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

University of Illinois at Chicago,

P.O. Box 4348,

Chicago, IL 60680.

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,

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

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

Wherever one or more of these items is absent, the implication
is that information on that item (or those items) is not
available.
In the text,
individuals are listed by

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.

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:

I have not translated the following Latin terms:

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

If the name of the statute is known, the charge is indexed
under

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This work does not attempt to cite all

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

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
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 Roms ^{2},
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 publicae^{4},
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

For Latin sources the

date: 149

outcome: proposal defeated

Cic.

Ferguson (1921); see also Buckland (1937);
Richardson (1987) 2 n. 12

outcome: C, exile

Diod. Sic. 33.2; see also Liv.

outcome: A?

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

charge: uncertain (matricide)

defendant: an unnamed female

outcome: neither C nor A

V. Max. 8.1. ambust. 1

outcome: self-exile before trial, suicide when recalled

Cic.

Mommsen,

outcome: almost certainly A

other: Scipio delivered at least five orations against Claudius Asellus.

Cic.

Fraccaro (1912) 376-82; Scullard (1960) 69;
Astin (1967) 127, 175-77, 256

Cic.

Richardson (1987) 9, 11

Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (94) cos. 143, cens. 131

outcome: A

Cic.

Cichorius,

outcome: A, after eighth

other: bribery of jurors by defendant widely suspected

Cic.

charge: (murders of

defendants: slaves and free workers of

advocates: at first C. Laelius Sapiens (3) cos. 140 (

D. Iunius Brutus (57) cos. 138

outcome: A

Cic.

Fraccaro (1912) 351-56;
Münzer
(

others prosecutor: tr. pl.

outcome: C, flogged and sold into slavery for one sesterce

Liv.

charge:

outcome: C, fine

V. Max. 8.1. damn. 7; App.

date: 133

outcome: challenge not taken up, no trial

Plut.

outcome: dropped

Liv.

Fraccaro (1914) 144

outcome: C, execution (by

Plut.

defendants: Diophanes (4)

many others (approx. 200)

P. Rupilius (5) cos.

outcome: C, execution

Plut.

P. Rupilius (5) cos.

outcome: fled, probably before trial

Cic.

outcome: trial ended when defendant sent on

other: P. Mucius Scaevola (17) cos. 133 rejected as juror

Cic.

Magie,

Plut.

charge: appeal to

outcome: remission of fine

Cic.

charge: lex Sempronia ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu populi iudicetur (123 BC)

Vell. 2.7.4

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

Richardson (1987) 12

outcome: A

Plut.

Fraccaro (1913) 87-88

outcome: voluntary exile, at Nuceria (possibly before the trial)

Cic.

Plut.

Daube (1965); Waldstein (1972); Bauman (1978) 238-43

other: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 was present.

Cic.

date: 120

defendant: P. Cornelius Lentulus (202) cos. suff. 162, princeps sen.

outcome: threat of trial avoided by

V. Max. 5.3.2f

Gel. 15.14.1-3

outcome: C, suicide

Cic. 2

Münzer
(1912) 169

outcome: A

Cic.

witnesses: Aemilius (not in

Albius (2) q. 120 or L. Atilius Nomentanus?

outcome: A

Lucil. II 55-94M; Cic.

date: 117?

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: A on tie vote

V. Max. 6.9.14;
Plut.

outcome: A

Cic.

Bloch (1909) 26-27, 35

outcome: C

Fenestella 21 fr. 11 Peter = Macr. 1.10.5; Liv.

outcome: A

Fenestella 21 fr. 11 Peter = Macr. 1.10.6; Liv.

defendant: Marcia (114)

outcome: A

Liv.

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

witness: slave of defendant

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: A

outcome: C, exile,

Cic.
2

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: A?

Cic.

L. Licinius Crassus (55) q. by 109,

(M. Sergius?) Silus (42) q. 116 or 115

outcome: A?

Cic.

Gruen
(

Sal.

outcome: none (defendant smuggled away)

Sal.

Paul (1984) 107

charge: lex Acilia de repetundis (misconduct as promag. 111? or as procos. Numidia 108-106)

iudices:

outcome: A

other: Jurors, who were of equestrian rank, refused to inspect defendant&apostr;s records.

Cic.

a) Bloch (1909) 68. There were three separate courts. Scaurus must have appeared at a court presided over by another

b) Fraccaro (1911) 174 =

c) Wilkins,

d) Sumner (1976). Sallust has confused M. Aemilius Scaurus with M. Aurelius Scaurus; the latter served as

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

jurors:

outcome: C

Cic.

jurors:

outcome: C, exile, at Dyrrachium?

