Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:48:29.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chronology of the Early Books of Lucilius*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Wendy J. Raschke
Wendy J. Raschke
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Friedrich Marx in the Prolegomena to his edition of Lucilius in 1904–5 proposed that the earliest books of Lucilius, viz. Books 26–30, were composed between the years 132 and 129 B.C. Conrad Cichorius, in his distinguished work Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (1908), advanced a lower date of 123 B.C. for the first collection, arguing his case with such skill and supporting it with such a quantity of apparently indisputable historical material that many scholars have for the last seventy years accepted many of his conclusions. The late dating of Books 26–30 is based primarily on three fragments, one in Book 26 (671–2M/650–1W/656–7K), and two in Book 30 (1088M/1017W/1054K and 1089M/1018W/1055K). In the survey of the datable fragments of Books 26–30 which follows the aim will be to demonstrate how the historical work of the last seventy years has affected our conclusions about the date of these fragments, and how these lines, which have been assigned late dates by Cichorius, in fact conform to the generally accepted pattern of early datable references in the first collection of Lucilius' satires.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 69 , November 1979 , pp. 78 - 89
Copyright
Copyright ©Wendy J. Raschke 1979. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fiske, C. G., Lucilius and Horace (1920), 371–2, 375Google Scholar; Wight Duff, J., Roman Satire (1950), 50Google Scholar; van Rooy, C. A., Studies in Classical Satire and Related Literary Theory (1965), 51Google Scholar; Warmington, E. H. (ed.), Remains of Old Latin III (1967), xii–xiii;Google Scholar J. Christes, ‘Lucilius. Ein Bericht über die Forschung seit F. Marx (1904/5)’, ANRW 1. 2 (1972), 1202; Ramage, E. S., Sigsbee, D. L., Fredericks, S. C., Roman Satirists and Their Satire (1974), 28Google Scholar; Coffey, M., Roman Satire (1976), 40–2Google Scholar. Cf. Michelfeit, J., ‘Zum Aufbau des ersten Buches des Lucilius,’ Hermes 93 (1965), 127–8,Google Scholar who, while rejecting Cichorius' dating of Book 1, dates the ‘Einleitungsgedicht’ of Book 26 to 123 B.C. Krenkel, W., Lucilius Satiren 1 (1970), 25–6Google Scholar still favours 123, although he realizes that the grounds for this are weak. So also La Penna, A., ‘Aspetti e conflitti della cultura latina dei Gracchi a Silla,’ Dial, d' Arch 4/5 (1971), 197–201Google Scholar.

2 Varro, De L. L. v. 17: ‘a qua bipertita divisione Lucilius suorum unius et viginti librorum initium fecit hoc’. He then gives the hexameter which is the first line of Book 1. Gellius quotes from Books 1–20 only, which suggests that either he knew of this one corpus of Lucilius only, or, at least, that these books were contained in a separate roll. The discrepancy between Varro, who cites 21 books, and Gellius, who has only 20, is usually glossed over in the modern literature, cf., for example, M. Coffey, Roman Satire, 40 and 42, who accepts both pieces of data as correct in two separate places.

3 On Nonius see the review article of White, Diana C., ‘A New Edition of Lucilius’, CPh 68 (1973), 37–40Google Scholar. Like Gellius, Nonius Marcellus in his De Compendiosa Doctrina cites from a collection which contains only Books 1–20. This fact is occasionally ignored, see, for example, W. Strzelecki, RE 17. 1 (1936), 890 s.v. ‘Nonius Marcellus' (38), who refers to Nonius’ use of Lucilius, Books 1–21. Nonius cites from Lucilius Book 20 seven times, but in only one instance is there any doubt about the reading of the book number—xxx instead of xx in 209. 3 (Merc). Thus, although our text of Nonius contains a considerable number of errors in the book numbers of authors cited, see A. K. Frihagen, ‘Buchzahlen bei Nonius’, SO 50 (1975), 149–53, this cannot explain the absence of any reference to Book 21.

4 cf. van Rooy, C. A., Studies in Classical Satire, 52–3 and 82Google Scholar on Horace, Sat. 2. 1. 28–9. See also now Coffey, M., Roman Satire, 40 and 226Google Scholar, n. 153.

