^{page 255 note 1} See Autour des Gracques, 205–35; Mattingly, H. B., Y.R.S. lx (1970), I 54–68.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 2} Sherwin-White, A. N., J.R.S. lxii (1972), 83–105;Google ScholarGriffin, Miriam, C.Q. N.S. xxiii (1973), 121–6;Google ScholarNicolet, C. in Aufstieg und Untergang, i. 2 (1972), 200–2. The best text of the Lex Repetundarum (I adopt Sherwin-White's convenient title) is still C.I.L. i², no 582. I use it throughout as a basis.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 3} Gesammelte Schnften, i 51; Sherwin-White, op. cit. 86 f.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 4} As they were for Sisenna in 78 B.C. (C.I.L. i², no. 588. 2 f., Greek). For Pulchet see C.I.L. i². 1, p. 200 with Cic. II in Verr 2. 49. 122.

^{page 255 note 5} Cicero, Arch. 4. 7–5. 9.

^{page 255 note 6} For discussion of the date and the problem of this collegium (Cicero) of only three praetors see Badian, P.A.C.A. i (1958), 3–5Google Scholar (he suggested 88 B.c.). There is no problem really, since the provincial praetors will have left Italy on the 89 B.c. dating and a board of three was legally a collegium (Digest 1. 16. 85). On Asellio's murder (23 Jan. ?) Badian has an excellent treatment in Historia xviii (1969), 475–8. An urban praetor was not replaced on death in 184 B.c., but the circumstances were quite exceptional: see Livy 39. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 7} Cicero, de orat. I, 37. 168.

^{page 256 note 1} See R.E. iiA, col. 1786 f. and Broughton, M.R.R. 24 n. 5 for the sources and good discussion. For Scaurus' counter see Asconius in Scaur. 2IC and Floras 2. 5. 5 (Caepio charged Scaurus with ambitus!).Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 2} See Broughton, M.R.R. ii 24 n. 4 for the evidence. Diodoros (37. 13) and Velleius (2. 15) make this Servilius praetor at his death (Dec. 91 B.c.?).

^{page 256 note 3} Sherwin-White's argument in op. cit. 87 n. 21 is hard to accept. Note Cicero's language in pro Rab. perd. 7. 20 f.: ‘fit senatus consultum ut C. Marius L. Valerius consules adhiberent tribunos pl. et praetores quos eis videretur … adhibent omnis tribunos pl. praeter Saturninum, praetores praeter Glauciam … parent mines … cum omnes praetores, cuncta nobilitas ac iuventus accurreret … quid tandem C. Rabirium facere convent?’

^{page 256 note 4} Only in 89 B.C. might there be reasonable doubt on this point. The law-courts' activity was apparently suspended in 90 B.C., except for the Varian commission-and even that may have been suspended later for a while, before resuming under changed jury-arrangements (the Lex Plautia of 89 B.c.). See on this the excellent discussion by Badian, in Historia xviii (1969), 46. Under such wartime conditions the third praetor in the capital may have had the convenient province quo senatus censuisset: for this see Livy 42. 31. 7 and 44. 17. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 5} Op. cit. 86 f.

^{page 256 note 6} Diodoros 36. 2. 5 f. and 8. I.

^{page 256 note 7} See Livy 32. 1. 6; 42. 6. 10 with 27. 4; 42. 18. 2 f. with 27. 3–8; Frontinus, de aqued. I. 7 (Marcius Rex, 144 B.C.).

^{page 256 note 8} See Badian, , Athenaeum N.s. xxxvii (1959), 279–303.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 9} See the sources and discussion in Broughton, M.R.R. ii 15 f. (with nn. 4 and 5). C. Sentius went to Macedonia, L. Gellius Poplicola to Asia or Cilicia.

^{page 256 note 10} See C.I.L. i². 2, P. 2, p. 198 with Broughton's discussion in M.R.R. 17 and 19 n. 2.

