From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (57 page)

1 SOURCES FOR 99–79 B.C. See Greenidge and Clay
op. cit
. The surviving or partly surviving sources are roughly the same as those mentioned in notes 1 to chs. II and III, especially Appian (
BC
, 1, 33–106), Plutarch (
Lives of Marius
and
Sulla
), Livy, ‘Periochae’, 70–89, fragments of Diodorus, books 36–8, of Licinianus (dealing with 87–79 B.C.), references in Cicero (and his speech
Pro Sex. Roscio
) and in Strabo, etc. The lost works included the
Memoirs
of Sulla (of which Plutarch made use) and the
Histories
by Sempronius Asellio, which went down to 91 B.C., and by L. Cornelius Sisenna, who was praetor in 78, defended Verres in 70 and was a legate of Pompey in 67; his work, which continued Asellio’s, began in 90 B.C. and went down to 82 or more probably to Sulla’s death. On Sisenna see E. Badian,
JRS
, 1962, 50 ff. =
Studies
, 212 ff., and also
Athenaeum
, 1964, 422 ff., where he argues that Sisenna was in Rome during the
dominatio Cinnae
and later wrote his history in the spirit of an apologia for those who shared his experience. But see J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
JRS
, 1965, 231. An account of the Social War was written by Lucullus in Greek. On the Mithridatic War there is Appian’s
Mithridatica
; a fragment from Posidonius which provides a portrait of Aristion, the leader in Athens in 88 (frg. in Athenaeus, V, 211); and the relevant part of a local history of Heraclea in Pontus written by a citizen named Memnon (Jacoby,
Frag. Griech. Hist.
IIIB, 434, 22–6). Some inscriptions and coins are mentioned below. On Sisenna see now also E. Rawson,
Cl. Qu.
, 1979, 327 ff. [p. 52]

2 FAMOUS TRIALS. These involved (
a
) Sex. Titius who was alleged to have kept a bust of Saturninus in his house (98): condemned; (
b
) P. Furius (tribune 100), who with Marius had deserted Saturninus, was accused twice: first acquitted and then lynched by the mob (98); (
c
) the younger Caepio, who had opposed Saturninus’ corn-law: acquitted; (
d
) C. Norbanus, Saturninus’ friend (probably in 95): though Scaurus, the Princeps Senatus, testified against him, he was acquitted; (
e
) Scaurus, accused of extortion in the East by young Caepio (92): he postponed the trial indefinitely by counter-attacking Caepio, who was acquitted. For the trials of Caepio and Norbanus, and also for Marius’ supporters in these years, see E. Badian,
Historia
, 1957, 318 ff. =
Studies
, 34 ff. For all these political prosecutions in the 90s, see Gruen,
Historia
, 1966, 32 ff., and
Rom. Pol.
, 187 ff. He believes that Furius was tried once and that Scaurus was tried and acquitted. [p. 52]

2a THE LEX LICINIA-MUCIA. Despite Schol. Bob. 296, this was not an expulsion act: see E. Badian,
For Cl.
, 297, and cf.
JRS
, 1973, 127. The men condemned under this law may previously have been enrolled gradually (thus P. A. Brunt,
JRS
, 1965, 106 f.) or by the censors of 97–6 (so E. Badian,
Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic
(1968), 104f. and
Dialoghi
, 405 f. (cited in n. 31 above). [p. 53]

3 MUCIUS SCAEVOLA. E. Badian (
Athenaeum
, 1956, 104 ff.) dates the proconsulship of Scaevola in Asia to 94 B.C. He argues that Aemilius Scaurus, who led an embassy to the East, went there in 96 and realized the need for reform in Asia: hence he will have proposed that a consular governor should be sent out to Asia and have sponsored the
appointment of Scaevola. That Scaurus was the prosecutor of Rutilius may have been the erroneous belief of his descendant Mam. Aemilius Scaurus, consul in A.D. 21 (Tacitus,
Annals
, 3, 66: see E. Badian
Cl. Rev.
, 1958, 216 ff.). B. Marshall,
Athenaeum
, 1976, 117 ff., believes that Scaevola governed Asia as praetor or soon after (
c.
98). On Scaevola’s contribution to Roman law see O. Behrends,
Die Wissenschaftslehre im Zivilrecht des Q. Mucius Scaevola Pontifex
(1976). [p. 53]

