Eburnus (111) So MRR 1.526, contra Gruen, RPCC 108 n. 9. 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

date: 119?
lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum... lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum... lex Acilia de repetundis charge: either lex Acilia de repetundis or lex Sempronia ne quis iudicio circumveniatur Badian (JRS 1956) 92-93 argues that Decius was charged with extortion, in a trial separate from that of Opimius (case ), 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.
Decius (++9), P. Subolo defendant: P. Decius (9) Subolo tr. pl. 120, pr. 115
outcome: A

Cic. de Orat. 2.135; Part. 104

date: 119 See Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 88-89.
repetundae lex Acilia de repetundis charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Asia, 119; homicide accusations also made)
Mucius (+21), Q. Scaevola defendant: Q. Mucius Scaevola (21) cos. 117 (ORF 50.I) spoke pro se
Albucius (++2), T. prosecutor: T. Albucius (2) pr. 107? 105? See Gruen (1964) 104; Badian (Klio 1984) 306-9; MRR Suppl. 14, 166.
witnesses: Aemilius (not in RE)
Albius (2) q. 120 or L. Atilius Nomentanus? See Crawford, RRC 1.261, #225. (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

trial uncertain Quite possibly this case did not come to trial. Cf. case , n. 1.
date: 117?
Marcius (+91), Q. Rex defendant: Q. Marcius Rex (91) cos. 118
Antonius (+28), M. advocate?: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97

Cic. de Orat. 2.125

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

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

date: 116
ambitus charge: ambitus (in campaign for consulate)
Rutilius (+34), P. Rufus defendant: P. Rutilius Rufus (34) cos. 105
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus prosecutor: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.I)
Canius (a, RE Supp. 1), C. 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. 3.66.2 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 , n. 2.

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

V. Max. 6.9.14; Plut. Mar. 5

date: after 115 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 ). According to this view we would then place in close proximity the two cases in which we know that Brutus took part ( and ). 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&apostr; triumph tells against Marshall&apostr;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.
repetundae lex Acilia de repetundis charge: lex Acilia de repetundis
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.II) (spoke pro se)
Iunius (+50), M. Brutus 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

date: 114, condemned on XV Kal. Ian.
incestum apud pontifices charge: incestum, apud pontifices
Aemilia (153) defendant: Aemilia (153)
Betitius (++1) Manius (not in RE) Betucius (Betitius 1), T. Barrus informer: slave (perhaps named Manius [not in RE]) of T. Betucius Barrus (Betitius 1) e.R. 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 . See Sumner, Orators 102, Marshall, Asconius 197. Gruen, RPCC 130 implies that Barrus, who was Aemilia&apostr;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&apostr;s instigation.
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

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

date: Dec. 114 The date is incorrectly given as 115 by Münzer RE 14 (1930) 1601.
incestum apud pontifices charge: incestum, apud pontifices
defendant: Marcia (114) Marcia (114)
Betitius (++1) Betucius (Betitius 1), T. Barrus Manius (not in RE) informer: slave (perhaps named Manius [not in RE]) of T. Betucius Barrus (Betitius 1) e.R. See case , n. 1.
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, 428 Crawford believes that this coin is relevant, as does Taylor (1966) 35-36 on no. 413; contra Nicolet (1959) 206-7.

date: 113
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (on scandal of Vestal Virgins)
Licinia (181) defendant: Licinia (181)
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus advocate: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.III)
Cassius (+72), L. Longinus Ravilla quaesitor: L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla (72) cos. 127, 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. 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, 428 See case , n. 3.

date: 113 The date is given incorrectly as 114 by Münzer RE 14 (1930) 1601.
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (on scandal of Vestal Virgins)
Marcia (114) defendant: Marcia (114)
Cassius (+72), L. Longinus Ravilla quaesitor: L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla (72) cos. 127, See case , n. 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, 428 See case , n. 3.

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

Cic. N.D. 3.74; V. Max. 3.7.9, 6.8.1; Crawford, RRC 413, 428 See case , n. 3.

date: 113?
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (on scandal of Vestal Virgins)
Fulvius (+64), Ser. Flaccus defendant?: Ser. Fulvius Flaccus (64) cos. 135 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.
Scribonius (++9), C. Curio 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

date: 113
repetundae lex Acilia de repetundis charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia) Sherwin-White (1952) 44-45 satisfactorily refutes the contention of Henderson (1951) 85 that this case is the same as .
Porcius (++5), C. Cato defendant: C. Porcius Cato (5) cos. 114
outcome: C, exile, litis aestimatio of only 8,000 sesterces 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.

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

date: 113? after defendant&apostr;s return from Sicily
repetundae lex Acilia de repetundis charge: lex Acilia de repetundis? Since the defendant is described as fur, a charge de repetundis is possible. (misconduct as gov. Sicily)
Papirius (+39), M. Carbo defendant: M. Papirius Carbo (39) pr. 114?, The fact that he was monetalis in 122 (Crawford, RRC no. 276) perhaps indicates the date of his praetorship; see Sumner, Orators 59. governor in Sicily
Valerius (183), P. Flaccus prosecutor: P. (Valerius?) The prosecutor was not a Fulvius: Kroll, RE 18 pt. 3 (1949) 1031, Shackleton Bailey, CLF 2.329; contra Gruen, RPCC 132 n. 153. Flaccus (183)
outcome: C

Cic. Fam. 9.21.3

date: 112?
perduellio charge: perduellio? Malcovati (1955) 217-18 suggests perduellio, pointing to the case of C. Papirius Carbo () as a parallel. (defeat fighting Cimbri)
Papirius (+37), Cn. Carbo defendant: Cn. Papirius Carbo (37) cos. 113
Antonius (+28), M. prosecutor: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97
outcome: A? 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&apostr; ballots.

Cic. Fam. 9.21.3; Apul. Apol. 66

date: 114? or 111? 110? The date is presumably either the year after the defendant&apostr;s praetorship or after his consulship, and by his death in 107. See MRR Suppl. 47.
repetundae lex Acilia de repetundis charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct either as praetor, consul, or proconsul)
Calpurnius (+88), L. Piso Caesoninus defendant: L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (88) pr. by 115, cos. 112
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus Licinius (+55), L. Crassus advocates: ? M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 See Fraccaro Opuscula 2.139.
L. Licinius Crassus (55) q. by 109, He was quaestor probably in 111 or 110. See Sumner, Orators 96-97, MRR Suppl. 118. cos. 95, cens. 92
Claudius (302), C. Pulcher prosecutor: C. Claudius Pulcher (302) cos. 92 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 .
Aquillius (not in RE), Gallus Sergius (+42), M. Silus witnesses: ? Aquillius Gallus sen.? Badian (1961) 495-96 suggests that he was probably an Aquillius Gallus, and almost certainly a senator.
(M. Sergius?) Silus (42) q. 116 or 115 On the date of his quaestorship, see Crawford, RRC no. 286; MRR 2.13 has q. 94. See MRR Suppl. 193.
outcome: A?

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

date: 111
iudicium populi perduellio charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio? Gruen, RPCC 141 maintains that this was a iudicium populi on a charge of perduellio.
Memmius (++5), C. prosecutor: C. Memmius (5) tr. pl., pr. between 107 and 102 See Sumner, Orators 85-86.
Iugurtha (++1) witness?: Iugurtha (1)
Baebius (+10), C. outcome: veto by C. Baebius (10) tr. pl.

Sal. Jug. 31.25-34

date: 110
apud pr. peregrinum apud triumvirum capitalem charge: apud praetorem peregrinum or apud triumvirum capitalem Kunkel (1962) 49 n. 186 and Gruen, RPCC 141 n. 26 suggest that the praetor peregrinus probably presided over the trial. (for murder of Massiva)
Bomilcar (++5) defendant: Bomilcar (5)
outcome: none (defendant smuggled away)

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

date: 111? or 106? Gruen, RPCC 133 argues for the year after the defendant&apostr;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&apostr; 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&apostr; 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&apostr;s consular command, it must have been after his triumph in 106 and before the passage of the lex Servilia Caepionis in 106. repetundae lex Acilia de repetundis
charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct as promag. 111? or as procos. Numidia 108-106)
Caecilius (+97), Q. Metellus Numidicus 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&apostr;s records.

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

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

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

date: 109
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) (treason with Jugurtha)
Opimius (++4), L. defendant: L. Opimius (4) cos. 121
Aurelius (215), M. Scaurus quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others See case , n. 2.
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
outcome: C, exile, at Dyrrachium? The defendant was buried there (Sest. 140).

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

date: 109
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) (treason with Jugurtha)
Calpurnius (+23), L. Bestia defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (23) cos. 111
Memmius (++5), C. prosecutor: C. Memmius (5) pr. between 107 and 102 See case , n. 2.
Aurelius (215), M. Scaurus quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others For a reference, see case , n. 2.
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus advocatus: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109
outcome: C?

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

date: 109
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) See case , n. 1. (treason with Jugurtha)
Porcius (++5), C. Cato defendant: C. Porcius Cato (5) cos. 114
Aurelius (215), M. Scaurus quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others See case , n. 2.
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
outcome: C, exile at Tarraco

Cic. Balb. 28; Brut. 128

date: 109
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) (treason with Jugurtha)
Postumius (+45), Sp. Albinus defendant: Sp. Postumius Albinus (45) cos. 110, procos. Africa and Numidia 109
Aurelius (215), M. Scaurus quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others See case , n. 2.
jurors: Gracchani (i.e., probably equestrian) jurors
outcome: C

Cic. Brut. 128

trial uncertain 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.
date: 109
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (under lex Mamilia) (treason with Jugurtha)
Postumius (+32), A. Albinus Postumius (+33), A. Albinus defendant: (A.?) Postumius Albinus (32) pr. by 111?, See Sumner, Orators 84. leg. 110 (? = A. Postumius Albinus [33] cos. 99)
Aurelius (215), M. Scaurus quaesitores: M. (Aurelius?) Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108, and two others See case , n. 2.
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

date: 109
ambitus charge: ambitus Sumner (1976) 75 suggests as a possibility prosecution before the quaestio Mamilia. In that case, for quaesitores, see other trials before this quaestio.
Hortensius (++2), Q. Hortensius (++2), L. defendant: (L.or Q.?) Hortensius (2) cos. des.? 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. 108
outcome: C

Fast. Cap. (Degrassi) p. 73; Chronogr. of 354 646 A.U.C. The name is listed as ‘Kotensio.’
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

Cassius (+62), L. Longinus date: 107? 106? The year depends on the date of the prosecutor&apostr;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.
perduellio iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio Cicero&apostr;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&apostr;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. (disgraceful treaty with Tigurini)
Popillius (+19), C. Laenas defendant: C. Popillius Laenas (19) leg. 107
Coelius (+12), C. Caldus prosecutor: C. Coelius Caldus (12) tr. pl., cos. 94 He introduced the lex tabellaria for secret ballot in such trials.
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

date: 106 Sumner, Orators 86 points out that, whereas Cicero (Font. 26) says that the jurors in case 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&apostr;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&apostr;s lex Servilia (104? 101? 100?). Since M. Gratidius, the prosecutor in the trial of Fimbria (case ), 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&apostr; actions as praetor in 107 (a possible date for his praetorship) and Fimbria&apostr;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&apostr;s lex Servilia would allow for these two trials to have been held under that law. See Nicolet, Ordre équestre 1.541.
repetundae lex Acilia de repetundis charge: lex Acilia de repetundis?
Memmius (++5), C. defendant: C. Memmius (5) pr. between 107 and 102 For a reference, see case , n. 2. (spoke pro se)
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus 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&apostr;Arms (1972) 84; Gabba RR 227 n. 89

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

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

date: 104? Shortly after the battle of Arausio. See Gruen (1964) 102 n. 14.
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi? 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. (abuse of power ius vitae ac necis? or for killing of son, who was suspected of either immorality or parricide)
Fabius (111), Q. Maximus Eburnus defendant: Q. Fabius Maximus Eburnus (111) cos. 116, cens. 108
Pompeius (+45), Cn. Strabo prosecutor: Cn. Pompeius Strabo (45) tr. pl. 104?, On the date, see Badian (Klio 1984) 306-9, MRR Suppl. 166. 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

date: 104? after Dec. 10? 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&apostr; (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.
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi (illegal war poorly conducted by defendant against Cimbri, injury to Aegritomarus) 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.
Iunius (169), M. Silanus defendant: M. Iunius Silanus (169) cos. 109
Domitius (+21), Cn. Ahenobarbus 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) Marshall (LCM 1977) tentatively suggests the possibility that the prosecutor issued a ‘rigged’ voting tablet. See also Gruen (1964) 108-10.

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

date: 103
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi (defeat at Arausio under the command of defendant and Caepio [see case ])
Mallius (+13), Cn. Maximus defendant: Cn. Mallius Maximus (13) cos. 105 Antonius (+28), M.
advocate?: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.III) 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&apostr;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&apostr; defense of Norbanus (see case ), in order to arouse pity for Mallius&apostr; 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&apostr; loss of his two sons (Oros. 5.16.2) was a standard exemplum illustrating the theme of the father bereft of his sons.
prosecutor: uncertain 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 ) was someone else, i.e., Norbanus, and the prosecutor of Mallius could also have been someone else.
outcome: C, exile

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

trial uncertain
date: 103
quaestio extraordinaria peculatus charge: quaestio extraordinaria, peculatus? (on theft of aurum Tolosanum)
Servilius (+49), Q. Caepio defendants: Q. Servilius Caepio (49) cos. 106 and others
outcome: A? C? According to Lengle (1931), Caepio was either acquitted or assessed a pecuniary penalty.

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

date: 103, after case
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi? (over defeat at Arausio, defendant as procos. 105 shared command with Mallius, see case ) See Lengle (1931).
Servilius (+49), Q. Caepio defendant: Q. Servilius Caepio (49) cos. 106 spoke pro se (ORF 62.I)
Norbanus (++5), C. prosecutor: C. Norbanus (5) tr. pl. 103, On the date of the prosecutor&apostr;s tribunate and of the trial, see MRR 1.565-66, n. 7. cos. 83
outcome: C, confiscation of goods, retraction of imperium, threat of execution?, exile at Smyrna 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.
other: tr.pl. L. Aurelius Cotta (100) pr. ca. 95 and tr. pl. T. Didius (5) cos. 98 driven off from veto Aurelius (100), L. Cotta Didius (++5), T.

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

date: ca 103 See Sumner, Orators 77-78, 104; also Rowland (1968) 213-14.
repetundae lex Servilia (Caepionis) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Caepionis?) de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sardinia)
Albucius (++2), T. defendant: T. Albucius (2) pr. 107? 105? For references that discuss the date of his praetorship, see case , n. 2. For the three errors which Apuleius (Apol. 66.4) makes, see Apuleius, Apologia, ed. Butler and Owen (1914) 131.
Iulius (135), C. Caesar Strabo Vopiscus prosecutor: C. Iulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus (135) aed. cur. 90
Pompeius (+45), Cn. Strabo witnesses: Sardinians
outcome: C, exile at Athens 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.
other: Cn. Pompeius Strabo (45) q. ca. 106, Thompson (1969) suggests that Caepio&apostr;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, , ). 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

date: 103? See case , n. 1.
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi (for failure to perform properly duties as priest [augur?]) Sumner, Orators 99, following Badian (1968) 29, argues that the priesthood of Scaurus was the augurate; contra MRR 1.562 n. 7. Sumner&apostr;s view is developed by Keaveney (1982) 152-53. See Marshall, Asconius 129-32, MRR Suppl. 11-12.
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109
Domitius (+21), Cn. Ahenobarbus prosecutor: Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (21) tr. pl. 104? 103? cos. 96, cens. 92 (ORF 69.I) Plutarch incorrectly says that Scaurus prosecuted Domitius.
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

date: 102?
peculatus repetundae lex Servilia (Caepionis) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Caepionis?) de repetundis? Plutarch uses the term klop&emacron;, Luc. 1. See Badian (PBSR 1984) 62 n. 26. Gruen, RPCC 177 suggests peculatus. peculatus? (misconduct during command in Sicily against slaves in 103)
Licinius (103), L. Lucullus defendant: L. Licinius Lucullus (103) pr. 104
Servilius (+12), M. Servilius (+12), C. prosecutor: (M.?) Servilius (12) augur 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.


outcome: C 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&apostr;s son M. Lucullus.
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

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

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

date: after case Badian (Klio 1984) 304 suggests a date of 91.
Servilius (+12), M. defendant: (M.?) Servilius (12) augur On his identity see case , n. 2.
Licinius (104), L. Lucullus Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus prosecutors: L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74 (ORF 90.I)
M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) (ORF 91.I) [Asc.] 222St has the Luculli prosecuting L. Cotta. cos. 73
outcome: A See case , n. 3, for the possibility of condemnation.
other: This case is perhaps the same as case . Cicero&apostr;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 ), this passage does not help us decide whether Servilius the augur is the same man as Servilius the praetor.

Cic. Prov. 22; Ac. 2.1; Off. 2.50; Quint. Inst. 12.7.4; [Asc.] 222St; see also Cic. Arch. 6 ‘L. Lucullo’ has been emended to ‘M. Lucullo.’ See D.-G. 4.214 n. 4.

trial uncertain It is possible that this case is merely a fictional, schoolbook example of a legal problem, since the author does not mention specific names.
date: by 81 The terminus ante quem would be the latest possible date of composition of ad Her.
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia? (Glauciae?) de repetundis
defendant: augur
outcome: C
other: = ? case . It is tempting to connect this case with case . However, the outcome is different. On the other hand, if case = case , then perhaps Plutarch is wrong to record that Servilius the augur was acquitted.

ad Her. 1.20
Marx (1894) 108

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

Cic. Off. 3.77; V. Max. 7.2.4

date: 101
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria? (violation of immunity of envoys)
Appuleius (+29), L. Saturninus defendant: L. Appuleius Saturninus (29) tr. pl. 103, 100, tr. pl. des. for 99 See MRR Suppl. 21-22.
jurors: senators
outcome: A

Diod. Sic. 36.15

date: 101
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi? for parricide (killing of mother)
Malleolus (+17), Publicius 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

date: 100
civil suit claim: civil suit (for retention of dowry: retentio propter mores) See Wolff (1934) 318; Watson (1967) 68-69; Gardner (1986) 90.
Titinius (++8), C. defendant: C. Titinius (8) of Minturnae
Fannia (+21) plaintiff: Fannia (21)
Marius (+14), C. 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

trial uncertain 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&apostr; 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.
date: 100?
iudicium populi perduellio maiestas lex Appuleia de maiestate charge: iudicium populi for perduellio? lex Appuleia de maiestate?
Caecilius (+97), Q. Metellus Numidicus defendant: Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (97) cos. 109, cens. 102
Appuleius (+29), L. Saturninus prosecutor: L. Appuleius Saturninus (29) tr. pl. 103, 100, tr. pl. des. for 99 For references to a third election to the tribunate, see case , n. 1.
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

date: 99, perhaps late in the year 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.
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi See Gruen (Historia 1966) 37 n. 31.
Valerius (178), L. Flaccus defendant?: L. Valerius Flaccus (178) cur. aed. 99? 98?, cos. suff. 86 See Sumner, Orators 81. Appuleius (+21), C. Decianus
prosecutor: C. Appuleius Decianus (21) tr. pl. 99? 98?
outcome: A If the defendant was the future consul of 86, then his advancement is evidence for acquittal. See Gruen (Historia 1966) 37 n. 28.

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

date: 99 or 98 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.
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi (acts as tribune)
Furius (+22), P. defendant: P. Furius (22) tr. pl. 100 or 99
Appuleius (+21), C. Decianus Canuleius (++3), C. prosecutors: C. Appuleius Decianus (21) tr. pl. 99 or 98 It is disputed whether there was only one prosecution by one man, in which case Canuleius would be a confusion on Appian&apostr;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).
C. Canuleius (3) tr. pl. 99? See MRR Suppl. 21-23.
outcome: killed by mob before verdict was delivered 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.

