From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (55 page)

32 NE QUIS IUDICIO CIRCUMVENIATUR. N. J. Miners has argued (
Cl. Qu.
, 1958, 241 ff.) that this law was directed against senators who conspired to secure a false condemnation of a Roman citizen on a capital charge. U. Ewins (
JRS
, 1960, 94 ff.) also dissociates it from the extortion court: rather, it was designed to prevent unfair use of judicial powers by senators against the people; although similar in object to the
lex Sempronia de provocatione
(Miners, following Mommsen, would identify the two laws), it will have been a separate law. (It will also have been adapted by the younger Drusus in 91 to cover bribery by Equites.) See also A. H. M. Jones,
op. cit.
in n. 31. The provision which excluded Equites from the ambit of the bill makes better sense if the bill was directed not against the
quaestio de repetundis
, which Gracchus at some point handed over to the Equites, but against the special tribunals which his
Lex Sempronia de provocatione
established: though such courts could now be set up only on the authority of the People, they would be manned by members of the senatorial class and ‘Gracchus, from the experience of 132, was worried about senators, not
equites
’ (Gruen,
Rom. Pol.
, 86). [p. 30]

33 DRUSUS’ LEGISLATION. A passage of Sallust (
Iug.
69. 4) has often been taken (see H. Last,
CAH
, X, 72) as implying that Drusus’ measure protecting the Latins was carried out. But see E. Badian,
For. Cl.
, 190 and below ch. III n. 17. [p. 30]

34 LEX RUBRIA. References in Livy, Plutarch and Appian suggest that Rubrius was tribune in 122, though other writers assign his tribunate to 123. In support of 122 see H. Last,
CAH
, IX, 891. One of the strongest arguments for 122 has been a reference in an inscription from Astypalaea (Greenidge,
Sources
²
, 84) to a
lex Rubria Acilia
(thus if Acilius was tribune in 122, cf. n. 31 above, then Rubrius must have been also). But Tibiletti (
op. cit.
) has argued that the phrase
in the inscription must refer not to a joint law but to two laws, one carried by Rubrius and the other by Acilius, and that therefore the men were tribunes in different years. If this argument is accepted (as it is by Badian,
op. cit.
) and the possibility is excluded that they carried two laws in the same year, and if Acilius belongs to 122, then Rubrius’ law to found Junonia would belong to 123. See E. Badian,
For. Cl.
300 f., but he now (
Historia
, 1962, 206, n. 31 = Seager,
Crisis
, 12) doubts the identity of the Rubrius of the inscription with the founder of Junonia. A large area in N.E. Tunisia still shows traces of the division of the land into units (
centuriae
) of 200
iugera
each; part of this may represent allotments at Junonia: see J. Bradford,
Ancient Landscapes
(1957), 197 ff. and pl. 48; R. Chevallier,
Mélanges d’arch.
, 1958, 61 ff.; K. Johannsen,
Die lex agraria des Jahres 111 v. Chr
. (Munich Dissertation, 1971), 341 ff. On the rural centuriation by Gaius and the urban grid system of the Augustan colony of Carthage, see E. M. Wightman,
New Light on ancient Carthage
(1980, ed. by J. G. Pedley), 34 ff. [p. 30]

35 FANNIUS. E. S. Gruen (
Rom. Pol.
, 93) thinks that Fannius was never closely attached to the Gracchi: his earlier connexions were with the Scipionic group. C. Gracchus supported his candidature for 122 only in default of better candidates (L. Opimius was certainly worse). [p. 31]

36 THE FRANCHISE BILL. E. Badian (
For. Cl.
, 185 ff., 299 ff.) has argued that Gracchus proposed only one
lex de sociis
, which was vetoed by Drusus (Dec. 123–Jan. 122); Gracchus then left for Africa. With the help of the renegade consul Fannius, Drusus developed his programme, which was to stir up the Roman people (hitherto not much concerned by proposals in favour of the allies) against the Italians, and secondly to split the Italians by setting the Latins against the rest. Thus when Gracchus on his return to Rome promulgated his bill, it was defeated. K. Meister,
Chiron
, 1976, 113 ff., argues for a
rogatio
of Gaius (mid 122) which granted Roman rights to Latins, but only voting rights (not Latin rights) to the other allies. [p. 31]