4 DRUSUS’ LEGISLATION. For Drusus as champion of the Senate see Cicero,
de orat
. 1. 7. 24,
pro Milone
7. 16; Diodorus, 37, 10. The chronology of his measures is uncertain: cf. R. Thomsen,
Classica et Mediaevalia
, 1942, 13 ff. Velleius (2. 14) suggests that the franchise proposal was among the later measures, and indeed something of an afterthought. For the
lex Saufeia
see the
elogium
of Drusus (Greenidge,
Sources
²
, 128); for the decemviral commission and an inscription from Vibo,
ibid
, 131. Drusus, or perhaps less probably his father (whose claim is supported by H. Mattingly,
Proc. Brit. Acad.
, xxxix, 242), carried a currency law:
octavam partem aeris argento miscuit
(Pliny,
NH
, 33. 46). That this means that Drusus arranged that one silver-plated
denarius
should be officially issued in every issue of eight ordinary silver ones has been rejected by M. Crawford (
Num. Chron.
, 1968, 57 f.;
RRC
, 616) who argues that plated coins were never officially minted and since there is no trace of debasement in
denarii
of the years immediately after 91 B.C., the story about Livius Drusus may refer to an annulled or abortive proposal. Regarding the courts, Velleius (2. 13. 2) records that Drusus wanted to restore them to the Senate, Appian (
Bell. Civ.
1. 35) that he wanted to add 300 Equites to the Senate and to entrust the courts to this enlarged Senate, and the Epitome of Livy (71) says that he carried a law establishing mixed juries. For an attempt to reconcile the versions of Appian and Livy, see E. Gabba,
La Parola del Passato
, 1956, 363 ff. and
Annali d. Sc. Norm. di Pisa
, 1964, 1 ff., who accepts Appian’s account and thinks that Livy is merely a muddled version of the same tradition. For the clause making the Equites liable to prosecution on charges of corruption to secure an unjust conviction, see Cicero,
Cluent.
15.3;
Rabir. Post.
16. Cf. U. Ewins,
JRS
, 1960, 94 ff. On Drusus’ friends (the enemies of Marius), e.g. the Metelli, see E. Badian,
Historia
, 1957, 318 ff.; Gruen,
Rom. Pol.
, 206 ff. Some Etruscans and Umbrians went to Rome to agitate against Drusus’ land law (not his citizenship law: on this see E. Badian,
Historia
, 1962, 225 f. =
Studies
, 36 ff.). J. Heurgon has found traces of Etruscan propaganda against Drusus in an Etruscan prophecy by a prophetess called Vegoia: see
JRS
, 1959, 41 ff. For further discussion of Drusus’ judiciary law see E. J. Weinrib,
Historia
, 1970, 414 ff. and A. R. Hands,
Phoenix
, 1972, 268 ff. The second of Gabba’s articles mentioned above is now translated in his
RR
,
Army
, 130 ff. [p. 54]

5 DRUSUS AND THE ITALIANS. Diodorus records (37. 13) that an army of 10,000 Italians started to march on Rome during Drusus’ lifetime until persuaded that their claims would be considered. He also quotes (37. 11) an oath alleged to have been sworn by his Italian friends to Drusus. This might be a document, not necessarily genuine, produced at the subsequent trials. [p. 54]

6 LEX VARIA DE MAIESTATE. The lex Varia is usually interpreted as a law which set up a
quaestio extraordinaria
to try those ‘by whose help or counsel allies had taken up arms against the Roman people’. E. S. Gruen, however, has argued (
JRS
, 1965, 59 ff.) that it did not establish a special court but redefined the charge of
maiestas
and thus superseded the existing standing court
de maiestate
which Saturninus had established; it will have continued in this form until Sulla’s legislation. R. Seager (
Historia
, 1967, 37 ff.) has countered Gruen’s arguments but has not convinced Gruen (see
Rom. Pol.
, 216, n. 2). However, E. Badian (
Historia
, 1969, 447 ff.) has reinforced the attack and may well be thought to have re-established the traditional position. The victims
included L. Calpurnia Bestia (
cos.
111) who, anticipating trouble, went into exile; C. Aurelius Cotta, Drusus’ friend and future consul of 75, denounced the court and went into exile; and another friend, L. Memmius. (On Memmius see T. P. Wiseman,
Cl. Qu.
1967, 163 ff.) Three men got off; M. Antonius (
cos.
99) thanks to his powers of oratory, Scaurus, and Q. Pompeius Rufus (
cos.
88). It is usually believed that the court was suspended when the military situation got worse during the Social War, but H. Hill,
Roman Middle Class
, 136, argues that the evidence (Cicero,
Brut.
304; Asconius, p. 73 Cl.) suggests that it alone continued, the other courts being temporarily suspended. Badian (
Historia
, 1969, 452 ff.) argues that the regular courts had already been suspended before Varius carried his law establishing the special court. He also shows that Varius’ ultimate fate was exile, not execution. [p. 54]

7 THE LATIN CITIES. Their loyalty to Rome may be partly explained by the fact that their local magistrates had been granted Roman citizenship, perhaps from 124 B.C. As these changed annually, by 90 B.C. the nucleus of the governing class in each city would be Roman citizens, whose sympathies and loyalties would be directed to Rome. Cf. G. Tibiletti,
Rendiconti Ist. Lombardo
, lxxxvi, 1953, 45 ff. Venusia had become partly Oscanized. [p. 55]

