A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

DRUSUS.

DRUSUS. 1079

Drusus inherited a large fortune from his father,
the consul; but, in order to obtain political influence, he was profuse and extravagant in his expenditure. The author of the treatise de Viris
Illustribus, usually ascribed to Aurelius Victor,
says that, from want of money, he sometimes
stooped to unworthy practices. Magulsa, a prince
of Mauretania, had taken refuge in Rome from the
resentment of Bocchus, and Drusus was induced
by a bribe to betray him to the king, who threw
the wretched prince to an elephant. When Adherbal, son of the king of the Numidians (Micipsa),
fled to Rome, Drusus kept him a prisoner in his
house, hoping that his father would pay a ransom
for his release. These two statements occur in no
other author, and the second is scarcely reconcilable with the narrative of Sallust. The same author states, that Drusus was aedile, and gave magnificent games, and that when Remmius, his colleague in the aedileship, suggested some measure
for the benefit of the commonwealth, he asked
sarcastically, " What's our commonwealth to you?"
Pighius, however (Anna/es, iii. p. 82), and others,
considering that M. Drusus, the son, died in his
tribuneship-an office usually held before that of
aedile-are of opinion, that Aurelius Victor has
confounded several events of the father's life with
those of the son.
It appears from Cicero (Brut. 62, pro Mil. 7),
that Drusus was the uncle of Cato of Utica, and
the great-uncle of Brutus. These relationships
were occasioned by successive marriages of his sister Livia. We agree with Manutius (ad Cic. de
Fin. iii. 2) in thinking, in opposition to the common opinion, that she was first married to Q. Servilius Caepio [CAEP10, No. 8, p. 535, a.], whose
daughter was the mother of Brutus, that she was
divorced from Caepio, and then married the father
of Cato of Utica; for Cato, according to Plutarch
(Cato Min. 1) was brought up in the house of his
uncle Drusus along with the children of Livia and
Caepio, who was then living, and who survived Drusus. (Liv. Epit lxxiii.) As Cato of Utica was born
B c. 95 (Plut. Cat. Min. 2, 3, 73; Liv. Epit. 114;
Sallust. Catil. 54), and as Drusus, who died B. c.
91, survived his sister, we must suppose, unless
her first marriage was to Caepio, that an extraordinary combination of events was crowded into
the years B. c. 95-91: viz. 1st. the birth of
Cato; 2nd. the death of his father; 3rd. the second marriage of Livia; 4th. the births of at least
three children by her second husband; 5th. her
death; 6th. the rearing of her children in the
house of Drusus; 7th. the death of Drusus.
Q. Servilius Caepio was the rival of Drusus in
birth, fortune, and influence. (Flor. iii. 17.) Originally they were warm friends. As Caepio married Livia, the sister of Drusus, so Drusus married
Servilia, the sister of Caepio (-ydgwv eraxNaey,
Dion Cass. Frag. Peiresc. 110, ed. Reimar. vol. i.
p. 45). Dion Cassius may be understood to refer to
domestic causes of quarrel; but, according to Pliny,
a rupture was occasioned between them from competition in bidding for a ring at a public auction;
and to this small event have been attributed the
struggles of Drusus for pre-eminence, and ultimately the kindling of the social war. (Plin. H. N.
xxxiii. 6.) The mutual jealousy of the brothersin-law proceeded to such great lengths, that on
one occasion Drusus declared he would throw Caepio down the Tarpeian rock. (De Vir. Ill. 66.)

Drusus was early an advocate of the party of
the optimates. When Saturninus was killed in
B. c. 100, he was one of those who took up arms
for the safety of the state (Cic. pro Rabir. Perd.
reo. 7), and supported the consul Marius, who was
now, for once, upon the side of the senate. (Liv.
Epit. xix.) In the dispute between the senate
and the equites for the possession of the judicia,
Caepio took the part of the equites, while Drusus
advocated the cause of the senate with such earnestness and impetuosity, that, like his father, he
seems to have been termed patronus senatus. (Cic.
pro Mil. 7; Diod. xxxvi. fr. fin. ed. Bipont. x.
p. 480.) The equites had now, by a lex Sempronia of C. Gracchus, enjoyed the judicia from B. c.
122, with the exception of the short interval during
which the lex Servilia removed the exclusion of the
senate [see p. 880, a]. It must be remembered that
the Q. Servilius Caepio who proposed this shortlived law (repealed by another lex Servilia of Servilius Glaiucia) was perhaps the father of Q. Servilius Caepio, the brother-in-law of Drusus, but was
certainly a different person and of different politics.
[See p. 535, a.] The equites abused their power,
as the senate had done before them. As farmers
of the public revenues, they committed peculation
and extortion with an habitual impunity, which
assumed in their own view the complexion of a
right. When accused, they were tried by accomplices and partizans, and " it must be a hard winter when wolf devours wolf." On the other hand,
in prosecutions against senators of the opposite
faction, the equites had more regard to political
animosity than to justice. Even in ordinary cases,
where party feeling was not concerned, they allowed their judicial votes to be purchased by bribery and corrupt influence. The recent unjust
condemnation of Rutilius Rufus had weakened the
senate and encouraged the violence of the equites,
when, in B. c. 91, Drusus was made tribune of the
plebs in the consulate of L. Marcius Philippus and
Sex. Julius Caesar. (Flor. 1. c.)
Under the plea of an endeavour to strengthen
the party of the senate, Drusus determined to gain
over the plebs, the Latins, and the Italic socii.
The ardour of his zeal was increased by the attack
which his enemy Caepio directed against the nobility by prosecuting some of their leaders. From
the conflicting statements and opposite views of
Roman writers as to his motives and conduct, his
character is in some respects a problem. Even partyspirit was at fault in estimating aman whose measures
were regarded as revolutionary, while his political
sentiments were supposed to be profoundly aristocratic. Velleius Paterculus (ii. 13; compare what
is said by the Pseudo-Sallust in Epist. 2 ad C. Caes.
de Rep. Ord.) applauds him for the tortuous policy of
attempting to wheedle the mob, by minor concessions to their demands, into a surrender of important claims to the optimates; but we cannot help
thinking (comp. Flor. iii. 18; Liv. Epit. lxx. lxxi.),
that he cared as much for self as for party-that
personal rivalries mingled with honest plans for
his country's good and enlightened views above
the capacity of the times-that, at last, he was
soured by disappointment into a dangerous conspirator,-and that there were moments when
visions of sole domination floated, however indistinctly, before his eyes. He was eager in the pursuit of popularity, and indefatigable in the endeavour to gain and exercise influence. It was one