CHAPTER XIX

A SUMMARY OF COMITIAL HISTORY

Originating in the simple gathering (contio) of the primitive folk, the general assembly of Roman citizens came, under sacerdotal influence, to be grouped in curiae with a view to adding order and solemnity to the meetings. Thus the Romans created the comitia curiata. Not only the curiae, but also the later centuries, classes, and tribes, originally existed independently of the assembly for various administrative purposes and were brought into connection with that institution as convenient systems of organization. At first ceremonial, the comitia curiata came to be used for voting on resolutions. Gradually reducing this earliest organized gathering to a formality, the Romans successively introduced the centuriate and the tribal comitia. Excepting for brief, transitional periods the assembly, whatever its form, admitted all citizens who possessed the right of suffrage. Its power was at first slight vague, and chiefly receptive. Though in the regal period the people occasionally approved or rejected judicial sentences, administrative plans, and even proposals for changes in existing customs submitted to them by the king of his own free will, the only function which at that time they definitely acquired was the election of their chief magistrate.

From the founding of the republic to the decemviral legislation (509-450) the magistrates and senate exercised almost absolute control over the administration. At the very beginning the comitia centuriata—a newly established timocratic institution—assumed the right to enact laws, which for a long time were substantially limited to matters directly affecting the constitution; and the alleged Valerian centuriate statute made of this body a supreme court to which any citizen condemned on a capital charge was granted the privilege of appeal. In practice, however, the law benefited those only of high rank who were accused of political crimes. Meantime a new, more democratic assembly under the presidency of tribunes of the plebs, meeting by tribes after 471, usurped an extensive though ill-defined power of fining and capitally condemning offenders against the sanctity of plebeian officials. But this function, resting upon an act of the plebs only and enforced by threats of violence, was almost nullified by patrician opposition. It was doubtless in this period that voting by heads arose in the comitia centuriata, whence it was adopted by the other assemblies.

The Twelve Tables (451-450) confirmed the comitia centuriata in the rights it had previously assumed; and if not expressly, at least by implication they granted legislative and judicial power to the tribunician assembly of tribes. A Valerian-Horatian statute of 449 provided that resolutions approved by the senate and carried by the latter assembly should have the force of law, just as from the beginning the senatorial sanction (patrum auctoritas) was essential to the validity of curiate and centuriate resolutions and elections. At the same time in conformity with a law of the Twelve Tables an arrangement was made by which the tribunes should bring their finable actions before the tribes and those of a capital nature before the centuries. Soon afterward the patrician magistrates began to use the tribes for the election of inferior officials and occasionally for the ratification of laws.

During the century following the decemviral legislation (450-358) the almost absolute administrative power of the senate and magistrates remained but slightly affected by the comitia. The appointment of a dictator or the establishment of a special judicial commission placed the citizens at the mercy of the government. Although the comitia centuriata acquired the right to ratify or reject declarations of offensive war (427) and though the tribunes succeeded in enacting a few important plebiscites, like the Canuleian and the Licinian-Sextian, the people made little progress toward the free exercise of legislative and judicial functions. With the enactment of a lex de ambitu in 358 the tribes began to legislate concerning magistrates, with reference not only to candidacy and qualifications but soon also to powers and functions and to the creation of new offices. They passed laws on finance and religion and on the qualification and appointment of senators; they assumed the function of ratifying or rejecting proposals for peace (321) and of admitting aliens to citizenship. The tribes and the centuries began regularly to exercise appellate jurisdiction. About the same time the people acquired the function of appointing special judicial commissions, and subjected the dictator to the law of appeal. In an effort to throw off the control exercised by the nobility the Publilian statute of 339 excluded patricians from the tribunician assembly of tribes (a regulation afterward silently abandoned), and in 287 that of Hortensius rendered the approval of the senate and of the patrician portion of it unessential to the validity of the plebiscite. Meanwhile in administrative and in constitutional legislation the comitia tributa made great gains at the expense of the senate and magistrates and of the centuriate assembly.

The period extending from 358 to 287 was accordingly the first great age of comitial legislative and judicial activity. The strong popular tendency then manifested might have created a real democracy, had it not been for (1) the cleverness of the nobles in gaining control of the plebeian tribunate and in using religion as a check on comitial freedom. (2) the rapid expansion of the Roman power, which drew the public mind away from internal politics, and which rendered the assembly not only an inadequate representative of the citizens but also incompetent for the functions devolving upon it. Many years passed, however, before this incompetency became serious. Though henceforth the comitia were in theory sovereign, they remained limited by a want of initiative both in the act of assembling and in the offering of resolutions, by the lack of free deliberation, by the tribunician veto, and by the oblative auspices. After the enactment of the Hortensian statute the comitia tributa enjoyed almost exclusive possession of the legislative function. The larger share fell to the tribunician assembly, which excelled in aggressiveness, and which admitted as much freedom of debate as was consistent with the spirit of the constitution—hence it was preferably termed concilium. Notwithstanding these relative advantages of the tribal assembly the adverse conditions above mentioned led to an era of comitial stagnation (287-232), at the close of which the tribunate of C. Flaminius brought a new outburst of activity (232-201). The assemblies now recovered all they had lost in the preceding age and made fresh gains. Noteworthy are the sumptuary, monetary, private, and family statutes, and the recognition of the right of the people to grant dispensations from existing laws. In the opinion of Polybius the constitution was in this time at its best. The nobles admitted the theory of popular sovereignty, as they could well afford to do in view of their thorough control of all governmental institutions. In the era of the completed plutocracy (201-134) they regularly resorted to the comitia in matters of little political importance or in those in which they felt certain of the results. Under these conditions fewer laws were enacted for the benefit of the masses. The policy of the nobles was to repress individual freedom by subjecting both magistrates and assemblies to the plutocratic machine. Even the comitial judicia were subordinated to this end; and toward the close of the period the people in establishing permanent courts began through legislation to surrender their judicial power to the senatorial class, while the senate, on the other hand, resumed the function of dispensing from the laws and of appointing special courts. In these ways the nobility was making great inroads on popular liberty.

In the beginning of the revolutionary period (134-30) the tribal assembly, liberated for a time from servitude to the plutocracy, became under the presidency of reforming tribunes the ruling power at Rome. Its

## activity not only embraced the whole field of administration but was

directed by the Gracchi to the creation of a new political constitution and to the regeneration of society. But its variable composition precluded consistency of action. Though at times, as when controlled by the rural element of the citizen body, it could be induced to adopt liberal, statesmanlike measures such as the agrarian and colonial laws of the Gracchi, the usual dominance of the ignorant and unprincipled poor of the metropolis inclined it to a short-sighted, selfish course of conduct—rendering it a powerful weapon in the hands either of the demagogue or of the plutocratic senate, equally effective for resisting genuine reforms and for destroying the institutions of the republic. As with the progress of the revolution the conservative checks began to weaken and disappear, the comitia became more and more subject to violence and coercion. The comitial prosecutions of this period partook of the same revolutionary character. From the time of Sulla the assemblies were overshadowed by the military power. Under his dictation they surrendered to the senatorial courts nearly all that remained of their judicial function, and they seriously crippled their legislative power in favor of a reaction to the pre-Hortensian constitution. After a brief interval of bondage to the senate (81-70) they recovered their legislative freedom, only to subserve for the future the alliance now formed between the tribunes of the plebs and the great proconsuls. From the accession of Julius Cæesar to the dictatorship (49) their power rapidly declined. They yielded to him a large share of their legislative and even of their elective function. After a brief period of pretended liberty following the assassination of the dictator, they lapsed with the fall of the republic into utter insignificance.