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

date: 98? maiestas lex Appuleia de maiestate
charge: lex Appuleia de maiestate? 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.
Titius (+23), Sex. defendant: Sex. Titius (23) tr. pl. 99
jurors: equites
Antonius (+28), M. 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

date: 98 or 97 The date is the year after the defendant&apostr;s tribunate.
maiestas lex Appuleia de maiestate charge: uncertain Gruen (Historia 1966) 38 suggests a maiestas trial for seditious behavior as tribune.
Appuleius (+21), C. Decianus 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

date: after 98 If condemnation was the outcome, a date after the defendant&apostr;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.
Caecilius (+85), Q. Metellus Celer Caecilius (+95), Q. Metellus Nepos defendant: Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (95) cos. 98 (possibly spoke pro se) 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&apostr; 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.
Aelius (144), L. Stilo Scribonius (+10), C. Curio prosecutor: C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61 (ORF 86.I) See MRR Suppl. 186.
outcome: C?

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

date: second half of 97, or 96 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&apostr;s censorship. Gruen (Historia 1966) 41 n. 58 suggests a trial during Antonius&apostr; 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.
ambitus charge: ambitus (for misconduct as candidate for censor)
Antonius (+28), M. defendant: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 Perhaps the alleged failure of one Antonius to keep accurate records (2 Ver. 1.60) can be connected with this trial.
Duronius (++3), M. prosecutor: M. Duronius (3) tr. pl. by 97
Coelius (+12), C. Caldus 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

date: 97? Liv. Per. 70 gives 98, but see Badian Studies 45-46, Gruen (Historia 1966) 39.
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis Liv. Per. 70; MRR 2.2 gives peculatus.
Aquillius (+11), M&apostr;. defendant: M&apostr;. Aquillius (11) cos. 101, procos. Sicily 100-99
Antonius (+28), M. advocate: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.V)
character witness: C. Marius (14, RE Supp. 6) cos. VI 100, VII 86
Marius (+14), C. Fufius (++5), L. prosecutor: L. Fufius (5) tr. pl. 91 or 90? See Sumner (1963) 350 n. 57. Apuleius gives the name as C. Furius. (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

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

Cic. de Orat. 2.88 Münzer RE 4A (1931) 844 suggests a possible connection between this passage and case . 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 , in which Cicero spoke for Quinctius, is more likely at the start of Sulpicius&apostr; forensic career.

date: not before 96 Antonius (cens. 97) was an ex-censor (de Orat. 2.198).
maiestas lex Appuleia de maiestate charge: lex Appuleia de maiestate (seditious conduct as tr. pl. 103)
Norbanus (++5), C. defendant: C. Norbanus (5) cos. 83 See Gruen (CP 1966), Badian Studies 49-50, 84-86, and MRR Suppl. 149.
Antonius (+28), M. advocate: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.VI)
Sulpicius (+92), P. Rufus prosecutor: P. Sulpicius Rufus (92) tr. pl. 88 (ORF 76.II)
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus 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

date: by 91 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&apostr; death. See Münzer RE 3 (1899) 2760, Gruen (Historia 1966) 51, Sumner, Orators 91.
Claudius (226), M. Marcellus defendant: M. (Claudius?) Marcellus (226) pr. at an uncertain date 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.
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus witness: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.XV) (against defendant)
outcome: A

Cic. Font. 24; V. Max. 8.5.3

date: 95
maiestas lex Appuleia de maiestate charge: lex Appuleia de maiestate (misconduct as q. 100)
Servilius (+50), Q. Caepio defendant: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91? (ORF 85.IV) 90 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&apostr; speech must have been written for a prosecution of Caepio under the lex Varia (see case ).
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus Sulpicius (+92), P. Rufus advocates: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.VI)
? P. Sulpicius Rufus (92) tr. pl. 88? (ORF 76.I?) It is doubtful whether this is the causa parvula (de Orat. 2.88) in which Sulpicius spoke (see case ).
Betitius (++1) Betutius (Betitius 1), T. Barrus prosecutor: T. (Betutius?) Barrus (Betitius 1), (perhaps e.R.) (ORF 84.I) 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 , , ).

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

date: 95
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (challenge to citizenship under lex Licinia Mucia)
Matrinius (++3), T. defendant: T. Matrinius (3) of Spoletium e.R. See Nicolet, Ordre équestre 2.950.
Marius (+14), C. advocate: C. Marius (14, RE Supp. 6) cos. 107, 104-100, 86 Brunt (1965) 106 is wrong to conclude from Balb. 49 that Crassus defended Matrinius; see Badian (Historia 1969) 491.
Antistius (+12), L. prosecutor: L. Antistius (12) (ORF 77.I)
outcome: A

Cic. Balb. 48-49

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

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

date: shortly after 95? 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&apostr; 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&apostr;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 and ) must have all occurred in the last years of the second century BC; see Badian Studies 86-87.
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis (provincial malfeasance after governorship of Asia in 95? 94?)
Valerius (178), L. Flaccus defendant: L. Valerius Flaccus (178) pr. 96? 95?, cos. suff. 86
outcome: A The defendant&apostr;s later election to consulate would indicate acquittal. Aurelius (215), M. Scaurus
other: M. Aurelius Scaurus (cf. 215) Son of M. Aurelius Scaurus (215) cos. suff. 108. q. ca 95? 94? former quaestor of defendant, rejected as prosecutor.

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

date: 95? 93? 91? The trial presumably followed the defendant&apostr;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&apostr;s dating, though for somewhat different reasons. Sumner (Athenaeum 1978) dates Sulla&apostr;s praetorship to 95 and his Cilician command to 94. He argues that Sulla must have run in 99 for the praetorship of 98, and having been defeated, ran in the same year for the aedileship of 98, which he held. Sherwin-White (CQ 1977, JRS 1977, 72) argues that Sulla restored Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia in the late nineties. See MRR Suppl. 74.
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis MRR 2.18 refers to the acceptance of bribes. But Gruen (Historia 1966) 51 n. 116 correctly points out that the force of Sallust&apostr;s words contained in Firm. Mat. 1.7.28, spoliatae provinciae crimen, means that extortion was the charge. (misconduct as gov. Cilicia)
Cornelius (392), L. Sulla defendant: L. Cornelius Sulla (392) gov. Cilicia 96-95? 94? 92?, cos. 88, 80
Marcius (+43), C. Censorinus prosecutor: C. Marcius Censorinus (43) leg. 82 (ORF 82.I)
outcome: charges dropped

Plut. Sull. 5; Firm. Mat. 1.7.28

date: 94? 93? 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.
apud centumviros claim: hereditatis petitio, apud centumviros (inheritance) 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&apostr;s son had not actually died, for the testator had had no son. See Wilkins, de Oratore 11-12, Vaughn (1984).
Curius (++5), M&apostr;. Coponius (++5), M. party: M&apostr;. Curius (5)
opposing party: M. Coponius (5)
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus Mucius (+22), Q. Scaevola 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

date: 92
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis (misconduct as legate to Asia) Ps.-Asconius incorrectly refers to the defendant as quaestor, 202St. Badian&apostr;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.
Rutilius (+34), P. Rufus defendant: P. Rutilius Rufus (34) cos. 105 (ORF 44.III) spoke pro se Mucius (+22), Q. Scaevola Aurelius (+96), C. Cotta
advocates: Q. Mucius Scaevola (22) cos. 95 (ORF 67.II)
C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 (ORF 80.I)
Apicius (++1) prosecutor: Apicius (1) 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. Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus
outcome: C, exile to Asia (Mytilene and Smyrna), 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. 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

date: 92 ambitus
charge: perhaps ambitus Note, however, that Florus goes on to make the incorrect statement that Caepio accused Scaurus of ambitus; see case . Marcius (+75), L. Philippus
defendant: L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86
Servilius (+50), Q. Caepio prosecutor: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91?

Flor. Epit. 2.5.5

date: late 92 or early 91 The trial occurred just before, or during the early part of, the tribunate of M. Livius Drusus.
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis The charge did not stem, contrary to general belief (Badian [Athenaeum 1956] 117-22, and others), from the defendant&apostr;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.
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.II?, III)
Servilius (+50), Q. Caepio Iunius (+50), M. Brutus prosecutors: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91?
Cornelius (135), Cn. Dolabella Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (135) pr. 81
? M. Iunius Brutus (50) Brutus may have prosecuted Scaurus in a separate extortion case (see case ). The passage from Frontinus probably refers to the discipline displayed by Scaurus&apostr; 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&apostr; 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.
outcome: A (or none) Scaurus went on to be politically active in this year, and was later accused under the lex Varia (see case ).
other: two actiones These were either in this case or in case ; see Char. 186.30.

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

date: late 92 or early 91 See case , 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.
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis, not ambitus 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 , in which he was the defendant on an extortion charge; therefore, this case and case must involve the same type of charge.
Servilius (+50), Q. Caepio defendant: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91? (ORF 85.II) 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).
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus prosecutor: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (ORF 43.III)
outcome: A (or none)
other: two actiones? 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 ), 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&apostr;s belief (1909) 30 that the trial of Scaurus must have been postponed till Caepio died in battle. See Marshall, Asconius 136.

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

 date: after 101? and before 91 Gruen (Historia 1966) 59-60 argues against definitely placing the trial in the late 90s.
quaestio charge: quaestio
Plancius (++2), Cn. defendant: Cn. (Munatius?) Plancus or Plancius (Plancius 2) e.R.
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus advocate: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.XII)
Iunius (+50), M. Brutus prosecutor: M. Iunius Brutus (50)
jurors: equites
outcome: A On the basis of de Orat. 2.225, refutatum esse Brutum, it is clear that the defendant was acquitted.

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

date: 91 (late summer) The date is inferred from the phrase in his paucis diebus, before the death of Crassus, Sept. 20, 91.
civil suit claim: civil suit (repayment of debt)
Pompeius (+39), Q. Rufus urban praetor: Q. Pompeius Rufus (39) cos. 88
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus on advisory council: L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92

Cic. de Orat. 1.168

date: 90 lex Varia
charge: lex Varia (aid to rebellious allies) 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 , 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 ) 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.
Aemilius (140), M. Scaurus defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (140) cos. 115, cens. 109 (spoke pro se)
Varius (++7), Q. Severus Hibrida Servilius (+50), Q. Caepio prosecutors: Q. Varius Severus Hibrida of Sucro (7) tr. pl. 90
Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91?, promag. 90 (ORF 85.III)
outcome: dropped? On the outcome, see Gruen (JRS 1965) 63.

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

date: 90
charge: lex Varia lex Varia
defendant: Q. Pompeius Rufus (39) cos. 88 (spoke pro se) The speech may have been written by L. Aelius Stilo (144) (ORF 74.IV). (ORF 83.I). Aelius (144), L. Stilo Pompeius (+39), Q. Rufus
Marcius (+75), L. Philippus witness: L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86, against defendant Gruen (JRS 1965) 65 n. 84 is correct to refute the suggestion of van Ooteghem (1961) 134 that Philippus spoke for the defense.
outcome: A Acquittal is suggested by the defendant&apostr;s future election to the consulate.

Cic. Brut. 206, 304

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

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

trial only threatened
date: 90
lex Varia charge: lex Varia
Scribonius (+10), C. Curio defendant: C. Scribonius Curio (10) tr. pl., cos. 76, cens. 61 See case , n. 3.
outcome: no trial

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

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

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


date: 90 lex Varia
charge: lex Varia
Aelius (144), L. Stilo Aurelius (+96), C. Cotta defendant: C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 (spoke pro se) The speech was written by L. Aelius Stilo (144) (ORF 74.III). (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

trial uncertain Gruen (JRS 1965) 63 argues that this trial did not occur, since Servilius was killed in battle in 90.
date: 90
lex Varia charge: lex Varia
Servilius (+50), Q. Caepio defendant: Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91?, promag. 90 (spoke pro se) The speech was written by L. Aelius Stilo (144).
Betitius (++1) Betutius (Betitius 1), T. Barrus prosecutor: T. (Betutius?) Barrus (Betitius 1) (perhaps e.R.)

Cic. Brut. 169, 206


date: 90? 89? Münzer, RE 10 (1917) 965 and Gruen, RPCC 300 tentatively suggest a date of 90 for the trial.
ambitus charge: ambitus
Sextius (++9), P. defendant: P. Sextius (9) pr. des. See Sumner, Orators 77, 109, and MRR Suppl. 111, 198-99.
Iunius (+32), T. prosecutor: T. Iunius (32) tr. pl. between ca 95 and ca 85 See Sumner, Orators 109. He notes that Cicero&apostr;s language does not necessarily imply that T. Iunius had already been tribune when he was prosecutor.
outcome: C

Cic. Brut. 180

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

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

date: 89 On the basis of the pluperfect excesserat (Brut. 305), Badian (Historia 1969) 461 argues for a trial early in the year.
lex Varia charge: lex Varia Münzer (Adelsparteien 1920) 301 believes that the defendant&apostr;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.
Varius (++7), Q. Severus Hibrida defendant: Q. Varius Severus Hibrida (7) tr. pl. 90
jurors: 15 from each tribe 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 ), 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 . 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.
outcome: C, exile 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.

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

date: 89
lex Varia charge: lex Varia
Pomponius (++3), Cn. Pompeius (+45), Cn. Strabo defendant: Cn. Pomponius (3) tr. pl. 90 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 , n. 3.

Asc. 79C

date: early 80s? Cicero heard this case being argued when the plaintiff was already an old man. Sumner, Orators 77 suggests a date in the early 80&apostr;s, pointing to Brut. 303-4, where Cicero describes his entrance into the forum at that time.
lex Aquilia de damno iniuria dato charge: lex Aquilia (de damno iniuria dato?) 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.
Sabellius (++1), L. defendant: L. Sabellius (1) Badian (1967) 227 suggests ‘L. Saleuius’ as a possibility, and argues (Studies 247) against ‘Saufeius.’
Caesulenus (++1), L. prosecutor: L. Caesulenus (1)

Cic. Brut. 131

 date: before 87
charge: uncertain, described as gravissimum crimen
Sextilius (++1) Sextilius (+12), P. defendant: Sextilius (1), = ? P. Sextilius (12) Carney (1962) 324 identifies the two; the identification is refuted by Gruen, RPCC 299. pr. 92?, promag. by 90-87? So Badian in Studies 71-72 and (1965) 113; see MRR Suppl. 198.
Iulius (135), C. Caesar Strabo Vopiscus advocate: C. Iulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus (135) aed. cur. 90
outcome: A

V. Max. 5.3.3

date: early 87
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi (perhaps the illegal execution of P. Sulpicius Rufus without trial) See Bennett (1923) 7, Weinrib (1968) 42, and also Gundel RE 8A (1955) 1019.
Cornelius (392), L. Sulla defendant: L. Cornelius Sulla (392) cos. 88, 80
Vergilius (++4), M. prosecutor: M. Vergilius (4) tr. pl. 87 Plutarch (Sull. 10.4) has ‘Verginius’; Badian (Studies 85 and 100 n. 87) considers this reading plausible.
outcome: none, Sulla went east

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

date: 87
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi
Claudius (296), Ap. Pulcher 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

date: late 87
iudicium populi perduellio charge: iudicium populi, for perduellio?
Lutatius (++7), Q. Catulus defendant: Q. Lutatius Catulus (7) cos. 102
Marius (+42), M. Gratidianus prosecutor: M. Marius Gratidianus (42) tr. pl. 87 or 86, pr. 85? and 82? On these dates of the prosecutor&apostr;s career, see Sumner, Orators 118-19, and MRR Suppl. 140-41.
outcome: suicide On the suicides of this period, see Weinrib (1968) 43, n. 45.

Cic. de Orat. 3.9; Brut. 307; Tusc. 5.56; N.D. 3.80; Diod. 39.4.2; Vell. 2.22.4; V. Max. 9.12.4; Plut. Mar. 44.5; App. BCiv. 1.74; Flor. Epit. 2.9.15; Schol. Bern. on Lucan 2.173; Schol. Bob. 176St; August. C.D. 3.27
Brecht (1938) 301

date: late 87
charge uncertain Bennett (1923) 27 suggests that Cinna&apostr;s removal from the consulate was illegal, and that Merula may have been put on trial for having replaced him illegally.
Cornelius (272), L. Merula defendant: L. Cornelius Merula (272) cos. suff. 87
outcome: suicide See case , n. 2.

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


date: 86
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi
Lucilius (+15), Sex. defendants: Sex. Lucilius (15) tr. pl. 87
two other former tribunes
Popillius (+27), P. Laenas 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

trials uncertain The relationship between these trials, if they were indeed trials, and case is difficult to determine from Dio&apostr;s account.
Marius (+15), C. 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

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

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

date: 86? 85? 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&apostr;s statement that the trial took place immediately upon the death of Pompey&apostr;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.
civil suit peculatus claim: civil procedure relating to inheritance? 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&apostr;s use of booty, and which would probably not involve a general&apostr;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.
Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus defendant: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Marcius (+75), L. Philippus Papirius (+38), Cn. Carbo advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.III)
L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86 (ORF 70.IV) 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&apostr; speech on behalf of Pompey (Plut. Pomp. 2.2) might have occurred at a later date. However, Cicero&apostr;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.
Cn. Papirius Carbo (38) cos. 85, 84, 82
Antistius (+18), P. 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

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

Cic. Quinct. 22-29

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

Cic. N.D. 3.74

date: 83 or after?
peculatus charge: peculatus? (destruction of tabularium by fire?) Mommsen, Strafr. 767 n. 1 suggests that there might possibly be a connection between this case and case .
Curtius (++5), C. defendant: C. Curtius (5) e.R.
outcome: A

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

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

Cic. Clu. 24, 25

date: fifteen See Q. Rosc. 37. The number of years is emended by some editors from fifteen to four. years before case .
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 lex Aquilia de damno iniuria dato Flavius (+22), Q.
Roscius (+16), Q. Gallus plaintiff: Q. Roscius Gallus (16) e.R.
Fannius (+17), C. Chaerea cognitor: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)
outcome: defendant gave up farm worth 100,000 sesterces

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

date: spring of 81 For the date 81 see Gell. 15.28.3, Kinsey (1967), Shatzman (1968) 345-47, Hinard (1975) 94, and Badian FC 297, who argue against 80, the date suggested by Carcopino (1931). The dispute between Quinctius and Naevius dated back to September 83 (see case ). In 81 the praetor Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (135) had ruled that the sponsio should occur.
sponsio claim: sponsio (dispute over partnership)
Naevius (++6), Sex. defendant: Sex. Naevius (6)
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus advocate (of defendant): Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.IV)
Marcius (+75), L. Philippus character witness (for defendant): L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86
Quinctius (+16), P. plaintiff: P. Quinctius (16)
Iunius (+23), M. Iunius (+52), M. Brutus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate (of plaintiff): M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 1)
Aquillius (+23), C. Gallus judge: C. Aquillius Gallus (23) pr. 66
Claudius (226), M. Marcellus Claudius (227), M. Marcellus Lucilius (+19), L. Balbus Lucilius (++8), L. Quinctilius (++2), P. Varus jurors (on advisory council): M. Claudius Marcellus (226) pr. uncertain date, = ? M. Claudius Marcellus (227) aed. cur. 91 See case , n. 2.
L. Lucilius Balbus (19) = ? L. Lucilius (8) pr. 91? He was gov. Asia 90 and beginning 89. See Sumner (GRBS 1978) 149-50, MRR Suppl. 128.
P. Quinctilius Varus (2) Cicero&apostr;s praise of Varus does not demonstrate that Varus was a senator, pace Sumner (CP 1978) 161; see MRR Suppl. 177.
Albius (++6), L. witness: L. Albius (6)
outcome: against plaintiff See Kinsey&apostr;s comment in his edition of Cicero&apostr;s pro Quinctio, p. 5.
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

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

Cic. Corn. (Asc. 74C)

date: after 86?, The year 86 is the date of the plebeian aedileship of Fannius. See MRR Suppl. 90. before case
lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis charge: under lex Cornelia? de sicariis et veneficis
iudex quaestionis: M. Fannius (15) pr. 80

Cic. S. Rosc. 11

 date: late 81-early 80 On the date, see Kinsey (1967) 64-67.
de sicariis et veneficis parricidium lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (parricidium, murder of father Sex. Roscius [6]) On the status of the father, see Sedgwick (1934), Kinsey (1966) and (1981), and Stroh (1975).
Roscius (++7), Sex. defendant: Sex. Roscius (7)
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 2)
Erucius (++2), C. Roscius (+18), T. Magnus prosecutors: C. Erucius (2) (ORF 79.I)
T. Roscius Magnus (18)
Fannius (+15), M. praetor: M. Fannius (15)
Roscius (+12), T. Capito Roscius (+18), T. Magnus witnesses: T. Roscius Capito (12)
T. Roscius Magnus (18)
outcome: A? Despite the possibility of acquittal, Kinsey (1985) shows that Erucius had a real case to present against the defendant.

