^{page 377 note 1} The evidence is overwhelming: the attack on the plebs (B.C. 37.3 ff.) and on popular tribunes (B.C. 38.1); the portrait of Memmius as a rabble-rouser whose activities were detrimental to ‘concordia’ (B.J. 32.1, 33.3 f. and the whole tenor of Memmius' speech in B.J. 31, esp. 23 f.; for Sallust's views on ‘concordia’, cf. B.C. 9.1, B.J. 10.6, Hist.1.11 M); the sharp criticism of the ‘quaestio Mamilia’ (B.J. 40.3 ff.); the halfhearted praise of the Gracchi (B.J. 41.10–42.2). Most striking of all perhaps is B.J. 37.1: ‘ea tempestate Romae seditionibus tribuniciis atrociter res publica agitabatur’: a reflection worthy of Cicero or Livy. In general, cf. Earl, D. C., The Political Thought of Sallust, pp.57 f., 68 ff., 107 f., 118 f.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 2} Contrast e.g. Sall, . B.C. 6 ff.Google Scholar, B.J. 41 f. with Flor.2.1, whether the latter is Livian or not.

^{page 377 note 3} Cf. Sall, .B.J. 31.8Google Scholar and the complaint of Sallust's Cato in B.C. 52.11 f.

^{page 377 note 4} For examples, cf. Seager, R., CQ 66 (1972), 337 f.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 5} For ‘audacia’ as an optimate catchword, cf. Wirszubski, C.,JRS 51 (1961), 12 ff.Google Scholar; on ‘audacia’ in Sallust, cf. Weische, A., Studien zur politischen Sprache der rOrnischen Republik, pp.66 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 6} Sall, .B.J. 31.25Google Scholar, Hist.3.48.11 M.

^{page 377 note 7} Sall, .B.J. 31.9, 20Google Scholar (Memmius), Hist. 1.55.13 M (Lepidus), 3.48.6 M (Macer); for Cicero, cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 329.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 1} 4.12.6; cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 337.Google Scholar (References without indication of author in the first two sections are to Livy.)

^{page 378 note 2} 6.11.1.

^{page 378 note 3} 6.14.1.

^{page 378 note 4} 6.16.6.

^{page 378 note 5} 6.16.7.

^{page 378 note 6} 6.17.6.

^{page 378 note 7} 6.18.1.

^{page 378 note 8} 6.20.4.

^{page 378 note 9} Cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 378 note 10} 4.14.6: ‘concitantem multitudinempoenam meritam habere'.

^{page 378 note 11} 6.15.6.

^{page 378 note 12} 4.15.2.

^{page 378 note 13} Cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 332, 335.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 14} 2.41.2.

^{page 378 note 15} 2.41.4, 8.

^{page 378 note 16} 2.42.6.

^{page 378 note 17} 4.12.6; the theme recurs at 4.13.2 and 10.

^{page 378 note 18} 6.20.4.

^{page 378 note 19} Cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 335.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 20} 2.41.3.

^{page 379 note 1} 2.41.7: ‘popularis iam else dissuasor et intercessor legis agrariae coeperat’.

^{page 379 note 2} 2.42.1: ‘dulcedo agrariae legis ipsa per se’, 6: ‘dulcedini agrariae legis’, ‘Iege populari'.

^{page 379 note 3} Stressed at 2.41.1. This fact is far more significant than the parallel with C. Gracchus and Livius Drusus, which is emphasized by Ogilvie, R. M., Commentary on Livy Books 1–5, p.339.Google Scholar In general Ogilvie is inclined to undervalue parallels with incidents and figures of the Ciceronian as against the Gracchan age: cf. Commentary, p.13.

^{page 379 note 4} 2.41.4.

^{page 379 note 5} Cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 329 f.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 6} 6.11.10.

^{page 379 note 7} Cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 335.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 8} 2.41.2, 5: ‘regno uiam fieri’.

^{page 379 note 9} 2.41.8 f.