Cic.

jurors:

outcome: C?

Cic.

jurors:

outcome: C, exile at Tarraco

Cic.

jurors:

outcome: C

Cic.

date: 109

jurors:

outcome: A?

Sal.

outcome: C

Bloch (1909) 79-80;
D.-G. 3.77; Cichorius,

outcome: C, exile at Nuceria (later restored)

outcome: A

Cic.

Passerini
(1934) 133 n. 4;
D&apostr;Arms (1972) 84; Gabba

charge: lex Acilia de repetundis?

jurors:

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: C, exile at Nuceria

Cic.

Rowland (1968) 213-14

outcome: A, by large majority (only tribes Sergia and Quirina voted to condemn)

Cic.

advocate?: M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (

prosecutor: uncertain

outcome: C, exile

Cic.

date: 103

outcome: A? C?

Cic.

outcome: C, confiscation of goods, retraction of

other: tr.pl. L. Aurelius Cotta (100) pr. ca. 95 and tr. pl. T. Didius (5) cos. 98 driven off from veto

outcome: C, exile at Athens

other: Cn. Pompeius Strabo (45) q. ca. 106,

Cic.

outcome: A (32 tribes by a narrow margin for acquittal, 3 for condemnation)

Cic.

Gruen (1964) 107-8

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

outcome: C

other: Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (97) cos. 109, cens. 102 refused to be

Cic. 2

outcome: C, exile

Cic.

M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) (

outcome: A

other: This case is perhaps the same as case

Cic.

date: by 81

defendant: augur

outcome: C

other: = ? case

Marx (1894) 108

claim:

party: M. Lutatius Pinthia (21) e.R.

outcome: juror refused to adjudicate

Cic.

jurors: senators

outcome: A

Diod. Sic. 36.15

outcome: C, execution by being thrown into sea in leather sack

Cloud (1971) 44

outcome: Fannia allowed to recover all but a token amount (one sesterce) from her ex-husband

V. Max. 8.2.3; Plut.

date: 100?

outcome: exile to Rhodes, Tralles

Cic.

prosecutor: C. Appuleius Decianus (21) tr. pl. 99? 98?

outcome: A

Cic.

C. Canuleius (3) tr. pl. 99?

outcome: killed by mob before verdict was delivered

Cic.

charge: lex Appuleia de maiestate?

jurors:

outcome: C, exile

Cic.

outcome: C, exile to Pontus

Cic.

outcome: C?

Asc. 63C; Apul.

outcome: A, or dropped

Cic.

character witness: C. Marius (14,

outcome: A

Cic. 2

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

? P. Sulpicius Rufus (92) tr. pl. 88? (

outcome: A

Cic.

witness?: Q. Lutatius Catulus (7) cos. 102

outcome: A?

Cic.

outcome: A

other: M. Aurelius Scaurus (cf. 215)

Cic.

outcome: charges dropped

Plut.

opposing party: M. Coponius (5)

advocate for Coponius: Q. Mucius Scaevola (22) cos. 95 (

outcome: in favor of Curius

Cic.

Watson (1974) 129-31; Tellegen (1983) 296-98;
Frier,

advocates: Q. Mucius Scaevola (22) cos. 95 (

C. Aurelius Cotta (96) cos. 75 (

outcome: C, exile to Asia (Mytilene and Smyrna),

Posidonius in Athen. 4.66, 168DE =

Pais (1918) 46-49

charge: perhaps

defendant: L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86

Flor.

? M. Iunius Brutus (50)

outcome: A (or none)

other: two

Cic.

outcome: A (or none)

other: two

Cic.

jurors:

outcome: A

Cic.

Cic.

charge: lex Varia (aid to rebellious allies)

a) Asc. 22C says that Q. Varius tr. pl. summoned Scaurus. The language appears too formal to allow for the hypothesis of Gruen (

b) V. Max. 3.7.8 says that the trial took place

c)

The most economical explanation of this evidence is that trials under the lex Varia were

Q. Servilius Caepio (50) pr. 91?, promag. 90 (

outcome: dropped?

Cic.

charge: lex Varia

defendant: Q. Pompeius Rufus (39) cos. 88 (spoke

outcome: A

Cic.

jurors:

outcome: C? exile to Delos?