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)

trial uncertain
date: 80?
peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu But Plutarch says that the trial (if indeed it was a trial) took place in the Senate. (misconduct as q. 81)
Cornelius (240), P. Lentulus Sura defendant: P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura (240) cos. 71
outcome: A

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

date: 79 This date is more probable than 80, when the defendant was still pro-magistrate, pace Münzer RE 3 (1897) 1209, s.v. ‘Caecilius (86).’
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sicily, 80)
Aemilius (+72), M. Lepidus defendant: M. Aemilius Lepidus (72) cos. 78
Caecilius (+86), Q. Metellus Celer Caecilius (+96), Q. Metellus Nepos 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 interrogari 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.

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

= ? case
date: 79 or 78 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).
legis actio sacramento claim: legis actio sacramento (causa liberalis, free status of defendant) On the legal issue see Desserteaux (1907), Frier, RRJ 99-100.
Arretina mulier defendant: Arretina mulier
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 1)
Aurelius (+96), C. Cotta 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

= ? case
date: 79?
iudicium privatum claim: iudicium privatum 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.
Titinia (+26) defendant: Titinia (26)
Aurelius (+96), C. Cotta Aurelius (+96), C. Cotta Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: ? C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 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.
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 2)
Naevius (++5), Sex. Scribonius (+10), C. Curio prosecutors: Ser. Naevius (5)
C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61 For a reference, see case , n. 3. (ORF 86.VI)

Cic. Brut. 217; Orat. 129

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

Asc. 74C
Lintott (1977)

date: 78
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Cilicia, 80-79)
Cornelius (135), Cn. Dolabella defendant: Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (135) pr. 81
prosecutor: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56 (ORF 139.I)
Verres (++1), C. 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; See [Asc.] 234St; Münzer RE 8 (1913) 2472; D.-G. 2.485-86; Gruen (AJP 1966) 347 n. 52; Twyman (1972) 855-56. (ORF 92.V). Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus

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

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

Cic. N.D. 3.74

date: 77? Sometime before 74, i.e., the date of case .
homicide charge: homicide (murder of Asuvius [1])
Avillius (++2) defendant: Avillius (2)
judge (triumvir capitalis): Q. Manlius (34) Shackleton Bailey, Studies 50 argues that the triumvir is not the same as the tr. pl. 69.
delatores: liberti Asuvi et non nulli amici
Manlius (+34), Q. outcome: confession, case dropped in exchange for defendant&apostr;s testimony against Oppianicus

Cic. Clu. 36-38

date: 77? The trial occurred sometime before 74, i.e., the date of case .
homicide charge: homicide (murder of Asuvius [1])
Albius (+10), Statius Oppianicus defendant: Statius Albius Nicolet Ordre équestre 2.756 n. 1 gives the name as Abbius. Oppianicus (10) e.R.?
Manlius (+34), Q. judge (triumvir capitalis): Q. Manlius (34) See case , n. 2.
Avillius (++2) delator: Avillius (2)
outcome: A or dismissal
other: Cicero claims bribery by defendant.

Cic. Clu. 36-39

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

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

date: 77 Tac. Dial. 34.7 mistakenly puts this trial in Caesar&apostr;s twenty-first year, i.e., 79; see Sumner, Orators 149.
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia 80-77)
Cornelius (134), Cn. Dolabella defendant: Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (134) cos. 81 (spoke pro se, ORF 94.I)
Aurelius (+96), C. Cotta Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus advocates: C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 (ORF 80.V)
Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.VII)
Iulius (131), C. Caesar 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

date: 76
civil suit claim: probably a civil suit (actions committed as prefect in Greece by 84) Buckland (1937) 43 argues that the defendant did not possess imperium at the time of the acts of which the Greeks complained.
Antonius (+19), C. defendant: C. Antonius (19) cos. 63
plaintiffs: Graeci
Iulius (131), C. Caesar advocate (of plaintiffs): C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44 (ORF 121.II)
Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus 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

date: 76
civil suit claim: civil suit
Atella (++1), Safinius defendant: Safinius Atella (1) (or his pupillus?)
Staienus (++1), C. Aelius Paetus advocate: C. Aelius Paetus Staienus On the name, see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 101. (Staienus [1]) q. 77
other: suspicion that Staienus used bribery

Cic. Clu. 68, 99

trial only threatened
date: 75
Verres (++1), C. 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

date: 75
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Asia, or leg. Asia 82) On the magistracy involved and its date, see Magie, RRAM 2.1125 n. 42, and MRR 2.91, 97.
Terentius (see 82), Varro Terentius (+82), A. Varro defendant: Terentius Varro (see 82) pr. 78?, promag. 77? = ? A. Terentius Varro (82) leg. in Asia 84?-82
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.VIII)
Turius (++2), L. Furius (+18), L. praetor: L. Turius (2), or L. Furius (18) On the name see MRR Suppl. 209-10.
outcome: postponement See case , n. 1.

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

date: before 74
actio liberalis claim: actio liberalis? (Roman citizenship of Martiales of Larinum)
Albius (+10), Statius Oppianicus for citizenship: Statius Albius See case , n. 2. Oppianicus (10) e.R.
Cluentius (++4), A. Habitus against citizenship: A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R.
outcome: perhaps in favor of citizenship Cicero&apostr;s failure to mention the outcome may indicate that his client Cluentius was unsuccessful.

Cic. Clu. 43-44

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

Cic. Brut. 317

date: 74 de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (attempt to poison Cluentius)
Scamander (++3) defendant: Scamander (3) libertus
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 4)
Cannutius (++2), P. Cluentius (++4), A. Habitus prosecutors: P. Cannutius (2) (subscr.) (ORF 114.II)
A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. (nom. del.) Iunius (+15), C. iudex quaestionis: C. Iunius (15) aed. 75
Staienus (++1), C. Aelius Paetus juror: C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (Staienus [1]) q. 77 For a reference, see case , n. 1.
Baebius (+18), M. Quinctilius (++2), P. Varus witnesses: M. Baebius (18) sen.
P. Quinctilius Varus (2) See case , n. 4. other: one actio
outcome: C; all jurors voted C except Staienus, who voted A.

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

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

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

iudicium Iunianum
date: 74
de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (poison attempts)
Albius (+10), Statius Oppianicus defendant: Statius Albius See case , n. 2. Oppianicus (10) e.R.
Quinctius (+12), L. advocate: L. Quinctius (12) tr. pl. 74, pr. 68 (ORF 107.I)
Cannutius (++2), P. Cluentius (++4), A. Habitus prosecutors: P. Cannutius (2) (subscr.) (ORF 114.II)
A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. (nom. del.) Iunius (+15), C. iudex quaestionis: C. Iunius (15) aed. 75? He was condemned to pay a fine for failure to observe formalities correctly. See case .
Aquillius (not in RE), M&apostr;. Atilius (+34), M. Bulbus Caesonius (++1), M. Cassius (+13), L. Longinus Caudinus (not in RE), C. Caulius (not in RE), L. Mergus Considius (++7), Q. Egnatius (++8), Cn. Fidiculanius (++1), C. Falcula Gutta (++1), Ti. Heius (++3), Cn. Heiulius Herennius (++7), C. Minucius (+39), M. Basilus Octavius (+46), P. Balbus Octavius (+45), L. Balbus Popillius (++3), C. Popillius (+10), P. Saturius (++1), P. Septimius (+51), P. Scaevola Staienus (++1), C. Aelius Paetus jurors (thirty-two in all): C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (Staienus [1]) q. 77 (voted C) On the name, see case , n. 1.
M&apostr;. Aquillius (not in RE) sen.
? M. Atilius Bulbus (34) sen. (voted C) 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.
M. Caesonius (1) pr. by 66
L. Cassius Longinus (13) See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 24, MRR Suppl. 50. pr. 66 (voted NL)
C. Caudinus (not in RE) C. Caudinus was not a Cornelius Lentulus. See Wiseman (1971) 223, Gruen, LGRR 202 n. 155, Shackleton Bailey, Studies 25, MRR Suppl. 53. sen. (voted NL)
L. Caulius Mergus (not in RE) sen. (voted NL)
Q. Considius (7) sen. (voted NL)
Cn. Egnatius (8) See Syme (Historia 1955) 61 = RP 1.280-81, Shackleton Bailey, Studies 36. 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) The form ‘Heiulius’ is a suggestion made in Shackleton Bailey, Studies 43. sen. (voted NL)
? C. Herennius (7) See n. 4 above. sen. (voted C)
M. Minucius Basilus (39) sen. (voted C)
L. Octavius Balbus (45), = ? P. Octavius Balbus (46) 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. sen. (voted NL)
? C. Popillius (3) sen. (voted C) See n. 4 above.
P. Popillius (10) sen. (voted C)
P. Saturius (1) sen. (voted NL)
P. Septimius Scaevola (51) sen. (voted C)
outcome: C One more vote for acquittal would have prevented condemnation (Cic. Caec. 29).

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

date: 74 This case was simultaneous with case .
civil suit claim: civil suit
Staienus (++1), C. Aelius Paetus advocate: C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (Staienus [1]) For a reference, see case , n. 1. q. 77

Cic. Clu. 74

date: 74
civil suit claim: civil suit (inheritance) The goods of P. Annius Asellus (31) had been granted to the reversionary heir, instead of to the deceased&apostr;s daughter, Annia (102), by the retroactive application of the lex Voconia.
Verres (++1), C. praetor: C. Verres (1)

2 Ver. 1.107-13, 118

date: 74
civil suit Minucius (not in RE) claim: civil suit (inheritance) 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.
Verres (++1), C. praetor: C. Verres (1)

2 Ver. 1.115-17

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

date: 74, before Dec. 10
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi, for multa
Fidiculanius (++1), C. Falcula defendant: C. Fidiculanius Falcula (1, see also RE 17 [1937] 443) sen.
Quinctius (+12), L. prosecutor: L. Quinctius (12) tr. pl. 74, pr. 68 (ORF 107.IV)
outcome: uncertain The defendant was tried again in 73. See case .

Cic. Caec. 29; Clu. 103, 108

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

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

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

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

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

Opimius (+11), Q. defendant: Q. Opimius (11) tr. pl. 75
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Lutatius (++8), Q. Catulus Scribonius (+10), C. Curio prosecutors?: 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. Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69
Q. Lutatius Catulus (8) cos. 78, cens. 65
C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61 The participation of C. Scribonius Curio in this trial is particularly problematic, since he is thought to have been gov. Macedonia 75-73. Verres (++1), C. 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

date: 74 The trial occurred after the iudicium Iunianum. See Magie, RRAM 2.1125, n. 42. See case , and also see Münzer RE 2.5 (1934) 679 for the suggestion that there were two hearings in 76 and 75.
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis? (misconduct as gov. Asia 77 to early 75?)
Terentius (+82), A. Varro defendant: (A.?) Terentius Varro (82) pr. 78? Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus
advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.VIII)
Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher prosecutor: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens. 50 (ORF 130.I)
Cornelius (240), P. Lentulus Sura praetor: P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura (240) cos. 71
outcome: A, with many charges of corruption (bribery, improperly colored voting tablets) For the argument that each juror received three voting tablets, one of which was improperly colored, see Vince (1893).

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

date: between 74 and 70
maiestas lex Cornelia de maiestate charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (mutiny as q. 77 against Mam. Aemilius Lepidus [80] cos. 67)
Staienus (++1), C. Aelius Paetus defendant: C. Aelius Paetus Staienus (Staienus [1]) q. 77 On the name, see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 101.
Cominius (+11), P. Cominius (++4), C. Cominius (++8), C. prosecutors: P. Cominius (11) e.R. (ORF 143.I)
C. (or L.?) Cominius (4 = ? 8) See Münzer RE 4 (1900) 607-8. 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

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

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

date: between 74 and 70
ambitus lex Cornelia de ambitu charge: lex Cornelia de ambitu
Gutta (++1), Ti. 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

date: between 74 The trial possibly occurred before this date. Shackleton Bailey apparently now holds the view (described in MRR Suppl. 101) that in 1 Ver. 39 the cases of C. Herennius (this case), C. Popillius (), and M. Atilius Bulbus () are to be separated from the juror (clearly Staienus) who accepted bribes from both sides when Verres was praetor (74 B.C.). Therefore trials , , and do not have to be dated to 74 B.C. and 70
peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu (receiving bribe ob rem iudicandam as juror in 74[?])
Herennius (++7), C. defendant: C. Herennius = ? C. Herennius (7) tr. pl. 88? 80? Münzer RE 8 (1912) 663 identifies him with the legate who served under Sertorius, and died in battle in 76 or 75. Syme (Historia 1955) 63 = RP 1.282 distinguishes them.
outcome: C

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

date: 74, or shortly after
condictio claim: civil suit (possibly condictio?, i.e., a claim of obligation to give or do something)
Mustius (++2), C. defendant: C. Mustius (2) e.R.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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

date: three years before case
compromissum claim: compromissum? (claim of HS 50,000)
Roscius (+16), Q. Gallus defendant: Q. Roscius Gallus (16) e.R.
Fannius (+17), C. Chaerea plaintiff: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)
arbiter: C. Calpurnius Piso (63) cos. 67 See case , n. 1. Calpurnius (+63), C. Piso
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 )

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

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

Cic. Q. Rosc. 42, 45

date: between 76 and 68 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&apostr;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&apostr;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 three years earlier.
claim: civil suit (condictio certae pecuniae) See Greenidge LP App. II.2. for HS 50,000 condictio certae pecuniae
Roscius (+16), Q. Gallus defendant: Q. Roscius Gallus (16) e.R.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate of defendant: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 3)
Fannius (+17), C. Chaerea plaintiff: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)
Saturius (++1), P. advocate of plaintiff: P. Saturius (1) (ORF 106.I)
juror: C. Calpurnius Piso (63) cos. 67 Calpurnius (+63), C. Piso
Fannius (+17), C. Chaerea Luscius (++2), C. Ocrea Manilius (+10), C. Manlius (+16), T. Perperna (++5), M.
witnesses: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)
C. Luscius Ocrea (2) sen.
C. Manilius (10), or T. Manlius (16) sen. See Sumner, Orators 131.
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

date: 73 See MRR 2.107-8.
incestum apud pontifices charge: apud pontifices, for incestum (sexual relations with L. Sergius Catilina [23] pr. 68) Only Orosius provides evidence that Catiline himself was prosecuted (see Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.319). Sergius (+23), L. Catilina
Fabia (172) defendant(s): Fabia (172) Vestal Virgin (and others?)
Lutatius (++8), Q. Catulus Pupius (+10), M. Piso Frugi (Calpurnianus) 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?: Moreau (1982) 233-39 attributes the Plutarch passage to Clodius&apostr; abuse of Fabia before a contio in 61 after case , 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. P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56 Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher
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

date: 73? The date is probably the same as the one for case .
incestum apud pontifices charge: apud pontifices, for incestum (sexual relations with M. Licinius Crassus [68] cos. 70, 55, cens. 65)
Licinia (185) defendant: Licinia (185) Vestal Virgin
Pupius (+10), M. Piso Frugi (Calpurnianus) advocate: M. Pupius Piso Frugi (Calpurnianus) (10) pr. 72?, cos. 61 (ORF 104.I)
Plautius (++3) Plautius (++4) Plotius (Plautius 4) prosecutor: Plautius (or Plotius?) (4), = ? Plautius (3) tr. pl. 70? See Taylor (1941) 121 n. 32; MRR 2.130 n. 4.
outcome: A

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

date: 73? The date is probably the same as the one for case .
charge: apud pontifices, for incestum apud pontifices incestum
Licinius (+68), M. Crassus defendant: M. Licinius Crassus (68) pr. 73? See MRR Suppl. 120. cos. 70, 55, cens. 65
outcome: A Plutarch&apostr;s language in Crassus (hupo t&omacron;n dikast&omacron;n apheith&emacron;) implies a verdict, pace Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.319.

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

date: 73
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (improper conduct as juror in case )
Fidiculanius (++1), C. Falcula 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

date: 73? 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.
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi (de locis religiosis ac de lucis violatis) The defendant was charged with violating sacred places and groves.
Rabirius (++5), C. defendant: C. Rabirius (5) sen.
Licinius (112), C. Macer prosecutor: C. Licinius Macer (112) tr. pl. 73, pr. by 68 (ORF 110.II)
outcome: A

Cic. Rab. Perd. 7

date: 72
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct in Apulia?) 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.
Septimius (+51), P. Scaevola defendant: P. Septimius Scaevola (51) sen.
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus 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 ).

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

date: 71? 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.
civil suit damnum datum vi hominibus armatis claim: civil suit, apud recuperatores, damnum datum vi hominibus armatis (land dispute) See Frier, RRJ 79-80.
Fabius (+28), P. defendant: P. Fabius (28)
Quinctius (+12), L. advocate (for defendant): L. Quinctius (12) tr. pl. 74, pr. 68 (ORF 107.V)
Tullius (+12), M. plaintiff: M. Tullius (12) Tullius (+29), M. Cicero
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 7)
Caecilius (+74), L. Metellus Caecilius (+87), Q. Metellus Creticus praetor: ? L. Caecilius Metellus (74) pr. 71, cos. 68 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.
outcome: uncertain Münzer RE (1939) 804 describes Cicero&apostr;s speech as ‘probably successful.’ But in fact we have no definite information on the outcome.
other: two actiones

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

date: before 70, after 76? 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.
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Achaea 87-80?)
Gabinius (+13), P. defendant: P. Gabinius (13) pr. 89? 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.
Calpurnius (+90), L. Piso Caesoninus Calpurnius (+98), L. Piso Frugi prosecutor: L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (90) cos. 58, cens. 50
or L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (98) pr. 74 Münzer RE 3 (1899) 1395 and Gruen (1968) 162 favor Frugi; Badian Studies 82 favors Caesoninus. outcome: C
other: Q. Caecilius Niger (101) q. 73 defeated in divinatio Marshall (Philologus 1977) 84 reasons that this case cannot be case , because the divinatio in this case occurred before the divinatio in the trial of Verres, whereas the divinatio in case occurred after the trial of Verres. Caecilius (101), Q. Niger

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

date: by 70 On the date see case n. 1.
peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu Popillius (++3), C.
defendant: C. Popillius (3) sen.
outcome: C