5 e.g. Cichorius, C., Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, (1908, repr. 1964), (hereafter UL), 77Google Scholar; Warmington, p. xiii; Krenkel 1, p. 25.

6 Warmington distinguishes the concilium deorum as a separate satire, no. 2 in his arrangement. Marx believed Book 1 to be a single satire, see commentary on Book 1. Krenkel similarly does not separate the fragments of Book 1 into individual satires. Lactantius IV. 3. 12 provides evidence of a concilium deorum as a work of Lucilius, but does not make it clear whether this was the title of Book 1 as a whole or of a single satire within Book 1.

7 Cichorius, UL, 77–86.

8 Lupus is referred to as princeps senatus by the scholiast on Horace, Sat. 11. 1. 67; cf. MRR 1, pp. 500–1.

9 Gruen, E. S., Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 B.C. (1968), 64, n. 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The evidence is however primarily Lucilius' own satires.

10 Broughton, MRR 1, p. 501, n. 1.

11 See the criticisms of Baehrens, W. A., ‘Literarhistorische Beiträge’, Hermes 54 (1919), 80–6;Google Scholar 123 B.C. is accepted by Warmington, p. xiii, n. a (rejecting Baehrens); most recently rejected by Michelfeit, J., ‘Zum Aufbau des ersten Buches des Lucilius’, Hermes 93 (1965), 126–8Google Scholar.

12 Broughton, MRR 1, p. 501, n. 1.

13 Marx, prolog. pp. xxxv–xl.

14 Carneades died in 129/8 B.C., cf. H. v. Arnim, RE s.v. ‘Karneades’, 1964–5. All citations from Lucilius are from the text of F. Marx, C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae (1904–5), unless otherwise stated.

15 Nonius p. 38. 4 (Merc.) = 671M, and Nonius, 351. 7–8 (Merc.) = 671–2M, quotes these lines as coming from Book 26.

16 Marx 11, p. 245.

17 Cichorius, UL 72–6; followed by F. Münzer, ‘Lucilius und seine Zeitgenossen nach den neuesten Untersuchungen’, NJB 23 (1909), 184.

18 See, for example, Nicolet, C., L'Ordre Équestre à l'époque républicaine, 312–43 av. J.C. 1 (1966), 337Google Scholar.

19 But cf. Christes, J., Der frühe Lucilius, (1971), 100–1Google Scholar, who rejects these fragments as part of any introductory satire.

20 Appian, BC v. 17 (Gabba).

21 For the lex Sempronia dealing with the taxation of Asia see Cicero, Verr. III. 6. 12; also Schol. Bob. p. 157 (Stangl), and less specifically Diodorus xxxv. 25. See Gabba's commentary on BC v. 17, where he cites the modern studies.

22 See, for example, Cichorius, UL, 72–3 and Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor I (1950), 164;Google Scholar the testimony of Appian is rejected by Hill, H., The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period (1952), 67Google Scholar; Badian, E., Foreign Clientelae, 183, n. 8Google Scholar; and Jones, A. H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (1971), 59Google Scholar.

23 cf. Sherk, R. K., Roman Documents from the Greek East (1969), no. 12, p. 68Google Scholar, who traces the history of the dating controversy.

24 Krenkel, W., Lucilius Satiren 1, p. 25;Google Scholar cf. J. Christes in: ANRW 1. 2. p. 1202 and n. 8, who cites Krenkel but prefers a date of 123 B.C.

25 Sherk, R. K., Roman Documents, no. 12, pp. 64–5Google Scholar.

26 The suggested restorations are given by Sherk, Roman Documents, no. 12, pp. 64–65 as follows: (line 9) (line 17) cf. Broughton, MRR I, 496–7, 504, and 11, 165.

27 Sherk, R. K., Roman Documents, no. 12, p. 68Google Scholar.

28 ibid., no. 12, pp. 69–73.

29 Passerini, A., ‘Le iscrizioni dell'agora di Smirna concernenti la lite tra i publicani e i Pergameni’, Athenaeum 15 (1937), 252–83Google Scholar; Broughton, MRR 1, 496–7, 501; Tibiletti, G., ‘Rome and the Ager Pergamenus, the Acta of 129 B.C.’, JRS 47 (1957), 136–8Google Scholar; Taylor, L. R., The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (1960), 171Google Scholar; Badian, E., Publicans and Sinners (1972), 60Google Scholar; Sherk, R. K., Roman Documents, no. 12, p. 72Google Scholar; Nicolet, C., L'Ordre Équestre 1, 349Google Scholar.