37 FAMILY FORTUNES. E. S. Gruen (
Rom. Pol.
, 98) writes: ‘The slaughter of the Gracchani entailed the final demise of the old Claudio-Fulvian group … The Sempronii Gracchi vanish from the pages of Republican history. The Fulvii never again held curule office in Rome. The proud patrician Claudii turn up again only as hangers-on of a more powerful political group.’ [p. 32]

38 ASIA AND ARISTONICUS. On Aristonicus see F. C. Thomes,
La rivolta di Aristonico e le origini della provincia Romana d’Asia
(1969); Z. Rubinsohn,
Rendiconti dell’Ist. Lomb.
, 1973. 546 ff.; C. Delplace,
Athenaeum
, 1978, 20 ff.; J. Hopp,
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des letzen Attaliden
(1977); on the commission under Scipio Nasica in 133–2 see B. Schleussner,
Chiron
, 1976, 97 ff. For Asia under the Romans see D. Magie,
The Roman Rule in Asia Minor
(1950); for the settlement of the province A. H. M. Jones,
Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces
(1971), 57 ff.; see also A. N. Sherwin-White,
JRS
, 1977, 62 ff. for Roman involvement in Asia Minor from 167 to 88 B.C. (66 ff. for the inheritance of Attalus). Details of the terms of Attalus’ will are obscure. The city of Pergamum itself and probably some of the Greek cities on the coast were to be free. Translations of three inscriptions relating to Rome’s settlement will be found in Lewis and Reinhold,
Roman Civilization
, I, 321 ff. One (
OGIS
, 338; Greenidge,
Sources
²
, p. 9) is a decree of Pergamum passed before Rome had ratified the will; another (
OGIS
435, Sherk,
Roman Documents from the Greek East
(1969), n. 11; cf. T. Drew-Bear,
Historia
, 1972, 75 ff.) confirms an earlier decree of the Senate, probably of 133, regarding the settlement (cf. Sherwin-White,
JRS
, 1977, 68; and a third (Dittenberger,
Sylloge
694) is a decree celebrating the grant of the status of Rome’s ally to a city, probably Pergamum, for its help against Aristonicus. Mithridates of Pontus later claimed that the Romans had forged Attalus’ will (Sallust,
Hist
. iv, 69M), but wrongly, as is shown by
OGIS
338. We also have two fragmentary copies of a
Senatus Consultum de agro Pergameno
(Sherk, n. 2; Greenidge and Clay, p. 278) which is usually dated to 129 B.C. (though see H. Mattingly,
AJP
, 1972, 412 ff.): the consuls and a large advisory body heard a dispute between some
publicani
and Pergamum concerning some boundaries, presumably when the
publicani
tried to collect some of the taxes on the public land which had been sold by the censors of 131. The Pergamenes apparently won their case. Cf. E. Badian,
Publicans and Sinners
(1972), 60, 132. – The attempt by Carcopino to show that Attalus died
after
Tiberius and therefore to disprove the account (not recorded by Appian) of Tiberius’ use of the legacy, has generally been rejected – Aristonicus’ revolt is likely to have started on a serious scale only late in 133 or in 132. The extent of his initial successes is doubtful: probably southwards to Mysia but not to Caria, and possibly northwards to Cyzicus. – A small group of Pergamene coins (cistophori), which bear the title ‘King’, are to be referred to the pretender Aristonicus and illustrate his claim to be
heir of the Attalids (cf. the coinage of Eunus in Sicily: ch. I, n. 15): see E. S. G. Robinson,
Numismatic Chronicle
, 1954, pp. 1 ff. On further problems arising from the coinage see E. Badian,
JRS
, 1980, 202; J. P. Adams,
Historia
, 1981, 302 ff. – Greater Phrygia was claimed by the kings of Pontus and Bithynia. Aquilius, who is alleged to have received the larger bribe from the former, was granted a triumph but was later tried before the senatorial
quaestio de repetundis
; but he was acquitted, and Gaius Gracchus cited this scandal in justification for transferring the court to the Equites. [p. 33]

