¹ XLIII, 17, 1; XLV, 3, 1. The second of these passages is often rejected as conflicting with an earlier (‘Polybian’) notice, but in fact should be retained, as the names and the senatus consultum probably go back to archival material.

² It is the form adopted by Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic (cited below as MRR). But the MS is very unreliable.

³ cf. Festus, , Gloss. Lat., V, 405Google Scholar (with notes).

⁴ A man of not dissimilar beginnings, T. Annius Luscus, legate 172 and iiiuir 169 (as a colleague of Decius), reappears as consul in 153, though we know nothing about him in the intervening period. (See Fraccaro, , Stud. Star., V, 1912, 330Google Scholar—the only correct treatment.)

⁵ de or. II 277.

⁶ Unt. zu Luc., 310 f.

⁷ de or. II 253: the text is not at all certain.

⁸ Discussion and references in Münzer's article (Klio, V, 1905, 136 f.Google Scholar), which deserves to be better known than it is. Rossbach, in his edition of the Epitome (Teubner, 1910)Google ScholarPubMed, does not seem to know it (p. 131) and has to refer the incident to ‘a matter not reported elsewhere’.

⁹ That Cornelius was not a member of the Patrician house of the Cethegi seems probable from Valerius Maximus' account of his military service. Perhaps he got his competent (though in the end useless) legal advice from that family, whose client he must have been.

¹⁰ Val. Max. VI, 1, 10. Cicero's ‘qui uideretur esse mollior nee esset’ (de or. II, 277), with its odd and (in the context) quite unnecessary insistence on the man's innocence, will ultimately go back to those who protected young Decius. Münzer's complicated hypothesis on this point (on which he himself does not insist) is unnecessary.

¹¹ Cic. Br. 108 (giving his praenomen—also in vir. ill. 72, 6). In de or. II, 135, the praenomen occurs only in some manuscripts and is sometimes bracketed (e.g. in the Oxford text); but its gratuitous insertion is so much harder to explain than its accidental omission (reminiscence of Br. 108 seems out of the question) that it should be retained. The ‘Q.’ of Livy per. LXI—recently accepted, without comment, by Pareti, , Storia, III, 390Google Scholar—cannot stand against Cicero's testimony. Cf. Münzer, P-W, s.v. ‘Decius’, no. 9; Malcovati, Orat. Rom. Frag. ² 155–6.

¹² de or. II, 135. If he was the aemulus of M. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 125) who died in 121, P. Decius must have been at least in his forties when he held the tribunate and known for his oratory before. That actual rivalry (not posthumous emulation) is meant is clear from the place in which he is mentioned in the Brutus (l.c.) and from the context: Flaccus' oratory is described as donnish, Decius' as undisciplined—i.e., there is no question of emulation of manner. That the rivalry was friendly is shown by Decius' political attitude.

¹³ Vell. II, 7; Oros. V, 12. There are numerous other references.

¹⁴ Cf. above. A tribunate held so late in life is most probably a first office. What we know of his character suggests that he had preferred otium.

¹⁵ Livy per. LXI mentions only the former; the latter is the only charge given in Cicero (de or. 11, 106, and frequently). Probably both were made—whether in the formal indictment or merely in the course of the trial: both actions were illegal and both had been committed.

¹⁶ On Carbo, cf. Crassus' comment (de or. II, 170).

¹⁷ Livy, l.c.

¹⁸ See below.

¹⁹ e.g. Münzer (P-W), l.c.; Fraccaro, , Stud. Stor. v, 1912, 444 f.Google Scholar Malcovati (l.c.) seems to accept this. Ihne (History [Engl. ed.] V, 5 f.) thinks the prosecution of Opimius collusive; we shall see that Decius' career makes this most unlikely.

²⁰ He is not mentioned in most of the general histories (e.g. the CAH, Bloch-Carcopino, Marsh-Scullard, and even Mommsen) and casually mentioned (with the wrong praenomen) in others (e.g. Ihne and Pareti). Fraccaro (l.c.), in what is still the standard treatment of these matters, barely mentions him.

^20a For more detailed treatment of the causa coniecturalis see inv. I, 10 f.; top. 92; ad Her. 1, 18 II, 3 f. It is clear that the stock imaginary example was that of Ulysses and the death of Ajax. I should like to thank my colleague, Miss E. M. Jenkinson, for discussing the rhetorical background with me.

²¹ Fraccaro (l.c.) has an excellent discussion, though unfortunately he does not even consider the question of whether Decius was actually prosecuted. The question, ‘ceperitne pecunias contra leges,’ could be considered only in the quaestio repetundarum; and leges repetundarum covered the taking of money ‘ob accusandum uel non accusandum’.

²² Cic. Br. 128. This is the natural place for the recall of Popillius (as a logical consequence of the People's decision in the case of Opimius), whatever the exact implication of Cic. post red. ad quir. 10 f. (cf. MRR 1, 525).

²³ Cf. nn. 12–14 and text. On C. Gracchus, see the standard works.