30 Magie, , Roman Rule in Asia Minor II, 1055,Google Scholar n. 25; answered by Broughton, MRR 1, 496; on this see Sherk, , Roman Documents, no. 12, p. 72Google Scholar; cf. Sherwin-White, A. N., ‘Roman Involvement in Anatolia, 167–88 B.C.’, JRS 67 (1977), 70,Google Scholar n. 57.

31 H. B. Mattingly, ‘The Date of the senatus consultum de agro Pergameno’, AJPh 93 (1972), 412–23.

32 e.g. Badian, E., ‘The Attempt to Try Caesar,’ in Evans, J. A. S. (ed.), Polis and Imperium. Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon (1974), 166Google Scholar; Hassall, M., Crawford, M., and Reynolds, J., ‘Rome and the Eastern Provinces at the End of the Second Century’, JRS 64 (1974), 219,Google Scholar n. 33; Schleussner, B., ‘Die Gesandschaftsreise P. Scipio Nasicas im Jahre 133/2 v. Chr. und die Provinzialisierung des Königreichs Pergamon’, Chiron 6 (1976), 101,Google Scholar n. 23 and Jones, C. P., ‘Diodoros Pasparos and the Nikephoria of Pergamon’, Chiron 4 (1974), 198,Google Scholar n. 87.

33 See above, n. 24.

34 H. B. Mattingly, AJPh 93 (1972), 419, n. 29.

35 This is the date usually accepted, see Hansen, E. V., The Attalids of Pergamon2 (1971), 149Google Scholar and earlier literature in n. 99, and more recently Schleussner, B., Chiron 6 (1976), 97,Google Scholar n. 2. Sherwin-White, A. N.JRS 67 (1977), 68,Google Scholar n. 40 argues for a date of September 134, but this is based primarily on the supposed existence of a provincial era beginning 134/3 B.C. on the cistophoric coinage of Ephesus (see below).

36 Tiberius Gracchus immediately proposed to put to use in his agrarian reform scheme, Plutarch, Ti. Grac. 14; cf. also Livy, Ep. LVIII and de Vir. Ill. 64. For the existence of extensive royal estates, mines and factories, see E. V. Hansen, op. cit. (n. 35), 204–5, 208, 212–13. It can be assumed that all of these personal possessions of the monarch passed into Roman hands by the provisions of the will, but OGIS 338, a decree of Pergamum from 133 B.C., before the Roman ratification of the will, provides for an alteration in the status of certain royal freedmen and slaves (lines 21–6) without Roman permission.

37 The taxes, rents and tribute collected by the royal treasury of Pergamum are discussed in E. V. Hansen, op. cit. (n. 35), 203–16. Almost certainly some or all of these must have continued to be collected by Attalus' heirs. So also Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World 11 (1941), 811–14;Google ScholarHill, H., The Roman Middle Class, 67Google Scholar; Badian, E., Publicans and Sinners, 60Google Scholar.

38 So Schleussner, B., Chiron 6 (1976), 97–112Google Scholar.

39 Rigsby, K. J., ‘The Era of the Province of Asia’, Phoenix XXXIII (1979), 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Rigsby of Duke University for permitting me to read the manuscript of this paper. On these coins see Kleiner, F. S., ‘The Dated Cistophori of Ephesus’, Am. Num. Soc., Mus. Notes 18 (1972), 17–32,Google Scholar esp. 23.

40 Most recently by Schleussner, B., Chiron 6 (1976), 109,Google Scholar n. 57 and Sherwin-White, A. N., JRS 67 (1977), 68, n. 40Google Scholar.