39 GAUL. Contradictions in the sources make many details of the campaigns in Gaul uncertain. See C. Jullian,
Histoire de la Gaule
, III, 1 ff.; J. Carcopino,
Histoire Romaine
, II, 275 ff.; C. H. Benedict, ‘The Romans in southern Gaul’,
AJP
, 1942, 38 ff., and
A History of Narbo
(1941), ch. i. For the milestone see Degrassi,
Inscr. Lat. Lib. Rei Publ.
n. 460
a
; Greenidge,
Sources
²
, 49: this suggests the possibility that Domitius continued as proconsul till 118 and that his triumph was delayed till then. An inscription from Olympia records men from Achaean cities serving under Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus against Galatae; almost certainly in these campaigns: see J. Reynolds,
JRS
, 1966, 118. E. Badian has argued (
For. Cl.
, 264, n. 3, and 287 f., and more fully in
Melanges Piganiol
(1966), 901 ff.) that Gaul was not established as a province (i.e. formally became a sphere to which a Roman magistrate was annually appointed as governor) until near the end of the century after Marius’ victories over the Germans. C. Ebel,
Transalpine Gaul: the Emergence of the Roman Province
(1976), argues for a Roman protectorate and virtual
de facto
province in southern Gaul from the early second century, but see J. Richardson,
JRS
, 1979, 157 f. On the continuing interest in, and patronage of, Gaul by the Domitii and Licinii see E. Badian,
For. Cl.
, 264 f. [p. 34]

40 NARBO. The date of the foundation is uncertain. Velleius i. 15.5 dates it to 118, and this seemed to be supported by the coinage when the latter was also assigned to the same date (cf. H. Mattingly,
JRS
, 1922, 230 ff.). Evidence from the hoards led E. A. Sydenham (
CRR
, 64 f.) to date the coins
c.
112–109, and H. B. Mattingly (
Hommages Grenier
(1962), 1159 ff.) to date the foundation to 110, but this interpretation has been doubted by C. A. Hersch,
Num. Chron.
, 1966, 71 ff., and M. Crawford believes the coins are nearer to 118 than Mattingly thought (cf. Badian,
Roman Imperialism
²
(1968), 98, who himself would date the colony as late as 115,
op. cit.
, 24). H. B. Mattingly now accepts (
Num. Chron.
, 1969, 95 ff.) 114 for Narbo. B. Levick,
Cl. Qu.
, 1971, 170 ff., supports 118 for the foundation, but concedes that the coins might be a later commemorative issue of 114–13. M. Crawford,
RRC
, 71 ff., after discussion dates both foundation and issue to 118. – The founding of Narbo has been seen depicted on an altar dedicated to Neptune supposedly by a descendant of Domitius (the consul of 32 B.C.?): see
CAH
, Plates iv, p. 86; but other interpretations are more probable (e.g. enrolment of soldiers rather than of colonists; census, as R. M. Ogilvie,
JRS
, 1961, 37). – Neither Brunt in Seager (
Crisis, 97
) nor Badian (
Rom. Imp.
²
, 24) admit equestrian interests behind Narbo’s foundation. Cf. also E. T. Salmon,
Roman Colonization
(1969), 121 f. [p. 35]

41 THE BALEARIC ISLANDS. M. G. Morgan, who discusses Roman motives for intervention in the Balearic Islands (
California Studies in Classical Antiquity
, 1969, 217 ff.) notes a recent influx of pirates from Sardinia and Gaul into them. [p. 35]

1 SOURCES FOR 121–100 B.C. These are in the main the same authors as those mentioned in ch. II, n. 1. See Greenidge and Clay,
op. cit
. Appian’s narrative (
BC
, I, 27–32) is very brief. Plutarch’s
Life of Marius
and in part that of
Sulla
are valuable; for his
account of Marius’ northern campaigns Plutarch drew on Posidonius (on these see also the fragments of Appian’s
Celtica
and the geographer Strabo, VII, 293). For the African campaign Sall’ist’s
Bellum lugurthinum
is the chief source: see below, n. 13. Some scraps of Granius Licinianus, who lived in the second century A.D., deal with the year 105 B.C.; his work is in the Livian tradition. A number of important inscriptions are mentioned in the following notes. Coinage becomes a more useful source since the types on the
denarii
begin to show considerable variety from about 120 B.C.: see E. A. Sydenham,
CRR
and M. H. Crawford,
RRC
.

