vol. II p.1252-1254
<page break 1252/1253> qui fuit M. Crassi quasi secundarum (scl. partium, ie he was often an advocate with Crassus [Dives], but was content with the second role). is omnibus exemplo debet esse, quantum in hac urbe polleat multorum oboedire tempori multorumque vel honori vel periculo servire. his enim rebus infimo loco natus et honores et pecuniam et gratiam consecutus, etiam in patronorum sine doctrina sine ingenio aliquem numerum pervenerat. sed -- -- ille, cum omni iam fortuna prospere functus labores etiam magnos excepisset, illius iudicialis anni (ie of the year 702 = 52, in which Pompey imposed strict limitations on what an advocate could do with his trial-law) <10> severitatem quasi solem non tulit Cic. Brut. 242. According to the words infimo loco natus, he was definitely not a son of the praetor Q. Arrius nr. 7, which is, however, already almost certainly ruled out anyway by chronology, nor can he be identified with him. <20> In the year 691 = 63, he was praetorius, and brought the first news to Rome about the gangs of Catilinarians amassing in Etruria, Plut. Cic. 15. In the year 693 = 61, Cicero writes (ad Att. I 17, 11) Caesar cum eo (= Lucceio) coire per Arrium cogitat, ie Caesar wanted to make it known that he was going to apply for the consulship in 695 = 59 through Arrius as a middle-man between him and Lucceius. To this end, Caesar seems to have promised his support in Arrius’ campaign for the following year, <30> though not to have granted it, Cic. ad Att. II 5, 2. 7, 3. His campaign for the consulship is clearly connected to the fact that in the year 695 = 59, Arrius put on a public banquet to honour his dead father, cum tot hominum milia accumberent Cic. in Vatin. 30-31 and Schol. Bib. ad loc. St. In exile, Cicero bitterly complained that Arrius had abandoned him, ad Q. fr. I 3, 8 (June 696 = 58). Later, Cicero reconciled with him, <40> in Vatin. 30 he calls him familiaris meus, p. Mil. 46 amicus meus. In Milo’s trial in 702 = 52, Arrius was a witness, Cic. p. Mil. 46. When Cicero wrote his Brutus, Arrius was no longer alive; this can be worked out not only from the way in which Cicero speaks of Arrius in the sources brought up above, but also from Cicero’s own words - quippe de mortuis, which just there (§ 244) refer to those named directly before as dead. <50>
Since it can be concluded from the sources referred to in Cicero that this Q. Arrius was a rich man, it is definitely this man who is referred to in Horat. sat. II 3, 86, <page break 1253/1254> where the topic is heirs who have obliged the bequeathers to dare epulum arbitrio Arri, perhaps with a reference to the magnificent funeral meal Arrius gave; Quinti progenies Arri, par nobile fratrum ibid. v. 243ff., his sons, whose names cannot be determined, are described by Horace as senseless spenders.
[Klebs.]
This article is referenced by: Arrius (1), Q. Arrius (7)
Previous article: Q. Arrius (7)
Next article: P. Asicius