^{page 379 note 10} 4.12.6.

^{page 379 note 11} 4.13.4, 9.

^{page 379 note 12} 4.15.3 f.

^{page 379 note 13} 6.18.16.

^{page 379 note 14} 6.20.4 f.: ‘quae...pertinentia propius ad regni crimen ab accusatoribus obiecta sint reo, apud neminem auctorem inuenio. nec dubito baud parua fuisse.’

^{page 380 note 1} 3.53.4, 55.4, 56.1; cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 331 f.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 2} 2.42.6; cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 380 note 3} 2.41.4; cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 334.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 4} 3.56.10.

^{page 380 note 5} Fannius fr.6 M: ‘non debetis largitionem permittere; nam et Dionysius et Pisistratus ciuis largitione corruperunt’; fr.7 M: ‘Si Phalaridi et Pisistrato et ceteris omnibus una res maxime, largitio, dominationem comparauit, quid est, quod non idem Gracchum adfectare credatis, quem eadem quae illos facere uideatis?’ That Fannius appeals to Greek examples is striking, but does not indicate that the tradition about the early ‘populares’ had not yet been established: cf. Piso fr.37 P on Cassius. The Greeks cited had been successful in setting themselves up as tyrants, so might be thought more cogent on that account.

^{page 380 note 6} C. Gracchus fr.42 M (cf. Cic. Tusc. 3.48), fr.44 M (cf. fr.30 M).

^{page 380 note 7} L. Crassus fr.14 M: ‘semper a bonis dissedisti’.

^{page 380 note 8} Pol.2.21.8, 3.80.3. The same is true of the accounts of Cassius, Ap. Claudius, and Maelius in D.Hal.8.69 ff., 10.58 ff., and 12.1; these will therefore be left out of account here.

^{page 380 note 9} Cato fr.203 M: ‘numquam ego pecuniam neque meam neque sociorum per ambitionem delargitus sum’; fr.250 M.

^{page 381 note 1} Ter.Hec.44 ff.: ‘uobis datur / potestas condecorandi ludos scaenicos. / nolite sinere per uos artem musicam / recidere ad paucos: facite ut uostra auctoritas / meae auctoritati fautrix adiutrixque sit. / si numquam auare pretium statui arti meae / et cum esse quaestum in animum induxi maxumum / quam maxume seruire uostris commodis, / smite impetrare me, qui in tutelam meam / studium suom et se in uostram commisit fidem, / ne eum circumuentum inique iniqui inrideant.’

^{page 381 note 2} For the general trend of the argument, cf. e.g. Sall, .B.C. 20.7Google Scholar, B.J. 31.1 f., 14, 16 f., Hist.1.77.19, 21 M (directed against the senate rather than the people), 3.48.6, 8, 13 f., 26 M.

^{page 381 note 3} Ter.Hec.198 f.: ‘quae haec est coniuratio! / utin omnes mulieres eadem aeque studeant nolintque omnia’. Cf. Sall, .B.J. 31.14 f.Google Scholar (oratio Memmi): ‘quos omnis eadem cupere, eadem odisse, eadem metuere in unum coegit. sed haec inter bonos amicitia, inter malos factio est.’ (On which, cf. Seager, JRS 62 (1972), 54.) Also the words put by Sallust (B.C. 20.4) into the mouth of Catilina: ‘idem uelle atque idem nolle, ea demum firma amicitia est’.

^{page 381 note 4} Plaut. Aul.486 f., cf. 481; Trin.34 f.

^{page 381 note 5} Plaut.Amph.474 ff.: ‘denique Alcumenam luppiter / rediget antiquam coniugi in concordiam. / nam Amphitruo actutum uxori turbas conciet / atque insimulabit earn probri; turn meus pater / earn seditionem illi in tranquillum conferet.’ Merc.124: ‘seditionem facit lien, occupat praecordia.’

^{page 381 note 6} Plaut.Men.571 ff., Trin.272 ff.; for ‘boni’ as a collective, cf. also Trin.298.

