II. The Laws of Drusus and the Citizenship of the Italians.
The Oligarchy and the Equestrian Courts. — The antagonism of the knights and the city multitude (p. 185) was opportune and in some degree reassuring; still, the oligarchy was, no doubt, fully aware of its humiliation, weakness, and danger in submitting to the equestrian courts. The nobles were as ready as ever to prosecute each other; personal enmities were even bequeathed and inherited. These personal dif- ferences, and all other cases as well, had to be decided by the knights, who were often hostile to the litigants.
The oligarchy, moreover, considered the courts excellent political weapons, but could not rely on them at present In 94, for instance, the ex-tribune Gains Norbanus, who had played a leading part in prosecuting Caepio (p. 180) was arraigned by Publius Sulpicius Rufus on a charge of treason (maiestas minuta). He was defended by Marcus Antonius, the orator, and acquitted, partly no doubt because Caepio had for a time deprived the knights of their monopoly of the jury panel (pp. 178-179).
Whenever the interests of the equestrian class were con- cerned, the equestrian courts could not be depended upon to acquit the innocent or to condemn the guilty. The most notorious case of flagrant injustice occurred in 93. The ex-consul P. Rutilius Rufus, who was a model of integrity, a man of culture, and a distinguished officer, had been the lieutenant of Quintus Mucius Scaevola when he was governor of the province of Asia. He had assisted Scaevola in his exemplary administration and helped to protect the provin- cials against the exactions of the equestrian farmers of the taxes. As a result, he was accused of extortion, and, in spite of the absurdity of the charge, was condemned.
The issue of this trial showed plainly that the personal
