example. Ptolemaeus, surnamed Apion, of the royal Greek family which reigned in Egypt, had left by testament his kingdom of Cyrene to the Romans. He died in B.c. 96, and the Roman Senate declared the cities of the kingdom to be free. This is the statement in Livy's Epitome (Epit. 70). Obsequens fixes the death of Apion in the consulship of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus and C. Cassius Longinus, but he names him Ptolemaeus king of Egypt. The date of Obsequens agrees with the Epitome, which places the death. of Apion between the consulship of T. Didius and Sulla's mission to Cappadocia. Appian has incorrectly placed the death of Apion in B.C. 74. This Apion was a bastard son of Ptolemaeus VII. king of Egypt, named Physcon, who died in B.C. 117 and left Cyrene to Apion. It is clearly to be inferred from Justinus that Apion died in the lifetime of his half-brother Ptolemaeus VIII. Soter king of Egypt, who himself died in B.C. 81. The error of Appian is therefore manifest. The kingdom of Cyrene was immediately made a Roman province, as we might infer from the words of Justinus, but all such conclusions from writers of his class are uncertain. The words of Livy's Epitome, "the Senate declared the cities of the kingdom to be free," merely mean that the chief cities of the Pentapolis, as it was called, should retain their own local administration, and the fact of the Senate declaring the cities to be free implies that the Romans guaranteed this freedom. These cities were Apollonia, Cyrene, Ptolemais, Arsinoe originally Taucheira, and Berenice originally Hesperides. We cannot conclude from the words of the Epitome that the Senate refused the legacy. Such a refusal would be inconsistent with the policy of the Romans and their design of extending their foreign dominions in the East. The correct conclusion then is that the Romans did occupy the country and gave it some kind of general administration, which would be absolutely necessary to maintain the unity of their new possession. It was afterwards formed into a Province with Crete.

Nothing is known of Apion's reign or his motives for leaving his kingdom to the Romans instead of allowing it to

be reunited to Egypt. Kings never willingly give up any territory to which they have a claim, and as the eighth Ptolemaeus of Egypt and his successors did not recover Cyrene, we may certainly assume that the Romans got it by some intrigue, and that they kept it because they were able to hold it. If they had not accepted the legacy, the king of Egypt would soon have laid his hands on the country. Apion, like Attalus of Pergamum, probably secured his kingdom from annexation in his lifetime by promising it to the Romans after his death.

The kingdom of Cyrene, or the Cyrenaica, extended west of Egypt along the north coast of Africa from the Catabathmus Major to the Great Syrtis or Gulf of Sidra. It is only a strip along the coast of the Mediterranean, a tableland which descends in terraces to the sea, and is backed by the Libyan desert. The oldest Greek settlement was the town of Cyrene, whence the whole country subsequently had the name Cyrenaica. The term Pentapolis was a collective name for the five chief cities of the Cyrenaica.

The year B.C. 95 had two illustrious consuls, the great orator L. Licinius Crassus and the jurist Q. Mucius Scaevola, afterwards Pontifex Maximus, by which title he is distinguished from Q. Mucius Scaevola called the Augur, who was also a great jurist. The Augur's daughter Mucia was the wife of the orator L. Licinius Crassus. In this year Q. Hortensius made his first speech in the forum at the age of eighteen ; and the poet Lucretius was born.

Crassus had Citerior Gallia or North Italy for his province in his consulship. Scaevola appears to have stayed in Rome. Crassus was ambitious of a triumph, which is a proof that his great talents did not elevate him altogether above the vulgar notions of his age. But he found no enemy, and had therefore no military success beyond the destroying of a few mountaineers, who were either robbers or said to be. He was weak enough to claim a triumph, but the opposition of his colleague prevented the Senate from allowing it, and saved Crassus from a public exhibition which to him would have been a disgrace. But the conduct of Crassus in North

Italy was free from blame. In his youth he had prosecuted to conviction C. Papirius Carbo (vol. i., p. 320), and the son of Carbo now followed Crassus into his province to look after his behaviour, as Valerius tells us. Crassus did not send him away. He even allowed Carbo to sit by him on the bench when he was holding his courts, and he made no decision without asking Carbo's opinion. Certainly, if this anecdote is true, Crassus used the wisest means for disarming an enemy. Valerius places the Alpine exploits of Crassus in B.C. 94 after his consulship, and Drumann prefers his evidence to that of Cicero, who, he argues, either means "proconsul," when he says "consul," or is mistaken about the year.