Cic. 1 Ver. 39

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

Cic. 2 Ver. 3.61-63

date: ca Jan.-ca Oct. 70 On the date, see Marinone (1950) 8-14.
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sicily 73-71)
Verres (++1), C. defendant: C. Verres (1) pr. 74
Caecilius (+99), Q. Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica Cornelius (374), L. Sisenna Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus 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) Alexander (1976) defends the belief of Quintilian (10.1.22-23) that Hortensius delivered a speech in the first actio in defense of his client; contra Brunt (1980) 280 n. 44, Venturini (1980) 170.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero prosecutor: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 6-11, 123) (nom. del.)
Acilius (+38), M&apostr;. Glabrio praetor: M&apostr;. Acilius Glabrio (38) cos. 67, cens. 64? See MRR Suppl. 2.
Caecilius (+78), M. Metellus Caesonius (++1), M. Cassius (+13), L. Longinus Claudius (214), C. Marcellus Cornificius (++7), Q. Crepereius (++1), M. Lutatius (++8), Q. Catulus Manlius (+34), Q. Octavius (+45), L. Balbus Servilius (+93), P. Vatia Isauricus Sulpicius (+15), P. Titinius (+17), Q. Tremellius (++5), Cn. Scrofa jurors: M. Caecilius Metellus (78) pr. 69
M. Caesonius (1) pr. by 66
L. Cassius Longinus (13) pr. 66 For references, see case , n. 4.
C. Claudius Marcellus (214) pr. 80
Q. Cornificius (7) pr. by 66
M. Crepereius (1) tr. mil. 69
Q. Lutatius Catulus (8) cos. 78, cens. 65
Q. Manlius (34) tr. pl. 69
L. His praenomen is not ‘P.’ See case , n. 9. Octavius Balbus (45)
P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55
P. Sulpicius (15) q. 69 See Box (1942) 72, Gabba (1976) 60-61, and MRR Suppl. 200.
Q. Titinius (17) sen.
Cn. Tremellius Scrofa (5) tr. mil. 69, pr. by early 50s See MRR Suppl. 208. Cassius (+58), C. Longinus Cervius (++1), P. Considius (++7), Q. Iunius (+30), Q. Peducaeus (++5), Sex. Sulpicius (+55), P. Galba Lucretius (++9), M. jurors rejected by defense: C. Cassius (Longinus?) (58) cos. 73
P. Cervius (1) leg. Sicily 72? See Marinone (1965-66) 238-46; MRR Suppl. 43, 53.
Q. Considius (7) sen.
Q. Iunius (30) sen.
Sex. Peducaeus (5) pr. 77
P. Sulpicius Galba (55) pr. 66 His curule aedileship in 69 and candidacy for consulate of 63 fix his praetorship to 66. jurors rejected by prosecution: M. Lucretius (9) sen., M. Lucretius was probably rejected by Cicero. Ps.-Asconius (229St) surmises, probably correctly, that Cicero would not have attacked Lucretius as he does (2 Ver. 1.18, admittedly in a fictitious speech), if Lucretius were still a juror in the case. So Münzer RE 13(1927) 1657; contra McDermott (1977) 69. and others Cicero rejected some jurors (1 Ver. 16; 2 Ver. 1.18), but, pace McDermott (1977) 65 n. 4, we cannot be sure that he rejected the same number as the defense (i.e., six). Apollodoros Pyragros (not in RE) Caecilius (not in RE), L. Dio Caecilius (+52), Q. Dio Charidemos (not in RE) Cottius (not in RE), M. Cottius (not in RE), P. Diodoros (+29) Domitius (not in RE), L. Fannius (+11), Cn. Flavius (+16), L. Fufius (++8), L. Calenus Heius (++2) C. Herakleios (++4) Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus Lucceius (++9), Q. Manlius (+41), T. Manilius (+16), T. Matrinius (++1), C. Minucius (+26), Q. Modius (++6), M. Nikasio (++1) Numenios (++3) Numitorius (++2), C. Octavius (+68), L. Ligus Octavius (+69), M. Ligus Pompeius (+27), Sex. Chlorus Pompeius (+46), Cn. Theodorus Posides (not in RE) Macro Sertius (++1), Cn. Theodoros (not in RE) Tadius (++2), Q. Tettius (++3), P. Titius (+19), P. Varius (++5), Q. Andron (not in RE) Cornelius (216), Cn. Lentulus Clodianus Poleas (not in RE) Vettius (+10), P. Chilo Epikrates (not in RE) Herakleios (++3) witnesses (in first actio): Apollodoros Pyragros (not in RE)
L. Caecilius (Dio?) (not in RE)
Q. Caecilius Dio (52)
Charidemos of Chios (not in RE)
M. Cottius (not in RE)
P. Cottius (not in RE)
Diodoros of Melita (29)
L. Domitius (not in RE)
Cn. Fannius (11) e.R.
L. Flavius (16) e.R.
L. Fufius Calenus (8)
C. Heius of Messana (2)
Herakleios of Syracuse (4)
Q. Lucceius of Regium (9)
T. Manlius (41) = ? T. Manilius (16)
C. Matrinius (1) e.R.
Q. Minucius (26) e.R.
M. Modius (6)
Nikasio of Henna (1)
Numenios of Henna (3)
C. Numitorius (2) e.R.
L. (Octavius) Ligus (68) sen.?
M. Octavius Ligus (69) sen.
Sex. Pompeius Chlorus (27)
Cn. Pompeius Theodorus (46)
Posides Macro of Solus (not in RE)
Cn. Sertius (1) e.R.
Q. Tadius (2)
M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) cos. 73 procos. Macedonia and Thrace 72-71
P. Tettius (3)
Theodoros of Henna (not in RE)
P. Titius (19) e.R.?
Q. Varius (5) witnesses (to be heard in second actio): Andron of Centuripa (not in RE)
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (216) cos. 72, cens. 70
Poleas of Messana (not in RE)
P. Vettius Chilo (10) e.R. witnesses summoned but absent: Epikrates of Bidis (not in RE)
Herakleios of Syracuse (3)
legates: from Aetna, Agyrium, Catina, Centuripa, Halaesa, Herbita, Melita, Panhormus
outcome: C, after actio prima Verres remained in Rome during the late summer (2 Ver. 4.33; see Marinone [1950] 8-14, Alexander [1976] 51-52), but was condemned when he failed to appear at the second actio. 3,000,000 HS assessed at litis aestimatio
other: Q. Caecilius Niger (101), q. Sicily 73, was defeated in divinatio. He was supported by L. Appuleius (30) pr. 59, See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 14, MRR Suppl. 23. and (A.?) Allienus (1) pr. 49, See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 8. as subscriptores. Cicero was granted 110 days to collect evidence. Caecilius (101), Q. Niger Appuleius (+30), L. Allienus (++1), A.

Cic. Div. Caec.; Ver.; Plut. Cic. 7.3-8.1; Quint. Inst. 4.1.20, 4.2.113-14, 6.3.98, 7.4.33 and 36, 10.1.23; Juv. 8.106; [Asc.] 184-264St; Schol. Clun. 273St; Schol. Gronov. ABC 324-351St

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

Cic. 2 Ver. 1.11

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

Cic. 2 Ver. 1.12, 5.79

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

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

date: 70 See case , and n. 4. This prosecution was designed to precede, and thereby delay, the prosecution of Verres ().
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Macedonia, including Achaea)
Hostilius (+13), L. Dasianus Oppius (++4) Piso Scribonius (+10), C. Curio defendant: L. Hostilius (13) Dasianus? tr. pl. 68?
or Oppius? (4)
or Piso
or C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61, For a reference, see case , n. 3. procos. Macedonia 75-72 Caecilius (+96), Q. Metellus Nepos Oppius (++4) Rupilius (++2) prosecutors: Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos? (96) cos. 57
? Oppius (4)
Rupilius (2) outcome: dropped 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 ), dropped the case.
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

= ? case Münzer RE 2A (1921) 864-65, Gelzer (1969) 38 n. 27, and Marshall (Philologus 1977) suggest that this is case , by which the prosecution of Verres was to be delayed. Marshall correctly argues that McDermott (1972) 384-85 is wrong to believe that the case mentioned in 1 Ver. 6 cannot be this case because that case involved calumnia. He also attacks the objection of Zielinski (1894) 256-57 n. 13 that Cicero&apostr;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&apostr;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.
date: 70?
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. perhaps for Macedonia, including Achaea 75-72)
Scribonius (+10), C. Curio defendant: C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61 For a reference, see case , n. 3.
Caecilius (+96), Q. Metellus Nepos prosecutor: Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96) cos. 57
outcome: dropped by mutual agreement

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

date: 70? causa liberalis
claim: causa liberalis (see case )
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, See case , n. 3. who furnished an assertor libertatis for this citizen. Caecilius (+96), Q. Metellus Nepos Scribonius (+10), C. Curio

Asc. 62-64C

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

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

date: between 70 and 66
ambitus lex Cornelia de ambitu charge: lex Cornelia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for tribunate?)
Popillius (+10), P. Popillius (++4), C. Popillius (++5), C. defendant: P. Popillius (10) sen.
or C. Popillius (4) tr. pl. 68? = ? C. Popillius (5) tr. mil. 72? 71? See MRR Suppl. 168 (cf. 105), and case . Note that the codices at Clu. 131 give his praenomen as L. Cornelius (216), Cn. Lentulus Clodianus laudator: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (216) cos. 72, cens. 70 See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 112.
outcome: C

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

date: 69? The trial must have occurred after the lex Aurelia of 70 was passed, since equites, as well as senators, were in court (Font. 36).
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as q. 84, as gov. Gaul 75-73 or 74-72) On the offenses charged, see Jouanique (1960); Alexander (1982) 158. On the years, see Badian (1966) 911-12, and MRR Suppl. 93.
Fonteius (+12), M. defendant: M. Fonteius (12) pr. 76? 75?
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 10)
Plaetorius (+16), M. Cestianus Fabius (+26), M. prosecutors: M. Fabius (26) (subscr.)
M. Plaetorius Cestianus (16) See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 123. pr. 64? (nom. del.) Indutiomarus (++1) Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus witnesses: Indutiomarus (1)
Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus laudatores: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
people of Narbo, Massilia outcome: uncertain whether A or C 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.
other: two actiones

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

date: 69 The trial occurred after the passage of the lex Aurelia, and before the trial of M. Aurelius Cotta (case ). See D.-G. 5.367-68; Gruen (AJP 1971) 14 n. 61.
peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu? (theft of supplies, mutiny)
Oppius (+17), P. defendant: P. Oppius (17) q. 74 Tullius (+29), M. Cicero
advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 69, 70)
jurors: partly equites
outcome: uncertain Oppius&apostr; 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).

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

date: 69 or 68? See Gruen (CSCA 1968) 160-62.
Manilius (+23), Crispus Manilius (+10), C. defendant: Manilius Crispus (23) = ? C. Manilius (10) tr. pl. 66
Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus advocate?: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
Calpurnius (+69), Cn. Piso prosecutor: Cn. Calpurnius Piso (69) q. 65-64

V. Max. 6.2.4

date: 69? 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.
claim: sponsio, unde vi hominibus coactis armatisve (dispute over land) sponsio unde vi hominibus coactis armatisve
defendant: Sex. Aebutius (9)
Calpurnius (+63), C. Piso advocate (for defendant): C. Calpurnius Piso (63) cos. 67 (ORF 108.I)
plaintiff: A. Caecina (6) of Volaterra (e.R.) Caecina (++6), A.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate (for plaintiff): M. Tullius Cicero (29) aed. pl. 69 (Sch. 13)
Aebutius (++9), Sex. Cornelius (140), P. Dolabella urban praetor: P. Cornelius Dolabella (140) pr. 69 or 68 The dating of this case depends on the dating of Dolabella&apostr;s praetorship. See n. 1.
jurors: recuperatores Aquillius (+23), C. Gallus Sulpicius (+95), Ser. Rufus Orbius (++3), P. Cascellius (++4), A.
jurisconsult (for defendant): ? Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (95) cos. 51 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.
jurisconsult (for plaintiff): C. Aquillius Gallus (23) pr. 66
Atilius (+10), A. Atilius (+17), L. Caelius (++8), L. Caesennius (++3), P. Clodius (+43), Sex. Phormio Fidiculanius (++1), C. Falcula Memmius (+17), P. Rutilius (+10), P. Terentius (+17), A. Vetilius (++2), P. 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? See Frier, RRJ 231-32.

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

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

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

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

Cic. Brut. 259-60

date: 67 or after
peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu See Klebs RE 2 (1896) 2489. or lex Cornelia de repetundis Borzsák RE 18 (1939) 1112. (misconduct as gov. Bithynia-Pontus 73-70)
Aurelius (107), M. Cotta defendant: M. Aurelius Cotta (107) cos. 74
Papirius (+35), C. Carbo prosecutor: C. Papirius Carbo (35) pr. 62
outcome: C
other: Carbo received consular insignia as a reward Taylor (1949) 114 uses this piece of information in her analysis of praemia. Note, however, that this reward was granted not on the basis of a clause in a law, but after some debate, perhaps on the decision of the Senate or consuls. See Alexander (1985) 25.

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

date: 67? See D.-G. 5.357 n. 7; MRR 2.150 n. 3; Crawford, Orations p. 59.
charge: uncertain Mommsen (StR. 1.339 n. 5) claims that this is a Disciplinarprozess.
Matrinius (++2), D. defendant: D. Matrinius (2)
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 11)
Flaminius (++4), C. Iunius (+25), M. Plaetorius (+16), M. Cestianus Publicius (+13), Q. jurors: C. Flaminius (4) aed. cur. 68 or 67
M. Iunius (25) pr. 67?
M. Plaetorius Cestianus (16) For a reference, see case , n. 3. pr. 64?
Q. Publicius (13) pr. 67? Frier (1983) 228 expresses doubt that he was praetor in this year.

Cic. Clu. 126

date: before 66
actio furti claim: actio furti
defendants: servi of A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. Cluentius (++4), A. Habitus
Ennius plaintiff: Ennius See RE 5 (1905) 2588.

Cic. Clu. 163

date: 66, completed before July
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as promagistrate 67?)
Licinius (112), C. Macer defendant: C. Licinius Macer (112) pr. by 68
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero praetor: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 See Crawford, Orations App. II.1.
outcome: C, suicide

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

date: 66
peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu (de pecuniis residuis) See Bona (1960) 161-63; Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 56-57. (money taken by father, L. Cornelius Sulla Felix (392) cos. 88, 80, from treasury)
Cornelius (392), L. Sulla
Cornelius (377), Faustus Sulla defendant: Faustus Cornelius Sulla (377) q. 54
prosecutor: tr. pl. 66
Orchivius (++1), C. praetor: C. Orchivius (l)
outcome: jurors refused case 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.

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

date: 66
actio furti claim: actio furti
Cluentius (++4), A. Habitus defendant: A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R.
Ennius prosecutor: Ennius For a reference, see case , n. 1.
outcome: undecided at time of case

Cic. Clu. 163

date: 66
de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (‘judicial murder’ Pugliese (1970) argues that this did not constitute a formal charge; Stroh (1975) 228-42, that it did. See also Alexander (1982) 162-63. and/or poison attempts)
Cluentius (++4), A. Habitus defendant: A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) pr. 66, cos. 63 (Sch. 15)
Albius (++8), Statius Oppianicus Attius (1a), T. prosecutors: Statius Albius See case , n. 2. Oppianicus (8) e.R. (nom. del.)
T. Attius See Shackleton Bailey, Studies . (Accius 1a RE Supp. I) of Pisaurum e.R. (ORF 145.I) Volumnius (++6), P. juror: P. Volumnius (6) sen.?
Plaetorius (+14), L. Cestianus Tudicius (++1), Cn. witnesses: L. Plaetorius (Cestianus?) (14) q. 71 See Hersh and Walker (1984), Table 2.
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)

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

Cic. Clu. 147

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

date: 66
ambitus lex Calpurnia de ambitu charge: lex Calpurnia de ambitu (campaign for consulate of 65)
Cornelius (386), P. Sulla defendant: P. Cornelius Sulla (386) cos. des. 65
Manlius (+79), L. Torquatus Manlius (+80), L. Torquatus prosecutors: L. Manlius Torquatus (79) cos. 65 (nom. del.) 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&apostr;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 ), 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.
L. Manlius Torquatus (80) pr. 50 or 49 (subscr.) See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 4.342-43, and MRR Suppl. 136. 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

date: 66? (by 63)
ambitus lex Calpurnia de ambitu charge: lex Calpurnia de ambitu Vargunteius (++3), L.
defendant: L. Vargunteius (3) sen.
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XIII) Aquillius (+23), C. Gallus
praetor: C. Aquillius Gallus (23)
outcome: C?, expulsion from Senate According to Linderski (1963), Vargunteius was expelled from the Senate and then made an eques; contra Nicolet, Ordre équestre 2.1060-61.

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

date: 66
charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (conduct as tr. pl. in assemblies)
maiestas lex Cornelia de maiestate Cornelius (+18), C. defendant: C. Cornelius (18) tr. pl. 67
Cominius (+11), P. Cominius (++4), C. Cominius (++8), L. prosecutors: P. Cominius (11) e.R. (nom. del.)
C. (or L.?) Asc. 59.18C has ‘C.’; Cic. Clu. 100 has ‘L.’ See Badian, Studies 248, Marshall, Asconius 222. Cominius (4, = ? 8) of Spoletium (subscr.) Cassius (+64), L. Longinus Cassius (+64), P. Longinus praetor: L. (or P.?) Asc. 82.7C has ‘L.’; Asc. 59.17C has ‘P.’ Cf. Q. Cic.? Comm. Pet. 7, Crawford, RCC 1.403 (#386). See Sumner, Orators 49; Marshall, Asconius 64. Cassius Longinus (64)
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)

date: 66
peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu iudicium populi charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu? iudicium populi? (misconduct as q. or leg. 83)
Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus defendant: M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) cos. 73
Memmius (++8), C. prosecutor: C. Memmius (8) tr. pl. 66 or 65 See Sumner, Orators 134. pr. 58 (ORF 125.I)
outcome: A

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

date: last days of 66
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (quo ea pecunia pervenerit?) 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.
Manilius (+10), C. defendant: C. Manilius (Crispus?) (10) tr. pl. 66
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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)

date: 66? The trial took place at least before the defendant&apostr;s triumph in 63.
peculatus lex Cornelia de peculatu repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de peculatu or lex Cornelia de repetundis (misappropriation of booty as procos. 73-63)
Licinius (104), L. Lucullus defendant: L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74
Memmius (++8), C. prosecutor: C. Memmius (8) tr. pl. 66 or 65 See Sumner, Orators 134.
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

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

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

date: summer of 65
civil suit claim: civil suit (res dolo malo mancipio acceptae) The case involved fraud allegedly perpetrated on creditors.
Caninius (+15), A. Satyrus defendant: (A.?) Caninius Satyrus (15)
Caecilius (+23), Q. Caecilius (+99), Q. Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica Licinius (104), L. Lucullus Pontius (+10), L. 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

date: 65
maiestas lex Cornelia de maiestate charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (illegal actions as tr. pl. 67)
Cornelius (+18), C. defendant: C. Cornelius (18) tr. pl. 67
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 76-77)
Cominius (++4), C. Cominius (++8), L. Cominius (+11), P. prosecutors: C. (or L.?) Cominius (4, = ? 8) See Münzer RE 4 (1900) 607-8; and Marshall, Asconius 64, 222. of Spoletium (subscr.) (ORF 143/144.II)
P. Cominius of Spoletium (11) (nom. del.) (ORF 143/144.II) Gallius (++6), Q. praetor: Q. Gallius (6)
witnesses: Mam. 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. Aemilius Lepidus Livianus (80) cos. 77, princeps sen.? 70, cens.? 64 See MRR Suppl. 8-9. Caecilius (+98), Q. Metellus Pius Aemilius (+80), Mam. Lepidus Livianus Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Lutatius (++8), Q. Catulus Servilius (+66), P. Globulus Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus
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. 73 V. Max. 8.5.4 incorrectly adds L. Licinius Lucullus as witness; see Gelzer RE 7A (1939) 860. (ORF 91.II) Licinius (109), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus
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)

date: 65
maiestas lex Cornelia de maiestate charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (actions as tr. pl. 66)
Manilius (+10), C. defendant: C. Manilius (Crispus?) (10) tr. pl. 66
advocate?: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 75) In spite of Nonius&apostr; 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. Tullius (+29), M. Cicero
Minucius (+13), Cn. prosecutor: Cn. Minucius (13)
Attius (not in RE), C. Celsus praetor: C. Attius Celsus (not in RE) See Ward (1970) 549 n. 15, Marshall, Asconius 234, and MRR Suppl. 28-29.
outcome: C

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

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

Q. Cic.? Com. Pet. 19

date: second half of 65 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&apostr;Ippolito (1965) 43; Sumner (1965) 227-28.
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Africa 67-66)
Sergius (+23), L. Catilina defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: uncertain, but not M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 See Asc. 85C; contra Fenestella fr. 20 Peter.
Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher prosecutor: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
Manlius (+79), L. Torquatus 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: praevaricatio Cicero&apostr;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.

