¹ Tr. pl. 67. Reference to T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic = MRR (1951–2, Supplement, 1960), will often be taken for granted in this paper.

² For discussion of the politics of the case see especially McDonald, William (F.), ‘The Tribunate of Cornelius,’ CQ XXIII (1929), 196 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gelzer, M., RE VII A (1939), 860 ff.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Gelzer, o.c. (n. 2), 860.

⁴ Cf. n. 31 below.

⁵ There seems no doubt that qui…descenderant qualifies consulum. To take the relative clause as supplying the subject of effugerunt would be counter to sense in the context (the prosecutors, not the friends of the accused, were menaced), as well as producing un-Asconian Latin (he would be much more explicit in such a case).

⁶ Ascon. 60 C, 14; 61, 24.

⁷ Ascon. 60 C, 19 f.; 61, 8.

⁸ MRR II, 431, 458.

⁹ One could conjecture that the previous generations of the family were represented by M. Aemilius M'. f. M'. n. Lepidus, cos. 158 (because of the praenomen in the filiation) and, as Manius' grandfather, M. Aemilius—f.—n. Lepidus, cos. 126 (solely because the intervals are appropriate).

¹⁰ MRR II, 86; cf. Durrbach, F., Choix d'lnscriptions de Délos (1921), no. 153.Google Scholar

^10a In support of this assumption, based on the order of the consuls' names in the Fasti, one may note that the prior consul of 61, M. Pupius Piso, was responsible for the initial relatio in January (Cic., Ad Att. I, 13, 2), and likewise the prior consul of 58, L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (Cic., Post Red. in Sen. 17; in Pis. II).

¹¹ Cf. Ascon. 65 C; Dio XXXVI, 42, 3. The Senate's ground of annulment was celeritas actionis, i.e. that Manilius in carrying the law on 29th December 67 (Dio; Compitalibus, Ascon.) had foreshortened the promulgation period of 24 days (cf. my note in CPh LVIII, 1963, 219, n. 16).

¹² Ascon. 89 C.

¹³ According to Cicero, In Cat. I, 19, he was the first of those with whom Catilina offered to place himself in voluntary custody; cf. Gelzer, , RE II A (1923) 1705Google Scholar; VII A (1939), 877.

¹⁴ Cic. Phil. II, 12.

¹⁵ Cf. J. D. Denniston, ed. Cic. Phil. I and 11 (1926), p. 99.

¹⁶ After P. Servilius (cos. 79), Q. Catulus (78)—but Cicero says he names Servilius first as being the most recently deceased of the consulars and the order of Servilius and Catulus is probably to be reversed (cf. the next list, n. 17)—the two Luculli (74, 73), M. Crassus (70), Q. Hortensius (69), C. Curio (76), C. Piso (67), M'. Glabrio (67). He is placed in front of L. Volcacius (66) and C. Figulus (64). L. Cotta (65) and L. Caesar (64) are saved for separate mention (Phil. II, 13 f.), but their place is also after Figulus in the next list. Cicero thought and wrote so much about these meetings that the order can probably be taken as more or less historical.

¹⁷ Cic. Ad Att. XII, 21, 1. Lepidus is placed after Catulus (78), Servilius (79), the Luculli (74, 73), Curio (76), Torquatus (65); in front of Gellius (72), Volcacius (66), Figulus (64), Cotta (65), L. Caesar (64), C. Piso (67), M'. Glabrio (67).

Editors should perhaps consider the possibility that after Curionis in this text homoeoteleuton caused the temporary disappearance of C. Pisonis, M'. Glabrionis, and that, when the error was corrected, the names were not put back in their rightful place (after Curio: cf. the previous list, n. 16). There is a sign of this in the fact that all MSS read etiam in front of M'. Glabrionis instead of where it belongs, before Silani; that points to marginal or interlinear insertion. In that case Lepidus has to go down two places.

¹⁸ Cic. Ad Q.fr. II, 1. The muster of consulars in an attendance of about 200 comprised only Cicero, P. Servilius, M. Lucullus, Lepidus, Volcacius, Glabrio, with the consuls-elect.