^{page 256 note 11} I follow Passerini (Athen. N.S. xii [1934], 17)Google Scholar in rejecting Marius ' Spanish command after his praetorship in Rome in 115 B.c., which is reported by Plutarch (Marius 6. 1). The elogium omits it (C.LL. i² I, p. 195) and I suspect that Plutarch's source confused Marius with his brother, who certainly governed in Spain c. 102 B.C. (Appian, Iber. 100: Broughton, , M.R.R. i 568). Broughton unconvincingly follows Plutarch (op. cit. 534 and n. 3).Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 1} As by Mommsen (Ges. Schr. i 61) and more recently by Badian (C.R. N.s. iv [1954], 101 f.)Google Scholar and myself (I.R.S. lx [1970], 164–8).Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 2} See Sherwin-White, op. cit. 96 f., and Griffin, Miriam, C.Q.N.S. xxiii (1973), 123–5Google Scholar (independent). For Cossinius, L. the juror see R.E. iv, col. 1671 no. 1: for the Coponii see pro Caelio 10. 24 and R.E. iv, col. 1215 no. 3. C. Coponius (summo splendore praeditus: Cic.) was a Pompeian supporter as praetor in 49 B.C., but survived the proscriptions and was still alive just before Actium. Cicero defended Caelius in early April 56 B.C. (see R. G. Austin's edition, App. iv), while the Balbus trial followed the speech de provinciis consularibus in the summer (see 27. 61).Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 3} The two Latins benefited from this statute and not the old extortion law—as Sherwin-White (op. cit. 97) might seem to imply. On that supposition the argument num fundos factos would be irrelevant. It did not matter whether Tibur had—or had not—‘become bound’ to the Lex Servilia, if its two citizens became Romans before its passage.

^{page 257 note 4} See Badian, , C.R. N.s. iv (1954), 101 f.Google Scholar (Caepio); Nicolet, C., L'ordre équestre (1966), 535 f. (Caepio);Google ScholarLevick, Barbara, C.R. N.s. xvii (1967), 266 ff. (Glaucia);Google ScholarGruen, E., C.R. xix (1969), 8–1 (Caepio); Sherwin-White, op. cit. 96 f. (non-committal); Miriam Griffin, op. cit. 123–6 (Caepio).Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 1} I take populi iussu as echoing lege Servilia. There seems no reason why in Cicero's sentence both these ablatives should not have the same construction, despite Sherwin-White (op. cit. 97 n. 86) and Griffin (op. cit. 125). Apposition of this sort can be paralleled. See for example Cicero de hams. resp. 132: ‘si minus civili iure perscriptum est, lege tamen naturae, communi iure gentium sanctum est.’ It is easier to accept in view of the long gap between lege Servilia and the resumptive populi iussu.

^{page 258 note 2} Note Cato frg. 167 (Malcovati O.R.F. ², 65): ‘ecqua tandem lex est tam acerba quae dicat … ?’ For useful comments on my first statement of this view see Griffin (op. cit. 123 f.).

^{page 258 note 3} Sherwin-White (op. cit. 93–7) and Griffin (op. cit. 125) effectively refuted my honest attempt in J.R.S. lx (1970), 165–8 to grapple with the difficulty which I then saw in the evidence.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 4} See J.R.S. lx (1970), 159 (following Carcopino); Sherwin-White, op. cit. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 5} I would not now follow Carcopino and Sherwin-White (87 n. 23) in inserting ampliur after pronontiato. I think that this word is already implied in ita and that the adverb should precede the verb here anyway. I have adjusted Mommsen's lacunae length on the assumption that a-b gaps should be reduced by c. 35 letters and that the tablet was that much less wide than Mommsen thought. For my full case see J.R.S. lix (1969), 129–38;Google ScholarLatomus xxx (1971), 283;Google ScholarJ.R.S. lx (1970), 159 and n. 23. Kirsten Johannsen in her ‘Die lex agraria des Jahres III v. Chr.’ (Dirs. Munchen, 1971) has recently made a concerted attack on my rearrangement, rightly insisting that it must work on both sides of the tablet (pp. 10–21). I have read her arguments very carefully twice and am not shaken. She has not fully appreciated the way in which the tiny frg. f helps to determine the correct mutual position of the e and d fragments. Nor does she face the challenge presented by DE Ṇ and REO AP (now lost) in Lex Repetundarum 55. Mommsen implausibly saw them as parts of two headings with c. 4.0 letter spaces between in his text. I still think that we must run them together as one heading DE ṚEO AP[SOLVEND0].Google Scholar

^{page 259 note 1} For two-thirds as the voting quorum see line 49.