Sis.

date: 90

outcome: no trial

Sis.

outcome: went into exile after trial began

App.

Gruen
(

date: 90

charge: lex Varia

outcome: C, exile before vote of jurors taken

Cic.

Gruen
(

date: 90

Cic.

date: 90? 89?

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: A?

Cic.

Seager (1967)

jurors: 15 from each tribe

outcome: C, exile

Cic.

Asc. 79C

Cic.

charge: uncertain, described as

outcome: A

V. Max. 5.3.3

outcome: none, Sulla went east

Cic.

prosecutor: unnamed

outcome: C in absence, exile

Cic.

Bennett (1923) 29;

outcome: suicide

Cic.

Brecht (1938) 301

charge uncertain

outcome: suicide

Brecht (1938) 301

date: 86

two other former tribunes

outcome: C; Lucilius thrown from Tarpeian rock, the other two suffered

Vell. 2.24.2;
Plut.

outcome: one tr. pl. decapitated, another tr. pl. thrown from Tarpeian rock, two praetors deprived of fire and water

Dio 31 fr. 102.12

outcome: dropped by prosecutor

Cic.

L. Marcius Philippus (75) cos. 91, cens. 86 (

Cn. Papirius Carbo (38) cos. 85, 84, 82

outcome: A

Cic.

Gelzer

advocate: M. Iunius Brutus (52) tr. pl.

outcome: granted

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

date: 80s? by 81

outcome: none,

Cic.

claim: lex Aquilia (

defendant: Q. Flavius (22) of Tarquinii

outcome: defendant gave up farm worth 100,000 sesterces

Cic.

Frier,

L. Lucilius Balbus (19) = ? L. Lucilius (8) pr. 91?

P. Quinctilius Varus (2)

outcome: against plaintiff

other: M. Iunius (23), perhaps the same as M. Iunius Brutus (52) tr. pl. 83, withdrew as advocate for the plaintiff.

Cic.

Greenidge LP App. II.1

outcome: against

Cic.

Cic.

T. Roscius Magnus (18)

T. Roscius Magnus (18)

outcome: A?

Cic.

Cloud (1971)

date: 80?

outcome: A

Cic.

Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96) cos. 57 (

outcome: dropped, after

2

date: 79 or 78

jurors:

outcome: for defendant in second

Cic.

date: 79?

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford,

C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61

Cic.

outcome: for plaintiff

Asc. 74C

Lintott (1977)

prosecutor: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) pr. 56 (

outcome: C,

other: the advocate was

Cic. 1

defendant: L. (Alenus?)(not in

outcome: C?

Cic.

judge (

Cic.

outcome: A or dismissal

other: Cicero claims bribery by defendant.

Cic.

outcome: C

other: suspicion of bribery of jurors by prosecution

Cic.
1

Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (

witnesses: from Greek cities

other: trial consisted of

outcome: A

Cic.

Taylor (1941) 119;
Gruen
(

plaintiffs:

outcome: defendant lost case, some goods sold, appeal made to tribunes

Cic.

Mommsen,

other: suspicion that Staienus used bribery

Cic.

date: 75

outcome: dropped

other: suspicion that prosecutor had been bribed

Cic. 2

Shackleton Bailey (1970) 164

outcome: postponement

Cic.

outcome: perhaps in favor of citizenship

Cic.

Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (

Cic.

charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (attempt to poison Cluentius)

A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. (nom. del.)

P. Quinctilius Varus (2)

outcome: C; all jurors voted C except Staienus, who voted A.

Cic.

L. Caepasius (1) q. before 70 (

A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. (nom. del.)

outcome: C, unanimous vote

Cic.

date: 74

A. Cluentius Habitus (4) e.R. (nom. del.)

M&apostr;. Aquillius (not in

? M. Atilius Bulbus (34) sen. (voted C)

M. Caesonius (1) pr. by 66

L. Cassius Longinus (13)

C. Caudinus (not in

L. Caulius Mergus (not in

Q. Considius (7) sen. (voted NL)

Cn. Egnatius (8)

C. Fidiculanius Falcula (1, see also

Ti. Gutta (1) sen. (voted C)

Cn. Heiulius? (Heius 3)

? C. Herennius (7)

M. Minucius Basilus (39) sen. (voted C)

L. Octavius Balbus (45), = ? P. Octavius Balbus (46)

? C. Popillius (3) sen. (voted C)

P. Popillius (10) sen. (voted C)

P. Saturius (1) sen. (voted NL)

P. Septimius Scaevola (51) sen. (voted C)

outcome: C

Cic. 1

Cic.