¹⁹ It is perhaps worth recalling (especially as Magdelain, A. does not mention it in ‘Auspicia ad patres redeunt’, Homages J. Bayet, 1964, 427 f.Google Scholar) that Drumann-Groebe, , Geschichte Roms I ², 3 f.Google Scholar (but not II², 290) identified M'. (not M.) Lepidus as the besieged interrex of 52. This would involve reading ‘M.’ as ‘M'.’ in several texts (Cic. Mil. 13; Ascon. 33, 36, 43 C; Schol. Bob. 116 Stangl). Itdoesoffera way out of the difficulty that Ascon. 43 C names as M. Lepidus' wife Cornelia, instead of Iunia; cf. Rohden, v., RE I (1894), 560 f.Google Scholar, who offers other solutions, none of them satisfactory. It is particularly difficult to credit that Asconius would have made a mistake about the name of a lady ‘cuius castitas pro exemplo habita est’.

²⁰ Cic. Ad Att. VII, 12, 4 (21st Jan.).

²¹ ibid, VII, 23, 1.

²² ibid, VIII, 1, 3.

²³ ibid, VIII, 9, 3. On 22nd Feb. Atticus had written that if M'. (si M. or sin in the MSS) Lepidus and L. Volcacius stay, he thinks Cicero should do so too (an opinion he immediately proceeds to qualify, ibid. IX, 10, 7).

²⁴ ibid, VIII, 15, 2. A reference to Lepidus in VIII, 14, 3 is not fully intelligible owing to textual corruption.

²⁵ ibid. IX, 1, 2; cf. ‘istis manentibus’ of Lepidus and Volcacius, ibid, IX, 10, 7 (18th March).

²⁶ Cic. Pro Corn. 2 ap. Ascon. 79 C.

²⁷ Cf. Gelzer, , RE VII A (1939), 862.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cic. Pro Corn. 1 ap. Ascon. 78 C.

²⁹ Broughton, , MRR II, 130Google Scholar, n. 1; Last, , CAH IX (1932), 317.Google ScholarKlebs', article in RE I (1894), 564Google Scholar, is quite inadequate.

³⁰ See Münzer, , Röm. Adelsparteien u. Adelsfamilien (1920), 311 ff.Google Scholar; RE XIII (1926), 859.

³¹ Cf. Taylor, L. R., ‘Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College,’ AJP LXIII (1942), 391–3, 401 f.Google Scholar, 411; MRR II, 23, 24, n. 11. The relevant text, Macrobius, , Saturn, III, 13Google Scholar, 11, gives ‘M. Aemilius Lepidus’. As Broughton notes (cf. Taylor, o.c, 392 f. and n. 21), ‘Mam. can easily be restored as in Obsequens 58 [Marco] and in Cic. Cluent. 99’ [M.]. Add Ascon. 81 C, 6 and (in the light of the present thesis) 60 C, 21; 79 C, 20.

³² Cic. Pro Mil. 16; Vell. Pat. 11, 13. His father would be M. Livius Drusus, cos. 112, cens. 109; his grandfather C. Livius M. Aemiliani f. M. n. Drusus, cos. 147.

³³ MRR n, 45, n. 10; cf. Supplement, 11 (Metellus Pius), 27 (P. Gabinius).

³⁴ Note that Liv. Per. 76, ‘caesis et a Mamerco Aemilio legato Italicis Silo Poppaedius, dux Marsorum, auctor eius rei, in proelio cecidit’, does not necessarily imply that Lepidus is ‘credited with…the death of Pompaedius Silo’ (MRR II, 43). Several Livian chapters are presumably compressed into this one sentence (a point that should always be borne in mind in evaluating the Epitomes). Diodorus, XXXVII, 2, 10, implies that Poppaedius survived his battle with Lepidus: Ῥωμαίους μὲν ἀναιρεῖ ὀλίγους τῶν δὲ οἰκείων ὑπὲρ ἑξακισχιλίους ἀποβάλλει: then comes Metellus in Apulia successfully finishing off the siege of Venusia κατὰ καιρὸν τὸν αὐτόν. Appian, B.C. 1, 53, says Poppaedius fell in battle with Metellus in Apulia, and De Vir. III. 63 says baldly that Metellus killed him. Cf. Nesselhauf, , RE XXII (1953), 81.Google Scholar

