[1174] Sulla and the envoys were now at a place which variant readings make either Tucca or Utica (Ibid. 104. 1 Illosque et Sullam [ab TuccaorUtica] venire jubet, item L. Bellienum praetorem Utica). Utica is rendered improbable by its mention a few words later, although it is possible that the name of this town has been duplicated in the sentence. If we keep Tucca, it cannot be Thugga (Dugga) in Numidia, which is some distance from the coast. It may be the town which Pliny (Hist. Nat. v. 2. 21) calls "oppidum Tucca inpositum mari et flumini Ampsagae".
[1175] It is possible that this armistice included Jugurtha as well, although this is not stated by Sallust (Sall.Jug. 104. 2).
[1176] Ibid. 104. 5.
[1177] Sall.Jug. 105. 1.
[1178] Ibid. 106. 2.
[1179] Sall.Jug. 107, 1.
[1180] Sall.Jug. 107. 6. Cf. Plut.Sulla3.
[1181] Ibid. 108.
[1182] This is apparently the meaning of Sallust (Ibid. 108. 1) when he describes Dabar as Massugradae filius, ex gente Masinissae, ceterum materno genere inpar (nam pater ejus ex concubina ortus erat).
[1183] Sall.Jug. 108. 3 Sed ego conperior Bocchum magis Punica fide quam ob ea, quae praedicabat, simul Romanos et Numidam spe pacis attinuisse, multumque cum animo suo volvere solitum, Jugurtham Romanis an illi Sullam traderet; lubidinem advorsum nos, metum pro nobis suasisse.
[1184] Ibid. 109, 2 Dicit se missum a consule. Marius was really proconsul.
[1185] Ibid. 110.
[1186] Sall.Jug. 111.
[1187] Sall.Jug. 111. 2
[1188] Ibid. 112. 1.
[1189] Haec Maurus secum ipse diu volvens tandem promisit, ceterum dolo an vere cunctatus parum comperimus (Ibid. 113. 1).
[1190] This must have been the agreement, although Sallust says only Eodem Numida cum plerisque necessariis inermis, uti dictum erat, adcedit (Sall.Jug. 113. 6).
[1191] Ibid. 114. 3.
[1192] Gauda is called king in an inscription which gives the whole house of Juba II. The inscription (C.I.L. II. n. 3417) runs:—Regi Jubae reg(is) Jubae filio regi(s) Iempsalis n. regis Gau(dae) pronepoti regis Masiniss(ae) pronepotis nepoti IIvir quinq. patrono coloni (thecoloni, who set up the inscription, having made Juba II IIvir quinquennalishonoris causa). The only doubt which affects the belief in Gauda's succession arises from a passage in Cic.post Red. ad Quir. 8. 20. Cicero here says (Marius) cum parva navicula pervectus in Africam, quibus regna ipse dederat, ad eos inops supplexque venisset. There can be no doubt that Marius fled to Hiempsal, not to Gauda. But it has been pointed out that Cicero's expression is "ad eos," not "ad eum." The plural probably refers to the whole "domus" of the monarch and would include both Gauda and Hiempsal. See BiereyeRes Numidarum et Maurorump. 7.
[1193] Mauretania subsequently includes the region of Caesariensis, but it has been thought probable that the territory of Sitifis on the east was not added until the new settlement in 46 B.C. (MommsenHist. of Romebk. iv. c. 4). The territory between the Muluccha and Saldae might, therefore, have been added after the close of the war with Jugurtha. See MüllerNumismatique de l'Afrique. p. 4; Mommsen l.c.; GöbelDie Westküste Afrikas im Altertump. 93; Biereye op. cit. p. 6. It is very questionable whether the limits of the Roman province were in any way extended at the expense of Numidia. Such additions as Vaga and Sicca probably belong to the settlement of 46 B.C. See TissotGéogr. comp. ii. pp. 21 foll. It has sometimes been thought that the attachment of Leptis Magna to Rome (p. 429) was permanent (Wilmanns in C.I.L. viii. p. 2) and that Tripolis became a part of the Roman province (MarquardtStaatsverw. i. p. 465), but Tissot (op. cit. ii. p. 22) believes that Leptis remained a free city.
[1194] Sall.Jug. 114. 3; Liv.Ep. lxvii; C.I.L. i. n. xxxiii p. 290 Eum (Jugurtham) cepit et triumphans in secundo consulatu ante currum suum duci jussit … veste triumphali calceis patriciis [?in senatum venit]. It is questionable, however, whether the last words of this Arretine inscription (words which do not immediately follow the account of the Numidian triumph) can be brought into connection with the story told by Plutarch (Mar. 12) that Marius, either through forgetfulness or clumsiness, entered the senate in his triumphal dress. They seem to refer to some special honours conferred after the defeat of the Germanic tribes. It is possible that the conferment of this honour gave rise to the malicious story, which became not only distorted but misplaced.
[1195] Plut.Mar. 12.
[1196] IhneRöm. Gesch. v. p. 164 Wo dem Sohn des Südens der Schmerzenschrei entfuhr.
[1197] Plut.Mar. 12. The epitomator of Livy (lxvii.) says in carcere necatus est. The wordnecatusis quite consistent with a death such as that described by Plutarch. See Festus, pp. 162, 178.
[1198] Plut. l.c.
[1199] Plut.Mar. 10.
[1200] Plut.Sulla4.
[1201] Plut.Mar. 10;Sulla3.
[1202] Plut.Sulla6.