2

2

or L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (98)? pr. 74

outcome: C,

Cic. 1

outcome: uncertain

Cic.

charge: uncertain (misconduct as juror?)

outcome: A

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

Cic. 2

Q. Lutatius Catulus (8) cos. 78, cens. 65

C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61

outcome: C, loss of civic status, property sold

Cic. 2

advocate: Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (

outcome: A, with many charges of corruption (bribery, improperly colored voting tablets)

Cic.

C. (or L.?) Cominius (4 = ? 8)

witnesses:

Cic.
2

charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (tampering with legion in Illyria)

witnesses: many

outcome: C

Cic. 1

prosecutors: people condemned for electoral bribery (

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic. 1

outcome: A

Cic. 2

D.-G. 5.271 n. 2

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.

claim: civil suit (

plaintiff: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)

outcome: HS 100,000 paid to Fannius

Cic.

claim: civil suit (

juror: C. Calpurnius Piso (63) cos. 67

witnesses: C. Fannius Chaerea (17)

C. Luscius Ocrea (2) sen.

C. Manilius (10), or T. Manlius (16) sen.

M. Perperna (5) cos. 92, cens. 86

Cic.

Baron (1880); Axer
(

M. Pupius Piso Frugi (Calpurnianus) (10) pr. 72?, cos. 61 (

prosecutor?:

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

charge:

outcome: A

Plut.

outcome: A, in first

Cic.
1

outcome: A

Cic.

witnesses: Apulians

outcome: C

other: In

Cic. 1

advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford,

outcome: uncertain

other: two

Cic.

Greenidge (1901) App. II.3

or L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (98) pr. 74

other: Q. Caecilius Niger (101) q. 73 defeated in

Cic.

D.-G. 3.58

defendant: C. Popillius (3) sen.

outcome: C

Cic. 1

date: 70

outcome: dropped, Lollius killed on way to Sicily

Cic. 2

L. Cornelius Sisenna (374) pr. 78 (

Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (

M. Caesonius (1) pr. by 66

L. Cassius Longinus (13) pr. 66

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.

P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55

P. Sulpicius (15) q. 69

Q. Titinius (17) sen.

Cn. Tremellius Scrofa (5) tr. mil. 69, pr. by early 50s

P. Cervius (1) leg. Sicily 72?

Q. Considius (7) sen.

Q. Iunius (30) sen.

Sex. Peducaeus (5) pr. 77

P. Sulpicius Galba (55) pr. 66

L. Caecilius (Dio?) (not in

Q. Caecilius Dio (52)

Charidemos of Chios (not in

M. Cottius (not in

P. Cottius (not in

Diodoros of Melita (29)

L. Domitius (not in

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

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

P. Titius (19) e.R.?

Q. Varius (5) witnesses (to be heard in second

Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (216) cos. 72, cens. 70

Poleas of Messana (not in

P. Vettius Chilo (10) e.R. witnesses summoned but absent: Epikrates of Bidis (not in

Herakleios of Syracuse (3)

legates: from Aetna, Agyrium, Catina, Centuripa, Halaesa, Herbita, Melita, Panhormus

outcome: C, after

other: Q. Caecilius Niger (101), q. Sicily 73, was defeated in

Cic.

date: 70

Cic. 2

date: 70

charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (military mismanagement as gov. Sicily 73-71)

Cic. 2

date: 70

charge:

Cic. 2

or Oppius? (4)

or Piso

or C. Scribonius Curio (10) cos. 76, cens. 61,

? Oppius (4)

Rupilius (2) outcome: dropped

other: The prosecutor was given 108 days to collect evidence, but he never went to the province.

Cic. 1

date: 70?

outcome: dropped by mutual agreement

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

claim:

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,

Asc. 62-64C

defendant:

outcome: C

Cic. 1

or C. Popillius (4) tr. pl. 68? = ? C. Popillius (5) tr. mil. 72? 71?

outcome: C

Cic.
^{2}.2.744

M. Plaetorius Cestianus (16)

Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52

people of Narbo, Massilia outcome: uncertain whether A or C

other: two

Cic.

advocate: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 69, 70)

jurors: partly

outcome: uncertain

Sal.