^{page 382 note 1} 2.41.2; cf. MRR i. 493 f.

^{page 382 note 2} 2.41.6 f.; cf. MRR i. 516.

^{page 382 note 3} 2.41.7; cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 335 f.Google Scholar The Ciceronian, though not the Gracchan, parallel is neglected by Ogilvie, , Commentary, pp.339, 341 f.Google ScholarLintott, A. W., Historia 19 (1970), 18 ff.Google Scholar, also mentions only Gracchan and Drusan elements in the story.

^{page 382 note 4} 3.53.6 f.

^{page 382 note 5} 3.56.5.

^{page 382 note 6} 3.56.11, 13.

^{page 382 note 7} Cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 334 f.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 8} 3.56.9.

^{page 383 note 1} 4.15.1. Cf. Ve11.2.4.4; Ogilvie, , Commentary, p.555Google Scholar; also Lintott, , Historia 19 (1970), 13 ff.Google Scholar, who distinguishes layers in the story designed to exculpate first Nasica, then Opimius, but says nothing of later accretions.

^{page 383 note 2} 4.13.9. Cf. Ogilvie, , Commentary, p.554Google Scholar; Seager, , Historia 22 (1973), 240 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 3} 4.13.11 f.

^{page 383 note 4} 4.15.3.

^{page 383 note 5} 4.13.1.

^{page 383 note 6} 4.15.5 ff. Cf. Ogilvie, , Commentary, p.550Google Scholar, who detects traces of a tradition that Maelius was in fact a tribune.

^{page 383 note 7} 6.19.6 f.; cf. MRR i. 553, 557, 563Google Scholar.

^{page 383 note 8} 6.11.3, 6 ff. Cf. Cic.Cat.2.5, 8, 10, 18 ff.Google Scholar, Sall, .B.C. 14.2 f.Google Scholar; Sall, .B.C. 31.7 ff.Google Scholar, 35.3, and on Catilina's obsession with ‘dignitas’, Seager, , Historia 22 (1973), 248.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 9} 6.14.3; cf. Cic.Mur.50, Sall, .B.C. 20.5–13, 33.1–5, 35.3.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 10} 6.14.11, 18.3; cf. Cic.Cat.1.8 ff.Google Scholar, 2.13, 4.13, Mur.50, Sull.52.

^{page 383 note 11} 6.18.5; cf. Cic.Mur.51Google Scholar, Plut, .Cic.14.6.Google Scholar Sallust puts the phrase into Catilina's own mouth (B.C. 20.9).

^{page 383 note 12} 6.19.2; cf. e.g. Cic.Cat.2.28.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 13} 6.19.3.

^{page 384 note 1} As by Zohren, C., Valerius Antias and Caesar (Diss. Münster, 1910).Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 2} For which, cf. Ogilvie, , Commentary, pp.4, 19.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 3} Flor.2.1.1–6.

^{page 384 note 4} Flor.2.1.1.

^{page 384 note 5} Flor.2.1.1: ‘specie plebis tuendae’, ‘species aequitatis’.

^{page 384 note 6} Liv.6.11.8.

^{page 384 note 7} Flor.2.1.5: ‘sed haec ipsa in pemiciem redibant’.

^{page 384 note 8} FIor.2.1.6 f.

^{page 384 note 9} Cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 329.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 10} Cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 334.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 1} Liv.per.58, Oros.5.8.1, cf. 5.10.10.

^{page 385 note 2} Oros.5.9.1.

^{page 385 note 3} Liv.per.59.

^{page 385 note 4} Liv.per.61, Oros.5.12.4.

^{page 385 note 5} Liv.per.69, Oros.5.17.10, uir. ill. 67.3, 73.1.

^{page 385 note 6} Liv.per.58.

^{page 385 note 7} Liv.per.61.

^{page 385 note 8} Liv.per.69; cf. Flor.2.4.4 on Glaucia: ‘satellitem furoris sui’.