The comitia had filled a large place in the history of the state. They were the chief factor of constitutional progress and of beneficent legislation. Their development and decline involved the prosperity and the ruin of the republic. For the world they have a higher value. The tribal assembly, supporting the plebeian tribunate, was the storm centre of long, heroic struggles for human rights. The fact that it championed this cause, that it met with some success in the conflict, that a Gracchus deemed it worthy to undertake the social regeneration of the world, has given the institution a universal and a permanent interest.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

From this list are excluded the titles of all works which, treating of other than Roman institutions, are referred to in this volume for comparative purposes, and of all sources which are accessible in well-known, standard editions.

Abbott, F. F. A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. Boston, 1901.

⸺ The Constitutional Argument in the Fourth Catilinarian Oration. _Classical Journal_, ii (1907). 123-5.

_Abhdl. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin._ = _Philologische und historische Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._

_Abhdl. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ = _Abhandlungen der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften._ Munich.

_Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ = _Abhandlungen der philologisch-historische Classe der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig._

Ackermann, H. Die räumlichen Schranken der tribunizischen Gewalt. Program. Rostock, 1891.

Aelius Donatus. Commentum Terenti, ed. P. Wessner. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1902, 1905.

Ahren, E. A. J. Die drei Volkstribunen Ti. Gracchus, M. Drusus, und P. Sulpicius. Leipzig, 1836.

Ampère, J. J. Histoire Romaine à Rome. 4 vols. Paris, 1866-1872.

_Archiv f. lat. Lexicog._ = _Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik ... als Ergänzung zu dem Thesaurus linguae Latinae_, ed. E. von Wölfflin. Leipzig.

Arndts, D. Die lex Maenia de dote vom Jahre der Stadt Rom 568. _Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte_, vii (1868). 1-44.

Arnim, H., von. Ineditum Vaticanum. _Hermes_, xxvii (1892). 118-30.

Arnobius, Adversus Nationes libri vii, rec. A. Reifferscheid. Vienna, 1875.

Arnold, W. T. The Roman System of Provincial Administration. New ed. Oxford, 1906.

Auct. Inc. de Diff. = Auctor Incertus (Cornelius Fronte?), (in) Grammatici Latini, ed. Keil, vii. 519-32.

Aust, E. Die Religion der Römer. Münster, 1899.

Babelon, E. Description historique et chronologique des monnaies de la république Romaine. 2 vols. Paris, 1885, 1886.

Babelon, E. Les origines de la monnaie. Paris, 1897.

⸺ Traité des monnaies Grecques et Romaines, i. Paris, 1901.

Bardt, C. Die Priester der vier grossen Collegien aus römisch-republikanischer Zeit. Program. Berlin, 1871.

⸺ Zur lex Caecilia Didia und noch einmal: Senatssitzungstage der späteren Republik. _Hermes_, ix (1875). 305-18.

_Beiträge zur alten Geschichte._ Leipzig. Beginning with vol. v the periodical is termed _Klio_, with _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ as a sub-title.

Beloch, J. Campanien: Topographie, Geschichte, und Leben der Umgebung Neapels im Altertum. Berlin, 1879.

⸺ Der italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie. Leipzig, 1880.

⸺ Die Bewölkerung der griechisch-römischen Welt. Leipzig, 1886.

⸺ Die Bewölkerung Italiens im Altertum. _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ iii (1903). 471-90.

Belot, E. Histoire des chevaliers Romaines, etc. 2 vols. Paris, 1866, 1873.

⸺ De la révolution économique et monétaire qui eut lieu à Rome au milieu du IIIe siècle avant l’ère Chrétienne, etc. Paris, 1885.

_Berl. phil. Wochenschr._ = _Berliner philologische Wochenschrift._

_Berliner Studien_ = _Berliner Studien für classische Philologie und Archaeologie._

Bernhöft, F. Staat und Recht der römischen Königszeit im Verhältniss zu verwandten Rechten. Stuttgart, 1882.

Berns, C. De comitiorum tributorum et conciliorum plebis discrimine. Inaugural dissertation. Wetzlar, 1875.

_Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ or _Verhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ = _Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Classe._

Bertolini, C. I celeres ed il tribunus celerum; contributo alla storia della constituzione dell’ antica Roma. Rome, 1888.

Billeter, G. _Gesch. d. Zinsfuss._ = Geschichte des Zinsfusses in griechisch-römischen Altertum bis auf Justinien. Leipzig, 1898.

Blasel, J. Die Motiven der Gesetzgebung des C. Sempronius Gracchus. Trieste, 1878.

Bloch, A. Le praefectus fabrum, ii. _Musée Belge_, ix (1905). 352-78.

Bloch, G. Recherches sur quelques gentes patriciennes, (in) Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’école Française de Rome, 241-76. 1882.

⸺ Orig. d. sén. = Les origines du sénat Romain; recherches sur la formation et la dissolution du sénat patricien. Paris, 1883.

⸺ La réforme démocratique à Rome au IIIe siècle av. J. C. _Revue historique_, xxxii (1886). 1-32, 241-89.

⸺ Observations sur le procès des Scipions. _Revue des études anciennes_, viii (1906). 93-110, 191-228, 287-322.

Bloch, L. Die ständischen und sozialen Kämpfe in der römischen Republik. Leipzig, 1900.

Blume, F., Lachmann, K., and Rudorff, A. F. [Röm. Feldmess.] Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, ii. Berlin, 1852. Vol. i is the Gromatici Veteres, ed. K. Lachmann.

Böckh, A. Metrologische Untersuchungen. Berlin, 1838.

Bormann, E. Die älteste Gliederung Roms, (in) Eranos Vindobonensis, 345-58. Vienna, 1893.

Botsford, G. W. On the Distinction between Comitia and Concilium. _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, xxxv (1904). 21-32.

⸺ Social Composition of the Primitive Roman Populus. _Political Science Quarterly_, xxi (1906). 498-526.

⸺ Some Problems connected with the Roman Gens. ibid, xxii (1907). 663-92.

⸺ The Lex Curiata. ibid, xxiii (1908). 498-517.

Bouché-Leclerq, A. Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité, iv. 134-285. Paris, 1882.

⸺ Augures, (in) Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. 550-60. Auspicia. ibid. i. 580-5.

Borgeaud, C. Histoire du plébiscite: le plébiscite dans antiquité. Geneva and Paris, 1887.

Brassloff, S. Beiträge zur Erläuterung der lex Acilia repetundarum. _Wiener Studien_, xxvi (1904). 106-17.

Breda. Die Centurienverfassung des Servius Tullius. Bromberg, 1848.

Bröcker, L. O. Untersuchungen über die Glaubwürdigkeit der altrömischen Verfassungsgeschichte. Hamburg, 1858.

⸺ Untersuchungen über die Glaubwürdigkeit der altrömischen Geschichte. Basel, 1868.

Bruncke, H. Beiträge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des römischen Heerwesens. _Philol._ xl (1881). 357-77.

Bruns, C. G. Fontes iuris Romani antiqui. 6th ed. Freiburg, 1893.

⸺ Geschichte und Quellen des römischen Rechts, (in) Holtzendorff, F. von, and Kohler, J. Encyklopädie der Rechtswissenschaft in systematischer Bearbeitung, i. 70 ff. 6th ed. (1st ed. of Kohler’s revision). 2 vols. Leipzig and Berlin, 1904.

Bücheler, F. Umbrica. Bonn, 1883.

Buck, C. D. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian. Boston, 1904.

Büdinger, M. Cicero und der Patriciat, eine staatsrechtliche Untersuchung. _Denkschr. d. kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss._ xxi (1881). 211-74.