41 OGIS 435 = Sherk, Roman Documents, no. 11, pp. 59–62. The various emendations to this text are discussed by Drew-Bear, T., ‘Three Senatus Consulta concerning the Province of Asia’, Historia 21 (1974), 75–9,Google Scholar who argues also (pp. 85–7) that OGIS 436 = Sherk, Roman Documents, no. 13 (from Phrygia) preserves the last portion of the same senatus consultum as OGIS 435. The text falls late in a year (lines 4–5) in which the Senate is convoked by an otherwise unknown praetor, C. Popillius C. f. The year is usually assumed to be 133 (see Sherk) but Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor 11. 1033–4,Google Scholar argues for 129 B.C. and Sherwin-White, A. N., JRS 67 (1977), 68,Google Scholar n. 43 favours any year after 133.

42 Numantia fell in late summer 133, see H. Simon, Roms Kriege in Spanien, 154–133 v. Chr. (1962), 188 (late July). Scipio hurried back to Italy and still arrived in that year but his army did not follow until the next year, see ibid., 189–90; cf. A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus (1967), 250–1 noting that since the triumph did not occur until 132 B.C. Scipio or his army could not have entered the city before that date.

43 The so-called ‘Piracy Law’ from Delphi with its provision for the extension of the collection of taxes by the publicani in recently acquired Thrace, suggests that the first step after the accession of new territory was the establishment of the mechanisms for taxation, see Stuart-Jones, H., ‘A Roman Law Concerning Piracy’, JRS 16 (1926), 159Google Scholar (B, lines 27–30). See also in greater detail another copy of the same lex found recently at Cnidos in Hassall, M., Crawford, M., and Reynolds, J., JRS 64 (1974), 204,Google Scholar col. iv, lines 6–15. (The identity of the two texts is re-examined by G. V. Sumner, ‘The “Piracy Law” from Delphi and the Law of the Cnidos Inscription’, GRBS 19 (1978), 211–25). On the date of this law see Sherwin-White, A. N., ‘Rome, Pamphylia and Cilicia, 133–70 B.C.’, JRS 66 (1976), 6:Google Scholar late 101 B.C.; A. W. Lintott, ‘Notes on the Roman Law Inscribed at Delphi and Cnidos’, ZPE 20 (1976), 66–8: late 101 or early 100 B.C.; G. V. Sumner, op. cit., 215, 223: late 100 or early 99 B.C. and A. Giovannini and E. Grzybek, ‘La lex de piratis persequendis’, Mus. Helv. 35 (1978), 46: 99 B.C. There was presumably no intention to wait for the election of censors for 97 B.C. before making provisions for the collection of taxes in Thrace. See also the comments of E. Badian, Publicans and Sinners, 99. In early 63 Cicero in a speech against the agrarian legislation of P. Servilius Rullus notes that there are already publicani active in Bithynia (i.e. long before the ratification of the arrangements of Pompeius), de lege Agr. 2. 50. Publicani in the early first century were active even in client kingdoms, as shown by Nicomedes III's reply to Marius’ request for troops, Diodorus XXXVI. 3. 1 (for δημοσιώνης meaning publicanus see Mason, H. J., Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (1974)Google Scholar, s.v. δημοσιώνης).

44 See views cited above nn. 22 and 29.

45 Sources in MRR I, 504 and 509. For the territorial arrangements made by Aquillius and the legati see Sherwin-White, A. N., JRS 67 (1977), 68–9Google Scholar. Badian suggests that taxes were probably to be farmed out on the spot under the supervision of the governor, Foreign Clientelae, 183.

46 Tibiletti, G., JRS 47 (1957), 137;Google Scholar E. Badian, Publicans and Sinners, 63; cf. 60, where the discussion, however, relies on a date of 129 B.C. for the senatus consultum de agro Pergameno.

47 See the accounts of the revolt in T. R. S. Broughton, ESAR IV (1958), 505–7; Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor 1, 148–53;Google Scholar 11, 1034–6; Vogt, J., ‘Pergamon und Aristonikos’, Atti del terzo Cong. int. di Epigr. Greca e Latina, 1957 (1959), 45–54Google Scholar (discussion of OGIS 338 and 435): Dumont, J. C., ‘Apropos d'Aristonicus’, Eirene 5 (1966), 189–96Google Scholar (on the motivation of A.); Jones, A. H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces2, 59Google Scholar; Vavrinek, V., ‘Aristonicus of Pergamum: Pretender to the Throne or Leader of a Slave Revolt?’, Eirene 13 (1975), 109–29Google Scholar.