³⁵ He was older than C. Scribonius Curio, tr. pl. 90, cos. 76 (Sallust, Hist., I, 86Google Scholar M: see n. 51 below). Curio was born about 120, if we may infer that 77 was ‘his year’ (his 43rd: cf. Astin, A. E., The Lex Annalis before Sulla (1958) = Latomus XVI (1957), 588 ff.Google Scholar, XVII (1958), 49 ff.). But Lepidus cannot have been much older, if his elder brother Drusus was born about 124 (Münzer, , RE XIII, 1926, 861 f.Google Scholar, improving on R. A. u. A., 312. If Drusus was quaestor 102, as MRR I, 569, 570, n. 4, the latest date for his birth is 127. But Cic. Pro Rab. Perd. 21, which Broughton exploits, may not be wholly a list of senators who fought Saturninus in 100—cf. ‘iuventus’).

³⁶ Cf. Badian's, brilliant discussion of those who ‘waited for Sulla’, JRS LII (1962), 51 ff.Google Scholar (= Studies in Greek and Roman History, 1964, 214 ff.).

³⁷ Cic. De Off. II, 58.

³⁸ Appian B.C. I, 94.

³⁹ Cf. Badian, , Foreign Clientelae (1958), 200, 275.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Plutarch Pomp. 15, Sulla 34; Sallust, Hist. I, 55Google Scholar M (Oratio Lepidi), passim.

⁴¹ Whose previous connection with Metellus Pius in 88 is relevant (nn. 33 f. above). For further arguments in favour of Mamercus Lepidus as the captor of Norba see Badian, , JRS LII (1962), S3 (= Studies, 217 f.)Google Scholar.

⁴² Suetonius, Div. Iul. I, 2Google Scholar; cf. Gelzer, , Caesar ⁶ (1960), 19, 23.Google Scholar

⁴³ MRR II, 79, n. 1. The elections were held by Sulla (cf. Appian, B.C. I, 100Google Scholar), presumably about December, 82 (cf. MRR II, 73, nn. 1 f.).

⁴⁴ Conceivably at the end of 80, at the same time as laying down the consulship (cf. Gabba's, E. commentary on Appian B.C. I, 1958, p. 282)Google Scholar; but immediately after the elections appears equally probable. Hence about August, on the assumption that the regular post-Sullan election dates (cf. Momsen, , Staatsr. I ³, 584 n. 5)Google Scholar were now instituted by Sulla. Appian, indeed (B.C. I, 103), appears to date the resignation of the dictatorship (a) in 79 (τῷ δ᾿ ἑξῆς ἔτει), (b) after the elections for 79 (not 78, as MRR II, 82). This is because he is concentrating on the fact that Sulla had no ἀρχή at all from 1st January, 79. Similarly Orosius, V, 22, jumps from the elections to 1st January, 79: ‘creatis itaque P. Servilio et Appio Claudio consulibus visus est tandem Sylla privatus.’ Plutarch Sulla 34 is vague, but dates the resignation before the elections for 78 and (by implication) after the elections for 79.

On the whole, the completion of the elections for 79 may be regarded as a suitable point to mark the inauguration of res pitblica restituta (cf. De. Vir. Ill. 75, ‘re publica ordinata dictaturam deposuit’). Badian, , ‘From the Gracchi to Sulla’. Historia XI (1962), 230Google Scholar, discounts the indications in the sources and suggests the dictatorship was laid down by Sulla at the end of 81. But it is reasonable to think that the facts Appian found about Sulla's combination of dictatorship and consulship caused him to refer to the practice of Imperial consulates, and there is no need to posit the reverse process.

