678 RULLUS. fixvom of the soldiers, raised Rufus to the con- sulship for the second time. Otho perished by his own hand soon afterwards, and the soldiers de- termined that Rufus should now, at all events, accept the empire. He remained, however, firm in his resolution ; and when the soldiers blockaded him in his house, he escaped from them by a back- door. But this continued opposition to their desires almost proved his ruin. Thinking themselves in- sulted by him, they began to hate him as much as they had formerly loved him ; and accordingly when he was accused of taking part in a conspiracy against Vitellius, they flocked to the emperor, and eagerly demanded the death of their former favourite. But Rufus escaped this peril, and lived for many years afterwards, honoured and beloved by all classes in the city. At length, in a. d, 97, when he was eighty-three years of age, the emperor Nerva made him consul for the third time, along with himself. During his consulship he broke his leg, and this accident occasioned his death. He was honoured with a public funeral, and the panegyric over him was pronounced by Cornelius Tacitus, who was then consul. His praises were also celebrated by the younger Pliny, of whom he had formerly been the tutor or guardian, and who has preserved the epi- taph which Rufus composed for his own tomb : " Hie situs est Rufus pulso qui Vindice quondam Imperium adseruit non sibi sed patriae." (Dion Cass. Ixiii. 24, 25, 27, Ixiv. 4, Ixviii. 2 ; Piut. Galb. 4, 6, 10 ; Tac. Hist. i. 8, 9, 77, ii. 49, 51, 68 ; Plin. Ep. ii. 1, v. 3. § 5, vi. 10, ix. 19.) The praenomen of Virginius Rufus is doubtful, as we find in inscriptions, in which his different con- sulships are recorded, both Lucius and Titus. But since he is expressly stated to have been three times consul (Plin. Ep. ii. 1), it is more likely that there is an error in one of the inscriptions than that they refer to different persons. Some modern writers, indeed, assign a fourth consulship to him, but this opinion is. untenable. (See Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs^ vol. ii. p. 208, ed. Brux- elles.) RUFUS, VI'BIUS, lived in the reign of Tiberius, and prided himself on two things ; namely, that he possessed the curule chair which the dic- tator Caesar was accustomed to use, and that he had married the widow of Cicero. But his boasting gave no offence, and he was raised by Tiberius to the consulship. His name, however, does not appear in the Fasti (Dion Cass. Ivii. 15). The widow of Cicero has been usually supposed to be Terentia, but Drumann has remarked, with justice, that it was far more likely Publilia, the second wife of Cicero (Geschiclde Boms, vol. vi. p. 696). Vibius Rufus frequently appears as one of the declaimers in the Controversiae of the elder Seneca. {Contr. 2, 4, 5, 7—9, et alibi.) RUGA, ICI'LIUS. [IciLius, No. 2.] RUGA, RU'BRIUS. [Rubrius, No 8.] RULLIA'NUS, or RULLUS, a surname of Q. Fabius Maxiraus. [Maximus, Fabius, No. 1.] RULLUS, P. SERVPLIUS, tribune of the plebs, B. c. 63, proposed an agrarian law, which Cicero attacked in three orations which have come down to us. We know scarcely any thing of the family or the life of Rullus. Pliny relates that his father was the first Roman who brought a boar whole upon the table (//. A'", viii. 51. s. 78), and Cicero describes the son as a debauchee (c. Hull. RULLUS. i. 1). This agrarian law, called as usual after the name of its proposer the Servilia Lex, was tlie most extensive that had ever been brought for- ward. The execution of it was entrusted to ten commissioners {decemviri), whose election was to be conducted in the same manner as that of the pontifex maximus. Seventeen of the tribes were to be selected by lot, and nine of these were to give their votes in favour of each candidate. The ten commissioners thus elected were to have ex- traordinary powers. Their olhce was to last five years, and the imperium was to be conferred upon them by a lex curiata. They were authorised to sell all the lands out of Italy, which had become part of the public domain since the consulship of Sulla and Q, Pompeius (b. c. 88), with the excep- tion of those which had been guaranteed by treaty to the Roman allies; and likewise all the public domains in Italy, with the exception of the Cam- panian and Stellatian districts, and of the lands which had been assigTied by the state, or had had a possessor since the consulship of Carbo and the younger Marius (b. c, 82). The object of the latter enactment was to avert any opposition that might be made by the numerous persons who had received grants of public lands from Sulla. Fur- ther, all the proconsuls and other magistrates in the provinces, who had not yet paid into the trea- sury the monies which they had obtained from the booty of the enemy or in any other way, were commanded to give the whole of such monies to the decemvirs ; but an exception was made in fa- vour of Pompey, whom it was thought prudent to exempt from the operation of the law. All the sums thus received by the decemvirs, both from the sale of the public lands and from the Roman generals, were to be devoted by them to the pur- chase of lands in Italy, which were then to be assigned to the poor Roman citizens as their pro- perty. They were to settle a colony of 5000 citi- zens on the rich public lands in the Campanian and Stellatian districts, each of the colonists re- ceiving ten jugera in the former and twelve in the latter district. These were the chief objects of the Servilia Lex, but it contained besides many other provisions relating to the public land. Thus for instance the decemvirs were authorised to decide in all cases, whether the land belonged to the pub- lic domains or to a private person, and also to im- pose taxes on all the public lands which still re- mained in the hands of the possessors. It is impossible to believe that Rullus would have ventured to bring forAvard this law without the sanction and approval of Caesar, who was ti)en the leader of the popular party; but it is equally impossible to believe that Caesar could have de- sired or thought that it was practicable to carry such an unconstitutional and extravagant measure. It is not, however, difficult to divine the probable motives which actuated him in rendering it bis support. Any opposition, however just, to an agrarian law, was always unpopular among the lower classes at Rome. The aristocratical party, by resisting and defeating the proposition of Rul- lus, would be looked upon by the people with greater dislike than ever; and their disappointment in not obtaining the grants they had anticipated would render still more welcome an agrarian law proposed by Caesar himself. Besides this consi- deration, Caesar was probably anxious to unmask Cicero, who had risen to the consulship by the