48 Cicero, Phil. XI. 8. 18; A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, 234–5.

49 See above p. 79.

50 See discussion in Cichorius, UL, 134–7; Christes, J., Der frühe Lucilius, 54–60Google Scholar.

51 = ORF 3 no. 18, p. 107, fr. 6. See on this speech and Lucilius' reference to it A. Berger, ‘Note on Gellius, N.A. 1. 6’, AJPh 67 (1946), 320–8.

52 Also Lucilius 676–7M/636–7W/631–2K; on other members of the family of the Metelli: Lucilius 210–11M/233–4W/212–3K; 801M/850W/745K.

53 Cicero, De Off. 1. 87 includes Macedonicus among Scipio's obtrectatores et invidi. See on this Münzer, F., Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (1970), 252Google Scholar; cf. Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus, 312–15Google Scholar, and briefly Briscoe, J., ‘Supporters and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus’, JRS 64 (1974), 128;Google Scholar cf. Pellizer, P. B., ‘I rapporti politici fra Scipione Emiliano e Metello Macedonico fino al processo di Cotta’, Riv. Stor. Ant. 4 (1974), 69–88,Google Scholar who argues that the enmity between the two men was long-standing and enduring. On Cicero's distinction between invidi and inimici see P. A. Brunt, ‘Amicitia in the late Roman Republic’, PCPhS 11 (1965), 12.

54 Schol. ad Hor. Sat. 11. 1. 72. Cf. Briscoe, J., JRS 64 (1974), 128,Google Scholar who suggests that in general terms Metellus Macedonicus was a supporter of the agrarian reforms proposed by Tiberius Gracchus. Cf. Bernstein, A. H., Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus: Tradition and Apostasy (1978), 117, 211Google Scholar.

55 Nonius p. 10. 19 and p. 370. 28 (Merc).

56 Cichorius, UL, 211–12.

57 e.g. Warmington, ad loc.; Krenkel, ad loc.; Fiske, Lucilius and Horace, 371; cf. Christes, , Der frühe Lucilius, 172Google Scholar; rejected by Schmitt, , Satirenfragmente, 83Google Scholar.

58 Cichorius, UL, 210; Fiske, Lucilius and Horace, 371–2; Warmington, p. 331, note b.

59 See in detail, Fiske, , Lucilius and Horace, 64–134Google Scholar; Brown, R. M., A Study of the Scipionic Circle, (1934), 13–19Google Scholar; this very old view is rejected by Strasburger, H., ‘Poseidonios on Problems of the Roman Empire’, JRS 55 (1965), 40–53;Google Scholaridem, ‘Der Skipionenkreis’, Hermes 94 (1966), 60–72, accepted by Walbank, F. W., Polybius (1973), 182Google Scholar. For doubts about the reliability of Cicero's account of the Scipionic Circle, see Astin, , Scipio Aemilianus, 294–306Google Scholar. See now also J. E. G. Zetzel, ‘Cicero and the Scipionic Circle’, HSCPh 76 (1972), 179.

60 Compare, for example, the speeches of Scipio Aemilianus, ORF 3 no. 21, pp. 124–30 frs. 13–15, 17–25, with Lucilius 1326–38M/1196–1208W–1342–5K. See on this Earl, D. C., ‘Terence and Roman Polities’, Historia 11 (1962), 482;Google Scholar Christes, Der frühe Lucilius, 198–9; cf. Richter, W., ‘Staat, Gesellschaft und Dichtung in Rom im 3 und 2 Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Naevius, Ennius, Lucilius)’, Gymnasium 69 (1962), 286–310Google Scholar. For Scipio's revival of archaic religious practices see Rawson, E., ‘Scipio, Laelius, Furius and the Ancestral Religion’, JRS 63 (1973). 161–74Google Scholar.

61 Salmon, E. T., ‘Roman Colonization from the Second Punic War to the Gracchi’, JRS 26 (1936), 55–7;Google ScholarMcDonald, A. H., ‘Rome and the Italian Confederation (200–186 B.C.)’, JRS 34 (1944), 11–12, 21–3;Google ScholarBrunt, P. A., ‘Italian Aims at the Time of the Social War’, JRS 55 (1965), 90;Google Scholar L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 108. For the interpretation of the lex Iunia Penni accepted here see E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 176–7, who argues that the expulsion was engineered by the opponents of G. Gracchus. See also idem, ‘Roman Politics and the Italians (133–91 B.C.)’, Dial d'Arch 4/5.2/3 (1971), 388–9.