⸺ Der Patriciat und das Fehderecht in den letzten Jahrzehnten der römischen Republik, ibid, xxxvi (1888). 81-125.

Bürger, C. P., Jr. Sechzig Jahre aus der älteren Geschichte Roms, 418-358. Historisch-kritische Forschungen. Amsterdam, 1891.

⸺ Neue Forschungen zur älteren Geschichte Roms, i, ii. Amsterdam, 1894, 1895.

Cagnat, R. Cours d’épigraphie Latine. 3d ed. Paris, 1898.

⸺ Equites, (in) Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. ii. 771-89.

Callegari, E. La legislazione sociale di Caio Gracco. Padua, 1896.

Cantalupi. La magistratura di Silla durante la guerra civile. Rome, 1899.

Carter, J. B. Roma Quadrata and the Septimontium. _Am. Journ. of Archaeol._ xii (1908). 172-83.

Casagrandi, V. Le minores gentes ed i patres minorum gentium, etc. Torino, 1892. Unscientific.

Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius. Opera omnia, (in) Patrologiae cursus completus, lxix, ed. Migne. Paris, 1865.

Charis. = Charisius, F. S. Ars grammatica (or Instit. Gram.), (in) Grammatici Latini, i, ed. Keil. Leipzig, 1857.

Christ, W. Sprachliche Verwandtschaft der Gräko-Italiker. _Sitzb. d. k. bayer Akad._ 1906. 151-246.

Christensen, H. Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung der Patres. _Hermes_, ix (1875). 196-216.

CIL. = Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, ed. Mommsen and others. Berlin. The first edition is cited, unless otherwise indicated.

CJA. = Corpus iuris Attici, ed. I. B. Telfy. Leipzig and London, 1868.

Clason, O. Kritische Erörterungen über die römischen Staat. Rostock, 1871.

⸺ Zur Frage über die reformierte Centurienverfassung. _Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur_, lxv (1872). 221-37.

Conway, R. S. I due strati di populazione Indo-Europea del Lazio e dell’ Italia antica. _Rivista di storia antica_, vii (1903). 422-4.

Corp. Gloss. Lat. = Corpus glossariorum Latinorum. 7 vols. Ed. G. Loewe, G. Goetz, and others. Leipzig, 1876-1903.

Corssen, W. [Ausspr.]. Ueber Aussprache Vokalismus und Betonung der lateinischen Sprache. 2d ed. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1868, 1870.

⸺ [Beitr. z. ital. Sprachk.] Beiträge zur italischen Sprachkunde. Leipzig, 1876.

Cuntz, O. Polybius und sein Werk. Leipzig, 1902.

Cuq, E. Les juges plébéiens de la colonie de Narbonne, (in) Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, 297-311. Paris, 1881.

⸺ Les institutions juridiques des Romains. 2d ed. 2 vols. Paris, 1891, 1902.

⸺ Lex publica, (in) Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. iii. 1121-74.

Daremberg et Saglio, [Dict.]. Dictionnaire des antiquités Grecques et Romaines, i-iii (A-M). Paris, 1873-1904.

Deecke, W. Die Falisker: eine geschichtlich-sprachliche Untersuchung. Strassburg, 1888.

Delbrück, H. Die römische Manipulartaktik. _Hist. Zeitschr._ N. F. xv (1884). 239-64.

Delbrück, [Gesch. d. Kriegsk.] Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte, i: das Altertum. Berlin, 1900.

Deloume, A. Les manieurs d’argent à Rome. Paris, 1890.

_Denkschr. d. kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss._ = _Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Classe._ Vienna.

De Sanctis, G. Storia dei Romani: la conquista del primato in Italia. 2 vols. Milan, Turin, etc., 1907.

Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca historica, bks. i-xviii, ed. Vogel. Leipzig. The remaining bks. and frags. ed. C. Müller. Didot. Paris, 1842, 1844.

Dreyfus, R. Essai sur les lois agraires sous la république Romaine. Paris, 1898.

Drumann-Gröbe, Gesch. Roms = Drumann, W., Geschichte Roms in seinem Uebergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, ed. P. Gröbe, i-iii, iv. 1. Berlin, 1899-1908.

Dupond, A. De la constitution et des magistratures Romaines sous la république. Paris, 1877.

Egbert, J. C. Introduction to the Study of Latin Inscriptions. New York, 1906.

Eigenbrodt, A. De magistratuum Romanorum iure intercedendi. Inaugural dissertation. Leipzig, 1875.

_Ephem. Ep._ = _Ephemeris epigraphica._ Rome and Berlin.

Exup. = Julius Exsuperantius. Opusculum de Marii, Lepidi ac Sertorii bellis civilibus, (in) Sallust, Omnia opera, 507-15. Paris, 1821. This work is also referred to as Jul. Exuper.

Ferrero, G. Greatness and Decline of Rome. Translated into English by Zimmern and others. 5 vols. New York, 1907-1909. Suggestive but untrustworthy.

Festg. f. F. Dahn = Festgabe für Felix Dahn zu seinem fünfzigjährigen Doktorjubiläum gewidmet. Breslau, 1905.

Forcellini, A. Totius Latinitatis lexicon, ed. V. De-Vit. 6 vols. Prati, 1858-1875.

Forsyth, W. Life of Marcus Tullius Cicero, 2 vols. New York, 1865.

Fowler, W. W. Julius Caesar. New York and London, 1894.

⸺ Notes on Gaius Gracchus. _English Historical Review_, xx (1905). 209-27.

⸺ Gaius Gracchus and the Senate. _Classical Review_, x (1896). 278-80.

⸺ The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic. London, 1899.

Freeman, E. A. Lucius Cornelius Sulla, (in) Historical Essays, ii. 271-306. London, 1873.

Fröhlich, F. Beiträge zur Kriegsführung und Kriegskunst der Römer zur Zeit der Republik. Berlin, 1886.

Fröhlich (no initial given). P. Clodius Pulcher, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encycl. iv. 82-8. L. Cornelius Sulla Felix, ibid. iv. 1522-66.

Frontin. Contr. = Frontinus, Julius. De controversiis, (in) Grom. Vet. 9-26, ed. Lachmann. Berlin, 1848.

Fronto, M. Cornelius. Epistulae, ed. S. A. Naber. Leipzig, 1867. [Ver = Ad Verum.]

Fustel de Coulanges. The Ancient City. Translated from the French. Boston and New York, 1889.

Gardner, P. As, (in) Smith, W., Dict. i. 201-8. 3d ed. 2 vols. London, 1890, 1891.

Garofalo, F. P. I fasti dei tribuni della plebe della repubblica Romana. Catania, 1889.

⸺ L’origine e l’elezione dei tribuni e degli edili della plebe, etc. Catania, 1890. Not altogether accurate.

⸺ Sul plebiscitum Atinium. Catania, 1896.

⸺ Lex Cincia de donis et muneribus. _Bulletino dell’istituto di diritto Romano_, xv (1903). 310-12.

Genz, H. [Centurienverf.]. Die servianische Centurienverfassung. Sorau, 1874.

⸺ [Patr. Rom.] Das patricische Rom. Berlin, 1878.

⸺ Die Centuriatcomitien nach der Reform. Freienwald, 1882.

Gerathewohl, H. [Reiter und Rittercent.] Die Reiter und die Rittercenturien zur Zeit der römischen Republik. Munich, 1886.

Gilbert, O. Geschichte und Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum. 3 parts. Leipzig, 1883-1890.

Girard, P. F. [Hist. d. org. jud.] Histoire de l’organisation judiciaire des Romains, i. Paris, 1901.

⸺ [Textes] Textes de droit Romain. 3d. ed. Paris, 1903.