⁴⁵ Gran. Licinian. p. 32 F; cf. Badian, , Historia, XI (1962), 232, n. 123.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Plutarch Pomp. 15, Sulla 34.

⁴⁷ Cf. Badian, , JRS LII (1962), 61Google Scholar, n. 17 (= Studies, 234, n. 17).

⁴⁸ Cic. De Off. II, 58: ‘Mamerco homini divitissimo praetermissio aedilitatis consulatus repulsam attulit.’ (Sallust, cited n. 51 below, also implies the repulsa.) We might extort from this the inference that his rivals had held the aedileship, and so supplement Badian's discussion (JRS LII, 52 ff. = Studies, 217 ff.) of what Q. Catulus and M. Lepidus were doing during Sulla's absence in the East.

If the Lepida who was first betrothed to (Metellus) Scipio, then to Cato, and then again to Scipio who finally married her (Plutarch, , Cato minor 7, 1Google Scholar) was, as Münzer suggested (R.A.u.A., 314), the daughter of Mamercus Lepidus, we might speculate whether it was Mamercus' electoral humiliation that induced Scipio to break off the original engagement. At all events, the possible connection between Mam. Lepidus and the man who became Metellus Pius' son by adoption (Münzer, , RE III, 1897, 1224 ff.Google Scholar) is not without significance. (It is made the more probable by the other links between Lepidus and Metellus.)

⁴⁹ Cf. Malcovati, , ORF ² (1955), 287 ff.Google Scholar (no. 86). Deficient, but effective, according to Cicero (Brutus 210–220).

⁵⁰ MRR II, 56, 59.

⁵¹ Sallust Hist. I, 86 M, ‘Curionem quaesit ut adulescentior et a populi suffragiis integer aetati concederet Mamerci.’

⁵² 106–4 B.C. (Cic. Pro Plane. 12).

⁵³ Sallust, Hist. I, 55Google Scholar, 2 f. M: ‘satellites quidem eius [sc. Sullae], homines maxumi nominis optimis maiorum exemplis, nequeo satis mirari, qui dominationis in vos servitium suum mercedem dant et utrumque per iniuriam malunt quam optumo iure liberi agere, praeclara Brutorum atque Aemiliorum et Lutatiorum proles, genita ad ea quae maiores virtute peperere subvortunda.’ Münzer (R.A.u.A., 311) dismissed this as Sallustian composition; which of course it is. But it reflects Sallust's view of the political situation, and that view is not to be scouted.

⁵⁴ As Badian was inclined to in Foreign Clientelae, 277.

⁵⁵ Sallust, Hist. I, 77Google Scholar, 22 M (Oratio Philippi): ‘quare ita censeo; quoniam <M.> Lepidus exercitum privato consilio paratum cum pessumis et hostibus rei publicae contra huius ordinis auctoritatem ad urbem ducit, uti Ap. Claudius interrex cum Q. Catulo pro consule et ceteris quibus imperium est, urbi praesidio sint operamque dent, ne quid res publica detrimenti oapiat.’

⁵⁶ Marcus Lepidus was demanding the consulship for himself, according to Sallust's Philippus (ibid. 15).

⁵⁷ Cic. Pro Cluent. 99. Cf. Münzer, , RE III A, (1929), 2134.Google Scholar Mamercus perhaps did not take up his command in person until late in the year; connected with this is the difficult question of his provincia (cf. the text at n. 66 below).

⁵⁸ Cic. De. Imp. Cn. Pomp. 62.

⁵⁹ Cic. Phil. XI, 18.

⁶⁰ Plut. Pomp. 17.

⁶¹ References in MRR II, 83, 85, n. 3, 86, 89 f.

^61a Cicero could be construed as implying that it was proposed to send both consuls to Spain. But the interpretation given above seems to me more probable. (Both consuls had never before been sent together to Spain. In 137 M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina was sent as successor to his ill-starred colleague C. Hostilius Mancinus: Appian, Iber. 80; cf. Simon, H., Roms Kriege in Spanien (1962), 145, 150, 164.Google Scholar)

⁶² As suggested by Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 277, n. 6.