[1203] Ancient writers derive the name fromserereand connect it with a story of the family of the Reguli (Plin.Hist. Nat. xviii. 3, 20; Verg.Aen. vi. 844; Val. Max. iv. 4. 5). But the name appears on coins as "Saranus" (Eckhel v. p. 146). It seems, however, to be true that the name was borne by, or applied to, C. Atilius Regulus, the consul of 257 B.C. See Klebs in Pauly-Wissowa R. E. p. 2095.
[1204] Cic.pro Planc. 5. 12.
[1205] In the movement connected with the proceedings of Saturninus in 100 B.C. (Cic.pro Rab. 7. 21).
[1206] Eutrop. iv. 27; Val. Max. vi. 9. 13;Fast. triumph.
[1207] Yet no very recent casesrepetundarumare known. The last seems to have been the accusation of M. Valerius Messala (Gell. xv. 14). About this time C. Flavius Fimbria was accused by M. Gratidius and acquitted in spite of the hostile evidence of M. Aemilius Scaurus (Cic.pro Font. 11. 24;Brut. 45. 168; Val. Max. viii. 5. 2; ReinCriminalrechtp. 649); but even if, with Rein, we assign this case to 106 and not to a time later than Fimbria's consulship, the judiciary law must have been prepared before the trial.
[1208] Cassiodor.Chron. Per Servilium Caepionem consulem judicia equitibus et senatoribus communicata. Obsequens 101 (39) Per Caepionem cos. senatorum et equitum judicia communicata.
[1209] Tac.Ann. xii. 60 Cum … Serviliae leges senatui judicia redderent.
[1210] Cic.de Inv. i. 49. 92 Offensum est quod corum qui audiunt voluntatem laedit: ut si quis apud equites Romanos cupidos judicandi Caepionis legem judiciariam laudet.
[1211] Pp. 135, 213.
[1212] Cic.Brut. 43, 161;pro Cluent. 51, 140.
[1213] Cic.de Or. ii. 59. 240, 66. 264. It is very probable that this attack on Memmius belongs to the speech on the Servilian law.
[1214] Cic.Brut. 44. 164 Mihi (Ciceroni) quidem a pueritia quasi magistra fuit, inquam, illa in legem Caepionis oratio.
[1215] Cassiod.Chron.; Obsequens 101 (39) (quoted p, 478).
[1216] Cicero, speaking in 70 B.C., says that the Equites had held the courts for nearly fifty years, i.e. up to the date of thelex Corneliaof 81 B.C. (Cic.in Verr. Act. i. 13. 38).
[1217] [Cic.]ad Herenn. i. 15, 25, iv. 24. 34;de Rep. i. 3. 6;pro BalboII. 28.
[1218] Cic.de Orat. iii. 8. 29;Brut. 35. 132.
[1219] Cicero, in speaking of the successive defeats of Catulus at the polls, says Praeposuisse (populum Romanum) Q. Catulo, summa in familia nato, sapientissimo et sanctissimo viro, non dico C. Serranum, stultissimum hominem, (fuit enim tamen nobilis,) non C. Fimbriam, novum hominem, (fuit enim et animi satis magni et consilii,) sed Cn. Mallium, non solum ignobilem, verum sine virtute, sine ingenio, vita etiam contempta ac sordida (pro Planc. 5. 12).
[1220] Val. Max. ii. 3. 2. The changes introduced into the military system by Rutilius will be explained in the next chapter.
[1221] Ulp. inDig. xxxviii. 2, i. i. Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 433) thinks that the consul of 105 is the "praetor Rutilius" of Ulpian's account.
[1222] Gaius iv, 35 (Praetor Publius Rutilius), qui et bonorum venditionem introduxisse dicitur. See Bethmann-HollwegCivilprozessii. p. 671. Here again the consul of 105 is probably meant.
[1223] Cic.Brut. 30. 113, 114.
[1224] The disaster at Arausio took place on 6th October (Plut.Luc. 27). The consuls for the next year may not yet have been elected, as there was at this time no fixed date for the consular Comitia. Cf. p. 364 and see Sall.Jug. 114.
[1225] Cic.Brut. 34. 129;de Orat. ii. 22. 91.
[1226] Liv.Ep. lvi. (see the next note). For the probable date of this enactment (151 B.C.) see MommsenStaatsrechti. p. 521.
[1227] Liv.Ep. lvi Cum bellum Numantinum vitio ducum non sine pudore publico duraret, delatus est ultro Scipioni Africano a senatu populoque Romano consulatus; quem cum illi capere ob legem, quae vetabat quemquam iterum consulem fieri, non liceret, sicut priori consulatu, legibus solutus est.
[1228] Plut.Mar. 12 [Greek:kai to deuteron hypatos apedeichthae, tou men nomou koluontos aponta kai mae dialiponta chronon horismenon authis aireisthai, tou de daemou tous antilegontas ekbalontos.] Plutarch adds that the people recalled the dispensation granted to Scipio when the annihilation of the Carthaginian power was planned. This is perhaps a mistaken reference to the dispensation granted to Scipio in the Numantine war. See Liv.Ep. lvi. (quoted in the last note); Cic.pro Leg. Man. 20. 60 and MommsenStaatsr. l.c. As to the irregularity involved in Marius's absence, it is questionable whether Plutarch is right in supposing that a personalprofessiowas required at this time. See MommsenStaatsr. i. p. 504. Possibly the irregularity consisted in the fact that there had been no formal candidature at all. Other references to this election of Marius are to be found in Sall.Jug. 114; Vellei. ii. 12; Liv.Ep. lxvii.
[1229] Sall.Jug. 114, Marius consul absens factus est, et ei decreta provincia Gallia.
End of Project Gutenberg's A History of Rome, Vol 1, by A. H. J. Greenidge