^{page 133 note 1} Plutarch, , Cic. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 2} Three recent biographies have appeared: Carney, T. F., A Biography of Gaius Marius (Proceedings of the African Classical Association, Supplement 1, 1962–3)Google Scholar; Ooteghem, J. van, Gaius Marius (Brussels, 1964)Google Scholar; Kildahl, Philip, Gaius Marius (New York, 1968).Google Scholar Professor Carney's brief biography for PACA has now been expanded into a full volume, A Biography of Gaius Marius (Chicago, 1968).Google Scholar For earlier work, see Badian, E., Historia xii (1962), 214–23.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 3} Van Ooteghem, op. cit. 23–9.

^{page 133 note 4} Mar. 45. 7.

^{page 133 note 5} See Mar. 2. 3, 34. 4, 45. 6.

^{page 133 note 6} Carney, PACA, 71.

^{page 134 note 1} Much doubt has been raised about Marius' responsibility for the carnage at Rome upon his return from exile a few months before his death in 86 b.c. The common earlier view, that he ended as a ‘half-crazy old mob leader’ (Cowell, F. R., Cicero and the Roman Republic [reprinted Baltimore, 1962], 116Google Scholar), has now yielded to a new interpretation of the inimical tradition in Plutarch's sources, placing the blame for these crimes rather on Carbo, Fimbria, and others, and pointing out that nowhere in our extant Republican sources is Marius pictured as having gone mad (see Kildahl, 163–70).

^{page 134 note 2} Tusc. v. 56. For a careful examination of Cicero's references to Marius see Carney, , WS lxxiii (1960), 83–122.Google Scholar Here Carney cites Cicero's tendency to blame the political chaos of 100 and 87–86 on figures other than Marius, e.g. Saturninus, Cinna, and Sulpicius (pp. 98–115). For a convenient listing of Cicero's references to Marius and other figures of the period see Rambaud, M., Cicéron et l'histoire romaine (Paris, 1953), 33–5.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} Cicero, Leg. ii. 6.

^{page 134 note 4} Cicero, Red. pop. 20.

^{page 135 note 1} Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), 65.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 2} Leg. ii. 5.

^{page 135 note 3} Desmouliez, M. A., Assoc. G. Budé, Cong, de Lyon 1958 (Paris, 1960), 299.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 4} Rep. i. 10.

^{page 135 note 5} Red. pop. 9–10; Red. sen. 38.

^{page 135 note 6} Taylor, L. R., Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1949), 3.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 7} Asconius, In tog. cand. 84. 24ff.

^{page 135 note 8} Sallust, Iug. 85. 10. Subsequently Metellus refused to meet with Marius; see Iug. 86. 5.

^{page 136 note 1} Sallust, Iug. 85. 12.

^{page 136 note 2} Ibid. 85. 31–2.

^{page 136 note 3} Syme, R., Sallust (Berkeley, 1964), 169.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 4} Iug. 85. 39.

^{page 136 note 5} Mar. 9. 2.

^{page 136 note 6} Syme, Sallust, 168.

^{page 136 note 7} Iug. 85. 13.

^{page 136 note 8} Ibid. 85. 29.

^{page 136 note 9} Ibid. 85. 30.

^{page 136 note 10} Earl, D. C., The Political Thought of Sallust (Cambridge, 1961), 77.Google Scholar On this speech see also Skard, E., SO xxi (1941), 89–102Google Scholar, and Carney, , SO xxxv (1959), 63–70.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 11} Earl, , The Moral arid Political Tradition of Rome (Ithaca, 1967), 50.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 1} In the same vein, it is far from certain that Marius was in fact either unlettered or boorish, as he appears to be in the Sallustian oration. See Carney, , PACA, 8–13Google Scholar; Kildahl, op. cit. 28–30.

^{page 137 note 2} For a discussion (with pertinent texts) see Thompson, L. A. in Studies in Cicero (Rome, 1962), 46 n. 2, 47, 59.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 3} Carney, PACA, 13, places great stress on the emotional nature of Cicero's attachment to Marius.

^{page 138 note 1} Rep. i. 6. For the details of Marius' exile see Carney, , Greece & Rome viii (1961), 98–121Google Scholar; Kildahl, op. cit. 148–62.

^{page 138 note 2} Plutarch, Mar. 27. 5.

^{page 138 note 3} See Carney, , WS lxxiii (1960), 122.Google Scholar Cicero's thought on the subject is neatly summed up in Parad, 16Google Scholar: ‘secundis rebus unus ex fortunatis hominibus, adversis unus ex summis viris videbatur.’

^{page 138 note 4} Red. pop. 9.

^{page 139 note 1} See the discussion by Carney, , WS lxxiii (1960), 86.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 2} Ibid. 115.

^{page 139 note 3} On this whole question see Nicolet, C., REL xxxviii (1960), 236–63.Google Scholar On Cicero's poetry, Mayor, J. E. B., Thirteen Satires of Juvenal (London and New York, 1888), ii. 56Google Scholar, has conveniently collected the literature from Cicero, Pis. 73 to Juvenal's time.

^{page 139 note 4} Plutarch, Caes. 6. 3. See Gelzer, M., Caesar: Politician and Statesman (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 38, 39 n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 5} Taylor, op. cit. 122.

^{page 140 note 1} Att. ix. 10. 3.

^{page 140 note 2} Rambaud, op. cit. 133.

^{page 140 note 3} Tusc. ii. 53.

^{page 140 note 4} The poem has been variously dated between 86 and 52 b.c. For a recent discussion see G. B. Townend ap. Dorey, T. A., Cicero (London, 1965), 121–3.Google Scholar Very interesting is the thesis of Benario, H. W., CW 1 (1956), 22–24Google Scholar, and CP lii (1957), 177–81Google Scholar, who believes that Marius dates from the early months of 59 b.c., the year of Caesar's consulship, and is intended to honour Caesar indirectly by complimenting Marius, his uncle by marriage. For the most recent bibliographical work see the discussion of the poems by Rowland, R. J. Jr., CW lx (1966), 111–12.Google Scholar This long survey article is extremely valuable in its entirety. The view of Kildahl, op. cit. 26, that ‘it can be assumed that Cicero wisely destroyed it [Marius] after Marius died and Sulla became dictator of Rome’ seems hardly tenable. All that can be said with absolute certainty about the date is summed up by Bailey, D. R. Shackelton, Cicero's Letters to Atticus (Cambridge, 1966), v. 339 n.: ‘Whether it was one of Cicero's juvenalia or composed after his return from exile has been disputed.’Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} For a useful brief summary on Marius' career see Smith, R. E., Cicero the Statesman (Cambridge, 1966), 13–16.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 1} Desmouliez, op. cit. 300; Thompson, op. cit. 77.

^{page 142 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 142 note 3} Rambaud, op. cit. 113.