62 Cicero, De Off. III. 47; Festus, p. 388 (Lindsay) = ORF 3 no. 48, p. 180 fr. 22.

63 cf. Lewis and Short, s.v. populus B. 1; Hellegouarc'h, J.Le vocabulaire Latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République (1963), 510–17Google Scholar; R. Seager, ‘Cicero and the Word Popularis’, CQ 22 (1972), 333.

64 Nonius, p. 10. 10 (Merc).

65 Peter, HRR I. p. 292, fr. 113 = Barabino, G., ‘I frammenti delle Historiae di Lucio Cornelio Sisenna’, Studi Noniani I (1967), fr. 105Google Scholar with commentary pp. 162–3.

66 cf. Priscian, GL (Keil) in, p. 42.16: ‘nihil tamen mirum, loco praepositionis ‘extra’ accipi, cum ‘ex’ quoque in quibusdam dictionibus loco ‘extra’ fungitur, ut ‘exlex: qui extra leges est’, ‘exul: extra solum’ …

67 cf. G. V. Sumner, ‘Lex Aelia, Lex Fufia’, AJPh 84 (1963), 338–50, who attributes both the lex Aelia and the lex Fufia to conservative reaction immediately after the death of Tiberius Gracchus. They are unlikely candidates for the topic of this fragment.

68 Velleius Paterculus 11. 9. 4: ‘sub P. Africano Numantino bello eques militaverat’.

69 Simon, , Roms Kriege in Spanien, 176, 188;Google ScholarAstin, , Scipio Aemilianus, 226, 230–1Google Scholar.

70 On the date see Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, 230–4.

71 Cicero, De Or. 11. 106; pro Mil. 8; Livy, Ep. LIX; Velleius Paterculus 11. 4. 4; see the other passages assembled by Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, 264–5, nos. 50 a-h and the discussion by idem, ‘Dicta Scipionis of 131 B.C.’, CQ 10 (1960), 135–7; cf. Scipio's words in Spain: Plutarch, Ti. Grac. 21.7.

72 See the reconstruction in H. C. Boren, ‘Tiberius Gracchus: The Opposition View’, AJPh 82 (1961), 358–69. See also Gabba, E., ‘Motivazioni economiche nell'opposizione alia legge agraria di Tib. Sempronio Gracco’, in: Evans, J. A. S. (ed.), Polis and Imperium, 137–8Google Scholar for the possible motives of the opponents of the actual agrarian measure. See now also Bernstein, A. H., Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, 201–25Google Scholar.

73 Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, 231. Cf., however, Briscoe, J.JRS 64 (1974), 133–4,Google Scholar who argues that opposition to Tiberius Gracchus was the only political attitude Nasica and Aemilianus shared. Both the hostile and the sympathetic traditions about Tiberius Gracchus found in our sources can be traced back to contemporaries. Among the more recent discussions see Gabba, E., Appiano e la storia delle guerre civili (1965), 35–53Google Scholar; Earl, D. C., Tiberius Gracchus, A Study in Politics, (1963), 20–4Google Scholar; E. Badian, ‘Tiberius Gracchus and the Beginning of the Roman Revolution’, in: ANRW I. 1 (1972), 677–8; Fortlage, J. H., ‘Die Quelle zu Appians Darstellung der politischen Ziele des Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus’, Helikon 11/12 (1971/1972), 166–91Google Scholar. For the pro-Gracchan and anti-Gracchan religious propaganda of the time see Rawson, E., ‘Religion and Politics in the late Second Century B.C. at Rome’, Phoenix 28 (1974), 194–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 For a collection of Cicero's statements on die Gracchi see R. J. Murray, ‘Cicero and the Gracchi’, TAPhA 97 (1966), 291–8, who notes that Cicero frequently charges Tiberius Gracchus with dominatus, regnum, and seditio; J. Béranger, ‘Les jugements de Cicéron sur les Gracques,’ ANRW I. I, 732–63, esp. 741 on Cicero's praise of Scipio Nasica; Gaillard, J., ‘Que représentent les Gracques pour Cicéron?’, Bull. Ass. G. Budé 4 (1975), 499–529,Google Scholar esp. 503–6 on Tiberius Gracchus.

