But the

be large, though the Patroni received no fees. Servilia Lex declares that in respect of money wrongfully taken after the enactment of the Lex, the assessment must be double the amount of the actual damage, and thus the plaintiffs would get some compensation for their expenses.

If a defendant should leave Rome before his trial and conviction, or have gone into exile,' as the Romans expressed it, the practice was, as it seems, for this exile to be declared a part of his sentence. The eleventh chapter has something on this matter, but the chapter is so imperfect that we can hardly accept as certain all the restorations. Klenze in a note has expressed an opinion that banishment from Rome was no part of the penalties of the Servilia Lex or of any subsequent Lex de Repetundis; and that banishment only became a part of the offender's punishment, if he left Rome before judgment was pronounced against him. But other writers are of a different opinion, and they refer to the case of P. Rutilius Rufus, and to the expression of Cicero (De Or. ii. 47) in the case of M'Aquillius, which words seem to imply that if Aquillius had been convicted, he must have

left Rome.

The nineteenth chapter provides for the payment of the sums due to the several claimants in a suit under this Lex. The first part of the chapter appears to provide for the payment to a Roman citizen of such money as he had claimed either on his own account or acting as a Patronus for another. The money recovered from the defendant was first paid into the Aerarium, and then paid out to the persons who were entitled to it. The second part of this chapter provides for the payment of sums recovered on behalf of any king or foreign people. The money which was paid into the Aerarium in order to be paid out again, when the time came, was kept which the Romans kept large sums of money and carried it A Fiscus was a wicker basket or pannier in

in sealed Fisci.

about when necessary.

The twenty-third chapter is entitled "de ceivitate danda," "on giving the Roman citizenship." If any man, who was not a Roman citizen, should complain to the Praetor, who

3

had jurisdiction under this law, of a Roman who had brought himself within the penalty of the law, and such Roman should be convicted under the law, then the man who had laid the information, and his wife, children, and son's children became Roman citizens by virtue of this chapter of the Servilia. Cicero in his oration for L. Cornelius Balbus says that the "Latini, that is the Foederati," could obtain the Roman citizenship under the Servilia Lex by prosecuting a senator to conviction. Accordingly the learned have inferred from this passage of Cicero, that only Latini enjoyed this privilege, but here we have the evidence of the Servilia Lex itself that this privilege was given to any man who was not a Roman citizen (qui ceivis Romanus non erit); and hence we must conclude with Klenze that Cicero only mentioned Latini and Foederati, because his client Balbus belonged to a foederate state. But we must also conclude that this is another of the many examples of Cicero misleading us by his remarks. Again, Cicero speaks of prosecuting a senator to conviction; but it was not necessary that the person prosecuted should be a senator, though it would generally happen that he was a senator. But there is no authority for the assertion sometimes made that a prosecutor by prosecuting to conviction obtained the same rank in the Roman state which the convicted man had held. Such a rule would be very absurd. The foundation for the opinion, I suppose, is a passage of Cicero's oration for Balbus (c. 25); but the passage does not contain this meaning.

CHAPTER X.

L. APPULEIUS SATURNINUS.

B.C. 102-100.

WHEN L. Appuleius Saturninus was quaestor, he had the Provincia Ostiensis, or the business of looking after the corn supply of Rome which came in at Ostia, a town at the mouth of the Tiber. He mismanaged the business, or people were dissatisfied with him. The Senate removed him from his office, which was a very unusual proceeding, and appointed in his place M. Aemilius Scaurus, Princeps Senatus. This insult, as Saturninus considered it, may have driven him to the party of the Populares. He reformed his life, which was rather irregular, and becoming a sober steady man, or seeming to be such, he was elected tribunus plebis, and held that office in B.C. 103, as we may conclude from the fact that in this year as tribune he recommended C. Marius to the Roman electors for a fourth consulship (p. 15). Aurelius Victor attributes to him a law for giving to each of the veteran soldiers of Marius a hundred jugera of land in Africa. Baebius, the colleague of Saturninus, who resisted the law, was driven away by the people with a shower of stones. If Victor has rightly assigned this law to the first tribunate of Saturninus, it could only apply to the men who had served under Marius in Africa, and even many of these men were probably with Marius this year (B.c. 103) in the south of

France.

