[1192] Gauda is called king in an inscription which gives the whole house of Juba II. The inscription (C.I.L. II. n. 3417) runs:—Regi Jubae reg(is) Jubae filio regi(s) Iempsalis n. regis Gau(dae) pronepoti regis Masiniss(ae) pronepotis nepoti IIvir quinq. patrono coloni (the coloni, who set up the inscription, having made Juba II IIvir quinquennalis honoris causa). The only doubt which affects the belief in Gauda's succession arises from a passage in Cic. post Red. ad Quir. 8. 20. Cicero here says (Marius) cum parva navicula pervectus in Africam, quibus regna ipse dederat, ad eos inops supplexque venisset. There can be no doubt that Marius fled to Hiempsal, not to Gauda. But it has been pointed out that Cicero's expression is "ad eos," not "ad eum." The plural probably refers to the whole "domus" of the monarch and would include both Gauda and Hiempsal. See Biereye Res Numidarum et Maurorum p. 7.
[1193] Mauretania subsequently includes the region of Caesariensis, but it has been thought probable that the territory of Sitifis on the east was not added until the new settlement in 46 B.C. (Mommsen Hist. of Rome bk. iv. c. 4). The territory between the Muluccha and Saldae might, therefore, have been added after the close of the war with Jugurtha. See Müller Numismatique de l'Afrique. p. 4; Mommsen l.c.; Göbel Die Westküste Afrikas im Altertum p. 93; Biereye op. cit. p. 6. It is very questionable whether the limits of the Roman province were in any way extended at the expense of Numidia. Such additions as Vaga and Sicca probably belong to the settlement of 46 B.C. See Tissot Géogr. comp. ii. pp. 21 foll. It has sometimes been thought that the attachment of Leptis Magna to Rome (p. 429) was permanent (Wilmanns in C.I.L. viii. p. 2) and that Tripolis became a part of the Roman province (Marquardt Staatsverw. i. p. 465), but Tissot (op. cit. ii. p. 22) believes that Leptis remained a free city.
[1194] Sall. Jug. 114. 3; Liv. Ep. lxvii; C.I.L. i. n. xxxiii p. 290 Eum (Jugurtham) cepit et triumphans in secundo consulatu ante currum suum duci jussit … veste triumphali calceis patriciis [? in senatum venit]. It is questionable, however, whether the last words of this Arretine inscription (words which do not immediately follow the account of the Numidian triumph) can be brought into connection with the story told by Plutarch (Mar. 12) that Marius, either through forgetfulness or clumsiness, entered the senate in his triumphal dress. They seem to refer to some special honours conferred after the defeat of the Germanic tribes. It is possible that the conferment of this honour gave rise to the malicious story, which became not only distorted but misplaced.
[1195] Plut. Mar. 12.
[1196] Ihne Röm. Gesch. v. p. 164 Wo dem Sohn des Südens der Schmerzenschrei entfuhr.
[1197] Plut. Mar. 12. The epitomator of Livy (lxvii.) says in carcere necatus est. The word necatus is quite consistent with a death such as that described by Plutarch. See Festus, pp. 162, 178.
[1198] Plut. l.c.
[1199] Plut. Mar. 10.
[1200] Plut. Sulla 4.
[1201] Plut. Mar. 10; Sulla 3.