Crassus and his colleague proposed and carried a law, the Lex Licinia Mucia, the title of which is not certain. It is sometimes quoted as a "Lex de civibus regundis," and sometimes as a "Lex de civibus redigundis." The Italian allies of Rome wished to be raised from the condition of subjects to the rank of citizens, and it is said that many of them acted as Roman citizens, from which we must conclude that they sometimes voted at Rome, and probably they joined in the noise and tumult of the public assemblies. We have already seen that the Romans attempted by enactments to clear their city of the Latins and Italians, and it is possible that this law only enforced more strictly the existing law, for it is said by one authority that the purpose of it was to compel the Latini and Italian Socii to leave Rome. Further it appears that a very strict inquiry was made under this law into the case of these resident aliens at Rome, but whether it extended to all of them or was limited to those who pretended to be Roman citizens, we cannot tell. However, this Lex caused the greatest discontent among the Italians, and is supposed to have been one of the immediate causes of the war, which broke out in a few years. Q. Servilius Caepio, he who had plundered Tolosa and lost an army on the banks of the Rhone (B.c. 105), was brought to justice. This affair of Caepio is very confused. It was now ten years since his defeat in Gallia, for which he had already been punished with the loss of his property and his senatorian rank (p. 8). Such a

penalty would seem sufficient to satisfy all his enemies. The passage in Licinianus already cited (p. 9) does not state that the plebiscitum by which Caepio was ultimately ejected from Rome was proposed by L. Appuleius Saturninus, though the passage may possibly bear that meaning. It states that "Cn. Manlius" was ejected by a measure proposed by Saturninus, and for the same reason that Caepio was. Now Maximus could only be punished for the loss of his army, and therefore according to this authority Caepio had been punished for the same reason. But, as it has been already stated (p. 8), Caepio was promptly punished for his misconduct in Gallia, and he would not be punished again for the same offence. It is possible then that he was now called to account about the old affair of the gold of Tolosa. But whatever may have been the ground of this second charge, there is no reason for imputing it to Saturninus either in his first or his second tribunate, except the passage of Licinianus, and that is not decisive, even if we accept it as evidence. The only authority for assigning this second proceeding against Caepio to the year B.C. 95 is a passage of Cicero (Brutus, e. 44), who speaks of a speech made by L. Crassus in his consulship in defence of Caepio, an expression which we cannot understand, if Caepio had been driven out of Rome some years before in the lifetime of Saturninus. On this second occasion the tribune C. Norbanus proposed to the popular assembly the bill, which was intended to complete the ruin of Caepio. It is affirmed by some modern writers that Caepio was prosecuted under the Lex Appuleia Majestatis, which was enacted after the disgrace of Caepio; but he might be prosecuted for Majestas, as Galba was (vol. i., p. 21), without being irregularly prosecuted under a law which was enacted after his offence. Others suppose that he was tried by a court with a jury of Equites, which is certainly false. When the bill of Norbanus was proposed to the people, there was a great tumult, with fighting and throwing of stones. The Optimates mustered on the occasion to protect a man of their own party. M. Aemilius Scaurus was struck by a stone; and the tribunes L. Cotta and T. Didius, who attempted to put their veto VOL. II.

K

on the Rogatio, were driven away. The bill was carried by violence, and Caepio went to Smyrna an exile. Valerius Maximus says in one passage that Caepio was thrown into prison, though he does not say whether it was before the bill passed or after, and that one of the tribunes L. Rheginus, an old friend of Caepio, released him, and even accompanied him in his "flight." In another place Valerius says that Caepio died in prison, and that his body lacerated by the executioner was seen lying on the steps called Gemoniae to the great horror of all the Forum. Strabo states, on the authority of the historian Timagenes, that Caepio having appropriated some of the sacred treasures of Tolosa ended his life unhappily, being ejected from Rome as guilty of sacrilege, and that his daughters became prostitutes and died miserably. It is hardly credible that there should not have been a man in Rome willing to help the daughters of Caepio, if poverty drove them to prostitution. Such a total ruin of a family is not however unknown even in modern times. Freinsheim argues that there is nothing strange in Caepio having been punished twice; first, for losing his army, upon which he was expelled from the Senate and his property was confiscated, and secondly by this bill of Norbanus which was carried by violence, and probably was the penalty for Caepio's alleged misappropriation of the gold of Tolosa. This may be possible; but if Caepio lost all his property in B.C. 105, we cannot understand how he could live at Rome for ten years longer, or how he could live at all.

A young Roman, who afterwards acquired great reputation as an orator, P. Sulpicius Rufus, brought Norbanus to trial under the Lex Appuleia of Saturninus (B.c. 94). The prose cution of Norbanus was perhaps quite as much a party matter as the prosecution of Caepio by Norbanus. M. Antonius defended Norbanus, who had once been his Quaestor, and by his great talents and exertions he secured his client's acquittal. We learn that the jury who tried Norbanus were Equites, and we may conclude that the Lex Appuleia among other things provided for the constitution of the court which should try those who were charged with the offence of