Goguet, R. [Cent.] Droit Romain des centuries. Thesis. Paris, 1890. Of little value.

Gomont, M. H. Les chevaliers Romains depuis Romulus jusqu’à Galba. Paris, 1854.

Göttling, K. W. Geschichte der römischen Staatsverfassung. Halle, 1840.

Gramm. Lat. = Grammatici Latini, ed. H. G. T. Keil. 7 vols. Leipzig, 1855-1880.

Gran. Licin. = Granius Licinianus. Annalium quae supersunt, ed. Pertz. Berlin, 1857.

Greenidge, A. H. J. The Lex Sempronia and the Banishment of Cicero. _Classical Review_, vii (1893). 347 f.

⸺ Roman Public Life. London and New York, 1901.

⸺ Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time. London and New York, 1901.

⸺ A History of Rome during the Later Republic and the Early Principate, i. New York, 1903.

Greenidge, A. H. J. The Authenticity of the Twelve Tables. _English Historical Review_, xx (1905). 1-21.

Greenidge and Clay. Sources for Roman History, 133-70 B.C. Oxford, 1903.

Grenfell, B. P., and Hunt, A. S. Oxyrhynchus Papiri, iv. 90-116. London, 1904. For the newly discovered epitome of Livy, including text and commentary. See also Kornemann.

Grom. Vet. = Gromatici veteres, ed. K. Lachmann. Berlin, 1848.

Grotefend, C. L. Imperium Romanum tributim descriptum. Hannover, 1863.

Gudeman, A. Concilium, (in) Thesaurus linguae Latinae, iv. 44-8.

Guiraud, P. De la réforme des comices centuriates au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. _Revue historique_, xvii (1881). 1-24.

Gurlitt, L. Lex Clodia de exilio Ciceronis. _Philol._ N. F. xiii (1900). 578-83.

Habel, P. Apparitores, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 191-4.

Hackel, H. Die Hypothesen über die sogenannte lex Iulia municipalis. _Wiener Studien_ (1902). 552-62.

Haeberlin, E. J. Del più antico sistema monetario presso i Romani, v. _Rivista italiana di numismatica_, xix (1906). 611-46. Translation of an article in the _Berliner Münzblätter_, 1905, 1906.

Hagge. Einige Bemerkungen über die lex Servilia repetundarum. Glückstadt, 1845.

Hallays, A. Les comices à Rome. Dissertation. Paris, 1890. Of little worth.

Hartmann, Ambitus. (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. i. 1800-3.

Hegewisch, D. H. Geschichte der gracchischen Unruhen in der römischen Republik. Hamburg, 1801.

Helbig, W. Die Italiker in der Poebene. Leipzig, 1879.

⸺ (An illustration of Adrogatio.) _Comptes rendus de l’acad. des inscriptions et belles-lettres_, xxi (1893). 350-3.

⸺ Contribution à l’histoire de l’equitatus Romain. ibid. 1904. ii. 190-201.

⸺ Les attributs des saliens. ibid. 206-12.

⸺ Sur les attributs des saliens. _Mémoires de l’acad. des inscriptions et belles-lettres_, xxvii² (1905). 205-76.

⸺ Zur Geschichte des römischen Equitatus A. Die Equites als berittene Hopliten. _Abhdl. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ xxiii (1905). 267-317.

⸺ Die Castores als Schutzgötter des römischen Equitatus. _Hermes_, xl (1905). 101-15.

Hennebert, A. Histoire de la lutte entre les patriciens et les plébéiens à Rome. Gand, 1845.

Hennes. Das dritte valerisch-horatische Gesetz und seine Wiederholungen. Program. Bonn, 1880.

Henze. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Maior), (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 1462-70.

_Hermes_ = _Hermes: Zeitschrift für classische Philologie._ Berlin.

Herzog, E. Lex sacrata und das Sacrosanctum. _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xxii (1876). 139-50.

⸺ Die Charakter der Tributcomitien im fünften und sechsten Jahrhundert der Stadt und die Reform der Centuriatcomitien. _Philol._ xxiv (1876). 312-29.

⸺ Glaubwürdigkeit der Gesetze bis 387 der Stadt. Tübingen, 1881.

⸺ [Röm. Staatsverf.] Geschichte und System der römischen Staatsverfassung. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1884, 1887.

Hesky, R. Anmerkungen zur lex Acilia repetundarum. _Wiener Studien_, xxv (1903). 272-87.

Heydenreich, E. Livius und die römische Plebs, (in) Sammlung gemeinverständlicher wissenschaftlicher Vorträge, xvii (1882). 581-628.

Hill, G. F. Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins. New York, 1899.

Hirschfeld, O. Der Endtermin der gallischen Statthalterschaft Caesars. _Klio_, iv (1904). 76-87.

Hoffman, E. Die patricischen und plebeiischen Curien. Vienna, 1879.

Hoffmeister, K. Die wirtschaftliche Entwickelung Roms. Vienna, 1899.

Holzapfel, L. Il numero dei senatori Romani durante il periodo dei re. _Rivista di storia antica_, ii. 2 (1897). 52-64.

⸺ Die drei ältesten römischen Tribus. _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i (1901). 228-55.

Hüllmann, K. D. Römische Grundverfassung. Bonn, 1832.

⸺ Ursprünge der römischen Verfassung durch Vergleichungen erläutert. Bonn, 1835.

Hülsen, C. Caere, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iii. 1281-3.

⸺ The Roman Forum. Translated from the 2d German edition by J. B. Carter. 2d English ed. Rome, 1909.

Hultsch, F. Denarius, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. v. 202-15.

Humbert, G. Accensus, (in) Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. 16 ff. Aedilis. ibid. 95-100. Ager publicus. ibid. 133-8. Census. ibid. 1003-17. Classis. ibid. 1224 f. Comitia. ibid. 1374-1401. Concilium. ibid. 1432 f. Contio. ibid. 1484 f. Frumentariae leges. ibid. ii. 1346-8.

Huschke, Ph. E. [Verf. d. Serv.] Die Verfassung des Königs Servius Tullius als Grundlage zu einer römischen Verfassungsgeschichte. Heidelberg, 1838.

⸺ Die lex Sempronia iudiciaria und ihr Verhältniss zur lex Acilia repetundarum. _Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch._ v (1866). 46-84.

Hyg. Cond. Agr. = Hyginus. De condicionibus agrorum, (in) Grom. Vet. ed. K. Lachmann, 113-24. [Lim. Const.] De limitibus constituendis ibid. 166-208.

Ihne, W. The Asylum of Romulus. _Classical Museum_, iii (1846). 190-3.

⸺ Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der römischen Verfassungsgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main, 1847. This study is translated into English by Haywood under the title, Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution. London, 1853.

⸺ Ueber die Entstehung und die ältesten Befugnisse des römischen Tribunats. _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 161-79.

⸺ Die Entstehung der servianischen Verfassung, (in) Symbola philologorum Bonnensium, 629-44. 1864-1867.

⸺ History of Rome. 5 vols. London, 1871-1882.

⸺ Die Entwickelung der Tributcomitien. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xxviii (1873). 353-79.

⸺ Early Rome. New York, 1890.

Inc. Auct. = Incertus Auctor. Magistratuum et sacerdotiorum P. R. expositiones ineditae, ed. Ph. E. Huschke. Vratislavia, 1829.

Ined. Vat. See Arnim, H. von.

Isid. Etym. = Isidorus Hispalensis. Etymologiae, (in) Opera omnia, iii, ed. Migne. Paris, 1878.

Isler, M. Ueber das poetelische Gesetz de ambitu. _Rhein. Mus._ xxviii (1873). 473-7.