Ward (1968) 805

V. Max. 6.2.4

claim:

defendant: Sex. Aebutius (9)

plaintiff: A. Caecina (6) of Volaterra (e.R.)

jurors:

jurisconsult (for defendant): ? Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (95) cos. 51

jurisconsult (for plaintiff): C. Aquillius Gallus (23) pr. 66

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

outcome: in favor of the plaintiff?

Cic.

D.-G. 5.360; Greenidge LP App. II.4; Harris (1971) 276-84

outcome: aborted by bribery

Sal.

Shackleton Bailey (1970) 164

defendant: C. Hirtilius (Hirtuleius 2)

Cic.

outcome: C

other: Carbo received consular insignia as a reward

V. Max. 5.4.4; Memnon 39.3-4 in

charge: uncertain

M. Iunius (25) pr. 67?

M. Plaetorius Cestianus (16)

Q. Publicius (13) pr. 67?

Cic.

defendants:

Cic.

outcome: C, suicide

Cic.

prosecutor: tr. pl. 66

outcome: jurors refused case

Cic.

outcome: undecided at time of case

Cic.

T. Attius

Cn. Tudicius (1) sen.

people of Bovianum, Ferentum, Luceria, Marrucia, Samnium, Teanum outcome: A

Cic.

Humbert (1938); Hoenigswald (1962); van Ooteghem (1969);
Classen (1972); Kumaniecki (1970)

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

L. Manlius Torquatus (80) pr. 50 or 49 (subscr.)

Cic.

defendant: L. Vargunteius (3) sen.

praetor: C. Aquillius Gallus (23)

outcome: C?, expulsion from Senate

Cic.

charge: lex Cornelia de maiestate (conduct as tr. pl. in assemblies)

C. (or L.?)

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.

Griffin (1973)

outcome: A

Plut.

Gruen
(

outcome: incomplete

Q. Cic.?

D.-G. 5.400 n. 8; Ward (1970); Phillips (1970); Fantham (1975)
439-40 n. 34; Marshall
(

outcome: dropped

Plut.

Gruen
(

outcome: A

Q. Cic.?

Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (99) cos. 52

L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74

L. Pontius (10)

Cic.

P. Cominius of Spoletium (11) (nom. del.) (

witnesses: Mam.

Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (98) cos. 80

Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (

Q. Lutatius Catulus (8) cos. 78, cens. 65 (

P. Servilius Globulus (66) tr. pl. 67

M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) cos. 73

outcome: A, by a wide margin

other: two

Cic.

Kumaniecki (1970)

advocate?: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 75)

outcome: C

Cic.

Marshall
(

outcome: A

Q. Cic.?

witnesses: Africans

outcome: A (senators for C,

other:

Cic.

claim:

outcome: dropped by mutual agreement

Cic.

outcome: A?

Cic.

outcome: C

Asc. 91C; Suet.

outcome: C

Asc. 90-91C; Suet.

outcome: A

Cic.

Marshall
(

outcome: C

Asc. 93C

other: charges of bribery

outcome: A by two votes

Cic.

L. Iulius Caesar (143) cos. 64, cens. 61 outcome: conviction,

Cic.

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)

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 20)

outcome: aborted by fictitious enemy raid For sources, bibliography, and further discussion, see case

date: 63 (before consular elections, July)

Cic.

outcome: incomplete

Cic.

M. Licinius Crassus (68) cos. 70, 55, cens. 65 (

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 25)

C.

Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (95) cos. 51 (nom. del.)

Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (96) (subscr.) sen.? outcome: A

Cic.

Ayers (1953/54); Michel (1972)

outcome: A

Cic.

charge: lex Plautia de vi (participation in conspiracy)

defendants: followers of Catiline

outcome: C

Suet.

date: spring of 62

defendant: C. Iulius Caesar (131) pr. 62, cos. 59, 48, 46. 45, 44

outcome: aborted; Novius, Vettius put in prison

Suet.

outcome: C?

Cic.

‘many people’ (

Allobroges outcome: C, exile in Greece

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

advocate: none

outcome: C?

Cic.

outcome: C?

Cic.

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 26)

L. Manlius Torquatus (80) pr. 50 or 49

outcome: A

other: Cicero said to have profited financially from the defense (Gel. 12.12.2)

Cic.

charge: lex Papia (illegal grant of citizenship)

Heraclienses outcome: A

Cic.

Husband (1913-14, 1914-15); Radin (1913-14, 1914-15);
Dillon (1941-42)

Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (228) cos. 56 (subscr.)