^{page 259 note 2} In II in Verr. I. 9. 25 Cicero talks though even the necessity for two hearing was felt as an oppressive burden: ‘‘adimo enim comperendinationem’: quod habet lex in se molestissimum, bis ut causa dicatur.’

^{page 259 note 3} Autour des Gracques, 216f.

^{page 259 note 4} I in Verr. 13. 38: ‘cognoscet ex me popu us Romanus quid sit, quam ob rem, ctur equester ordo iudicaret annos prope quin quaginta continuos in nullo, iudices, equit Romano iudicante ne tenuissima quiden suspicio acceptae pecuniae ob rem iudican. dam constituta sit.’

^{page 259 note 5} For such pressures see Cicero, pro Caecina 2. 6–4. 9. He was insisting that the recuperaiores should reach a verdict after a least two adjournments. He imagines a juror protesting ‘qua re aut muta actionem aut noli mihi instare ut iudicem tauten’.

^{page 259 note 6} See, for example, pro Cluentio 28. 76, when Cicero analyses the motives of various group of jurors. Oppianicus was, however, con demned at the first hearing (74 a.c.): this was still possible in murder trials. Apparently Fidiculanius Falcula cast the decisive vote, though he had been substituted late and dubiously. See pro Caecina 10. 28 f. (hostile) and pro Cluentio 37. 103–41. 114.

^{page 259 note 7} Ad Herennium 4. 36. 48. For the placing of this speech note ‘maximis privatis et publicis calamitatibus acceptis … sedetis … aliquid cotidie acerbi atque incommodi nuntiatur; et iam eum, cuius opera nobis haec accidunt, vos remoramini …’. Compare Asconius, in Carnelian. 80_c (of Silanus) ‘criminabatur rem cum Cimbris iniussu populi gessisse idque principium fuisse calamitatum quas eo bello populus accepisset’. The worst calamitas—Arausio—came in October 105 B.C.: the next year, as Asconius tells us, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus launched his attack as tribune for perduellio.

^{page 259 note 8} See the sources on the Lex Servilia Caepionis in Greenidge and Clay, Sources for Roman History ², 78. Note especially the fragment from Crassus quoted in de orat. I 52. 225: ‘eripite nos ex miseriis, eripite ex faucibus eorum quorum crudelitas <nisi> nostro sanguine non potest expleri.’

^{page 260 note 1} This amplifies my argument in J.R.S. lx (1970), 159Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 2} Note in II in Verr. 2. 9. 26 how Cicero asks the defence ‘utram putas legem molliorem?’ and answers for them ‘opinor, illam veterem, qua vel cito absolvi vel tarde condemnari licebat.’ Tarde should imply more than just one unpenalized adjournment. The same should be true of the ad Herennium passage also. The speech continues ‘… vos remoramini diutius et alitis ad rei publicae perniciem, retinetis quoad potestis in civitate?’ The phrase quoad licebit would better fit the conditions envisaged by the Lex Repetundarum.

^{page 260 note 3} As I argued in J.R.S. lx (1970), 157 f. Sherwin-White's answer (op. cit. 85) was rather non-committal: Griffin (op. cit. 122) contented herself with invoking the authority of Kunkel as well as Mommsen.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 4} See pro Rab. Post. 7. 16: ‘potentissimo et nobilissimo tribuno plebis M. Druso novam in equestrem ordinem quaestionem ferenti ‘si quis ob rem iudicandam pecuniam accepisset’ aperte equites Romani restiterunt.’ The speech is firmly fixed in 54 B.C. (S. II).

^{page 260 note 5} Nuper can cover long intervals in Cicero. See idiv. in Caec. 20.67 and II in Verr. 2.47. 118 (104–70 B.c.); ibid.. 49. 522 (95–70 BM.); ibid.. 5. 33. 85 (c. 92–70 B.c.) and 4. 3. 6 (90s–70 B.c.); de officiis 2. 17. 58 (70s?–46 B.C.) and 3. 47. (65–46 B.C.). So there can be no objection to making it span the interval 91–54 B.C. in pro Plancin.

^{page 260 note 6} As Sherwin-White (op. cit. 85) and Griffin (op. cit. 122) seem to hold. Neither—perhaps rightly—will allow that Cicero's text may need amending.