_Jahrb. f. Philol._ = _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik._ Second title: _Jahrbücher für classische Philologie._ Leipzig.

_Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ = _Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classischen Altertumswissenschaft._ Leipzig.

John, C. Entstehungsgeschichte der catilinarischen Verschwörung, _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ Supplb. viii (1875, 1876). 701-819.

Jordan, H. Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum. 2 vols. Berlin, 1878-1907. I. iii (1907) is edited by C. Hülsen.

⸺ Die Könige im alten Italien. Berlin, 1887.

Jul. Exuper. See Exup.

Julius Victor, C. Ars Rhetorica, (in) Orelli-Baiter, Ciceronis Opera, V. 195-269. Turici, 1833.

Kalb, W. Jahresbericht über römischen Juristen für 1901-1905. _Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ cxxxiv (1906). 1-48.

Kappeyne van de Coppello, J. [Comitien] Drei Abhandlungen zum römischen Staats- und Privatrecht, i: Betrachtungen über die Comitien. 2d ed. Berlin, 1891.

Karlowa, O. Der römische Civilprocess zur Zeit der Legisactionen. Berlin, 1872.

⸺ Römische Rechtsgeschichte. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1885, 1901.

Keil, J. Zur lex Cornelia de viginti quaestoribus. _Wiener Studien_, xxiv (1902). 548-51.

Klebs, E. Die Stimmenzahl und die Abstimmungsordnung der reformierten servianischen Verfassung. _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1891). 181-244.

Klebs, L. Aimilius Paullus, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. i. 576-80. M. Aemilius Scaurus. ibid. 584-8. Appuleius. ibid. ii. 261-9.

Kleineidam, F. Beiträge zur Kentniss der lex Poetelia, (in) Festg. f. F. Dahn, ii. 1-30. Breslau, 1905.

_Klio._ See _Beiträge zur alten Geschichte_.

Kniep. Societas publicanorum. Jena, 1896.

Köhm, J. Altlateinische Forschungen. Leipzig, 1905.

Kornemann, E. Die cäsarische Kolonie Karthago und die Einführung römischer Gemeindeordnung in Africa. _Philol._ N. F. xiv (1901). 402-26.

⸺ Zur Geschichte der Gracchenzeit. Reprinted from _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ Beiheft i. 1903.

⸺ Die neue Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus. _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ Beiheft ii. 1904.

⸺ Polis und Urbs. _Klio_, v (1905). 72-92.

⸺ Collegium, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 380-480. Coloniae. ibid. 511-88. Concilium. ibid. 801 ff.

Krüger, P., and Mommsen, Th. Anecdoton Livianum. _Hermes_, iv (1870). 371-6.

Krüger-Brissaud, Sourc. d. Droit Rom. = Krüger, P. Histoire des sources du droit Romain. Trad. de l’Allemand par M. Brissaud. Paris, 1894.

Kubitschek, J. W. De Romanorum tribuum origine ac propogatione. Vienna, 1882.

⸺ Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum. Leipzig, 1889.

⸺ Aedilis, (in) Real-Encycl. i. 448-64. Aerarius. ibid. 674-6. Aes equestre. ibid. 682-4. Ager. ibid. 780-93. As. ii. 1499-1513. Census. ibid. iii. 1914-24.

Kübler, B. Calata comitia, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iii. 1330-4. Capite censi. ibid. 1521-3. Centuria. ibid. 1952-62. Classis. ibid. 2630-2. Consul. ibid. iv. 1112-38. Equites Romani. ibid. vi. 272-312.

Kübler, B., and Hülsen, C. Curia, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 1815-26.

Labatut, E. Corruption électorale chez les Romains. Paris, 1876.

Lambert, E. L’histoire traditionelle des XII Tables et les critères d’authenticité des traditions en usage dans l’école de Mommsen, (in) Mélanges Ch. Appleton, 503-626. Lyons and Paris, 1903.

⸺ La fonction du droit civil comparé, 390-718. Paris, 1903.

Lanciani, R. Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome. Boston, 1897.

⸺ New Tales of Old Rome. Boston, 1901.

Lange, L. Römische Altertümer. 3 vols. 2d and 3d eds. Berlin, 1876, 1879.

⸺ Kleine Schriften. 2 vols. Göttingen, 1887.

Lécrivain, C. Gens, (in) Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. ii. 1494-1516.

Leinveber, A. Die Legion des Livius. _Philol._ N. F. xv (1902). 32-41.

Leist, B. W. Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte. Jena, 1884.

⸺ Alt-arisches Ius Gentium. Jena, 1889.

⸺ Alt-arisches Ius Civile. 2 vols. Jena, 1892, 1896.

Lengle, J. Untersuchungen über die sullanische Verfassung. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1899.

Lenormant, F. As, (in) Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. 454-64.

⸺ Colonies Romains, ibid. i. 1303-21.

Leonhard, R. Adoptio, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. i. 398-400. Adrogatio. ibid. 419-21.

Le Tellier, M. [Organ. cent.] L’organisation centuriale et les comices par centuries. Thesis. Paris, 1896.

Liebenam, W. Zur Geschichte und Organisation des römischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig, 1890.

⸺ Comitia, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 679-715. Curiata lex. ibid. iv. 1826-30. Fabri, (in) Ruggiero, Diz. Ep. iii. 4-18.

Lieboldt, K. Die Ansichten über die Entstehung und das Wesen der gentes patriciae in Rom aus der Zeit der Humanisten bis auf unsere Tage, i, ii. Meerane, 1890.

Liers, H. [Kriegsw. d. Alt.] Das Kriegswesen der Alten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Strategie. Breslau, 1895.

Livy, new epitome of. See Grenfell and Hunt; also Kornemann.

Long, G. The Decline of the Roman Republic. 5 vols. London, 1864-1874.

Madvig, J. N. [Röm. Staat.] Die Verfassung und Verwaltung des römischen Staates. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1881, 1882.

Marchi, A. de. Il culto privato di Roma antica. 2 vols. Milan, 1896, 1903. Uncritical, but to some extent useful.

Marquardt, J. Historiae equitum Romanorum. Berlin, 1840.

⸺ [Röm. Staatsv.] Römische Staatsverwaltung. 3 vols. 2d ed. revised by Dessau and others. Leipzig, 1881, 1885.

⸺ Das Privatleben der Römer. 2d ed. Leipzig, 1886.

Matzat, H. Römische Chronologie. 2 vols. Berlin, 1883, 1884.

Maue, H. Der praefectus fabrum. Halle, 1887.

Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’école Française de Rome.

Mercklein, D. L. Die Coöptation der Römer. Leipzig, 1848.

Merguet, H. Lexikon zu den Schriften Ciceros, i, ii. Jena, 1877-1887.

Meyer, E. Untersuchungen über Diodor’s römische Geschichte. _Rhein. Mus._ xxxvii (1882). 610-27.

⸺ [Gesch. d. Alt.] Geschichte des Altertums, ii, v. Stuttgart, 1893 (and Berlin), 1902.

⸺ [Gesch. d. Gracch.] Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Gracchen, (in) Festschriften ... der vereinigten Friedrichs-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1894. Philos. Fak. 79-109.

⸺ Der Ursprung des Tribunats und die Gemeinde der vier Tribus. _Hermes_, xxx (1895). 1-24.

⸺ Die angebliche Centurienreform Sullas. _Hermes_, xxxiii (1898). 652-4.

⸺ Plebs, (in) Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaft, vi. 98-106. 2d ed. Jena, 1901.

Michel, N. H. Du droit de cité Romaine: études d’épigraphie juridique. Paris, 1885.

Milani, L. A. Studi e materiali di archaeologia e numismatica. 3 vols. Florence, 1899-1905.