L. Cornelius Lentulus Niger (234) pr. by 61 (subscr.)

(Iuventius?) Talna (26) (voted A)

Plautus (2) sen.? (voted A)

Spongia (2) (voted A)

C. Causinius Schola (1) of Interamna, e.R.

Habra? (not in

Iulia (546?)

C. Iulius Caesar (131) procos. Farther Spain 61, cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44

L. Licinius Lucullus (104) cos. 74

M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford,

other: suspicion of bribery

Cic.

Lacey (1974)

or Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (228) cos. 56

or L. Cornelius Lentulus Niger (234) pr. by 61

outcome: A?

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

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

witnesses:

Parrhasius (2)

Philodorus of Tralles (not in

Cic.

either L. Caninius Gallus (3) tr. pl. 56

or L. Caninius Gallus (4) cos. 37

Q. Fabius Sanga (143) = ? Fabius Maximus (Sanga?) (108) cos. suff. 45

outcome: C, exile to Cephallenia

Cic.

outcome: defendant died in prison

Cic.

defendant: L. Valerius Flaccus (179) pr. 63

V. Max. 7.8.7

outcome: C

V. Max. 5.4.4; Dio 36.40.4

or Q. Minucius Thermus (67) tr. pl. 62, pr. by 58? or 53?

outcome: A

Cic.

or Q. Minucius Thermus (67) tr. pl. 62, pr. by 58? or 53?

outcome: A

Cic.

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 28)

Caetra (1),

L. Cornelius

D. Laelius (6) tr. pl. 54 (nom. del.)

Lucceius (2) (subscr.)

jurors:

L. Peducaeus (2) pref.? 62, e.R. or trib. aer.

Sex. (Peducaeus?) Stloga (Stloga [1])

M. Aufidius

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

P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) cos. 79, cens. 55

representatives of Achaea, Athens, Boeotia, Cyme, Dorylaion, Loryma, Massilia, Pergamum, Rhodes, Sparta, Thessalia

outcome: A

other: two

Cic.

du Mesnil (1883); Webster (1931)

outcome: praetor refused to accept case

Cic.

defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24)

outcome: A

Cic.

Gruen
(

defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59?

outcome: A

Cic.

Gruen
(

defendant: L. Calpurnius Bestia (25 = ? 24) aed. pl. ca 59?

outcome: A

Cic.

Gruen
(

outcome: A

Cic.

Gruen
(

outcome: dropped

Cic.

Cic.

outcome: defendant appealed to tr. pl. P. Clodius Pulcher (48), trial stopped by violence

Cic.

Greenidge (1901) 517

defendant: q. for 59 or 58

outcome: A?

Suet.

or L. Antistius Vetus (47) tr. pl. 56,

Suet.

Jones (1972) 5

outcome: C

Cic.

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.
^{2}.1882

outcome: trial obstructed by Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96) cos. 57, Ap. Claudius Pulcher (297) pr. 57, cos. 54, cens. 50, and by a tr. pl. 57

Cic.

Meyer (1922) 109 n. 3

outcome: dropped because Clodius assumed aedileship

For sources and bibliography, see case

date: set for 57

Cic.

Fallu (1970)

date: Nov. or Dec. 57

Cic.

outcome: C, as award prosecutor allowed to enter

Cic.

outcome: dropped

Cic.

outcome: A

other: possibly

Cic.

praetor or

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: dropped

Cic.

Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Vatia (241) = ? Batiatus (209)

Cic.

M. Licinius Crassus (68) cos. 70, 55, cens. 65 (

C. Licinius Macer Calvus

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 33)

M. Tullius (13)

T. Claudius (not in

C. Cosconius (5) pr. 54?

L. Cosconius (not in

(Cn.?) Gellius (1) e.R.

P. Vatinius (3) cos. 47

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: A (by three votes; senators for A,

Cic.

date: 56, during or after March

outcome: dropped?

Cic.

charge: lex Plautia de vi

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 34)

L. Herennius Balbus (18) (

L. Sempronius Atratinus

witnesses: ? C. Coponius (3) pr. 49

? T. Coponius (9)

Q. Fufius Kalenus (10) cos. 47

? familiares Clodiae (66) (

Cic.

Münzer (1909); Heinze (1925); Pacitti (l961); Linderski (1961);
Liebs (1967) 126

Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 (

prosecutor: someone from Gades who had lost

witnesses:

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: A (by a few votes)

[Cic.]

charge:

[Cic.]

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford,

Cic.

outcome: apparently case not completed

Cic.