For a general survey of the period of Marius and Sulla in the light of work done in the decade or two before 1970 see E. Gabba,
Aufstieg
, I, i (1972), 764 f. [p. 36]

2 P. DECIUS SUBULO. He was subsequently prosecuted in 119 in the interests of the Optimates, on a charge of
repetundarum
, but he was acquitted by the equestrian jury. His importance has been emphasized by E. Badian (
JRS
, 1956, 91 ff.). Decius rallied equestrian strength against the Optimates, and his acquittal was in the same year that Carbo was prosecuted and Marius became tribune, helped by the Metelli. The year 119 thus saw mounting pressure by the class that now controlled the law courts, conscious of its powers and supported by useful allies (cf.
Historia
, 1962, 215. = Seager,
Crisis
, 21). On Decius’ trial see also Gruen (
Rom. Pol.
, 109 ff.) who doubts that the charge was
de repetundis
, and consequently the jury may not have been equestrian; in any case Gruen believes it to be unwise to refer to the Equites as if they were a compact unit with a consistent policy and to suppose that any
factio
, as the Metelli, could win the support of the
equester ordo
for any length of time. [p. 36]

3 OPIMIUS AND THE SCU. For the arguments used see Cicero,
de orat
. 2. 132;
part. orat
. 104. For a fundamental discussion of the questions at issue see H. Last,
CAH
, IX, 85 ff. For further discussion of the
SCU
see A. W. Lintott,
Violence in Republican Rome
(1968), 149 ff. [p. 36]

4 PINPRICKS TO THE SENATE. Valerius Maximus records (5. 3. 2) that the elderly Princeps Senatus, P. Lentulus, who had helped to storm the Aventine with Opimius’ men, was forced by public opinion to withdraw to Sicily; if this is true, the Optimates did not have it all their own way. Further, Q. Mucius Scaevola the Augur, who may have shared his family’s sympathy towards the Gracchi (p. 22), was acquitted when accused by T. Albucius of extortion in Asia (119). The satirist Lucilius parodied this trial in his second book. For Scaevola and his trial see Gruen (
Rom. Pol.
, 112 ff.), who doubts his earlier Gracchan sympathies. For other trials in this decade see Gruen, ch. iv. [p. 37]

5 THE LAND COMMISSIONERS. An inscription from Carthage refers to three commissioners, Galba, Papirius Carbo and Calpurnius Bestia (
ILS
, 28; Greenidge,
Sources
²
, 51). These men may have formed a special African commission If, however, Carbo is C. Carbo the Gracchan renegade (and not one of his brothers), the inscription must be earlier than his death in 119 and the men may have been the Gracchan land-commissioners with Galba and Bestia replacing C. Gracchus and Fulvius Flaccus: if so, the commission will have had an anti-Gracchan bias, since only Galba was pro-Gracchan. See also H. Chantraine,
Untersuch, z. röm. Geschichte
(1959), 15 ff. [p. 37]

6 THE AGRARIAN LAWS. These are recorded by Appian (
BC
, 1. 27), who (probably incorrectly) ascribes the second law to Thorius (cf. Cicero,
Brut
. 36. 136. For another view see Broughton,
MRR
, I, 542). For the law of 111 see E. G. Hardy,
Six Roman Laws
, 35 ff.; Warmington,
ROL
, iv, 370; it also granted all colonies and
municipia
security of
ager publicus
, and dealt with the sale of land in Africa and at Corinth (to provide funds for the war against Jugurtha?). An agrarian law,
lex Mamilia Roscia
, probably belongs to 55 B.C. rather than to 109 (cf. p. 38). Recent views on the
ager publicus
and on
Appian’s three agrarian laws are assessed by E. Badian (
Historia
, 1962, 209 ff. = Seager,
Crisis
, 15 ff.; cf. Badian,
Studies
, 235 ff. on lex Thoria). His own conclusion is that Appian’s second law (the
lex Thoria
) is the
lex agraria
of 111 and that there was another law
c.
109. See further K. Johannsen,
Die lex agraria des Jahres 111 v. Chr
. (Munich Dissertation, 1971) with text, and commentary and discussion of agrarian bills. K. Meister,
Historia
, 1974, 86 ff., argues that the Lex Thoria was the second of Appian’s laws and belonged to 119/8 B.C. [p. 37]

6a METELLUS AND ILLYRIA. On the campaigns in Illyria in the late second century see M. G. Morgan,
Athenaeum
, 1971, 271 ff. [p. 38]