Mispoulet, J. B. Les institutions politiques des Romains. 2 vols. Paris, 1882, 1883.

⸺ Études d’institutions Romaines. Paris, 1887.

Mommsen, Th. [Röm. Tribus.] Die römischen Tribus in administrativer Beziehung. Altona, 1834.

⸺ De apparitoribus magistratuum Romanorum. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. vi (1846). 1-57.

⸺ Ueber das thorische Ackergesetz. _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ i (1849). 89-101.

⸺ Ueber die lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia, (in) Röm. Feldmess. ii. 221-6. Berlin, 1852.

⸺ Die Stadtrechte der lateinischen Gemeinden Salpensa und Malaca in der Provinz Baetica. _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ ii. (1857). 361-507.

⸺ Die lex curiata de imperio. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xiii (1858). 565-73.

⸺ Die römische Chronologie bis auf Caesar. 2d ed. Berlin, 1859.

⸺ Zwei Sepulcralreden aus der Zeit Augusts und Hadrians. _Abhdl. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin._ 1863, 455-89.

⸺ Römische Forschungen. 2 vols. Berlin, 1864, 1879.

⸺ Lex coloniae Iuliae Genetivae Urbanorum sive Ursonis data a.u.c. DCCX. Additamentum ad corporis volumen ii. _Ephem. Ep._ ii (1875). 105-51.

⸺ Ein zweites Bruchstück des rubrischen Gesetzes vom Jahre 705 Roms. _Hermes_, xvi (1881). 24-41.

⸺ Römisches Staatsrecht. 1st and 3d eds. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1887.

⸺ Abriss des römischen Staatsrechts. Leipzig, 1893.

⸺ Römisches Strafrecht. Leipzig, 1899.

⸺ History of Rome. Translated from the German. 5 vols. New York, 1900.

⸺ Lex municipii Tarentini. _Ephem. Ep._ ix (1903). 1-11.

Mommsen-Blacas = Mommsen, Histoire de la monnaie Romaine. Translated from the German by Le Duc de Blacas. 4 vols. Paris, 1865-1875.

Mommsen, Th. and others. Zum ältesten Strafrecht der Kulturvölker. Leipzig, 1905.

Morlot, E. [Comices élect.] Les comices électoraux sous la république Romaine. Thesis. Paris, 1884.

Moye, M. Les élections politiques sous la république Romaine. Thesis. Bordeaux, 1896.

Mühl, F. V. [App. Sat.] De L. Appuleio Saturnino tribuno plebis. Basel, 1906.

Muirhead, J. Historical Introduction to the Private Law of Rome. Edinburgh, 1886.

Müller, A. Die Strafjustiz im römischen Heere. _N. Jahrb. f. kl. Altertum_, xvii (1906). 550-77.

Müller, I. [Hdb. d. kl. Altwiss.] Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Nördlingen.

Müller, J. J. Studien zur römischen Verfassungsgeschichte. _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 96-136.

Müller-Deecke = Müller, K. O. Die Etrusker. 2 vols. Revised by W. Deecke. Stuttgart, 1877.

Munderloh, I. G. H. W. Aus der Zeit der Quiriten. Weimar, 1872.

Münzer, F. M. Claudius Marcellus, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iii. 2738-55. Appius Claudius Pulcher. ibid. 2848 f. L. Cornelius Cinna. ibid. iv. 1282-7. L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus. ibid. iv. 1471-83. T. Didius. ibid. v. 407-10. Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus. ibid. v. 1324-7.

Nettleship, H. Contributions to Latin Lexicography. Oxford, 1889.

_N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt._ = _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur, und für Pädagogik._ Leipzig.

Neumann, C. Das Zeitalter der punischen Kriege. Breslau, 1883.

⸺ [Gesch. Roms.] Geschichte Roms während des Verfalles der Republik. 2 vols. Breslau, 1881, 1884.

Neumann, K. J. Die Grundherrschaft der römischen Republik, Die Bauernbefreiung und die Entstehung der servianischen Verfassung. Strassburg, 1900.

Niccolini, G. La questione dei processi degli Scipioni. _Rivista di storia antica_, iii (1898). Fasc. 4. 28-75.

Niebuhr, B. G. Römische Geschichte. 3 vols. 4th ed. Berlin, 1833-1843. Also the English translation by Hare and Thirlwall. Philadelphia, 1844.

⸺ Lectures on the History of Rome, edited and translated from the German by L. Schmitz. 3 vols. 3d ed. London, 1853.

Niemeyer, K. De equitibus Romanis. Gryphia, 1851.

Niese, B. Das sogenannte licinisch-sextische Ackergesetz. _Hermes_, xxiii (1888). 410-23.

⸺ [Röm. Gesch.] Grundriss der römische Geschichte nebst Quellenkunde. 3d ed. Munich, 1906.

⸺ Deiotarus, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 2401-4.

Nipperdey, K. Die leges annales der römischen Republik. _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ v (1870). 1-88.

Nissen, A. Beiträge zum römischen Staatsrecht. Strassburg, 1885.

Nissen, H. Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius. Berlin, 1863.

⸺ Das Templum. Berlin, 1869.

⸺ Der Ausbruch des Bürgerkrieges 49 vor Chr. _Hist. Zeitschr._ xliv (1880). 409-45; xlvi. 48-105.

⸺ Italische Landeskunde. 2 vols. Berlin, 1883, 1902.

Nitzsch, K. W. Die Gracchen und ihre nächsten Vorgänger. Berlin, 1847.

⸺ Das Verhältniss von Heer und Staat in der römischen Republik. _Hist. Zeitschr._ vii (1862). 133-58.

⸺ [Röm. Rep.] Geschichte der römischen Republik. 2 vols. Ed. by G. Thouret. Leipzig, 1884, 1885.

Nonius Marcellus. Compendiosa doctrina. Emend. et adn. L. Müller. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1888.

Oberziner, G. Origine della plebe Romana. Leipzig and Genoa, 1901.

Obseq. = Iulii Obsequentis ab anno urbis conditae DV prodigiorum liber, (in) Weissenborn’s Livy, vol. xii. 193-209. 2d ed. Berlin, 1881.

Olcott, G. N. Thesaurus linguae Latinae epigraphicae, i. Rome, 1904-1908.

Oliver, E. H. Roman Economic Conditions to the Close of the Republic. Toronto, 1907.

Orelli and Baiter, Index legum Romanorum quarum apud Ciceronem eiusque scholiastas item apud Livium, Velleium Paterculum, A. Gellium nominatim mentio fit, (in their) Ciceronis Opera, viii. 3.

Oxyrhynchus Papiri. See Grenfell and Hunt; also Kornemann.

Pais, E. Storia di Roma, I. i, ii. Torino, 1898, 1899.

⸺ [Leg. of Rom. Hist.] Ancient Legends of Roman History. Translated from the Italian. New York, 1905.

⸺ Ancient Italy. Translated from the Italian by C. D. Curtis. Chicago and London, 1908.

⸺ L’elezione del pontefice massimo Romano per mezzo delle XVII tribù. Naples, 1908.

⸺ A proposito dell’attendibilità dei fasti dell’antica repubblica Romana. _Rendiconti della reale accademia dei Lincei_, xxvii (1908). 33-68.

Pantaleoni, D. Della auctoritas patrum nell’antica Roma sotto le sue diverse forme. Torino, 1884.

Pappritz, R. Marius und Sulla. Gütersloh, 1899.

Pascal, C. Studi Romani, i, iii. Torino, 1896.

⸺ Di un studio recente sul processo degli Scipioni. _Riv. di stor. ant._ iv (1899). 268-71.

Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. = Pauly, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New ed. by G. Wissowa, i-vi. 1. Stuttgart, 1894-1907.

Pelham, H. The Roman Curiae. (Eng.) _Journ. of Philol._ ix (1880). 266-79.

Pellegrini, G. Fregi arcaici Etruschi in terracotta, etc. (in) Milani, Studi e materiali, i. 87-118.

Pellegrino, D. Andeutungen über den ursprünglichen Religionsunterschied der römischen Patricier und Plebeier. Leipzig, 1842.

Peter, C. Die Epochen der Verfassungsgeschichte der römischen Republik, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Centuriatcomitien und der mit diesen vorgegangenen Veränderungen. Leipzig, 1841.

⸺ Studien zur römischen Geschichte mit besonderer Beziehung auf Th. Mommsen. Naumburg, 1861. A new enlarged ed. Halle, 1863.

⸺ Geschichte Roms. 4th ed. 3 vols. Halle, 1881.

Peter, H. [Reliquiae] Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1870, 1906.

_Philol._ = _Philologus: Zeitschrift für das classische Altertum._ Leipzig.

Pinvert, L. Du droit de cité Romaine. Thesis. Paris, 1885.

Platner, S. B. The Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome. Boston, 1904.

Plüss, H. T. [Centurienverf.] Die Entwickelung der Centurienverfassung in den beiden letzten Jahrhunderten der römischen Republik. Leipzig, 1870.

Podestà. Il tribunato della plebe in Roma dalla secessione della plebe sul monte Sacro all’approvazione della legge di Publilio Volerone. Parma, 1895.

Pöhlmann, R. Die Anfänge Roms. Erlangen, 1881.

⸺ Zur Geschichte der Gracchen. _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ 1907. 443-93.

_Pol. Sci. Quart._ = _Political Science Quarterly._ Boston and New York.

Poste, E. Gaii institutionum iuris civilis commentarii quatuor. Or, Elements of Roman Law by Gaius. With translation and commentary. Oxford, 1871.

Pott, A. F. [Etym. Forsch.] Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der indo-germanischen Sprachen. 2d ed. 5 vols. Detmold, 1859-1873. This work includes the author’s Wurzel-Wörterbuch der indo-germanischen Sprachen.

Priscianus. [Inst. Gram.] Institutionum grammaticarum libri xvii, ed. M. Hertz, (in) Gram. Lat. ii, ed. Keil. Leipzig, 1855.

Probus, Valerius. De litteris singularibus fragmentum, ed. Mommsen, (in) Gram. Lat. iv, ed. Keil. Leipzig, 1864.

Pseudacr. Schol. Cruq. ad Hor. = Pseudacronis Scholia in Horatium vetustiora. Ed. O. Keller. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1902, 1904.

Pseudo-Sall. Declam. in Cat. = Porcii Latronis Declamatio contra L. Sergium Catilinam, (in) C. Crispi Salustii quae extant, i. 260-87. Ed. C. H. Frotscher. Leipzig, 1825.

Ptaschnik, J. Die Wahl der Volkstribunen vor der Rogation des Volero Publilius. _Oesterreich. Gymn._ xiv (1863). 627-38.

⸺ Publilische Rogation. ibid, xvii (1866). 161-200.

⸺ Die Centuriengesetze von 305 und 415 U. C. ibid. xxi (1870). 497-525.

⸺ Stimmrecht der Patricier in den Tributcomitien. ibid, xxxii (1881). 81-102.

Regling, K. Zum älteren römischen und italischen Münzen. _Klio_, vi (1906). 489-524.

_Rhein. Mus._ = _Rheinisches Museum für Philologie._ Frankfurt am Main.

Richter, O. Die Topographie der Stadt Rom. 2d ed. Munich, 1901. (In) Müller, I. Hdb. d. kl. Altwiss. iii. 3.

Ritschl, F. W. Opuscula philologica. Or, Kleine philologische Schriften. 5 vols. Leipzig, 1866-1879.

_Riv. d. Stor. ant._ = _Rivista di storia antica e scienze affini._ Messina.

Roby, J. H. Roman Private Law in the Times of Cicero and of the Antonines. 2 vols. Cambridge (England), 1902.

Röm. Feldmess. See Blume, F., etc.

Roscher, W. H. Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, i-iii. Leipzig, 1884-1902.

Rothstein, M. Suffragium, (in) Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds sechsigstem Geburtstage, 30-3. Berlin, 1903.

Rubino, J. [Röm. Verf.] Ueber den Entwickelungsgang der römischen Verfassung his zum Höhepunkt der Republik. Cassel, 1839.

⸺ Ueber das Verhältniss der sex Suffragia zur römischen Ritterschaft. _Zeitschr. f. die Altwiss._ iv (1846). 212-39.

Rudorff, A. F. Römische Rechtsgeschichte. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1857, 1859.

⸺ Ad legem Aciliam de pecuniis repetundis, etc. _Abhdl. d. Akad. d. Wiss._ 1861. 411-553.

Ruggiero, E. de. [Diz. Ep.] Dizionario epigrafico, i-iii. Rome, 1895-1906.

Ruppel, K. W. Teilnahme der Patrizier an den Tributcomitien. Heidelberg, 1887.

Sall. Hist. = C. Sallusti Crispi, Historiarum reliquiae, ed. B. Maurenbrecher, ii: fragmenta. Leipzig, 1893.

Sall. or Pseud. Sall. Rep. Ord. = Incerti auctoris epistulae duae ad C. Caesarem de republica ordinanda, (in) C. Crispi Sallusti quae extant, i. Ed. C. H. Frotscher. Leipzig, 1825.

Samwer-Bahrfeldt, Röm. Münzw. = Samwer, K. Geschichte des älteren römischen Münzwesens bis circa 200 vor Christi. Ed. M. Bahrfeldt. Vienna, 1883.

Sanders, H. A. The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy. _Trans. of the Am. Philol. Assoc._ xxxvi (1905). 5-31.

Savigny, F. C. von. Vermischte Schriften. 5 vols. Berlin, 1850.

Schiller, H. Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, i. Gotha, 1883.

⸺ [Röm. Alt.] Römische Kriegsaltertümer, (in) Müller, Hdb. d. kl. Altwiss. iv. 707-44. Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer, ibid. 483-704. Nördlingen, 1887.

Schlossman, S. Tributum, tribuere, tribus. _Archiv f. Lat. Lexicog._ xiv (1905). 25-40.

Schmidt, J. Die Einsetzung der römischen Volkstribunen. _Hermes_, xxi (1886). 460-6.

Schmidt, O. E. Die letzten Kämpfe der römischen Republik. Leipzig, 1884.

⸺ Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero von seinem Prokonsulat in Cilicien bis zu Cäsars Ermordung. Leipzig, 1893.

Schöll, R. [Leg. Duod. Tab. Rel.] Legis duodecim tabularum reliquiae. Leipzig, 1866.

Schott, P. O. Die römische Geschichte im Licht der neuesten Forschungen. _Videnskabs-Selskabets Skriften. Hist. Filos. Klasse_, ii. 1906.

Schrader, O. [Reallex.] Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Strassburg, 1901.

⸺ Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, i, ii. 1, 2. 3d ed. Jena, 1906, 1907.

Schulthess, O. Der Process des C. Rabirius vom Jahre 63 v. Chr. Frauenfeld, 1891.

Schulze, C. F. Von den Volksversammlungen der Römer. Gotha, 1815.

Schulze, W. [Gesch. lat. Eigennam.] Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen. _Abhdl. d. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Gött._ N. F. v. Berlin, 1904.

Schwegler, A. Römische Geschichte. 3 vols. Freiburg, 1870-1884.