? C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113)

M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (19) pr. or

other:

Cic.

charge: lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis (murder of

outcome: C, by a vote of twenty-eight to twenty-two

Cic.

Linderski (1969) 293-95;
Shackleton Bailey,

outcome: A

Cic.

See Linderski (1969) 284-87; also Taylor (1964) 18-22, Shackleton Bailey,

? C. Licinius Macer Calvus (113)

other:

Cic.

Linderski (1969)

defendant: C. Messius (2) aed. (cur.?)

outcome: A?

Sen.

outcome: A?

Sen.

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford,

jurors: from

outcome: uncertain

Cic.

date: 54 (defendant charged before July 1, rejection of jurors July 3, trial had not yet occurred on July 27)

Lucretius (1) = ? Q. Lucretius (12) sen.

Cic.

charge:

outcome: A (by four votes, senators and

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

Gruen
(

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 39)

M. Iuventius Laterensis (16) pr. 51 (nom. del.) (

jurors: from

outcome: A

other:

Cic.

Jones (1972) 59; Grimal (1975)

witnesses: Sardinians

Cic.

M. Claudius Marcellus (229) cos. 51 (

P. Clodius Pulcher (48) aed. cur. 56 (

Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Sch. 40)

M. Valerius Messalla Niger (266) cos. 61, cens. 55 (

M. Pacuvius Claudius

Q. Pacuvius Claudius

P. Valerius Triarius (367) (nom. del.) (

Valerius (10)

L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (90) cos. 58, cens. 50

Faustus Cornelius Sulla (377) q. 54 (

? 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

L. Aemilius Buca (37)

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?

M. (Popillius?) Laenas Curtianus (not in

other: Sixty days were granted for

Cic.

Cn. Domitius Calvinus (43) cos. 53, 40 (voted A)

C. Porcius Cato (6)

outcome: 32 votes for C, 38 for A

other:

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

Fasciato (1947)

outcome: uncertain

Cic.

outcome: uncertain

other: M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 working on behalf of defendant (as

Cic.

Cic.

outcome: condemned? in 52?

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

witnesses: people from Alexandria

outcome: C, exile

Cic.

P. Cornelius Sulla (386) (nom. del.) cos. des. 65

P. Cornelius Sulla (387) (subscr.), sen.?

C. Memmius (9) tr. pl. 54 (subscr.) outcome: dropped after condemnation of defendant in case

Cic.

witnesses: representative of people of Alexandria

outcome: uncertain

Cic.

Fascione (1974)

defendants: T. Annius Milo (67) pr. 55

Fausta Cornelia (436)

plaintiffs: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38

and Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.?

and P. Valerius Leo (218)

M. Claudius Marcellus (229) cos. 51

Faustus Cornelius Sulla (377) q. 54

Q. Hortensius Hortalus (13) cos. 69 (

M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63

outcome: uncertain

Asc. 34,

Asc. 34C

Q. Pompeius Rufus (41) tr. pl. 52

Asc. 34C

Lintott (1974) 71

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford,

Ap. Claudius Pulcher (298) cos. 38 (nom. del.)

Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.? (subscr.)

P. Valerius Nepos (278) (subscr.)

jurors:

M. Porcius Cato (16) pr. 54 (voted A)

P. Varius (4)

C. Causinius Schola (1) of Interamna

C. Clodius (7)

Fulvia (113)

M. Porcius Cato (20) pr. 54

Sempronia (102)

residents of Bovillae (Asc. 40C)

Cic.

Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) sen.?

Domitius (11) pr.? in 54

P. Valerius Leo (218) (subscr.)

outcome: C,

other: C. Ateius Capito

Asc. 38, 39, 54C; Dio 40.53.2

Syme
(

outcome: C, prosecutor received

Asc. 38-39, 54C

Q. Patulcius (2)

outcome: condemned in absence

Asc. 54C

defendant: M. Saufeius (6)

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford,

L. Fulcinius (3)

C. Valerius (52) outcome: A, twenty-six for A, twenty-five for C (for C, ten senators, nine

Asc. 55C

M. Tullius Cicero (29) cos. 63 (Crawford,

C. Fidius (1)

M. Seius

outcome: A (thirty-two for A, nineteen for C;

Asc. 55C

C. Caesennius Philo (11) outcome: C (46 votes for condemnation; five for acquittal: two senators, three

Asc. 55-56C

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: C, by one vote

Cic.

date: 52

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: C, exile in Athens

Cic.