7 THE METELLI. The political fortunes of this dominant family during the decade are traced by Gruen (
Rom. Pol.
, ch. iv), who believes that they won the support of the Mucii Scaevolae, Licinii Crassi, Lutatii Catuli, Rutilii Rufi, Calpurnii Pisones, and perhaps the Livii Drusi, Scribonii Curiones, and Porcii Catones, as well as taking under the wing of the
factio
promising men of no prior political influence, like Aemilius Scaurus and M. Antonius. The senatorial opposition will have been led by men raised under the tutelage of the Scipionic circle and extremists who eliminated the Gracchan movement in 121. These families soon faded from view, e.g. the Popillii Laenates, Rupillii, Opimii, Manlii, and Fabii Maximi, while others, as the Papirii Carbones, Junii Bruti and Octavii emerged again only in the hectic days of civil war in the 80s. [p. 38]

8 SCAURUS. See G. Bloch,
Mélanges d’histoire anc
. 1909; P. Fraccaro,
Opuscula
, II (1957), 125 ff. His marriage to Metella may have been much later in his life (after 102 according to F. Münzer,
Römische Adelsparteien
, 280 f.). On his lack of political principle see A. R. Hands,
JRS
, 1959, 56 ff. [p. 38]

8a M. OCTAVIUS. On his date see J. G. Schovanek,
Historia
, 1972, 235 ff., 1977, 378 ff., who argues for a date in the 90s, as does G. Rickman,
The Corn Supply in Ancient Rome
(1980), 161 ff. [p. 39]

9 MARIUS’ POLITICAL CAREER. On this see especially A. Passerini,
Athenaeum
, 1934, who amongst other things tries to distinguish the pro-Marian and anti-Marian threads in Plutarch’s
Life of Marius
. Marius will have used whatever means lay to his hand to gain political power: winning the patronage of the Metelli (until he offended them), gaining wealth as a
publicanus
, forming links with the Equites. A
novus homo
had to create a
factio
; only after success could be hope to lead. On Marius, beside the work of Passerini already mentioned, see T. F. Carney,
A Biography of C. Marius
(Suppl. n. 1 of
Proc. Afr. Cl. Ass.
, 1962); J. Van Ooteghem,
Gaius Marius
(Brussels, 1964); E. Badian, ‘Marius and the Nobles’,
Durham Univ. Journal
, 1964, 141 ff.; Gruen,
Rom. Pol.
, passim, Badian (
JRS
, 1965, 93) and Carney (
op. cit.
, 20) find greater consistency in Marius’ tribunician activities than Plutarch does. On Marius’ trial for
ambitus
in 116 see Carney,
Acta Juridica
, 1959, 232 ff., and for coins bearing on Marius’ career, Carney,
Num. Chron.
, 1959, 79 ff. Passerini’s work on Marius has now been reprinted under the title
Studi su Caio Mario
(1971). On Marius’ career from 99 to 88 B.C. see T. J. Luce,
Historia
, 1970, 161 ff. The significance of Marius’ importance in general is assessed by E. Gabba,
Aufstieg
, I, i, 769 ff. [p. 39]

10 FREEDMEN. Scaurus probably confined freedmen to the four urban tribes in order to keep them out of the thirty-one rustic tribes. If, however, the law of Gracchus the censor of 169, which had restricted freedmen to one urban tribe, was still in force, Scaurus’ measure to place them in the four urban tribes will have been more generous in purpose. S. Treggiari,
Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic
(1969), 47 ff., argues that Scaurus’ measure was repressive. [p. 39]

11 THE VESTAL VIRGINS. On the political implications of their trial see Gruen,
Rom. Pol.
, 127 ff. [p. 39]

12 THE SITE OF CIRTA. The proposal of R. Charlier (
L’Antiquité classique
, 1950, 298 ff.) that Cirta should be identified with El Kef rather than with Constantine, though it might make the geography of the campaigns more intelligible, does not seem to be firmly based. [p. 39]

