vol. XIV p.11133-1134
C. Manilius (Μάλλιος in the Greek manuscripts, cf. Boissevain on Dio XXXVI 42, 1), tribune of the plebs in 688 = 66 and author of two laws named after him (see vol. XII p.2397f.), though personally nothing more than a demagogue with a typical amount of impact. <60> Just one year later, in 689 = 65, Cicero refers to the first of his two laws as a ‘ruinous’ one (perniciosa Cornel. I 16 in Asocn. 57 K.-S. = 52 St.), and he was also rather cold in his judgement of Manilius when he proposed the second law in 688 = 66 (imp. Cn. Pomp. 69: istam tuam et legem et voluntatem et sententiam laudo … in te satis esse animi perseverantiaeque arbitror); later he counted him among the most industrious instigators of trouble (Mil. 22: populares insaniae; Phil. XI 18: tribuni pl. turbulenti, cf. Schol. Bob. on sect. 284 Or. = 119 St.: tribunatus … quem turbulentissime gesserat), and in Vell. II 33, 1 he briefly characterises him as semper venalis et alienae minister potentiae. <page break 1133/1134> Immediately after he entered office on 10th Dec. 687 = 67, Manilius once again proposed a law that had already been passed in the Sulpician revolution and had been repealed under Sulla: a law to give freedmen the right to vote across all voting tribes. <10> On 29th December, the final day of the year, he had the bill passed in a poorly-attended and violently-controlled popular assembly. On the following day, 1st January 688 = 66, the senate gave an immediate response: it declared that the law was null and void, because it had not been passed in line with the constitution (Dio XXXVI 42, 1-3. Cic. Cornel. I 8-10. 16. 47 in Ascon. 56f. 67 K.-S. = 52. 59 St. with Ascon.’s commentary; Mur. 47. Ascon. Mil. 40 = 39; cf. Groebe in Drumann G. R.2 III 19f., 9. IV 429f.). <20> Since Manilius was now feeling threatened himself and had been unsuccessful in seeking out other sources of support (Dio), he put forward his second bill, which made him very popular among the people, but a target for the nobility. In particular, he was made a target of Cn. Pompey, who had only just finished putting a quick and successful end to the war on pirates, and who looked like he was going to be trusted with absolute command over the war against Mithridates and Tigranes. <30> This was the bill which Cicero, who was praetor at the time, stood up for, in his first political speech: the extant pro lege Manilia de imperio Cn. Pompei (Dio XXXVI 42, 4-43, 5. Plut. Pomp. 30, 1ff. Liv. ep. C. Vell. II 33, 1; cf. Cic. imp. Cn. Pomp. 69; Cornel. frg. I 16; Phil. XI 18 [see above]; or. 102. Q. Cic. pet. cons. 51. Quintilian. inst. or. II 4, 40 etc. Drumann IV 430-440). <40> However, Manilius was soon struck by his enemies’ revenge immediately after he stepped down from his time in office. Still in December, before Cicero lead his quaestio repetundarum, he was charged with embezzlement (κλοπῆς Plut. Cic. 9, 4), though the actual trial was delayed until January 689 = 65. But the general unrest stirred up by the so-called ‘first Catilinarian conspiracy’ meant that the trial did not take place, and Cicero no longer needed to defend Manilius like he had promised (Dio XXXVI 44, 1f. Plut. Cic. 9, 4-7. Q. Cic. pet. cons. 51. Ascon. Cornel. 53. 58 = 49. 53). <50> This, however, was followed by a second charge de majestate (Schol. Bob. Mil. 284 Or. = 119 St.), which ended in Manilius’ being convicted (Ascon. Cornel. 53 = 49). Though the various accounts on both trials are not particularly clear, and do not line up particularly well, they have been compiled along roughly the same lines by Heinze Abh. Sächs. Ges. XXVII 996f. and by Groebe in Drumann V 399-401. <60> It is possible that C. Mamilius was the step-son of the Falcidius (vol. VI p.1969, 3ff.) in Cic. Flacc. 93, and it is also possible that the Manilius Crispus whom Pompey later defends in Val. Max. VI 2, 4 (nr. 23) was identical with this tribune.
([Münzer.])