76 Cichorius, UL, 208–10; followed by Fiske, Lucilius and Horace, 371; Warmington, p. 331, note b; Christes, Der fruhe Lucilius, 172 (with hesitation); Krenkel, ad loc.; Coffey, , Roman Satire, 40Google Scholar.

76 Cichorius, UL, 200–10.

77 See above n. 61.

78 Livy, Ep. LX; Plutarch, C. Grac. 3. 1; cf. Asconius 17. 23–3 (Stangl) who states that Opimius' capture of Fregellae also discouraged other malcontents among the Latin allies.

79 See E. Badian, ‘L. Papirius Fregellanus’, CR n.s. 5 (1955), 22–3. Cf. P. A. Brunt, op. cit. (n. 61), 90, and again the criticism of E. Badian, op. cit. (n. 61), 389–91.

80 cf. Molthagen, J., ‘Die Durchführung der gracchischen Agrarreform,’ Historia 22 (1973), 429–30Google Scholar. Earlier literature on this problem is collected in Schochat, Y., ‘The Lex Agraria of 133 B.C. and the Italian Allies’, Athenaeum n.s. 48 (1970), 25–45,Google Scholar who argues that the Italian allies were among the intended beneficiaries of the lex agraria. This view is rejected by Nagle, D. B., ‘The Failure of the Roman Political Process in 133 B.C.’, Athenaeum n.s. 48 (1970), 372–94Google Scholar. A. H. Bernstein, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, 137–48, suggests that the tribune originally included the Italians in his rogatio but during the debates before the passage of the lex dropped them in order to make his proposals more acceptable to his opponents. Cf. E. Badian, in: ANRW I 1, 730–1, who suggests that it was only after citizen-occupied land ran out that the agrarian commission turned to land occupied by the allies.

81 Appian, BC 1. 78–81 (Gabba); Schol. Bob. p. 118 (Stangl); cf. Molthagen, , Historia 22 (1973), 447–8Google Scholar.

82 Livy, Ep. LIX.

83 ILLRP 467–75; see also Molthagen, , Historia 22 (1973), 432–9Google Scholar and Seibert, J., ‘IIIviri agris iudicandis adsignandis lege Sempronia’, Riv. Stor. Ant. 2 (1972), 53–86Google Scholar.

84 Cicero, Phil. II. 18.

85 Astin, Scipio Aemilianus, 239.

86 Attributed to Book 30 by Nonius, p. 493. 27 (Merc.).

87 Marx, commentary on 1053; Warmington, p. 340 note a; Krenkel, ad loc.

88 Polybius XXXI. 28. 3.

89 See Marx ad loc.

90 Schol. Bob. p. 118 (Stangl); Cicero, pro Mur. 36. 75; cf. ORF 3 no. 49, p. 199. frs. 2, 3.

91 Schol. Bob. p. 118 (Stangl); cf. E. Badian, review of Malcovati, ORF, in Studies in Greek and Roman History, 243–9. So, too, Velleius Paterculus 11. 4. S; Livy, Ep. XLIZ; Cicero, Ad Fam. IX. 21. 3.

92 Nonius, p. 35. 9 (Merc.).

93 Seneca, Ep. Mor. 101. 3.

94 Appian, BC I. 84 (Gabba).

95 Unfortunately Laelius' own view of the death of Scipio in a surviving fragment of the laudatio is obscured for us by a textual corruption, see ORF 3 p. 121, fr. 22. Cf. the emendation of E. Badian, in: Studies in Greek and Roman History, 249, and idem, ‘Three Fragments’, in D. M. Kriel (ed.), Pro Munere Grates: Studies presented to H. L. Gonin (1971), 1–3, who suggests cum eum morbus tum removit, thereby providing further evidence that the death was considered natural by Scipio's family and close friends.

96 cf. Michelfeit, , Hermes 93 (1965), 128Google Scholar; Christes in ANRW 1. 2, 1203.

97 Christes, , Der frühe Lucilius, 12–17Google Scholar.