Part 39 (2/2)

[1177] Sall. _Jug_. 105. 1.

[1178] Ibid. 106. 2.

[1179] Sall. _Jug_. 107, 1.

[1180] Sall. _Jug_. 107. 6. Cf. Plut. _Sulla_ 3.

[1181] Ibid. 108.

[1182] This is apparently the meaning of Sall.u.s.t (Ibid. 108. 1) when he describes Dabar as Ma.s.sugradae filius, ex gente Masinissae, ceterum materno genere inpar (nam pater ejus ex concubina ortus erat).

[1183] Sall. _Jug_. 108. 3 Sed ego conperior Bocchum magis Punica fide quam ob ea, quae praedicabat, simul Romanos et Numidam spe pacis attinuisse, multumque c.u.m animo suo volvere solitum, Jugurtham Romanis an illi Sullam traderet; lubidinem advorsum nos, metum pro n.o.bis suasisse.

[1184] Ibid. 109, 2 Dicit se missum a consule. Marius was really proconsul.

[1185] Ibid. 110.

[1186] Sall. _Jug_. 111.

[1187] Sall. _Jug_. 111. 2

[1188] Ibid. 112. 1.

[1189] Haec Maurus sec.u.m ipse diu volvens tandem promisit, ceterum dolo an vere cunctatus parum comperimus (Ibid. 113. 1).

[1190] This must have been the agreement, although Sall.u.s.t says only Eodem Numida c.u.m plerisque necessariis inermis, uti dictum erat, adcedit (Sall. _Jug_. 113. 6).

[1191] Ibid. 114. 3.

[1192] Gauda is called king in an inscription which gives the whole house of Juba II. The inscription (C.I.L. II. n. 3417) runs:--Regi Jubae reg(is) Jubae filio regi(s) Iempsalis n. regis Gau(dae) p.r.o.nepoti regis Masiniss(ae) p.r.o.nepotis nepoti IIvir quinq. patrono coloni (the _coloni_, who set up the inscription, having made Juba II IIvir quinquennalis _honoris causa_). The only doubt which affects the belief in Gauda's succession arises from a pa.s.sage in Cic. _post Red. ad Quir_.

8. 20. Cicero here says (Marius) c.u.m parva navicula pervectus in Africam, quibus regna ipse dederat, ad eos inops supplexque venisset.

There can be no doubt that Marius fled to Hiempsal, not to Gauda. But it has been pointed out that Cicero's expression is ”ad eos,” not ”ad eum.”

The plural probably refers to the whole ”domus” of the monarch and would include both Gauda and Hiempsal. See Biereye _Res Numidarum et Maurorum_ p. 7.

[1193] Mauretania subsequently includes the region of Caesariensis, but it has been thought probable that the territory of Sitifis on the east was not added until the new settlement in 46 B.C. (Mommsen _Hist. of Rome_ bk. iv. c. 4). The territory between the Muluccha and Saldae might, therefore, have been added after the close of the war with Jugurtha. See Muller _Numismatique de l'Afrique_. p. 4; Mommsen l.c.; Gobel _Die Westkuste Afrikas im Altertum_ p. 93; Biereye op. cit. p. 6.

It is very questionable whether the limits of the Roman province were in any way extended at the expense of Numidia. Such additions as Vaga and Sicca probably belong to the settlement of 46 B.C. See Tissot _Geogr. comp_. ii. pp. 21 foll. It has sometimes been thought that the attachment of Leptis Magna to Rome (p. 429) was permanent (Wilmanns in C.I.L. viii. p. 2) and that Tripolis became a part of the Roman province (Marquardt _Staatsverw_. i. p. 465), but Tissot (op. cit. ii.

p. 22) believes that Leptis remained a free city.

[1194] Sall. _Jug_. 114. 3; Liv. _Ep_. lxvii; C.I.L. i. n. x.x.xiii p. 290 Eum (Jugurtham) cepit et triumphans in secundo consulatu ante currum suum duci jussit ... veste triumphali calceis patriciis [? _in senatum venit_]. It is questionable, however, whether the last words of this Arretine inscription (words which do not immediately follow the account of the Numidian triumph) can be brought into connection with the story told by Plutarch (_Mar_. 12) that Marius, either through forgetfulness or clumsiness, entered the senate in his triumphal dress. They seem to refer to some special honours conferred after the defeat of the Germanic tribes. It is possible that the conferment of this honour gave rise to the malicious story, which became not only distorted but misplaced.

[1195] Plut. _Mar_. 12.

[1196] Ihne _Rom. Gesch_. v. p. 164 Wo dem Sohn des Sudens der Schmerzenschrei entfuhr.

[1197] Plut. _Mar_. 12. The epitomator of Livy (lxvii.) says in carcere necatus est. The word _necatus_ is quite consistent with a death such as that described by Plutarch. See Festus, pp. 162, 178.

<script>