vol. VI p.322-323
His praenomen is mentioned in Val. Max. IX 7, 1 (following Kempf’s 2nd edition’s sole attestation), and following Mommsen’s conjecture it’s also attested in the short fragment of Q. Metellus Numidicus’ elogium (CIL I2 p. 196 el. XIX b): [ce]nsor L. Eq[uitium censu prohibuit]. <20> His nomen is in Val. Max. III 2, 18. 8, 6. IX 15, 1; corrupted into Quinctius in Auct. de vir. ill. 62, 1. Otherwise, Equitius is only spoken about as the alleged son of Ti. Gracchus, whom Flor. II 4, 1 calls C. Gracchus. Accounts differ on his origins. Cic. Rab. perd. 20 refers to him as ille ex compedibus atque ergastulo Gracchus and Appian. bell. civ. I 32 as δραπέτης εἶναι νομιζόμενος, which means that in this source - which is our most ancient one - the view of the optimates who opposed him comes across as fact. <30> On the other hand, Auct. de vir. ill. 73, 2 calls him libertini ordinis, and Livy seems to have only presented him as a man of obscure origins, without deciding on any particular story: of the authors who came after him, Val. Max. IX 15, 1 merely writes: Firmo Piceno (see below) monstrum veniens (cf. III 8, 6: Nescio quibus tenebris protractum portentum), and Florus only writes: Hominem sine tribu, sine notore, sine nomine. <40> According to the rather inexact account in Auct. de vir. ill. 73, 2, the appearance of Equitius had been orchestrated by L. Appuleius Saturninus from the very beginning. The man claimed that he was the son of Ti. Gracchus, and this claim found a lot of takers among the people. However, when he finally approached the censor Q. Metellus Numidicus in 652 = 102 asking him to certify his claim, the censor refused to add him to the list of citizens, even though considerable outrage had started to spread among Equitius’s sizeable following, which culminated in stones being thrown at Metellus (Elog. Numidici see above. Cic. Sest. 101. Val. Max. IX 7, 2. Auct. de vir. ill. 62, 1, cf. vol. II p.264. vol. III p.1220). <50> The censor had made the reasonable decision (Val. Max. loc. cit.), but Equitius made an appeal to the Tribal Assembly. The only remaining member of the Sempronian house was the sister of the Gracchi, and the widow of Africanus the Younger. <60> She was brought forward by one of the tribunes, but despite the imposing threat of the people, she refused to recognise Equitius as a relative (Val. Max. III 8, 6. Auct. de vir. ill. 73, 4). Regardless, the belief of the people in this alleged son of Gracchus remained steadfast, and it was only natural that the radical democratic politicians made use of this man: even if he did emerge entirely of his own accord, later on he nevertheless only appears as a tool of Saturninus. <page break 322/323> Durning Saturninus’ second tribunate in 654 = 100, Equitius was put up as a candidate for the tribunate himself. But when the consul Marius had him arrested, because it was illegal for a man to run for office if the censors had judged him ineligible, the people forcibly freed him from prison (Val. Max. IX 7, 1). <10> And when another candidate was violently murdered, the election of Equitius as tribune for 655 = 99 went through, along with the election of Saturninus, which itself would have gone against the ban on continuing his period in office (Flor.). According to Appian. I 32f., the disaster took place on the day that the new tribunes stepped into office - 10th December: although Appian considers Equitius a tribune and refers to him as such, while Val. Max. III 2, 18 instead refers to him as designatus tribunus plebis, given the date of the affair both of these statements are valid. <20> Accordingly, it would be wrong to refer to this date as an arbitrary choice made by Appian, as Bardey does (Das sechste Consulat des Marius [Nauen 1883] 15f.). If we were to follow the chronology according to Valerius Maximus, we would need to place Equitius’ campaign for the tribunate and his arrest by Marius during his fifth consulship in 652 = 101 (cf. IX 7, 1), meaning that we would need to assume he’d had a second successful election in the following year. Either way, though he was successful in 654 = 100, it came at the cost of being tied up in Saturninus’s ruin (Appian. I 33, cf. vol. II p.267f.). <30> Private individuals involved in Equitius’s quest for power more often than not played a temporary role, without having held any sort of independent influence. But if we consider him merely as a puppet of Saturninus, that lines up not only with the account that the optimates give us, but with the facts as well. <40> The Equitii are not attested in inscriptions in Firmum, and Varro r. r. II 1, 10 mentions the name because of its etymology, but it is in no way common. During the republic, Equitii were found in Caere CIL XI 3648 [= I 1545]. 3649.
([Münzer])
This article is referenced by: Sempronia (99)