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

date: before 64
claim: actio furti actio furti
Mucius (+12), Q. Orestinus defendant: Q. Mucius (Scaevola?) For ‘Scaevola,’ see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 122-23. Orestinus (12) tr. pl. 64
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 16)
Fufius (++8), L. Calenus plaintiff: L. Fufius Calenus (8)
outcome: dropped by mutual agreement

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

date: 64 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&apostr;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 , , and ) because he is thinking of the date when Cicero agreed to take the case, not the date of the trial.
ambitus lex Calpurnia de ambitu charge: lex Calpurnia de ambitu (campaign for the praetorship of 65)
Gallius (++6), Q. defendant: Q. Gallius (6) pr. 65
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 74)
Calidius (++4), M. prosecutor: M. Calidius (4) pr. 57 Douglas (1966) 301-2 disputes this date; refuted by Sumner, Orators 147. (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

date: 64 The trial occurred before consular elections, about the same time as case .
de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of Q. Lucretius Afella [25]) Heraeus (1934) suggests the reading ‘Afella’ over ‘Ofella’; his reading is accepted by Badian (1967) 227-28.
Bellienus (++5), L. Annius Lucretius (+25), Q. Afella defendant: L. Bellienus (5) pr. 105 On the name, see Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.489, and MRR Suppl. 34.
Iulius (131), C. Caesar iudex quaestionis: Gruen, LGRR 76 n. 124 argues that Caesar was accusator rather than iudex quaestionis. 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

date: 64 The trial occurred before consular elections, about same time as case .
de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (three murders of people proscribed under Sulla)
Luscius (++1), L. defendant: L. Luscius (1) centurio
Iulius (131), C. Caesar iudex quaestionis: See case , n. 4. C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44
outcome: C

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

date: 64, acquitted after consular elections
de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of those proscribed under Sulla) Marshall (CQ 1985) argues that the murder of M. Marius Gratidianus (42) may have been one of the charges against the defendant. He also maintains that the charge was false. Marius (+42), M. Gratidianus
Sergius (+23), L. Catilina defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68
Lucceius (++6), L. prosecutor: L. Lucceius (6) perhaps pr., date uncertain According to McDermott (1969), this was the son of Quintus (Q.f.), to be distinguished from the consular candidate in 60, the son of Marcus (M.f.) (pace Asconius). Dio 36.41.1-2 perhaps does not furnish evidence for his praetorship. See David and Dondin (1980), and MRR Suppl. 127-28.
Iulius (131), C. Caesar iudex quaestionis: See case , n. 4. 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)

date: 64 or 63 The trial occurred after Cicero delivered In Toga Candida in 64 BC.
Curius (++7), Q. Turius (++2), L. defendant: Q. Curius (7) q. by 71 (and II?) Marshall (AC 1978 and Asconius 316-17) maintains that Q. Curius regained status by holding the quaestorship a second time. = ? L. Turius (2) pr. 75 See Syme CP (1955) 134, and MRR Suppl. 209-10.
outcome: C

Asc. 93C

date: before 63
Cornelius (240), P. Lentulus Sura 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

date: first half of 63
perduellio iudicium populi 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) For reference, see case , n. 1. Appuleius (+29), L. Saturninus
Rabirius (++5), C. defendant: C. Rabirius (5) sen.
Iulius (131), C. Caesar Iulius (143), L. Caesar 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&apostr;s commentary (1882) on Cicero&apostr;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)

date: 63, after trial
iudicium populi charge: possibly a pecuniary case before people in comitia tributa (various offenses) This case, along with , 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.
Rabirius (++5), C. defendant: C. Rabirius (5) sen.
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XIV)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 20)
Labienus (++6), T. prosecutor: T. Labienus (6) tr. pl. 63 (ORF 133.I), pr. by 59 See MRR Suppl. 116 on his praetorship.
outcome: aborted by fictitious enemy raid For sources, bibliography, and further discussion, see case .

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

Cic. Mur. 51

date: after Oct. 21, 63
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi
Sergius (+23), L. Catilina defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68
Aemilius (+81), L. Lepidus Paullus 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

date: late November 63
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (campaign for consulate of 62)
Licinius (123), L. Murena defendant: L. Licinius Murena (123) cos. 62
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Licinius (+68), M. Crassus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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) Speech given between Nov. 9 and Dec. 1. Porcius (+16), M. Cato Postumius (++4), C. Sulpicius (+95), Ser. Rufus Sulpicius (+96), Ser. Rufus prosecutors: M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54 (ORF 126.IV) (subscr.)
C. So Sumner (1971) 254 n. 26 and Orators 144. 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)

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

Cic. Flac. 98; Sal. Cat. 49.2

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

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

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

Suet. Jul. 17

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

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

date: 62, before case
vis lex Plautia de vi Tullius (+29), M. Cicero charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in Catilinarian conspiracy, attempted murder of Cicero)
Autronius (++7), P. Paetus defendant: P. Autronius Paetus (7) cos. des. 65
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

date: 62 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.
vis lex Plautia de vi 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)
Cornelius (386), P. Sulla defendant: P. Cornelius Sulla (386) cos. des. 65
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XVI)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 26) Cornelius (++7) Manlius (+80), L. Torquatus prosecutors: Cornelius (7) (subscr.)
L. Manlius Torquatus (80) pr. 50 or 49 For references, see case , n. 2. (nom. del.) (ORF 146.I) present for defense: coloni of Pompeii; Pompeiani Sul. 60-61 says that coloni and Pompeiani were present. They were presumably in the corona.
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

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

date: 61, over by May 15
quaestio extraordinaria incestum charge: quaestio extraordinaria (sacrilege at rites of Bona Dea) This sacrilege was treated by the Senate as if de incestu; see Moreau (1982) 83-89.
Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher defendant: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) q. 61-60, aed. cur. 56
Scribonius (+10), C. Curio advocate: C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61 For references, see case , n. 3. (ORF 86.IV)
Cornelius (218), L. Lentulus Crus Cornelius (228), Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus Cornelius (234), L. Lentulus Niger 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.)
Fannius (++9), C. C. Fannius (9) pr. by 54 or in 50 (subscr.) 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. Cornelius (238), P. Lentulus Spinther Iuventius (+26), Talna Plautus (++2) Spongia (++2) jurors: Moreau (1982) 143 shows that they were fifty-six in number, on the basis of Cicero&apostr;s statement (in Clod. et Cur. fr. 29) that only four votes were missing for a guilty verdict. P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (238) cos. 57 (voted C)
(Iuventius?) Talna (26) (voted A)
Plautus (2) sen.? (voted A)
Spongia (2) (voted A) Tyrrell and Purser in their commentary on Cicero&apostr;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. Aurelia (248) witnesses: Aurelia (248)
C. Causinius Schola (1) of Interamna, e.R.
Habra? (not in RE) Habra (not in RE) She was one of several ancillae of Pompeia (52) whose evidence was obtained under torture.
Iulia (546?)
C. Iulius Caesar (131) procos. Farther Spain 61, cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44 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.
L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74
M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 27) Iulia (546) Causinius (++1), C. Schola Tullius (+29), M. Cicero Iulius (131), C. Caesar Porcius (+16), M. Cato Licinius (104), L. Lucullus Pompeia (+52) outcome: A (twenty-five for C, thirty-one for A) 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.
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)

date: after 61
Cornelius (218), L. Lentulus Crus Cornelius (228), Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus Cornelius (234), L. Lentulus Niger 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 Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher advocate: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
outcome: A?

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

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

Cic. Att. 2.1.9

date: December 60
Valerius (268), M. Messalla Rufus Valerius (266), M. Messalla Niger defendant: M. Valerius Messalla Rufus (268) cos. 53 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.
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XVII)
outcome: A

Cic. Att. 2.3.1

date: 59 or before Philodorus (not in RE) Parrhasius (++2) Archidemus (++1)
witnesses: The entirety of what we know about this case is limited to Cicero&apostr;s statement vidi ego in quodam iudicio nuper Philodorum testem Trallianum, vidi Parrhasium, vidi Archidemum.... Archidemus (1)
Parrhasius (2)
Philodorus of Tralles (not in RE)

Cic. Flac. 53

date: 59 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 .
maiestas lex Cornelia de maiestate vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate, 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&apostr; delight at the condemnation (Flac. 95), and Antonius&apostr; 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. or lex Plautia de vi 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 ); contra Schol. Bob. 94St, Gruen (1973) 308-9, Crawford, Orations 124 n. 4, 125 n. 8, and MRR Suppl. 18, 67. (complicity in Catilinarian conspiracy? incompetence as gov. Macedonia 62-60?)
Antonius (+19), C. defendant: C. Antonius (19) cos. 63, gov. Macedonia 62-60
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 37)
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus Caninius (++3), L. Gallus Caninius (++4), L. Gallus Fabius (143), Q. Sanga Fabius (108), Maximus Sanga prosecutors: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (ORF 162.I)
either L. Caninius Gallus (3) tr. pl. 56
or L. Caninius Gallus (4) cos. 37 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 ).
Q. Fabius Sanga (143) = ? Fabius Maximus (Sanga?) (108) cos. suff. 45 Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.348 accepts identification of the two Fabii; contra, Münzer RE 6 (1909) 1868. Cornelius (217), Cn. Lentulus Clodianus praetor: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (217) Nigidius (++3), P. Figulus 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.
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.

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

date: by 59 (many times) The defendant is said to have been compluribus privatis litibus vexatus.
civil suit claim: civil suit Valerius (179), L. Flaccus
defendant: L. Valerius Flaccus (179) pr. 63
Cornelius (+69), L. Balbus plaintiff: L. Cornelius Balbus (69) praefectus fabrum 62, 61-60?, 59, cos. suff. 40

V. Max. 7.8.7

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

V. Max. 5.4.4; Dio 36.40.4

date: 59, before cases and
Minucius (+61), A. Thermus Minucius (+60), A. Thermus Marcius (+63), C. Figulus Minucius (+67), Q. Thermus defendant: either A. Minucius Thermus (61) For the conjecture about this other possible identification with A. Minucius Thermus (61), see Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.292, Studies 122. = ? (60) pr.? 67? = ? C. Marcius Figulus (63) cos. 64
or Q. Minucius Thermus (67) tr. pl. 62, pr. by 58? or 53? The date 53 is suggested by Shackleton Bailey, Studies 54-55. Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 38)
outcome: A

Cic. Flac. 98

date: 59, after case and before case
Minucius (+61), A. Thermus Minucius (+60), A. Thermus Minucius (+67), Q. Thermus Marcius (+63), C. Figulus defendant: either A. Minucius Thermus (61) = ? (60) pr. 67 = ? C. Marcius Figulus (63) cos. 64 See case , n. 1.
or Q. Minucius Thermus (67) tr. pl. 62, pr. by 58? or 53? See case , n. 2. Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 39)
outcome: A

Cic. Flac. 98

date: 59, by Sept.? This is the possible date of Att. 2.25.1. The trial occurred after the condemnation of C. Antonius (case ), and after the two acquittals of A. Thermus (cases , ); see Webster (1931) 111. On the length of the trial, see Clark (1927) 76.
repetundae lex Cornelia de repetundis charge: lex Cornelia de repetundis The lex Iulia de repetundis was apparently not yet in effect (Flac. 13). (misconduct as gov. Asia).
Valerius (179), L. Flaccus defendant: L. Valerius Flaccus (179) pr. 63, gov. Asia 62
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XVIII) See Webster (1931) 109-10.
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 28)
Appuleius (+22), C. Decianus Caetra (++1) Fannius (+17), C. Chaerea Cornelius (+69), L. Balbus prosecutors: C. Appuleius Decianus (22) e.R. (subscr.)
Caetra (1), See Webster (1931) 56. = ? C. Fannius Chaerea (17) (subscr.)
L. Cornelius So Münzer RE 4 (1900) 1262, RE 12 (1924) 411; but D.-G. 5.614 has L. Laelius Balbus. Balbus (69) praefectus fabrum 62, 61-60?, 59, cos. suff. 40 (subscr.)
D. Laelius (6) tr. pl. 54 (nom. del.)
Lucceius (2) (subscr.) Laelius (++6), D. Lucceius (++2) Vettius (+14), T. Sabinus praetor: T. Vettius Sabinus (14) See Münzer RE 8A (1955) 34; Gundel RE 8A (l958) 1853. Gruen (1973) 308 n. 40 holds that he was a iudex.
jurors: The jury was composed of twenty-five senators, twenty-five equites Romani, twenty-five tribuni aerarii (Flac. 4). Licinius (104), L. Lucullus Peducaeus (++2), L. Stloga (++1), Sex. Peducaeus L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74
L. Peducaeus (2) pref.? 62, e.R. or trib. aer. See Nicolet, Ordre équestre vol. 2, no. 264.
Sex. (Peducaeus?) Stloga (Stloga [1]) Agrius (++2), L. Publeianus witnesses: L. Agrius Publeianus (2) e.R.
Asclepiades (+16) Aufidius (+25), M. Lurco Aufidius (+27), M. Lurco Caecilius (+87), Q. Metellus Creticus Caelius (+11), M. Cestius (++2), C. Domitius (+43), Cn. Calvinus Eppius (++1), L. Falcidius (++1) Heraclides (+34) Hermobius (++1) Lysanias (++5) Maeandrius (++2) Mithridates (+36) Nicomedes (++7) Philippus (+29) Septimius (+12), P. Septimius (+11), P. Servilius (+93), P. Vatia Isauricus Asclepiades (16) of Acmonia
M. Aufidius See Mitchell (1979) on this family, also on Sestullii (not Sextilii). Linderski (1974) 472 and MRR Suppl. 29 argue for probable identification of the two Aufidii. Lurco (27) sen. = ? (M. Aufidius?) Lurco (25) tr. pl. 61
Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus (87) cos. 69
M. Caelius (11)
C. Cestius (2) e.R.
Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) tr. pl. 59, cos. 53, 40
L. Eppius (1) e.R.
Falcidius (1) (not present, but mother there)
Heraclides (34) of Temnos
Hermobius (1) of Temnos
Lysanias (5) of Temnos
Maeandrius (2) of Tralles
Mithridates (36) of Dorylaion
Nicomedes (7) of Temnos
Philippus (29) of Temnos
P. Septimius See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 65. (12 = 11) q., date uncertain
P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55
vicanus of Tmolus (Flac. 8)
representatives of Achaea, Athens, Boeotia, Cyme, Dorylaion, Loryma, Massilia, Pergamum, Rhodes, Sparta, Thessalia
outcome: A
other: two actiones Contra Lezius (1901).

Cic. Flac.; Att. 2.25.1; Macr. 2.1.13; V. Max. 7.8.7; Schol. Bob. 93-108St
du Mesnil (1883); Webster (1931)

date: 59, late in the year
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (campaign for the consulate of 58)
Gabinius (+11), A. defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
Porcius (++6), C. Cato prosecutor: C. Porcius Cato (6) tr. pl. 56, pr. 55? For references, see case , n. 1.
outcome: praetor refused to accept case

Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.15; Sest. 18

date: before Cicero&apostr;s exile in 58
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24) MRR Suppl. 46 favors identification of RE 24 and RE 25. aed. pl. ca 59?
Calpurnius (+24), L. Bestia Calpurnius (+25), L. Bestia Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 45)
outcome: A

Cic. Phil. 11.11; see also 13.26
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 69

date: after case , before Cicero&apostr;s exile in 58
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59? See case , n. 1.
Calpurnius (+24), L. Bestia Calpurnius (+25), L. Bestia Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 46)
outcome: A

Cic. Phil. 11.11; see also 13.26
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 69

date: after case , before Cicero&apostr;s exile in 58
defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59? See case , n. 1.
Calpurnius (+24), L. Bestia Calpurnius (+25), L. Bestia Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 47)
outcome: A

Cic. Phil. 11.11; see also 13.26
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 69

date: after case , before Cicero&apostr;s exile in 58
Calpurnius (+25), L. Bestia Calpurnius (+24), L. Bestia defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25, = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59? See case , n. 1.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 48)
outcome: A

Cic. Phil. 11.11; see also 13.26
Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 69

date: 58
Propertius (++1), Sex. defendant: Sex. Propertius (1)
Aelius (+83), Ligus prosecutor: Aelius Ligus (83) tr. pl.
outcome: dropped A nominis delatio did occur, but there was no trial.

Cic. Dom. 49

date: 66? 65? 58?
Visellius (++3), C. Varro iudex quaestionis: C. Visellius Varro (3) aed. 67? 66? 59? 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.

Cic. Brut. 264; see also Vitr. 2.8.9; Plin. Nat. 35.173

date: 58, first half
lex Licinia et Iunia charge: lex Licinia et Iunia (promotion of laws confirming Pompey&apostr;s acta) Pocock (1926) 169-75 argues that Pompey&apostr;s acts were ratified by a lex Vatinia.
Vatinius (++3), P. defendant: P. Vatinius (3) leg. 58?, cos. 47
Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus prosecutor: C. Licinius Macer Calvus The participation of Calvus is disputed by Gruen (HSCP 1966) 217-18. See Sumner, Orators 149. (113) (ORF 165.I)
Memmius (++8), C. praetor: C. Memmius (8)
outcome: defendant appealed to tr. pl. P. Clodius Pulcher (48), trial stopped by violence Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher

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

date: perhaps 58, after quaestorship of defendant
lex Licinia et Iunia charge: lex Licinia et Iunia
Iulius (131), C. Caesar
defendant: q. for 59 or 58 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. of C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59
outcome: A?

Suet. Jul. 23

date: 58? So Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 62-64. 56? So Badian (CQ 1969) 200-4, (1974) 148-54, MRR Suppl. 17, 18, and, with reservations, Shackleton Bailey, Studies 11-12.
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi (defendant&apostr;s acta as consul)
Iulius (131), C. Caesar defendant: C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44
Antistius (+13), L. Antistius (+47), L. Vetus prosecutor: either L. Antistius (13) tr. pl. 58 See n. 1. If a date of 58, then this tr.pl.
or L. Antistius Vetus (47) tr. pl. 56, See n. 2. If a date of 56, then this tr.pl. cos. suff. 30 outcome: other tr. pl. stopped trial

Suet. Jul. 23
Jones (1972) 5

date: after Sept. 58, before latter part of 57?
Livineius (++2), L. Regulus defendant: L. Livineius Regulus (2) pr. (uncertain date)
outcome: C

Cic. Fam. 13.60; see also Att. 3.17.1

date: before 57
civil suit claim: civil suit
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero Cispius (++4), M. parties: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 spoke against M. Cispius (4) tr. pl. 57 and the latter&apostr;s brother and father

Cic. Red. Sen. 21

date: 57 or before
iniuriae lex Cornelia de iniuriis charge: lex Cornelia de iniuriis
Sergius (+15), L. defendant: L. Sergius (15)
outcome: C

Cic. Dom. 13, 14, 21, 89; CIL 12.1882

date: early 57
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi (violence against Milo and followers)
Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher defendant: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
Annius (+67), T. Milo 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 Caecilius (+96), Q. Metellus Nepos Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher

Cic. Red. Sen. 19; Sest. 85, 89; Mil. 35, 40; Att. 4.3.2 and 5; Fam. 5.3.2; Plut. Cic. 33.3; Dio 39.7; see also Q. fr. 2.1.2
Meyer (1922) 109 n. 3

date: after Nov. 23, 57
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi (violence)
Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher defendant: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
Annius (+67), T. Milo prosecutor: T. Annius Milo (67) tr. pl. 57, pr. 55
outcome: dropped because Clodius assumed aedileship

For sources and bibliography, see case .

trial threatened in 58, never took place
date: set for 57
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Asia 61-58)
Tullius (+31), Q. Cicero defendant: Q. Tullius Cicero (31) pr. 62
Claudius (298), Ap. Pulcher prosecutor?: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38 Marshall, Asconius 172.
Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher 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)

trial threatened, never took place
date: Nov. or Dec. 57
quaestio extraordinaria charge: quaestio extraordinaria (violence against Cicero)

Cic. Att. 4.3.3; Q. fr. 2.1.2

date: before 56, the date of case
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu
Cornelius (+69), L. Balbus prosecutor: L. Cornelius Balbus (69) cos. suff. 40
outcome: C, as award prosecutor allowed to enter tribus Clustumina See Alexander (1985) 23.