²⁴ For 115 (MRR 1, 532). Heurgon, in an acute and persuasive article, has argued that Decius was praetor in 108 and that his name should be inserted in the lacuna in Sall. Jug. 73, 7 ('Rev.Ét.Lat. 1938, 161 f.). But though his case is palaeographically plausible, it seems that in fact the Numidian command for 107 had (as we might expect) been assigned to Metellus, not to Decius or anyone else, and this destroys Heurgon's thesis. (Cf. Büchner, Der Aufbau —., Hermes, Einzelsehr. 9, 1953, 47, n.2.Google ScholarPubMed) It is, in any case, extremely improbable that the important and difficult war, which Metellus had so conspicuously failed to finish, should be entrusted to a man of praetorian standing. The ‘decio’ of some manuscripts probably arose merely by dittography from ‘decreuerat’, and the lacuna will be due to homoeoteleuton: after ‘paulo’ a phrase ending with ‘Metello’ will have dropped out. (For this reason, as well as on grounds of Latinity, ‘paulo ante senatus Numidiam Metello’ is preferable to Büchner's—and the usual—‘— Metello Numidiam —’.)

²⁵ Cic. leg. III, 38 f.; Plut. Mar. 4. Cf. L. R. Taylor, Party Politics, 211, n. 110. Passerini, in his careful study of Marius, misinterprets the events of 119 and thus finds the law ‘difficile da spiegare’ Ath. 1934, 12).

²⁶ Sources in MRR 1, 526; cf. Malcovati, o.c., 240 f.

²⁷ Sources in MRR 1, 528; cf. Malcovati, o.c., 241.

²⁸ Cf. Cic. de or. 1, 121 (idealized) for his feelings at the time. At the age of 21 even a Crassus could not lightly attack a consular apparently at the height of his success. That in fact the Optimates were willing to sacrifice Carbo, once he became a liability, has often been suggested and is likely enough.

²⁹ See n. 25.

³⁰ MRR 1, 532. On Heurgon's date for Decius' praetorship, see n. 24.

³¹ Pointed out by Gelzer, Nobilität, 110. The parallel with Decius is striking. On Marius' fortunes, see Plut. Mar. 4–5.

³² For his marriage and political position, see Bloch, Aem. Scaurus, 21 f. Though the date of his marriage is unknown, 115 (the year in which he was consul and in which a Metellus as censor helped to make him Princeps Senatus) is, in fact, quite likely. That the censors who made Scaurus Princeps Senatus were the ones who expelled Cassius Sabaco is in any case worth noting.

³³ vir. ill. 72, 6.

³⁴ Cicero's judgment on him as an orator (Br. 108) reflects, as so often, the Optimate tradition.

³⁵ MRR II, 4–5. Valerius Maximus calls him ‘spectatae integritatis uir’; we should like to think this a tribute to his loyalty—but it is probably merely put in to point the moral. I should like to thank Professor Syme for drawing my attention to Decianus.

³⁶ A L. Appuleius Saturninus was praetor in 166 (MRR 1, 437); the great tribune may be his grandson. A C. Appuleius Saturninus, probably his brother, appears in 168 B.C. (MRR 1, 432), attesting the use of that praenomen in the family of the Saturnini (it is not attested for any other Appulei in the second century). It is, of course, that of Decianus' adoptive father.

³⁷ See above p. 91.

³⁸ Cicero's grand roll-call in the pro Rab. perd. is deceptive and (probably) deliberately misleading; but an analysis of Saturninus' following belongs to a different study.

³⁹ On Furius see MRR II, 2–6 (giving sources and discussion). The sources make it quite clear that there were two separate prosecutions—one by Decianus for his part in suppressing Saturninus (on this, cf. Dio, fr. 95), and one by Canuleius for his opposition to Metellus' return. Marius, as is known, had gone to Asia (MRR II, 9, n. 7, with doubtful chronology) and did not defend him.

⁴⁰ Cic. Fl. 77. A relative of this man had been Marius' colleague and faithful follower in 100 B.C. (Plut. Mar. 28, 8) and later became Princeps Senatus under the Cinnan regime; he himself became cos. suff. in 86 (see MRR II).

⁴¹ Cic. Fl. 71 and Schol. Bob. That he joined Mithridates is, however, probably no more than the scholiast's inference from such passages.

⁴² Cic. Fl. 70, 77, and passim.

⁴³ Fl. 74 (cf. 70).

⁴⁴ A L. Appuleius Decianus, perhaps the son of Cicero's opponent, appears on coins in Spain and Sicily. He may have been quaestor under Sex. Pompeius (Grant, From Imp. to Auct. 24 f.); but nothing is known about him. That P. Decius, the partisan of Antony, was a direct descendant of the family, is possible, but cannot be proved. Cicero's allusion to the Decii Mures in connection with him ('Phil. XI, 13; XIII, 27) is purely facetious. It is known, of course, that descendants of the old Marian families do appear quite prominently among the Caesarians (cf. Syme, Rom. Rev. 65).

⁴⁵ Schol. Bob. on Cic. Fl. 51.