The censors of B.c. 102 were Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus and another, whose name is unknown; but the Lustrum

was held in B.c. 101. Appian states that Metellus attempted to remove from the senate for their bad lives both Servilius Glaucia, who was a senator, and Saturninus, who had been tribune, but Metellus was prevented from doing what he wished, because his colleague would not assent. Metellus also refused to admit on the censorian lists a man named L. Equitius, and consequently he would not allow that Equitius was a citizen. This fellow pretended to be a son of Tiberius Gracchus, and Aurelius Victor has preserved a story of Sempronia, the sister of the Gracchi and the widow of the younger Africanus, being produced as a witness to the claims of Equitius, but neither threats nor entreaties could induce her to acknowledge "the disgrace of the family," whatever that may mean. Saturninus is also said to have been the prime mover in this matter. The people, who had not forgotten the Gracchi, pelted the censor, because he would not admit the claims of Equitius.

In the interval between the first and second tribunate of Saturninus, and consequently either in B.C. 102 or B.c. 101, but the year is not determined, there came to Rome an embassy from King Mithridates. The only authority is a fragment of Diodorus. The ambassadors came, as he says, with a large sum of money for the purpose of bribing the senators. Saturninus seized the opportunity of showing his spite against the senate, and insulted the ambassadors in a violent way. The ambassadors complained, and the senate supported them. Saturninus was brought to trial for a breach of the law or usage of nations, which gave ambassadors protection in the country to which they were sent. charge against Saturninus involved the penalty of death, says Diodorus, and as the senate would compose the Judices or jury, he was in the greatest danger. But we must accept with distrust both the statement as to the penalty, which may have been capital (capitalis) in the Roman sense, without being capital in our sense, and also the statement as to the constitution of the court by which Saturninus was tried. Diodorus did not know enough of Roman affairs to tell such a story correctly. However, Saturninus in his danger had

The

recourse to the poor for protection. He laid aside his usual costly dress, and according to the fashion of those times put on foul clothes, which he might easily find by exchange with some of his friends of the common sort, or at the shop of an old clothesman. With his hair neglected and beard untrimmed he went about among the rabble, falling on his knees before some, pressing the hands of others and entreating them to help him in his trouble. He said that the senate were factiously combining to ruin him because he was a friend of the people, and that his enemies were both his accusers and judges. The people, who were moved by his prayers, assembled by tens of thousands at his trial, and he was unexpectedly acquitted. He was now elected tribune again. We may believe that Saturninus was tried in some way for some matter connected with this embassy, but the form and manner of the trial are not truly described by Diodorus.

There were great disturbances this year when Saturninus was a candidate for his second tribunate. A man whom Appian names Nonius, and the Epitomator of Livy calls A. Nonius, spoke freely against Saturninus and Glaucia, and Nonius himself was elected one of the ten tribunes. But Appian is mistaken in saying that Glaucia was then praetor and presided at the election of the tribunes, for Glaucia was practor in the next year B.c. 100. It is true that Glaucia might have been elected practor for the next year before the election of the tribunes, but a praetor designatus would not preside at an election. Glaucia and Saturninus, who were afraid that Nonius would use his authority against them, instigated a body of men to set upon him as he was returning from the Comitia. Nonius fled into a shop, and he was murdered there. On the next day at dawn Glaucia's party elected Saturninus tribune before all the people could come together, and so nothing was said about the murder of Nonius, for men were afraid to charge Saturninus with the crime, as he was now tribune. Livy truly says that Saturninus was elected by violent means.

The Epitome states that Marius gave his support to Satur