Cic. Balb. 57

date: 56 Hearings were held on Feb. 2, Feb. 7, Feb. 17, and May 7.
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi Gruen, LGRR 298 n. 139 argues that there were three informal contiones and then a trial before a quaestio de vi. However, Cicero&apostr;s language (Q. fr. 2.3) strongly suggests that this was a iudicium populi held according to the procedure described in Cic. Dom. 45. See Lintott (1976) 242. (misconduct as tr. pl. 57)
Annius (+67), T. Milo defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
Claudius (229), M. Marcellus advocate?: M. Claudius Marcellus (229) aed. cur.? 56, See Sumner (1971) 251 n. 19 and Crawford, Orations 44. cos. 51
Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher prosecutor: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur.
Vatinius (++3), P. witness: P. Vatinius (3) cos. 47
Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus 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

date: early in 56, before case
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi (murder of Alexandrian ambassador)
Asicius (++1), P. defendant: P. Asicius (1)
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 43)
Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus prosecutor: C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113) (ORF 165.IV)
outcome: A
other: possibly praevaricatio The prosecutor of Caelius (case ) claimed that the acquittal had been due to collusion.

Cic. Cael. 23-24, 51; Tac. Dial. 21.2

date: 56, Cicero&apostr;s speech on Feb. 11
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (campaign for praetorship of 56 or 55) See Alexander (1982) 148-49.
Calpurnius (+25), L. Bestia Calpurnius (+24), L. Bestia defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25, = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59? See case , n. 1.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 49)
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus 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.? 54 See MRR 2.208, Suppl. 81, Gruen, LGRR 166 n. 8, Shackleton Bailey, CQF 195. Domitius (+43), Cn. Calvinus Domitius (+11)
outcome: A So Gruen, LGRR 300, 305 correctly; contra, Münzer RE 3 (1897) 1367.

Cic. Cael. 1, 16, 26, 56, 76, 78; Phil. 13.26; Q. fr. 2.3.6; Plin. Nat. 27.4; Tac. Dial. 39.5

date: 56, after case This case had begun, but was still pending, when Cicero spoke in case . See Gruen, LGRR 300 n. 146.
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for praetorship of 55)
Calpurnius (+25), L. Bestia Calpurnius (+24), L. Bestia defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25, = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59? See case , n. 1.
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus prosecutor: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (ORF 162.II)
outcome: dropped 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, ; of Bestia, ; and of Pompeius Rufus, ). However, Cicero might be counting in a loose fashion the two prosecutions of Bestia as one. See Alexander (1982) 149. or C Cicero&apostr;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.

Cic. Cael. 1, 16, 26, 56, 76, 78; Phil. 13.26; Plin. Nat. 27.4; Tac. Dial. 39.5

date: 56, postulatio on Feb. 10
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu
Sestius (++6), P. defendant: P. Sestius (6) tr. pl. 57, pr. by 54? See Badian (ZPE 1984) 106.
Nerius (++3), Cn. prosecutor: (Cn.?) Nerius (Pupinia?) (3) q. 49
Cornelius (not in RE), C. Cornelius (241), Cn. Lentulus Vatia Cornelius (209), Cn. Batiatus witnesses: C. Cornelius (not in RE)
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Vatia (241) = ? Batiatus (209) See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 31-32 and CQF 177-78, and Sumner (CP 1978) 162-63. outcome: A?

Cic. Q. fr. 2.3.5

date: 56, postulatio on Feb. 10, verdict reached on March 14
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi (political violence in 57)
Sestius (++6), P. defendant: P. Sestius (6) tr. pl. 57, pr. by 54? See case , n. 1. (may have spoken pro se) 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.
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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 Calvus He may have been a witness instead of an advocate. See D.-G. 5.655. (113) (ORF 165.II)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 33) Licinius (+68), M. Crassus Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus character witness: Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52
Albinovanus (++1), P. Tullius (+13), M. Claudius (not in RE), T. prosecutors: P. Albinovanus (1, cf. 3) pont. min. before 69-after 57 (nom. del.)
M. Tullius (13) 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.
T. Claudius (not in RE) (subscr.) Vat. 3. Münzer RE 2A (1923) 1887-88.
Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus praetor: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141)
Cosconius (++5), C. Cosconius (not in RE), L. Cornelius (234), L. Lentulus Niger jurors: L. Cornelius Lentulus Niger (234) pr. by 61
C. Cosconius (5) pr. 54? See Sumner (1971) 251, MRR Suppl. 77.
L. Cosconius (not in RE) Aemilius (+81), L. Lepidus Paullus Gellius (++1) Vatinius (++3), P. witnesses: L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus (81) aed. cur. 56?, cos. 50
(Cn.?) Gellius (1) e.R. For the Gellii, see Wiseman (1974) 119-29, and Evans (1983) 124-26.
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

date: by March 56
Sevius (cf. Servius 5) Servius (++5), Pola defendant: Sevius? = ? Servius Pola (5) 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 ), 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.
outcome: C See Shackleton Bailey, CQF 183.

Cic. Q. fr. 2.5.4

date: March 56
Cloelius (Clodius 12), Sex. defendant: Sex. Cloelius (Clodius 12) On the name see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 27.
Annius (+67), T. Milo prosecutor?: T. Annius Milo (67) 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. 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

trial only threatened? 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 and ).
date: 56, during or after March
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (perhaps for misconduct in campaign for praetorship of 55)

Vatinius (++3), P. defendant: P. Vatinius (3) pr. 55, cos. 47
Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus 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

date: 56, trial held on April 3 and 4 The trial was held a few days after the acquittal of Sex. Cloelius, case . See Austin ed. and comm. on Cicero Pro Caelio App. IV, 151.
charge: lex Plautia de vi See Austin (n. 1 above) 42; Lintott (1968) 111-12; Stroh (1975) 238, n. 45 (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) Dio (+14) Palla (++3)
vis lex Plautia de vi Caelius (+35), M. Rufus defendant: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (spoke pro se, ORF 102.III)
Licinius (107), M. Crassus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: M. Licinius Crassus (107) cos. 70, 55, cens. 65 (ORF 102.IV)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 34) Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher Herennius (+18), L. Balbus Sempronius (+26), L. Atratinus prosecutors: P. Clodius, But the identification with the notorious Clodius is unlikely. See Heinze (1925) 196, Austin 155. = ? Pulcher [48] aed.cur. 56 (ORF l64.I) (subscr.)
L. Herennius Balbus (18) (ORF 163.I) (subscr.)
L. Sempronius Atratinus See Austin (n. 1 above) 154-55; Shackleton Bailey, Studies 129. (26) cos. suff. 34 (nom. del.) praetor or iudex quaestionis: Cn. Domitius (11) iud. quaest. 56?, pr.? 54 = ? Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) cos. 53, 40 For references, see case , n. 3. Domitius (+43), Cn. Calvinus Domitius (+11)
witnesses: ? C. Coponius (3) pr. 49
? T. Coponius (9)
Q. Fufius Kalenus (10) cos. 47
? familiares Clodiae (66) (Cael. 66) Clodia (+66) Coponius (++3), C. Coponius (++9), T. Fufius (+10), Q. Kalenus 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

date: 56, after early summer This is the date of de provinciis consularibus, referred to in Balb. 56.
lex Papia charge: lex Papia (illegal grant of citizenship under lex Gellia Cornelia) 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.
Cornelius (+69), L. Balbus defendant: L. Cornelius Balbus (69) cos. suff. 40
Licinius (+68), M. Crassus Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus advocates: M. Licinius Crassus (68) cos. 70, 55, cens. 65 (ORF 102.V)
Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 (ORF 111.IX)
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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.

date: ca 56 The trial occurred just before quaestorship of defendant.
sacrilegium charge: sacrilegium? The case is dubious, since the source is unreliable.
Sallustius (+10), C. Crispus defendant: C. Sallustius Crispus (10) q. 55?, pr. 46
outcome: A (by a few votes)

[Cic.] Sal. 15-16

date: c. 56? See case , n. 2.
charge: sacrilegium sacrilegium
Nigidius (++3), P. Figulus defendant: P. Nigidius Figulus (3) pr. 58

[Cic.] Sal. 14; see also Cic. Vat. 14; Tim. 1; Apul. Apol. 42

date: 56? after 57 and before case
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu? (campaign for tr. pl. 57?)
Cispius (++4), M. defendant: M. Cispius (4) tr. pl. 57
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 57)
outcome: C

Cic. Planc. 75-77; Schol. Bob. 165St

date: by Sept. 55
Caninius (++3), L. Gallus defendant: L. Caninius Gallus (3) tr. pl. 56 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.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 58)
Colonius (not in RE), M. prosecutor: M. Colonius (not in RE)
outcome: C The defendant was in Athens, and perhaps also in exile (Fam. 2.8.3). See Gruen, LGRR 313 n. 15.

Cic. Fam. 7.1.4; V. Max. 4.2.6

date: uncertain Gruen, LGRR 314 gives a date of 55.
Ampius (++1), T. Balbus defendant: T. Ampius Balbus (1) pr. 59, procos. Asia 58 See Magie, RRAM 2.1247; MRR Suppl. 15; Crawford, Orations 175. (spoke pro se) The speech was written by Cicero.
Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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

date: 54, nominis delatio on Feb.3 or 4, trial began on Feb. 13
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus defendant: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48
Domitius (+11) Servius (++5), Pola prosecutor: Servius Pola (5)
Domitius (+43), Cn. Calvinus
Domitius (+11) praetor: Cn. Domitius (11) iud. quaest. 56?, pr. 54? = ? Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) cos. 53, 40 For references, see case , n. 3.
outcome: apparently case not completed

Cic. Q. fr. 2.12.2

date: 54, verdict before July
lex Licinia et Iunia charge: lex Licinia et Iunia (activity as tr. pl. 56)
Porcius (++6), C. Cato defendant: C. Porcius Cato (6) tr. pl. 56, pr. 55? See Linderski (1969) 287-88, MRR Suppl. 170.
Asinius (+25), C. Pollio Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus Livius (+19), M. Drusus Claudianus prosecutors: ? C. Asinius Pollio (25) He was a prosecutor, either in this case, or in case , or in both. See Marshall, Asconius 121. cos. 40 (ORF 174.I)
? C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113) 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 , or in both. See Münzer RE 13 (1927) 432; Marshall, Asconius 121.
M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19) pr. or iudex 50 He may have been pr. in 55. See Taylor (1964) 23 n. 30. He may have committed praevaricatio; see case . The argument for praevaricatio is very complicated. See Linderski (1969); Alexander (1977) 128 n. 44. outcome: A
other: praevaricatio

Cic. Att. 4.16.5, 4.15.4; Sen. Con. 7.4.7

date: 54, verdict reached on July 4
charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of paterfamilias)
de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis Procilius (++1) defendant: Procilius (1) There is no evidence that he was tr. pl. in 56. See MRR Suppl. 175.
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus advocate?: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XVI)
Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher 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

date: 54, verdict reached on July 4
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu? (misconduct in campaign for praetorship of 55) For arguments relating to the date of his praetorship, see MRR Suppl. 148.
Nonius (+52), M. Sufenas 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.

date: 54, verdict reached on July 4 See Marshall, Asconius 121.
lex Fufia charge: lex Fufia (activities as tr. pl. 56)
Porcius (++6), C. Cato defendant: C. Porcius Cato (6) tr. pl. 56, pr. 55? For references, see case , n. 1.
Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus advocate: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56 (ORF 139.II)
Asinius (+25), C. Pollio Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus prosecutors: ? C. Asinius Pollio (25) See case , n. 2. cos. 40 (ORF 174.I)
? C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113) See case , n. 3. (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)

date: before cases and
defendant: C. Messius (2) aed. (cur.?) See case , n. 2. 55 Messius (++2), C.
outcome: A?

Sen. Con. 7.4.8

date: before case
Messius (++2), C. defendant: C. Messius (2) aed. (cur.?) See case , n. 2. 55
outcome: A?

Sen. Con. 7.4.8

date: summer 54, in progress on July 27
lex Licinia de sodaliciis charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (perhaps for misconduct in campaign for aedileship of 55)
Messius (++2), C. defendant: C. Messius (2) aed. (cur.?) See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 2.211-12. 55, leg. 54
Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: C. Licinius Macer Calvus See Gruen (HSCP 1966) 222. To be precise, we know that Calvus spoke for Messius in his third trial; conceivably, Cicero&apostr;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 or . I am grateful to my colleague J.T. Ramsey for pointing out this sequence to me. (113) (ORF 165.VI)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 61) praetor: P. Servilius Isauricus By edict he forced the defendant to return to Rome, although the defendant was a legate to Caesar. (67) cos. 48, 41 Servilius (+67), P. Isauricus
jurors: from tribus Maecia, Pomptina, and Velina See Badian (ZPE 1984) 104-5.
outcome: uncertain See Gruen, LGRR 316; Badian (ZPE 1984) 106.

Cic. Att. 4.15.9; Sen. Con. 7.4.8


date: 54 (defendant charged before July 1, rejection of jurors July 3, trial had not yet occurred on July 27) Though case might be the same as this one, this case is probably distinct. Case , 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.
Livius (+19), M. Drusus Claudianus defendant: M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19) pr. or iudex 50 See Taylor (1964) 23. n. 30.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 62)
Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus prosecutors: C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113) (ORF 165.V)
Lucretius (1) = ? Q. Lucretius (12) sen. Lucretius (+12), Q. Lucretius (++1) outcome: A Cicero (Att. 4.17.5, written Oct. 1) describes Drusus as having been acquitted, and probably refers to this case rather than case , if the two cases are indeed to be distinguished. Drusus&apostr; continued career in public life indicates that he was not convicted of any major crime.

Cic. Att. 4.16.5; 4.15.9; 4.17.5; Q. fr. 2.16.3; Tac. Dial. 21.2

date: 54, after case ; verdict reached by Aug., on the same day as Cicero&apostr;s defense of Vatinius, case ) praevaricatio
charge: praevaricatio (perhaps as a result of prosecution in case )
Livius (+19), M. Drusus Claudianus 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

date: late August 54, defense speech delivered by Cicero occurred on the same day as the verdict was given in case
lex Licinia de sodaliciis charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (misconduct in campaign for praetorship of 55) See Schol. Bob. 160St. Since Roman laws could have a retroactive force (Weinrib [1970] 430-31), there is no reason to contradict the scholiast&apostr;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.
Vatinius (++3), P. defendant: P. Vatinius (3) pr. 55, cos. 47
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) 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 () by both Cicero and Hortensius (Asc. 20, 28C). cos. 63 (Sch. 100)
Licinius (113), C. Macer Calvus 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

date: 54, end of August or early September
lex Licinia de sodaliciis charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (misconduct in campaign for aedileship of 54)
Plancius (++4), Cn. defendant: Cn. Plancius (4) aed. cur. 55? 54? Sumner (1971) 249 n. 12 supports a date of 54; in favor of 55 are Taylor (1964) 23 n. 30 and MRR Suppl. 158.
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus See Linderski (PP 1961). (13) cos. 69
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 39) Cassius (+65), L. Longinus Iuventius (+16), M. Laterensis prosecutors: L. Cassius Longinus (65) tr. pl. 44 (subscr.) (ORF 168.I)
M. Iuventius Laterensis (16) pr. 51 (nom. del.) (ORF 167.I) Alfius (++7), C. Flavus praetor: He was perhaps quaesitor instead. See MRR 2.227 n. 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)

date: by 54, before case
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis?
Megabocchus (++1), C. defendant: C. Megabocchus (1)
witnesses: Sardinians

Cic. Scaur. 40

date: 54, postulatio July 6, trial ended Sept. 2
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Sardinia 55)
Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56 (spoke pro se, ORF 139.III)
Calidius (++4), M. Claudius (229), M. Marcellus Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero Valerius (266), M. Messalla Niger 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) Marius (+20), L. Pacuvius (++4), M. Claudius Pacuvius (++5), Q. Claudius Valerius (367), P. Triarius prosecutors: L. Marius (20), = ? Marius (4) q. 50 (subscr.) Marius (++4), L.
M. Pacuvius Claudius 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. (4) (subscr.)
Q. Pacuvius Claudius See n. 1. (5) (subscr.)
P. Valerius Triarius (367) (nom. del.) (ORF 148.I) Porcius (+16), M. Cato praetor: M. Porcius Cato (16)
Aris (not in RE) Valerius (+10) witnesses: Aris (not in RE)
Valerius (10) Caecilius (+96), Q. Metellus Nepos Domitius (+82), Cn. Sincaicus Calpurnius (+90), L. Piso Caesoninus Cornelius (377), Faustus Sulla Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Marcius (+76), L. Philippus Perperna (++5), M. Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus Servilius (+93), P. Vatia Isauricus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero Volcacius (++8), L. Tullus character witnesses: Some were not present. 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 Acilius (+39), M&apostr;. Glabrio Aemilius (+37), L. Buca Aemilius (+81), L. Lepidus Paullus Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus Annius (+67), T. Milo Cornelius (205), L. Lentulus Cornelius (205), P. Lentulus Cornelius (377), Faustus Sulla Memmius (++9), C. Peducaeus (++1), C. Porcius (++6), C. Cato Popillius (not in RE), M. Laenas Curtianus supplicatores: M&apostr;. 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? For references, see case , n. 1.
M. (Popillius?) Laenas Curtianus (not in RE) See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 125. 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

date: 54, postulatio by Sept. 20; nominis delatio Sept. 28; verdict reached on Oct. 23
maiestas lex Cornelia de maiestate charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (restoration of Ptolemy contrary to SC)
Gabinius (+11), A. defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
Calidius (++4), M. advocate?: M. Calidius 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. (4) pr. 57
Cornelius (197), L. Lentulus Cruscellio prosecutor: L. Cornelius Lentulus (Cruscellio?) (l97) pr. 44
Alfius (++7), C. Flavus praetor: C. Alfius Flavus (7) He was possibly quaesitor instead. See MRR 2.227 n. 3; Jones (1972) 59, and 128 n. 91.
Aelius (+75), L. Lamia Domitius (+43), Cn. Calvinus Porcius (++6), C. Cato jurors: L. Aelius Lamia (75) pr. 42?
Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) cos. 53, 40 (voted A) For references, see case , n. 3.
C. Porcius Cato (6) See Linderski (1969) 287-88, Shackleton Bailey, CQF 215, and MRR Suppl. 169-70. tr. pl. 56, pr. 55 For references, see case , n. 1. There were seventy jurors total, including these three whose names are known. Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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

date: 54, verdict reached Oct. 23, within one hour after verdict in case
lex Papia charge: lex Papia
Gabinius (+14), Antiochus defendant: Gabinius Antiochus (14)
outcome: C

Cic. Att. 4.18.4
Fasciato (1947)

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 53)
Memmius (++8), C. defendant: C. Memmius (8) pr. 58 (probably spoke pro se) (ORF 125.V)
Acutius (not in RE), Q. Curtius (+13), Q. Acutius (++3), Rufus prosecutor: Q. Acutius (not in RE) = ? Q. Curtius (13) or = ? Acutius (3) Rufus Shackleton Bailey makes this suggestion at CQF 213.
outcome: uncertain See case , which is possibly a continuation of this case.

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

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 53)
Valerius (268), M. Messalla Rufus defendant: M. Valerius Messalla Rufus (268) cos. 53
Pompeius (+41), Q. Rufus prosecutor: Q. Pompeius Rufus (41) tr. pl. 52
outcome: uncertain See case , which is possibly a continuation of this case.
other: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 working on behalf of defendant (as patronus?) See Wiseman (1966) 109; Gruen, LGRR 332; Shackleton Bailey, CQF 214; Crawford, Orations 63. Tullius (+29), M. Cicero

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

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 53)
Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 66)
Iulius (144), L. Caesar Valerius (367), P. Triarius prosecutor: P. Valerius Triarius (367) L. Iulius Caesar (144) leg. 49 was considered as a possible prosecutor (see Att. 4.17.5). outcome: incomplete? (cf. case )

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

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for 53)
Domitius (+43), Cn. Calvinus defendant: Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43, cf. 11) cos. 53, 40 For references, see case , n. 3. Domitius (+11)
Memmius (++8), C. Memmius (++9), C. prosecutor: C. Memmius (8) pr. 58, or (9) tr. pl. 54 See Shackleton Bailey, CLA 2.218, and Gruen (1969) 319 n. 2. (ORF 125.IV)
outcome: condemned? in 52? D.-G. 3.7 n. 11 maintains that there is no evidence that the case was resumed.

