The date of the so-called Lex Aufeia must be later than Aquillius' return from Asia in 126. Gracchus in mentioning the claims of Nicomedes and Mithridates probably refers to the disposal of Phrygia to the latter, while his own desire to increase Roman revenues explains his law on the province of Asia (see below). The date therefore may be as late as 123. Hill has recently put forward the very attractive suggestion that the word Aufeia (the name Aufeius does not occur elsewhere) is a corruption of Aquillia, that the ratification of Aquillius' settlement of Asia was still pending, and that Aufeius can be deleted from the list of magistrates. See Lange (2
3
.675) who held that the bill was praetorian, and Niccolini (FTP 163f.) who favored the view that it was tribunician. Magie (Roman Rule in Asia Minor 2.1043, note 27) holds that the Lex Aufeia had little to do with the disposal of Phrygia by Aquillius or bribes from the kings. (Broughton MRR I)
His proposal for the settlement of Asia after the war with Aristonicus was opposed by C. Gracchus (FOR 2.137f.; Gell. 11.10.1). See Hill, CR 62 (1948) 112f. (Broughton MRR I)