^{page 261 note 1} See Strachan-Davidson, Problems of Roman Criminal Law ii. 106 f. Note especially ‘According to this non tulerunt means that the Romans could not bear the editicius iudes even under the mildest aspect, and permiscuerunt means that rather than have him ‘they plunged the country in confusion’, ‘gave the signal for civil war’.’ I find this admirable except for the implications of that ‘even … aspect’ phrase.

^{page 261 note 2} See pro Murena 23. 47: pro Plancio 15. 37 and 17. 41 f.

^{page 261 note 3} Brutus 34. 128 (they ruined Opimius, Gracchi interfectorem).

^{page 261 note 4} On Mamilius see Sallust Jug. 40 and the criticisms eloquently voiced by L. Crassu: (de oral. 1. 52. 225 and Brut. 44. 164). In the Brutus we hear of the potentia and factio of the jurors and prosecutors.

^{page 261 note 5} For severus etc. see II in Verr. 4. 10. 22; ibid.. 59. 133 and 3. 90. 210; pro Balbo 5. II ( jurors c. 112 B.c., gravissimi); I in Verr. 17. 51 (the Lex Acilia). For uses of acerbus see pro Plancio 15. 37 and 17. 42 and pro Sulla 33. 92 (jurors chosen by prosecution ad spem acerbitatis). At Sulla's trial the jurors were not strictly editicii, but the prosecution resorted to dubious surprise tactics to secure a similar result. In characterizing Rufus' hard line in 63 B.C. Cicero spelt out the acerbitas of the editicii indices: ‘… ut odia occulta civium quae tacitis nunc discordiis continentur in fortunas optimi cuiusque erumperent.’

^{page 261 note 6} For example many think him wrong on the date of the famous trial of L. Cotta and of Scipio's eastern embassy. See Astin, A. J., Scipio Aemilianus, 258 and 127.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 7} See Cic. pro Rab. Post. 4. 8–so and 13. 37.

^{page 262 note 1} See I.R.S. lx (1970), 162 f.: Sherwin White, op. cit. 87–91; Griffin, op. cit. 122 f Sherwin-White reckoned on a minimum of 300 letters. But his dummy clause contains a least two unnecessary inserts (90 n. 39): exve praedibus qui dati suet and sive praedes dederit reus. The quo ea pecunia clause did no come into operation si praedes dati cunt (pr. Rab. Post. 13. 37), and, if the condemner man had not given sureties, then his good would have been automatically seized and sold (see Lex Repetundarum 57 f.). The fact of his failure would not be noted here.Google Scholar

^{page 262 note 2} This seems to be the general meaning of the passage, though I doubt some of Mommsen's restorations.

^{page 262 note 3} Mommsen organized the first lacuna very differently. He began with ‘… dolo m[alo quo minus ita satis fiat itaque solvatur …]’ and ended with ‘[∼De tributo indicend∼ Quanti iudex quei eam rem quaesierit, leites aestumaverit, sei is iud]ex ex hace lege…’. I see no need for the new paragraph. Logically the clause looking to proportional repayment rounds off the section on how the victims are to recover their claims from the Treasury.

^{page 262 note 4} For the adjustment in lacuna length see above, p. 258 n. 5. Even with Mommsen's too long restorations and the new paragraph (see last n.) there would be c. 95 letter-spaces spare, for which no plausible content can be provided.

^{page 262 note 5} See Lex Repetundarum 58 f. with 23 and 74 (81).

^{page 262 note 6} ‘hoc scitote… his nominibus solis en. Dolabellae HS ad triciens litem esse aestimatam.’

^{page 263 note 1} He could have written ‘qua in civitatc C. Cato… condemnatus sit, quod HS contra leges a sociis cepisset…’.

^{page 263 note 2} He does not spare them when he call their town in this passage ‘that pirate's safc refuge' (10. 25), where all Verres’ loot wal stored. He mentions their hostility to Catc only to put their present sympathies in an even worse light.

^{page 263 note 3} See Sherwin-White (op. cit. 86), whc suggests in passing that I might consider this possibility. The author of the law was surely M. Iunius Silanus (cos. 109 B.C.) and 123 B.C. would seem a perfectly feasible date. See Broughton, op. cit. i. 513. The Lex Acilia could follow in 122 B.C. and change the jury-panel for the extortion court (and any future quaestiones?). I do not think that Griffin's subtle arguments (op. cit. loo ff. and 122) rule out my present position. For my earlier view see J.R.S. lx (1970), 160–2.Google Scholar