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

date: 54, verdict reached before Nov. 2
Fulvius (+94), M. Nobilior defendant: M. Fulvius Nobilior (94) e.R.
outcome: C

Cic. Att. 4.18.3; see also Sal. Cat. 17.4

date: 54, As to whether the trial could have continued into 53, see Lintott (1974) 67, and Fantham (1975) 439-40 n. 34 and 443. divinatio on Oct. 12
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (accepting bribes from Ptolemy while gov. Syria 57-54)
Gabinius (+11), A. defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 Dio 46.8.1 records the charge that Cicero committed praevaricatio by pleading the case in such a way that the defendant was condemned. (Crawford, Orations 65)
Memmius (++9), C. prosecutor: 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. C. Memmius (9) tr. pl. 54
Porcius (+16), M. Cato praetor: M. Porcius Cato (16)
witnesses: people from Alexandria
outcome: C, exile
Claudius (254), Ti. Nero Antonius (+20), C. Antonius (+23), L. Ateius (++9), L. Capito Cornelius (197), L. Lentulus Cruscellio 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

date: 54, charge laid by Oct. 11
ambitus lex Tullia de ambitu charge: lex Tullia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 58?) The charge possibly arose from alleged misconduct in a campaign much closer to the date of the trial.
Gabinius (+11), A. defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
Cornelius (386), P. Sulla Cornelius (387), P. Sulla Caecilius (110), L. Rufus Memmius (++9), C. prosecutors: L. Caecilius Rufus (110) pr. 57 (subscr.)
P. Cornelius Sulla (386) (nom. del.) cos. des. 65
P. Cornelius Sulla (387) (subscr.), sen.? See MRR Suppl. 73.
C. Memmius (9) tr. pl. 54 (subscr.) outcome: dropped after condemnation of defendant in case
Manlius (+80), L. Torquatus 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

date: Dec. 54 to mid-Jan. 53 On the procedure, see case , and Fantham (1975) 439-40; Ramsey (Phoenix 1980) 330 n. 31
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (quo ea pecunia pervenerit) (actions as assistant to A. Gabinius (11), gov. Syria 57-54)
Gabinius (+11), A. Rabirius (++6), C. Postumus defendant: C. Rabirius Postumus (6) e.R. at time of trial, pr., perhaps in 48 See MRR Suppl. 181.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 41)
Memmius (++9), C. prosecutor: C. Memmius (9) tr. pl. 54
witnesses: representative of people of Alexandria
outcome: uncertain The defendant&apostr;s later career may indicate that he was acquitted. See Vonder Mühll, RE 1A (1914) 27-28.

Cic. Rab. Post.; Quint. Inst. 3.6.11, 4.2.10
Fascione (1974)

date: 52, late Feb. or early intercalary month See Ruebel (1979) 239.
actio ad exhibendum claim: actio ad exhibendum to produce servi 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.
defendants: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
Fausta Cornelia (436) Annius (+67), T. Milo Cornelia (436), Fausta
plaintiffs: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38
and Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.? See MRR Suppl. 57.
Valerius (278), P. Nepos Valerius (218), P. Leo P. Valerius Nepos (278)
and P. Valerius Leo (218) Claudius (299), Ap. Pulcher Claudius (298), Ap. Pulcher
Calidius (++4), M. Claudius (229), M. Marcellus Cornelius (377), Faustus Sulla Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Porcius (+16), M. Cato Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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 Herennius (+18), L. Balbus

Asc. 34, See Clark&apostr;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 . 41

 date: 52
actio ad exhibendum claim: actio ad exhibendum to produce servi For a reference, see , n. 2.
Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher defendants: P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56
comites of Clodius Herennius (+18), L. Balbus plaintiff: L. Herennius Balbus (18) Lupercus 56 See case , n. 4.

Asc. 34C

date: 52
actio ad exhibendum claim: actio ad exhibendum to produce servi For a reference on this date, see , n. 2.
Plautius (+23), P. Hypsaeus Pompeius (+41), Q. Rufus defendants: P. Plautius Hypsaeus (23) pr. by 55?
Q. Pompeius Rufus (41) tr. pl. 52 Caelius (+35), M. Rufus plaintiff?: M. Caelius Rufus (35) tr. pl. 52, pr. 48

Asc. 34C
Lintott (1974) 71

date: 52, Milo charged on March 26, trial on April 4-7/[8]) On the chronology of this trial and related trials, see Ruebel (1979) 245-47.
vis lex Pompeia de vi charge: lex Pompeia de vi (murder of Clodius) On the meeting of Clodius and Milo, see Davies (1969); contra Wellesley (1971).
Annius (+67), T. Milo defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
Claudius (229), M. Marcellus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: M. Claudius Marcellus (229) cos. 51
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 72) Cicero alone spoke for the defense (Asc. 414C), but he, Marcellus, and the defendant cross-examined witnesses. Antonius (+30), M. Claudius (298), Ap. Pulcher Claudius (299), Ap. Pulcher Valerius (278), P. Nepos prosecutors: M. Antonius (30) q. 51, See MRR Suppl. 19-20. cos. 44, 34 (subscr.)
Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38 (nom. del.)
Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.? (subscr.) For a reference, see case , n. 3.
P. Valerius Nepos (278) (subscr.) Domitius (+27), L. Ahenobarbus quaesitor: L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (27) cos. 54 Petilius (++5), Q. Petilius (++6), Q.
jurors: Eighty-one jurors were selected; then the prosecution and defense each rejected five from each order. Fifty-one jurors voted. Porcius (+16), M. Cato Varius (++4), P. Q. Petilius (5 or 6)
M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54 (voted A)
P. Varius (4) Arrius (++8), Q. Arrius (++7), Q. Causinius (++1), C. Schola Clodius (++7), C. Fulvia (113) Sempronia (102) Porcius (+20), M. Cato witnesses: Q. Arrius (8) pr. before 63 = ? Q. Arrius (7) pr. 73 See MRR Suppl. 25 for sources and bibliography on whether these two Arrii are in fact the same person.
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) On their identity see Marshall, Asconius 188-89. outcome: C, exile to Massilia, and perhaps confiscation; See Lintott (1974) 76-78, and Marshall, Asconius 209. 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

date: 52 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.
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 52)
Annius (+67), T. Milo defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
Claudius (298), Ap. Pulcher Claudius (299), Ap. Pulcher Domitius (+11) Valerius (218), P. Leo prosecutors: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38 (nom. del.)
Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.? For a reference, see case , n. 1. (subscr.)
Domitius (11) pr.? in 54
P. Valerius Leo (218) (subscr.) Manlius (+76), A. Torquatus quaesitor: A. Manlius Torquatus (76) See Mitchell (1966) 26 and Linderski (1972) 195-96 n. 59. pr. ca 70
outcome: C, praemium offered to nominis delator Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) was offered a reward for his successful prosecution, but refused it.
other: C. Ateius Capito Other conjectures as to the correct reading are C. Cethegus (90), Q. Patulcius (2). (7, = ? C. Ateius [3]) tr. pl. 55 (subscr.), and L. Cornificius (4) sen.? See Syme (CP 1955) 134 and MRR Suppl. 76. rejected in divinatio. Ateius (++7), C. Capito Ateius (++3), C. Cornificius (++4), L. Cethegus (+90), C. Patulcius (++2), Q.

Asc. 38, 39, 54C; Dio 40.53.2
Syme (Historia 1955) 60 = RP 1.280.

date: 52 The charge was laid on March 26, and the verdict reached on April 11 or 12; see Ruebel (1979) 243, 247.
lex Licinia de sodaliciis charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 52)
Annius (+67), T. Milo defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
Fulvius (+89), P. Neratus prosecutor: P. Fulvius Neratus (89)
Favonius (++1), M. quaesitor: M. Favonius (1) aed. 53 or 52, See MRR 2.240 n. 2, Suppl. 90. pr. 49
outcome: C, prosecutor received praemium

Asc. 38-39, 54C

date: 52, verdict reached on April 11 or 12
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi (murder of Clodius)
Annius (+67), T. Milo defendant: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55
Cornificius (++4), L. Patulcius (++2), Q. prosecutors: L. Cornificius (4) sen.? For references, see case , n. 6.
Q. Patulcius (2) Fabius (+22), L. quaesitor: L. Fabius (22)
outcome: condemned in absence

Asc. 54C

date: 52, on or after ca April 12
vis lex Pompeia de vi charge: lex Pompeia de vi (participation in murder of P. Clodius Pulcher [48] aed. cur. 56) Clodius (+48), P. Pulcher
defendant: M. Saufeius (6)
Saufeius (++6), M. Caelius (+35), M. Rufus Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: M. Caelius Rufus (35) tr. pl. 52, pr. 48 (ORF 162.V)
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 73) Cassius (+65), L. Longinus Fulcinius (++3) Valerius (+52), C. 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

date: 52, on or after ca April 18
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in murder of Clodius)
Saufeius (++6), M. defendant: M. Saufeius (6)
Terentius (+89), M. Varro Gibba Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocates: M. Terentius Varro Gibba (89) tr. pl. 43
M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 74) Aponius (++4), Cn. Fidius (++1), C. Seius (++4), M. prosecutors: Cn. Aponius (4)
C. Fidius (1)
M. Seius See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 65. (4) e.R. Considius (++2) Considius (+11), C. Longus Considius (+13), M. Nonianus quaesitor?: 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. Considius (2), = either C. Considius Longus (11) pr. by 54 or M. Considius Nonianus (13) propr. 49 See MRR 2.240 n. 3, Suppl. 61, and Marshall, Asconius 210. On M. Considius Nonianus (13), see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 109-11.
outcome: A (thirty-two for A, nineteen for C; tribuni aerarii mainly for C)

Asc. 55C

date: 52, after April 22
vis lex Pompeia de vi charge: lex Pompeia de vi (movement of Clodius&apostr; body into curia)
Cloelius (Clodius 12), Sex. defendant: Sex. Cloelius (Clodius 12) See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 17.
Flacconius (++1), T. advocate: T. Flacconius (1)
Aufidius (++9), M. Alfidius Caesennius (+11), C. Philo prosecutors: M. Alfidius (Aufidius 9?) He does not have the cognomen ‘Lurco.’ See Wiseman (1965) 334, Linderski (1974) 478-80, and MRR Suppl. 14.
C. Caesennius Philo (11) outcome: C (46 votes for condemnation; five for acquittal: two senators, three equites)

Asc. 55-56C

date: 52? The trial occurred before Cicero&apostr;s departure for Cilicia in 51. See Gruen LGRR 526.
vis lex Pompeia de vi charge: lex Pompeia de vi? 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.
Cornelius (141), P. Dolabella defendant: P. Cornelius Dolabella (141) cos. suff. 44
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 76)
outcome: A Crawford, Orations 225 points out that the defendant&apostr;s prosecution of Appius in 50 (case ) shows that he was acquitted in this trial.

Cic. Fam. 3.10.5; see also Fam. 6.11.1; Phil. 11.9

date: 52? See Gruen, LGRR 526, Crawford, Orations p. 225 n. 1.
lex Scantinia charge: perhaps for lex Scantinia D.-G. (6.85 n. 9) maintains that the defendant was charged with pederasty (‘Knabenschänderei’). But the evidence is too vague. See case , n. 2 on the passage from the Philippics. (perhaps for pederasty)
Cornelius (141), P. Dolabella defendant: P. Cornelius Dolabella (141) cos. suff. 44
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 109)
outcome: A See case , n. 3.

Cic. Fam. 3.10.5; see also Fam. 6.11.1; Phil. 11.9

date: 52
Fadius (++9), T. defendant: T. Fadius His cognomen is probably not ‘Gallus’; see Shackleton Bailey (1962) and Studies 38, and MRR Suppl. 89. (9) tr. pl. 57 Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.350 suggests that he became aedile and/or praetor 55-53.
outcome: C, by one vote

Cic. Fam. 5.18


date: 52
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex (Pompeia?) de ambitu (campaign for consulate of 53) This case is perhaps a continuation of case .
Aemilius (141), M. Scaurus defendant: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 108)
Valerius (365), C. Triarius prosecutor: C. Valerius Triarius (365) praef. class. 49-48 = ? P. Valerius Triarius (367) See Douglas, Brutus p. 194 on Brut. 265, MRR Suppl. 215, and Marshall, Asconius 122.
Valerius (367), P. Triarius
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

date: 52
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex (Pompeia?) de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate in 53) This case is perhaps a continuation of case .
Memmius (++8), C. defendant: C. Memmius (8) pr. 58
outcome: C, exile in Athens

Cic. Fam. 13.1.1; App. BCiv. 2.24

date: 52, after case , before defendant takes office in August
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 52)
Caecilius (+99), Q. Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica defendant: Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (99) cos. 52
Memmius (++9), C. prosecutors: C. Memmius (9) He was attempting to be restored to civic status after his condemnation

(see case ) by successful prosecution; see Mommsen, Strafr. 509 n. 4; Alexander (1985) 29.

tr. pl. 54 and one other prosecutor
outcome: dropped (cf. case , 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

date: 52
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 52)
Plautius (+23), P. Hypsaeus 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

date: 52 (same time as case )
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex Pompeia (de ambitu?) (perhaps for misconduct during campaign for praetorship of 55)
Sestius (++6), P. defendant: P. Sestius (6) tr. pl. 57, pr. perhaps by 54 For a reference, see case , n. 1.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 75)
outcome: A? Appian has C for a ‘Sextus.’ But Sestius went on to serve as governor in 49. See Gruen, LGRR 349 n. 186.

Cic. Att. 13.49.1; Fam. 7.24.2; App. BCiv. 2.24

date: 52, same time as case
Octavius (+23), Cn. defendants?: sons of Cn. Octavius (23?)
Phamea (++1) plaintiff?: Phamea (1)
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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 ).

Cic. Att. 13.49.1; Fam. 7.24.2

date: possibly before case , certainly just before case
Munatius (++1) Munatius (+32), T. Plancus Bursa defendant: Munatius (1), perhaps the same as T. Munatius Plancus Bursa (32) tr. pl. 52 Case is a terminus ante quem only if Munatius (1) is the same person as Munatius (32).
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 78)
outcome: A

Plut. Cic. 25.1

date: possibly before case , just after case See case , n. 1.
Sabinus (++1) defendant: Sabinus (1)
Munatius (++1) Munatius (+32), T. Plancus Bursa prosecutor: Munatius (1), perhaps the same as T. Munatius Plancus Bursa (32) tr. pl. 52

Plut. Cic. 25.1

date: between Dec. 10, 52 and end of Jan. 51, See Gruen, LGRR 346 n. 172, and Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.351. The trial must have occurred after the defendant&apostr;s tribunate, although Plut. Pomp. 55.6 says that it occurred before trial . after case
vis lex Pompeia de vi charge: lex Pompeia de vi (activities as tr. pl. 52, burning of senate house)
Munatius (+32), T. Plancus Bursa defendant: T. Munatius Plancus Bursa (32) tr. pl. 52
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero prosecutor: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford, Orations 79)
Porcius (+16), M. Cato juror: M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54 He was rejected after the trial had begun.
outcome: C, exile to Ravenna
other: Cato prevented Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 from delivering a laudatio Pompeius (+31), Cn. Magnus

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

date: by May 51
vis lex Pompeia de vi charge: lex Pompeia de vi (activities as tr. pl. 52, burning of senate house)
Pompeius (+41), Q. Rufus defendant: Q. Pompeius Rufus (41) tr. pl. 52
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus 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


date: by June 51
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 53) This case may be a continuation of case .
Valerius (268), M. Messalla Rufus defendant: M. Valerius Messalla Rufus (268) cos. 53
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus 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

date: 51, just before case , charged before Aug. 1, verdict before Sept. 2
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in campaign for consulate of 50)
Calidius (++4), M. defendant: M. Calidius (4) pr. 57, spoke pro se (ORF 140.VI)
Gallius (++5), M. Gallius (++7), Q. Axianus prosecutor: M. Gallius (5) pr. by 45 See Sumner (1971) 366-67 n. 55, and MRR Suppl. 98.
or Q. Gallius (7) (Axianus?) pr. 43 See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.390, Studies 62; MRR Suppl. 98-99. outcome: A

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.4.1, 8.9.5

date: by Aug. 1, 51
lex Licinia de sodaliciis charge: lex Licinia de sodaliciis (misconduct in campaign for consulate 53)
Valerius (268), M. Messalla Rufus 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

date: by Aug. 1, 51
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu So Münzer RE 2A (1923) 1754; Shackleton Bailey (1970) l65. (misconduct in campaign for tr. pl. 50)
Servaeus (++3) defendant: Servaeus (3) tr. pl. des. for 50 = ? Servius Pola (5) 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 ). 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. Servius (++5), Pola
outcome: C

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.4.2

date: mid Sept. 51
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (campaign for consulate of 50)
Claudius (216), C. Marcellus defendant: C. Claudius Marcellus (216) cos. 50
Calidius (++4), M. prosecutor: M. Calidius (4) pr. 57
outcome: A

Cic. Fam. 8.9.2, 5
Shackleton Bailey (1970) 165

date: mid-Sept.to mid-Oct. 51, before case
vis lex Plautia de vi iniuriae lex Cornelia de iniuriis charge: lex Plautia de vi? See Lintott (1968) 122 n. 2. or lex Cornelia de iniuriis? See Mommsen, Strafr. 399 n. 1.
Sempronius (+79), C. Rufus defendant: C. Sempronius Rufus (79) mag.-des.? That the defendant was mag. des. is a suggestion made by Weinrib (1971) 149 n. 8.
Tuccius (++6), M. Galeo prosecutor: M. Tuccius (6) (Galeo?)
outcome: C and exile? 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).

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.8.1; see also Att. 14.14.2

date: mid-Sept. to mid-Oct. 51
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi On the basis of material found in the shipwreck off the island of Planier, D&apostr;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.
Tuccius (++6), M. Galeo defendant: M. Tuccius (6) (Galeo?)
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus Caelius (+35), M. Rufus advocate?: M. Caelius Rufus (35) pr. 48 (ORF 167.VII), but he may have been a character witness instead.
Sempronius (+79), C. Rufus prosecutor: C. Sempronius Rufus (79) mag.-des.? See case , n. 3.
outcome: A
other: calumnia believed by some

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.8.1; see also Att. 6.2.10

date: over by Oct. 51
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis (misconduct as gov. Asia, 55-53)
Claudius (303), C. Pulcher defendant: C. Claudius Pulcher (303) pr. 56
Iuventius (+16), M. Laterensis 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

date: begun by Oct. 51
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis, quo ea pecunia pervenerit (possession of funds extorted by C. Claudius Pulcher) See case . On the procedure, see case .
Servilius (+20), M. Servilius (+21), M. defendant: M. Servilius (20) = ? M. Servilius (21) tr. pl. 43 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.
advocate: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48 Caelius (+35), M. Rufus
prosecutor: Pausanias (13) Pausanias (+13)
Iuventius (+16), M. Laterensis 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

date: divinatio by Oct. 51, trial not over at end of
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis
Servilius (+20), M. Servilius (+21), M. defendant: M. Servilius (20) sen.? = ? M. Servilius (21) tr. pl. 43 See case , n. 2.
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus advocate?: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48
Pilius (++2), Q. Celer prosecutor: Q. Pilius Celer (2)
Iuventius (+16), M. Laterensis praetor: M. Iuventius Laterensis (16)

Cic. Fam. 8.8.2-3; Att. 6.3.10

date: divinatio by Oct. 51
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis, (possibly quo ea pecunia pervenerit; regarding funds deposited with the defendant praevaricationis causa in case )
Servilius (+20), M. Servilius (+21), M. defendant: M. Servilius (20) sen.? = ? M. Servilius (21) tr. pl. 43 See case , n. 2.
Claudius (299), Ap. Pulcher prosecutor: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.? For a reference, see case , n. 3.
Iuventius (+16), M. Laterensis praetor: M. Iuventius Laterensis (16)
jurors: same as in litis aestimatio of case
outcome: tie vote, A? There was some confusion as to whether the defendant was actually acquitted, or whether there was no decision.

Cic. Fam. 8.8.3

date: begun by Oct. 51
repetundae lex Iulia de repetundis charge: lex Iulia de repetundis
defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) perhaps sen. For a reference, see case , n. 3. Claudius (299), Ap. Pulcher
Servilius (+20), M. Servilius (+21), M. prosecutors: Servilii The prosecutors were presumably M. Servilius (20) sen.? = ? M. Servilius (21) tr. pl. 43 (see case , n. 2), and relatives.