8 AIMS OF THE ALLIES. In general see A. N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Citizenship
²
, 134 ff., and P. A. Brunt,
JRS
, 1965, 90 ff. There is not much evidence for a division of loyalty within the cities on social and economic lines, though sufficient to permit Mommsen to hold that the local aristocracies were more loyal to Rome and that the rural middle classes were the real rebels. A recent view suggests that the commercial classes in the Italian cities were particularly discontented and when trading abroad felt keenly their inferior status to that of the Roman citizens (see E. Gabba,
Athenaeum
, 1954, 41–114, 293–345, a valuable discussion, although its main thesis is not acceptable). It is true that the Italians were helping to exploit the provinces, but these traders came mostly from Campania and the south rather than from the Oscan heart of the rebellion. Cf. E. Badian,
For. Cl.
220 ff. and
Historia
, 1962, 223 ff. = Seager,
Crisis
, 29 ff. E. T. Salmon (
Phoenix
, 1962, 107 ff.) attributes the cause of the war to the ‘principes Italicorum populorum’, the Italian bourgeoisie, whose economic and commercial interests (especially in the provinces) were badly affected when the Equites gained control of the law courts at Rome: Roman citizenship would give them equality of privilege, and many would in fact become knights. Their resentment grew in the nineties, with the
lex Licinia Mucia
and the failure of Drusus’ judiciary and citizenship laws. So they turned to war and to the old hatred of the Sabellian tribes for Rome; the masses could easily be stirred once their leaders wanted and agreed upon action. Salmon also (
Samnium and the Samnites
(1967), ch. 9) discusses the grievances of the allies which included the fact that their notable contribution to the victories over Jugurtha and the Germans ‘had been rewarded by having it made clear that they were to remain second-class inhabitants of Italy’ (p. 335), while the irritation caused by the Lex Licinia Mucia ‘happened at a moment when a lull in the external wars left a lot of trained Italian soldiers temporarily, and dangerously, unemployed’. P. A. Brunt (op. cit.) upholds the traditional view that the allied ‘demand for citizenship is essentially a demand for the
ius suffragii
’ (p. 103) and argues that their desire to become Roman citizens ‘reflects the success of Rome in unifying them in sentiment and was stimulated by the Cimbric war and by the career of Marius and other
novi homines
of his time’ (90). They ‘could reckon that enfranchisement would not substantially reduce such autonomy as they still possessed’ (103). D. B. Nagle,
AJ Arch.
, 1973, 366 ff., examines Italy, region by region, and suggests that the allies found Rome’s increasing pervasiveness difficult to accept. ‘It was not so much the threat of renewed land commission activity that led to
the revolt as the reaffirmation implicit in Drusus’ law (even though abrogated) of Rome’s basic policy of allowing – and on occasion actively encouraging – her citizen landowners, large and small, to exploit the gigantic holdings of
ager publicus
added to her territory in the third and second centuries’ (p. 367). An English translation of Gabba’s article has now appeared in his
RR, Army
, 70 f. [p. 55]

9 THE ITALIAN CONFEDERACY. See Diodorus 37.2; Strabo, 5. 241. Roman model (Mommsen); representative government (T. Frank,
Roman Imperialism
, 301 ff.); binary league (Domaszewski,
Sitz. Ber. Wien
, 1925, and R. Gardner,
CAH
, IX, 186); primarily military and not representative government (H. D. Meyer,
Historia
, 1958, 74 ff.). See further discussion by E. T. Salmon,
Samnium and the Samnites
(1967), 348 ff., who
inter alia
believes that the government at Corfinium was similar to that of the Thessalian League which Flamininus had set up in 196. See also A. N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Citizenship
²
, (1973), 147, who (contra Meyer) doubts the existence of a primary assembly of citizens. [p. 55]

10 THE ITALIAN WAR. Our knowledge is very unsatisfactory since the account written by a contemporary writer Sisenna is lost and the surviving information from other writers is very scrappy. The Livian tradition has been analysed in detail by J. Haug,
Würzburger Jahrb. für die Altertumswiss
, 1947, 106 ff. On the coinage issued by the Italians see Sydenham,
CRR
, 89 ff.; according to A. Voirol (
Gazette Numism. Suisse
, 1953–4, 64 ff.) the issues move from bilingual to Oscan anti-Roman ones. See also M. H. Crawford,
Num. Chron.
, 1964, 145 ff. On the identification of the twelve
populi
who formed the anti-Roman league and on the generals whom they supplied to the rebel forces see E. T. Salmon,
TAPA
, 1958, 159 ff. On the war see further Salmon,
Samnium
, ch. 10. On Sisenna and the war see P. Frasinetti,
Athenaeum
, 1972, 78 ff.
La guerra sociale
(1976) by G. De Sanctis, a surviving section of the uncompleted part of his great
Storia dei Romani
, deals with the political history of 91–88 B.C. as well as with the war itself. [p. 55]