(see case

outcome: dropped (cf. case

V. Max. 9.5.3; Asc. 30C; Plut.

outcome: C

V. Max. 9.5.3; Asc. 30C; Plut.

outcome: A?

Cic.

Cic.

outcome: A

Plut.

Plut.

outcome: C, exile to Ravenna

other: Cato prevented Cn. Pompeius Magnus (31) cos. 70, 55, 52 from delivering a

Cic.

outcome: C, exile to Bauli

Cael. apud Cic.

date: by June 51

outcome: A by three votes (by one vote in each order)

Cic.

or Q. Gallius (7) (Axianus?) pr. 43

Cael. apud Cic.

outcome: C, payment of fine

Cael. apud Cic.

D.-G. 3.7 n. 11

outcome: C

Cael. apud Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

Shackleton Bailey (1970) 165

outcome: C and exile?

Cael. apud Cic.

outcome: A

other:

Cael. apud Cic.

outcome: C,

Cic.

Cicero,

advocate: M. Caelius Rufus (35) aed. cur. 50, pr. 48

prosecutor: Pausanias (13)

outcome: praetor refused to accept case

Cic.

Cicero,

Cic.

jurors: same as in

outcome: tie vote, A?

Cic.

defendant: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299) perhaps sen.

Cic.

prosecutor: uncertain

Cael. apud Cic.

claim: civil suit

Cael. apud Cic.

party: Q. Fabius Gallus (Fadius 8)

peregrine? praetor:

outcome: A

M. Iunius Brutus (53) pr. 44 (

outcome: A

Cic.

Cael. apud Cic.

Cael. apud Cic.

Cael. apud Cic.

Cic.

outcome: A

Cael. in Cic.

claim: failure of defendant as censor to keep a

Cic.

outcome: C

outcome: A

Cic.

outcome: A

App.

Richardson (1987) 12

outcome: A

V. Max. 8.1. abs. 8

Cichorius,

outcome: C, prosecutor received reward of citizenship

Cic.

outcome: C, prosecutor received reward of citizenship

Cic.

Gruen,

witness: uncertain

Cic.

party: fratres (Cornelii?) Cossi (110a)

advocate (against Cossi): M. Antonius (28) cos. 99, cens. 97 (

Cic.

Münzer

Cic.

Roby (1886) 67-75

claim: civil suit (sale of house with undisclosed servitude [easement])

defendant: M. Marius Gratidianus (42) pr. 85?, 82 II ?

Cic.

Münzer

claim:

Cic.

Cic.

Wilkins,

V. Max. 9.1.1

Münzer

party: C. Visellius Aculeo (1) e.R.

Cic.

outcome: A

Cic.

C. Erucius (2) e.R.?

outcome: C

Quint.

charge: challenge to citizenship

Cic.

outcome: C, exile, fled to Mithridates

App.

outcome: C, pecuniary penalty

V. Max. 6.1.8

witness?: Octavius (not in

Plut.

Plut.

Plut.

defendant:

Cic.

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: A

V. Max. 8.1. abs. 6

charge: capital charge

defendant: L. Sergius Catilina (23) pr. 68

prosecutor: Licinius (not in

Asc. 93

date: 60s

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

outcome: C

Cic.

[Cic.]

outcome: A (in first

V. Max. 8.3.1

prosecutors: Mamertini

outcome: prosecution ended when verdict favorable to defendant obvious

Cic.

charge? claim?:

outcome: A

V. Max. 5.3.4; Sen.

outcome: C

V. Max. 8.5.6; Dio 45.16.2

outcome: C

other: Philippus, slave of defendant was tortured eight times.

V. Max. 8.4.3

charge: lex Cornelia? de aleatoribus

outcome: C, exile

Cic.

other: defendant tortured six times

V. Max. 8.4.2

defendant: C. Visellius Varro (3) aed. cur. 67, 66, or 59

plaintiff: Otacilia (19), wife of Laterensis, perhaps the mother of M. Iuventius Laterensis (16) pr. 51

outcome: charge dismissed

V. Max. 8.2.2

Watson (1965) 32-36; Gardner (1986) 73

Works Cited
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 Primus^{2}.
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 Oratio^{3}.
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 Tabellen^{2}.
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 Publicae^{4}.
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 Symmachum ^{2}.
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 Staatsrecht ^{3}. Leipzig,
1887-88
– Römische Geschichte ^{8}.
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

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

INDEXES
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

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