Cic. Fam. 8.8.3

date: 51, charge laid by October
vis lex Pompeia de vi charge: lex Pompeia de vi
Claudius (299), Ap. Pulcher defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.? For a reference, see case , n. 3.
prosecutor: uncertain The prosecutor was probably not Sex. Tettius (4). See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.401. Tettius (++4), Sex.

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.8.3

date: 50, perhaps Feb.?
claim: civil suit civil suit
Custidius (++1), L. Cuspidius plaintiff: L. Custidius The plaintiff&apostr;s nomen may instead have been Cuspidius. See CLF 1.479. (1, RE Supp. I)
Titius (+37), C. Rufus urban praetor: C. Titius Rufus (37)

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 13.58

date: 50, perhaps March?
Fadius (++6), M. Fabius Gallus party: M. Fabius See Shackleton Bailey (1962) 195-96 and CLF 1.417. Gallus (Fadius 6)
party: Q. Fabius Gallus (Fadius 8) Fadius (++8), Q. Fabius Gallus
Curtius (+23), M. Peducaeanus advocate?: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48 Caelius (+35), M. Rufus
peregrine? praetor: See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.417, 480; MRR Suppl. 79. M. Curtius Peducaeanus (23)

Fam. 2.14, 9.25.3, 13.59

date: 50, prosecuted by Feb., verdict reached close to April 5)
lex Cornelia de maiestate maiestas charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (misconduct as gov. Cilicia 53-51? went to province without lex curiata? remained in province too long) Auct. Vir. Ill. 82.4 gives the charge as repetundae.
Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens. 50
Cornelius (141), P. Dolabella prosecutor: P. Cornelius Dolabella (141) cos. suff. 44
outcome: A

Fam. 3.11.1-3; Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.6.1

date: 50, verdict reached by late May See Sumner, Orators 122-23 on the chronology of this trial and of , and on the reasons for assigning the defense by Hortensius and Brutus to this trial rather than to the preceding one.
ambitus lex Pompeia de ambitu charge: lex Pompeia de ambitu (misconduct in election for office [censorship of 50?])
Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens. 50
Hortensius (+13), Q. Hortalus Iunius (+53), M. Brutus advocates: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (ORF 92.XXV)
M. Iunius Brutus (53) pr. 44 (ORF 158.III)
Cornelius (141), P. Dolabella prosecutor: P. Cornelius Dolabella (141) cos. suff. 44
outcome: A

Cic. Fam. 3.11.2, 3.12.1; Brut. 230, 324

date: 50, charge laid by Aug. 8
vis lex Pompeia de vi charge: uncertain Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.431 suggests that the defendant was one of Curio&apostr;s friends convicted for vis in support of M. Antonius (30) cos. 44, 34. See Cic. Phil. 2.4.
Appuleius (+27), Cn. Sentius Saturninus defendant: Cn. Sentius Saturninus (Appuleius 27) q. or leg. 68-67, The defendant was not an Appuleius; see Syme&apostr;s two articles (Historia 1964) 121-22, 162 = RP 2.600-1, 611; Shackleton Bailey, CLF 1.431. sen. by 54
Domitius (+23), Cn. Ahenobarbus prosecutor: Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (23) cos. 32

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.14.1; see also V. Max. 9.1.8

date: 50, after ludi Romani of Sept. 19
lex Scantinia charge: lex Scantinia
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus defendant: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48
Sevius (cf. Servius 5) Servius (++5), Pola prosecutor: Sevius or Servius On this nomen, see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 66. (Servius 5) Pola
Livius (+19), M. Drusus Claudianus praetor: M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19) 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.

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.14.4, 8.12.2-3

date: Sept. 50
lex Scantinia charge: lex Scantinia
Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens.
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus prosecutor: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48
Livius (+19), M. Drusus Claudianus praetor: M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19) See , n. 2 above.

Cael. apud Cic. Fam. 8.12.1 and 3, 8.14.4

date: 50
vis lex Pompeia de vi charge: lex Pompeia? de vi
Scribonius (+11), C. Curio defendants: friends of C. Scribonius Curio (11) tr. pl. 50

Cic. Phil. 2.4

date: 50
Peducaeus (++6), Sex. defendant: Sex. Peducaeus (6) pr.? ca 49?
outcome: A

Cael. in Cic. Fam. 8.14.1

date: Sept. 50
claim: failure of defendant as censor to keep a sacellum, which was on his property, open to the public On the prosecution of censors, see Courtney (1960) 99, Shackleton Bailey (1970) 163, CLF 1.435.
Claudius (297), Ap. Pulcher defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) cos. 54, cens.
Caelius (+35), M. Rufus plaintiff: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48

Cic. Fam. 8.12.3; see also Liv. 40.51.8

Trials of Indefinite Date date: 136? See Münzer RE 16 (1933) 426, MRR 1.488 n. 3.
actio de iniuriis claim: actio de iniuriis (ne quid infamandi causa fiat, libel of Accius)
Accius (++1), L. plaintiff?: L. Accius (1)
Mucius (+17), P. Scaevola juror?: P. Mucius Scaevola (17) cos. 133
outcome: C

ad Her. 1.24, 2.19

date: late second century
actio de iniuriis claim: actio de iniuriis (ne quid infamandi causa fiat, libel of Lucilius)
Lucilius (++4), C. plaintiff?: C. Lucilius (4)
Coelius (+12), C. Caldus juror: C. Coelius Caldus (12) cos. 94
outcome: A

ad Her. 2.19

date: late second century
civil suit claim: civil suit (inheritance from a man with two wives)

Cic. de Orat. 1.183

date: uncertain Appian places the defendant&apostr;s name between that of Aurelius Cotta (case ) and M&apostr;. Aquillius (case ). Münzer, RE 1A (1920) 1903, takes this arrangement as chronological, thus dating the trial between 138 and 126. But Appian might not be using chronological order; in that case, one could date the trial merely to the years 149-123. See Gabba, Appian ad loc.
repetundae lex Calpurnia de repetundis lex Iunia de repetundis charge: lex Calpurnia (or Iunia) de repetundis
Livius (+30), Salinator defendant: Livius Salinator (30)
outcome: A

App. BCiv. 1.22
Richardson (1987) 12

date: after 106? after the enactment of lex Servilia (of Glaucia or Caepio) 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 ). Therefore, a date in the last years of the second century is likely; see Volkmann RE 8A (1955) 236-37.
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae?) de repetundis
Cosconius (not in RE, C.) defendant: C. Cosconius (not in RE) See Cosconius (3) pr.? 89, promag. 78-76?, and Münzer RE 4 (1901) 1668, and RE Supp. 3 (1918) 262.
Valerius (372), Valentinus prosecutor: Valerius Valentinus (372)
outcome: A

V. Max. 8.1. abs. 8
Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 343-45, Gruen, RPCC 302

date: sometime within ca 104 to 81
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae?) de repetundis 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.
Caelius (not in RE), T. defendant: T. Caelius (not in RE) sen.? See Badian (1961) 493, who argues from the status of Caelius as a defendant in an extortion suit that he was probably a senator.
Cossinius (++1), L. Cossinius (++2), L. prosecutor: L. Cossinius (1, = ? 2) of Tibur, pr. 73? See MRR Suppl. 77.
outcome: C, prosecutor received reward of citizenship

Cic. Balb. 53; see also 54

date: sometime within ca 104 to 81
repetundae lex Servilia (Glauciae) de repetundis charge: lex Servilia (Glauciae?) See case , n. 1. de repetundis See case , n. 1.
Papirius (+59), C. Masso defendant: C. Papirius Masso (59) sen.? Broughton MRR Suppl. 154 suggests that the prosecutor&apostr;s admission to citizenship may show that the defendant was a senator. See also Badian (1961) 493.
Coponius (++8), T. prosecutor: T. Coponius (8) of Tibur
outcome: C, prosecutor received reward of citizenship

Cic. Balb. 53, see also 54
Gruen, RPCC 301

date: by 91
Marcius (+75), L. Philippus advocate?: See Nicolet, Ordre équestre 2.798. L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86 (ORF 269, #16)
Aurifex (++1), L. juror: L. Aurifex (1) e.R.
witness: uncertain A pusillus is mentioned by Cicero as a witness.

Cic. de Orat. 2.245

date: by 91
apud centumviros claim: apud centumviros (issue unknown) Cornelii Cossi (110a)
party: fratres (Cornelii?) Cossi (110a)
Scribonius (+10), C. Curio Antonius (+28), M. advocate (for Cossi): C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61 For a reference, see case , n. 3. (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

date: by 91
civil suit claim: civil suit (obstruction of daylight to house purchased by plaintiff)
Buculeius (++1), M. defendant: M. Buculeius (1)
Fufius (++5), L. plaintiff: L. Fufius (5) tr. pl. 91 or 90 See case , n. 3.

Cic. de Orat. 1.179
Roby (1886) 67-75

date: by 91
claim: civil suit (sale of house with undisclosed servitude [easement]) civil suit Marius (+42), M. Gratidianus
defendant: M. Marius Gratidianus (42) pr. 85?, 82 II ? On defendant&apostr;s name see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 122. On the date of his praetorships, see Sumner, Orators 118-19.
Antonius (+28), M. advocate (for Marius): M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (ORF 65.IX)
Sergius (+33), C. Orata plaintiff: C. Sergius Orata (33)
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus 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

date: by 91 apud centumviros
claim: apud centumviros (inheritance by patron from an exile from an allied state)

Cic. de Orat. 1.177

date: by 91
apud centumviros claim: apud centumviros (dispute between plebeian Claudii Marcelli and patrician Claudii from other families over inheritance from a freedman&apostr;s son)

Cic. de Orat. 1.176
Wilkins, de Oratore ad loc.

date: by 91
civil suit claim: civil suit (suit over use of public water)
Sergius (+33), C. Orata defendant: C. Sergius Orata (33) Sergius (+33), C. Orata
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus advocate (for Orata): L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.XIII)
Considius (++1) plaintiff: Considius (1)

V. Max. 9.1.1
Münzer RE IIA (1923) 1713

date: by 91
civil suit claim: civil suit? Visellius (++1), C. Aculeo
party: C. Visellius Aculeo (1) e.R.
Licinius (+55), L. Crassus advocate (for Aculeo): L. Licinius Crassus (55) cos. 95, cens. 92 (ORF 66.XI)
Marius (+42), M. Gratidianus party: M. Marius Gratidianus (42) pr. 85? 82 II ? See case , n. 1.
Aelius (+74), L. Lamia advocate (for Marius): L. Aelius Lamia (74)
Perperna (++5), M. juror: M. Perperna (5) cos. 92, cens. 86

Cic. de Orat. 2.262, 269

date: uncertain On the defendant&apostr;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 ).
parricidium charge: parricidium (murder of T. Cloulius monetalis 128)
Cloelius (++5), T. 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

date: in 80 or in early 70s after case and before Cicero&apostr;s trip east
de sicariis et veneficis lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of C. Varenus and Salarius; wounding of Cn. Varenus)
Varenus (++3), L. defendant: L. Varenus (3)
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 60)
Ancharius, C. Rufus Erucius (++2), C. prosecutors: ? C. Ancharius Rufus (6) of Fulginium (nom. del.?) 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&apostr;s discussion (7.2.10) that Cicero&apostr;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.
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)

date: perhaps by 83 citizenship
charge: challenge to citizenship
Cornelius (194), L. Lentulus praetor: L. Cornelius Lentulus (194, cf. 195)

Cic. Arch. 9

date: long before 67
Attidius (Atidius 2) defendant: Attidius (Atidius 2) sen.
outcome: C, exile, fled to Mithridates

App. Mith. 90

date: 80s? 60s?
iudicium populi charge: iudicium populi? before comitia tributa (attempted purchase of matron&apostr;s sexual services)
Sergius (+38), Cn. Silus defendant: Cn. Sergius Silus (38) The defendant is perhaps the same as Cn. Sergius (9).
Caecilius (+86), Q. Metellus Celer Caecilius (+85), Q. Metellus Celer prosecutor: Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (85) tr. pl. 90, aed.? 88? 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.
outcome: C, pecuniary penalty

V. Max. 6.1.8
MRR 2.41 and 45, n. 5, Gruen, RPCC 300-1, Jones (1972) 6, 15

date: between 81 and 43
witness?: Octavius (not in RE) Octavius (not in RE)
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29)

Plut. Cic. 26.4

date: between 81 and 43
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63
Consta (++1), P. witness: P. Consta (1)

Plut. Cic. 26.6

date: between 81 and 43
Appius (not in RE), M. advocate: M. Appius? Oppius? (not in RE) Oppius (not in RE), M.
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate (opposing): M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63

Plut. Cic. 26.7

date: between 81 and 43
parricidium charge: parricidium (poisoning of father)
defendant: adulescens
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate (opposing): M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63

Cic. Plut. 26.5

date: 70s
Decidius (++1), Cn. Samnis defendant: Cn. Decidius (or Decius?), Samnis (1) Decius (++1), Cn. Samnis
Iulius (131), C. Caesar advocate: C. Iulius Caesar (131) cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44 (ORF 121.XIII)

Cic. Clu. 161; Tac. Dial. 21.6

date: by 74
Seius (++3), M. defendant: M. Seius (3) aed. cur. 74
outcome: C

Cic. Planc. 12; see also Plin. Nat. 15.2

date: uncertain
repetundae charge: perhaps de repetundis Syme (1956) 134 = RP 1.303 tentatively refers this case to case .
Calpurnius (+98), L. Piso Frugi defendant: L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (98) pr. 74 See Gruen (Athenaeum 1971) 55-56. or L. Calpurnius (98?) gov. Asia ca 100? ca. 97? See Sumner (GRBS 1978) 151-53; MRR Suppl. 48; and also Syme Historia (1955) 58 = RP 1.277.
Claudius (not in RE), L. Pulcher prosecutor: (L.?) Claudius Pulcher (not in RE)
outcome: A

V. Max. 8.1. abs. 6

date: by 64
charge: capital charge capital charge
defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68 Sergius (+23), L. Catilina
prosecutor: Licinius (not in RE) Licinius (not in RE)

Asc. 93 The reading of the Ciceronian lemma is vexed; see Marshall, Asconius 316.

trial uncertain Gruen, LGRR 527 doubts the existence of the trial; see also Guerriero (1936) for doubts on the authenticity of the Post reditum ad populum.
date: 60s
capital charge charge: capital charge
Gabinius (+11), A. defendant: A. Gabinius (11) cos. 58
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63

Cic. Red. Pop. 11

date: sometime within late 60s to early 50s
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi 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.
Caesernius (not in RE), C. defendant: (C.?) Caesernius (not in RE)
outcome: C

Cic. Cael. 71

date: sometime within late 60s to early 50s
vis lex Plautia de vi charge: lex Plautia de vi See case , n. 1.
Camurtius (not in RE), M. defendant: M. Camurtius (not in RE)
outcome: C

Cic. Cael. 71

Sallustius (+10), C. Crispus defendant: C. Sallustius Crispus (10) pr. 46

[Cic.] Sal. 15-16

date: sometime between 80 and 50
Maesia (+10) defendant: Maesia (10) of Sentinum, spoke pro se
Titius (+14), L. praetor: L. Titius (14)
outcome: A (in first actio) by almost all votes

V. Max. 8.3.1

date: during or after 65 and by 56 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.
lex Papia charge: lex Papia
Cassius (not in RE), M. defendant: M. Cassius (not in RE)
prosecutors: Mamertini
outcome: prosecution ended when verdict favorable to defendant obvious

Cic. Balb. 52

date: by 48 The terminus ante quem is established by the date of death of Caelius, who urged Cicero to appear (V. Max. 5.3.4). parricidium iudicium privatum
charge? claim?: parricidium? iudicium privatum?
Popillius (+16), C. Laenas defendant: C. Popillius Laenas (16) tr. mil. 43
Tullius (+29), M. Cicero 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

date: between 54 and 44 This was the time span during which Servilius was censorius.
Servilius (+93), P. Vatia Isauricus witness: P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55
outcome: C

V. Max. 8.5.6; Dio 45.16.2

date: unknown
quaestio charge: quaestio
Fulvius (+50), Flaccus Fulvius (+54), Cn. Flaccus 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

date: unknown lex Cornelia de aleatoribus
charge: lex Cornelia? de aleatoribus
Licinius (+80), Denticula Licinius (+80), Lenticulus defendant: Licinius Denticula (or Lenticulus) (80)? sen.? See Shackleton Bailey, Studies 47, MRR Suppl. 120.
outcome: C, exile

Cic. Phil. 2.56; Dio 45.47.4

date: unknown
lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis de sicariis et veneficis charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (for the murder of C. Flavius [12] e.R. 150 = ? C. Flavius Pusio [158] e.R.) Flavius (+12), C. Flavius (158), C. Pusio
Alexander (not in RE) defendant: Alexander (slave of P. Atinius [not in RE])
Calpurnius (14), L. outcome: C, crucifixion at hands of triumvir capitalis L. Calpurnius (14)
other: defendant tortured six times

V. Max. 8.4.2

date: 66? See MRR Suppl. 222.
civil suit claim: civil suit (repayment of debt)
defendant: C. Visellius Varro (3) aed. cur. 67, 66, or 59 Visellius (++3), C. Varro
plaintiff: Otacilia (19), wife of Laterensis, perhaps the mother of M. Iuventius Laterensis (16) pr. 51 See Münzer RE 18 pt. 2 (1942) 1866. Otacilia (+19) Iuventius (+16), M. Laterensis
Aquillius (+23), C. Gallus praetor: perhaps C. Aquillius Gallus (23) pr. 66 Val. Max. specifically refers to Gallus as a iudex. But given his power to dismiss the case, he may have been the magistrate.
outcome: charge dismissed

V. Max. 8.2.2
Watson (1965) 32-36; Gardner (1986) 73

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&apostr; 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&apostr;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&apostr;s Pro Q. Roscio comoedo.’ Eos 65 (1977) 231-44 – ‘Selected Notes on Cicero&apostr;s Pro Roscio Comoedo.’ Philologus 121 (1977) 226-40 Ayers, Donald M. ‘Cato&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;archéologie et d&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;histoire des partis au VIIe siècle de Rome.’ Mélanges d&apostr;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&apostr; 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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;étude des sources d&apostr;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&apostr; ‘exilium’ nel periodo repubblicano. Milan, 1961 Crook, J. ‘Sponsione provocare: Its place in Roman litigation.’ JRS 66 (1976) 132-38 D&apostr;Arms, J.H. ‘Pro Murena 16 and Cicero&apostr;s Use of Historical Exempla.’ Phoenix 26 (1972) 82-84 – Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, MA, 1981 Daube, David. ‘Licinnia&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;s Lost Oration, Pro Muliere Arretina.’ TAPA 33 (1902) page c Epstein, David F. ‘Cicero&apostr;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&apostr;acquittement de Gabinius. Le procès d&apostr;Antiochus Gabinius.’ MEFRA 59 (1947) 84-88 Fascione, L. ‘Riflessioni sull&apostr;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&apostr;età dei Gracchi.’ Studi storici per l&apostr;antichità classica 5 (1912) 317-448; 6 (1913) 42-136 – Studi sull&apostr;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&apostr;s Pro Caecina.’ TAPA 113 (1983) 221-41 – The Rise of the Roman Jurists: Studies in Cicero&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;une réforme électorale de Caius Gracchus.’ MEFRA 71 (1959) 145-210 – L&apostr;ordre équestre à l&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr; 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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr; 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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;s Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology. Phoenix Supplementary Volume 11. Toronto, 1973 – ‘Scaurus and the Mamilian Inquisition.’ Phoenix 30 (1976) 73-75 – ‘Sulla&apostr;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&apostr;s Early Career.’ CP 36 (1941) 113-32 – Party Politics in the Age of Caesar. Berkeley, 1949 – ‘Magistrates of 55 B.C. in Cicero&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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&apostr;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 General Index of Names Index of Defendants Index of Advocates Index of Prosecutors and Plaintiffs Index of Magistrates Index of Jurors Index of Witnesses Index of Parties