The basic distinction in Roman politics between boni and improbi carried a distinctly material aspect; for despite its moralising nature, it remained firmly rooted in the socio-economic realities of late republican society. Improbitas was closely associated with cupiditas and egestas – ‘greed’ and ‘poverty’, which became standard charges against political opponents; indeed, almost all protagonists appear to have been accused of financial improprieties of some form or other.1 The disruptive actions of improbi were routinely presented as property-related – be it their own dwindling resources or the tempting estates of the viri boni. The result was two socio-political archetypes, neatly summed up in Cicero’s description of Naevius’ associate in the Pro Quinctio, who was not a ‘hominem egentem … improbum’, but an ‘eques Romanus locuples, sui negotii bene gerens’, a ‘rich Roman eques, who conducted his business well’, 62.