⁶³ MRR II, 86.

⁶⁴ Cf. Cic. Brutus 173.

⁶⁵ Val. Max. VII, 7, 6.

⁶⁶ Cf. MRR II, 96, n. 4.

⁶⁷ Tentative and alternative identification by Broughton, , MRR II, 107Google Scholar, n. 7.

⁶⁸ The date now fixed by Bennett, W. H., ‘The Death of Sertorius and the Coin,’ Historia X (1961), 459 ff.Google Scholar; cf. MRR II, 106 ff., Suppl., 34.

⁶⁹ Cf. Gelzer, Caesar,⁶ 22 f.; MRR II, 113 f.

⁷⁰ Macrob. Saturn, III, 13, 11 (see n. 31 above); cf. MRR II, 137, n. 13.

⁷¹ Cf. Val. Max. VII, 7, 6, ‘conveniens Mamerco, conveniens principi senatus decretum’ (see at n. 65 above); MRR II, 130, n. 1. The best argument is the unexpectedness of finding Mam. Lepidus called Princeps Senatus; Valerius Maximus is of course committing an anachronism (Mamercus was cer tainly not Princeps Senatus in his consulship), but that is typical of this writer's rhetoric.

⁷² Cf. MRR 11, 54, 135, 137, n. 13, 629. Münzer, erred in RE VIII A (1955), 25Google Scholar, dating Flaccus' death towards 64.

⁷³ See Appendix.

⁷⁴ Cf. Varro ap. Gell. XIV, 7, 9: ‘singulos debere consuli gradatim incipique a consulari gradu. ex quo gradu semper quidem antea primum rogari solitum, qui princeps in senatum lectus esset; tum autem cum haec scriberet, novum morem institutum refert per ambitionem gratiamque, ut is primus rogaretur, quem rogare vellet qui haberet senatum, dum is tamen ex gradu consulari esset.’ Mommsen (Staatsr. III, 970, 975) is sure this innovation was introduced by Sulla. The words ‘per ambitionem gratiamque’ hardly support that view, but point rather to the politics of the post-Sullan period. Varro's statements are not evidence for the abolition of the position of Princeps Senatus, but they show how the post was deprived of significance. Mam. Lepidus was probably the last Princeps Senatus (‘qui princeps in senatum lectus esset’) who carried weight. That, and the practical unimportance of the position, appears sufficient to account for the absence of reference to any Princeps Senatus (in the proper sense) in the full Ciceronian period.

⁷⁵ Cf. MRR II, 186 f. Suolahti, J., Roman Censors (1963), 661–3Google Scholar, supposes that Mam. Lepidus was named Princeps Senatus in 64 (or 61—but this is too late). It is almost certain, however, that the censors of 64 did not succeed in performing the lectio senatus: Dio XXXVII, 9, 4, οὐδὲν ἐποίησαν, ἐμποδισάντων σφᾶς τῶν δημάρχων πρὸς τὸν τῆς βουλῆς κατάλογον δέει τοῦ μὴ τῆς γερουσίας αὐτοὺς ἐκπεσεῖν. It would be very remarkable, too, had Valerius Maximus picked up Lepidus' nomination for such a short period of principatus. Suolahti further conjectures that Lepidus may have been one of the three unknown censors of 64 and 61 (with the weird idea that he was elected ‘so that he might also be elected princeps senatus’; Suolahti works from the incorrect premiss that only censorii and censors in office were qualified; see Appendix). If the missing censor of 64 was a patrician, Mam. Lepidus is certainly the likeliest candidate. (The censorship of 61–60 must be ruled out for him.) If he was Princeps Senatus from 70 and censor (briefly) in 64, there is a nice parallel with M. Aemilius Scaurus, Princeps Senatus from 115 and censor 109.

⁷⁶ I would record my gratitude to Dr. E. Badian for reading and criticizing this article and suggesting improvements.