13 SALLUST’S BELLUM IUGURTHINUM. This is our chief authority for the war. But Sallust, who as governor of Africa after Caesar’s reorganization of the province in 47 knew the country, did not set out to write a detailed military history. Rather, he wrote a political pamphlet, related to the politics of his own day: as a staunch supporter of Caesar and the Populares, he wanted to expose the corruption of the Optimates. Hence his main theme is to show how Marius, a
novus homo
and a Popularis, successfully challenged the nobility and saved the situation which the corruption of the nobles had created. He is less concerned with strategy or chronological or topographical accuracy than with the moral and political issues. Thus his charges of corruption against the senatorial leaders may well be exaggerated and highly coloured, even if they are not groundless as suggested by G. DeSanctis (
Problemi di storia antica
, 187 ff.); see also K. von Fritz,
TAPA
, 1943, 134 ff. and W. Allen,
Cl. Ph.
, 1938, 90 ff. The curious prominence that Sallust gives to Sulla, the rival of his hero Marius, is probably due to the fact that he made use of Sulla’s
Memoirs
in writing the last part of his monograph. See also W. Steidle,
Sallusts Historische Monographien
(
Historia
, Einzelschr. Heft 3, 1958); A. La Penna, ‘L’interpretazione sallustiana della guerra contro Giugurta’ (
Ann. della Scuola Normale Sup. di Pisa
, 1959, 45–86); D. C. Earl,
The Political Thought of Sallust
(1961), esp. ch. V. R. Syme,
Sallust
(1964), chs. X and XI; Gruen,
Rom Pol.
, ch. V. On the actual declaration of war see J. W. Rich,
Declaring War in the Roman Republic in the Period of Transmarine Expansion
(1976), 48ff. [p. 40]

14 THE MAMILIAN COMMISSION. On this, its chairman and victims, see Gruen,
Rom. Pol.
, 142 ff. On Scaurus and the prosecution see G. V. Sumner,
Phoenix
, 1976, 73 ff. [p. 40]

15 ROMAN POLICY. On equestrian influence see De Sanctis,
op. cit.
[p. 41]

16 METELLUS AND JUGURTHA. On Metellus see De Sanctis,
op. cit.
, 215 ff. On the chronology and strategy see M. Holroyd,
JRS
, 1928, pp. 1 ff. [p. 41]

17 THE TURPILIUS AFFAIR. T. Turpilius Silanus, left by Metellus in command of the Roman garrison at Vaga, had shown kindness to the inhabitants, who then treacherously massacred the Roman troops. The unfortunate Turpilius was the sole survivor. Metellus was embarrassed but had to courtmartial and execute his officer and client. If the anecdote is true that Marius, as a member of the
consilium
that tried the case, argued powerfully for condemnation, the incident will have increased ill-feeling between Marius and Metellus. Sallust’s remark (
Iug.
, 69, 4) that Turpilius was scourged and executed ‘nam is civis ex Latio erat’ has given rise to much discussion. It is thought by some to have retrospective bearing on Drusus’ legislation (see above ch. II, n. 33), but this will not be so if E. Badian’s contention is right (
For. Cl.
, 196) that Turpilius was a
praefectus fabrum
and as such a Roman citizen. Does ‘civis ex Latio’ mean ‘a man with Latin rights’ or ‘a Latin who has become a Roman’ or ‘a Roman citizen who came from Latium’?

Sallust fails to record when Cirta fell to the Romans, a clear example of his lack of interest in military details. The other sources (the Livian tradition, Plutarch, Appian and Dio) add only a little. [p. 41]

18 CAEPIO’S JUDICIARY LAW. Although Tacitus (
Ann.
12. 60. 4) records that this measure restored the
quaestio
to the Senate, the Livian tradition that it shared the court between the Senate and Equites is probably to be preferred. For a full discussion of this bill and that of Glaucia see J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
Papers of Brit. Sch. Rome
, 1938 = Seager,
Crisis
, 132 ff. A fragment of a
lex repetundarum
has recently been found at
Tarentum: for the suggestion that it is part of Caepio’s law see G. Tibiletti,
Athenaeum
, 1953, 38 ff. E. Badian has argued (
Cl. Rev.
, 1954, 101) that Cicero
Pro Balbo
, 54 applies to Caepio, not to Glaucia, but contrast B. M. Levick,
Cl. Rev.
, 1967, 256 ff. E. Badian (
Historia
, 1962, 207 ff. = Seager,
Crisis
, 13 ff.) had advocated the view that if, as is possible, other
iudicia publica
besides the extortion court had been established by this time, then Caepio’s measure probably applied to them all, both permanent and special. Caepio’s purpose in diluting these equestrian special tribunals with senatorial jurors would be to try to prevent further excess such as the recent Mamilian commission had provoked, cf. Gruen,
Rom. Pol.
, 159. Glaucia’s subsequent law (see next note), restoring equestrian juries, will then have applied only to the
quaestio de repetundis
. Cf. also B. P. Selecky,
Klio
, 1980, 389 ff. [p. 44]