^{page 385 note 9} Liv.per.58, 70.

^{page 385 note 10} Flor.2.2.5.

^{page 385 note 11} Flor.2.3.2.

^{page 385 note 12} Oros.5.12.3.

^{page 385 note 13} Liv.per.69; cf. uir. ill.62.2.

^{page 385 note 14} Flor.2.4.1, 3.

^{page 386 note 1} Oros.5.17.3 f.

^{page 386 note 2} Liv.per.71, Flor.2.5.9.

^{page 386 note 3} Liv.per.79.

^{page 386 note 4} Liv.per.86.

^{page 386 note 5} Oros.5.12.4.

^{page 386 note 6} Flor.2.5.6.

^{page 386 note 7} Liv.per.60, Oros.5.12.3.

^{page 386 note 8} Liv.per.70.

^{page 386 note 9} Liv.per.77, 79.

^{page 386 note 10} Liv.per.58.

^{page 386 note 11} uir. i11.64.4.

^{page 386 note 12} Against this view, cf. now Badian, E., ANRW i 1, 695 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 1} Liv.per.58; cf. Oros.5.8.3.

^{page 387 note 2} Liv.per.61.

^{page 387 note 3} Liv.per.61: ‘ex senatus consulto uocato ad arms populo’.

^{page 387 note 4} Cf. Seager, , CQ 66 (1972), 328, 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 387 note 5} Liv.per.69.

^{page 387 note 6} Oros.5.17.6.

^{page 387 note 7} uir.ill.73.10: Marius ‘senatus consulto annatus’.

^{page 387 note 8} Oros.5.17.4.

^{page 387 note 9} Oros.5.17.6.

^{page 387 note 10} Oros.5.17.10.

^{page 387 note 11} Cf. App.B.C. 1.132, 134, 140, 143.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 12} This might be corroborated by the Epitome, if the ‘boni ciues’ of per.69 who were ready to defend Numidicus be taken to include plebeians. Appian shows that Metellus did have some plebeian support; Livy probably deserves the benefit of the doubt.

^{page 387 note 13} Liv.per.70.

^{page 387 note 14} Flor.2.5.5.

^{page 388 note 1} Flor.2.5.6: ‘his ut motibus resisteret Drusus’.

^{page 388 note 2} Flor.2.5.1.

^{page 388 note 3} Liv.per.77.

^{page 388 note 4} Flor.2.9.8: ‘ex consulto senatus aduersariis hostibus iudicatis in praesentem tribunum aliosque diuersae factionis iure saeuitum est’.

^{page 388 note 5} Liv.per.79: ‘imperio ei abrogato’; uir.ill.69.2: ‘honore privatus’.

^{page 388 note 6} Liv.per.79.

^{page 388 note 7} Flor.2.9.9: ‘cum de reuocandis quos senatus hostes iudicauerat ad populum referretur'.

^{page 388 note 8} Flor.2.9.10.

^{page 388 note 9} Flor.2.9.4.

^{page 388 note 10} Gran.Lic.20 f.F.

^{page 389 note 1} Liv.per.80.

^{page 389 note 2} Liv.per.80, 83; cf. uir. ill.69.3 on Cinna's second and third terms.

^{page 389 note 3} Liv.per.83; cf. uir. ill.69.4: Cinna killed ‘cum helium contra Syllam pararet’.

^{page 389 note 4} Oros.5.20.1, Eutrop.5.7.4.

^{page 389 note 5} Liv.per.84.

^{page 389 note 6} Liv.per.84.

^{page 389 note 7} Liv.per.84.

^{page 389 note 8} Liv.per.85.

^{page 389 note 9} Liv.per.85: ‘cum quo per omnia id egerat <ut> pacem iungeret nec potuerat'.

^{page 389 note 10} Liv.per.87.

^{page 389 note 11} Liv.per.88.

^{page 389 note 12} Liv.per.89.