Seeley, J. R. Livy i. 3d ed. Oxford, 1881.

Sic. Flacc. = Siculus Flaccus. De condicionibus agrorum, (in) Grom. Vet. 134-65. Ed. Lachmann. Berlin, 1848.

Siebert, W. Ueber Appius Claudius Caecus. Kassel, 1863.

_Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ = _Sitzungsberichte der königlich bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München._

_Sitzb. d. Berl. Akad. d. Wiss._ = _Sitzungsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._

Smith, F. Die römische Timokratie. Berlin, 1906.

Smith, W. and others. [Dict.] A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 3d ed. 2 vols. London, 1890, 1891.

Sol., Solin. = Solinus, C. Julius, Polyhistor; ex editione Claudii Salmasii, accurante M. A. Goezio. Leipzig, 1777.

Soltau, W. [Altröm. Volksversamml.] Ueber Entstehung und Zusammensetzung der altrömischen Volksversammlungen. Berlin, 1880.

⸺ Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung und Competenz der aediles plebis, (in) Historische Untersuchungen A. Schaefer ... gewidmet, 98-147. Bonn, 1882.

Soltau, W. Gültigkeit der Plebiscite. _Berliner Studien_, ii (1885). 1-176.

⸺ Die Echtheit des licinischen Ackergesetz von 367 vor Chr. _Hermes_, xxx (1895). 624-9.

⸺ Cicero de Re Publica und die servianische Centurienordnung. _Jahrb. f. Philol._ xli (1895). 410-4.

Spinazolla, V. Augures, (in) Ruggiero, Diz. Ep. i. 778-810.

Staaf, E. De origine gentium patriciarum commentatio academica. Upsala, 1896.

Stella Maranca, F. Il tribunato della plebe dalla lex Hortensia alla lex Cornelia. Lanciano, 1901.

Strachan-Davidson, J. L. The Growth of Plebeian Privilege at Rome. _Eng. Hist. Rev._ i (1886). 209-17.

⸺ The Decrees of the Roman Plebs. ibid, v (1890). 462-74.

⸺ Cicero. New York and London, 1894.

⸺ Appian, Civil Wars, i. Oxford, 1902.

Sunden, J. M. De tribunicia potestate a L. Sulla imminuta quaestiones. Upsala, 1897.

Symmachus, Q. Aurelius, quae supersunt. Ed. Seeck. Berlin, 1883.

Terpstra, D. Quaestiones literariae de populo, de senatu, de rege, de interregibus, antiquissimis rei publicae Romanae temporibus. Rotterdam, 1842.

Thesaurus linguae Latinae, i-iv. Leipzig, 1900-1906.

Tophoff, De lege Valeria Horatia, Publilia, Hortensia. Paderborn, 1852.

Toutain, J. Municipium, (in) Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. iii. 2022-34.

Ullrich, J. [Centuriatcom.] Die Centuriatcomitien. Landshut, 1873.

Usener, H. Italische Volksjustiz. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. lvi (1901). 1-28.

Vaglieri, D. Concilium, (in) Ruggiero, Diz. Ep. ii. 566-71. Mainly provincial.

Valeton, I. M. J. De modis auspicandi Romanorum. _Mnemos._ N. S. xvii (1889). 275-323, 418-52; xviii. 208-64, 406-56.

⸺ De iure obnuntiandi comitiis et conciliis. ibid. xix (1891). 75-113, 229-70.

Vaniček, A. [Etym. Wörterb. d. lat. Spr.] Etymologisches Wörterbuch der lateinischen Sprache. Leipzig, 1874.

⸺ [Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb.] Griechisch-lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leipzig, 1877.

Vassis, Sp. Leges Valeriae de provocatione. _Athena_, xvii (1905). 160-5.

_Verhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ = _Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Classe._ Referred to also as _Ber. sächs._ etc.

Victor, C. Julius, Ars rhetorica, (in) Orelli-Baiter, Ciceronis Opera, v. 1. 195-268.

Voigt, M. Die lex Maenia de dote vom Jahre 568 der Stadt. Weimar, 1865.

⸺ Ueber das römische System der Wege im alten Italien. _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xxiv (1872). 29-90.

⸺ Leges regiae. _Abhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ vii (1879). 555-826.

⸺ XII Tafeln. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1883.

⸺ Die lex Fabia de plagiariis. _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xxxvii (1885). 319-345.

⸺ Ueber die staatsrechtliche possessio und den ager compascuus. _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ x (1888). 221-272.

⸺ Ueber die lex Cornelia sumptuaria. _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xlii (1890). 244-79.

⸺ Römische Rechtsgeschichte. 3 vols. Leipzig and Berlin, 1892-1902.

Volquardsen, C. A. Die drei ältesten römischen Tribus. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xxxiii (1878). 557-64.

Wachsmuth, W. Die ältere Geschichte des römischen Staates. Halle, 1819.

Walde, A. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg, 1906.

Wallinder. De statu plebeiorum Romanorum ante primam in montem Sacrum secessionem quaestiones. Upsala, 1860.

Waltzing, J. P. Étude historique sur les corporations professionelles chez les Romains. 4 vols. Louvain, 1895-1900.

Warren, M. The Stele Inscription in the Roman Forum. _Am. Journ. of Philol._ xxviii (1907). 249-72.

Weber, M. Die römische Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutung für das Staats- und Privatrecht. Stuttgart, 1891.

Wex, C. Ueber die leges annales der Römer. _Rhein. Mus._ iii (1845). 276-88.

_Wiener Studien. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie. Supplement der Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien._ Vienna.

Wigger, J. Verteidigung der Nieburschen Ansicht über den Ursprung der römischen Plebs, etc. Warburg, 1885.

Willems, P. [Sén. Rom.] Le sénat de la république Romaine, etc. 2 vols. 2d ed. Louvain, 1885.

⸺ Droit public Romain. 6th ed. Paris and Louvain, 1888.

Wilmanns, W. Ueber die Gerichtshöfe während des Bestehens der lex Cornelia iudiciaria. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xix (1864). 528-41.

Wissowa, G. Religion und Kultus der Römer, (in) Müller, Hdb. d. kl. Altwiss. v. 4. Munich, 1902.

⸺ Augures, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2313-44. Auspicium. ibid. 2580-7.

_Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien._ Vienna.

_Zeitschr. f. gesch. Rechtswiss._ = _Zeitschrift für geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft._ Berlin.

_Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ = _Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Römische Abteilung._ Weimar.

Zöller, Latium und Rom. Leipzig, 1878.

Zumpt, C. T. De legibus iudiciisque repetundarum. _Abhdl. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin._ 1845. 1-70, 475-515.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 168 and n. 1. Schrader, _Reallex._ 920 f., accepts this explanation as most probable, and connecting it with Skt. cakrá-, interprets it as referring to a wheel formation of the army. But Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 1085 f., connects populari with spol-iu-m.

[2] Curtius, _Griech. Etym._ 260, English, 344; Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 368, 422; Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb. d. lat. Spr._ 90; _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 506; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 480 f.; cf. Schrader, ibid.; Genz, _Patr. Rom._, 51 f.

[3] This interpretation would explain magister populi and populari. Plebs, on the other hand, denoted the multitude as distinguished from the leaders; hence it differed from populus, notwithstanding Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 98, n. 2.

[4] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 3.

[5] Livy xxi. 34. 1.

[6] Cic. _Rep._ i. 25. 39; Livy i. 8. 1; Isid. _Etym._ ix. 6. 5.

[7] Cf. Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 34 ff.; Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 612 ff.

[8] “Arma sumere, sacris adesse, concilium inire”; Tac. _Germ._ 6. 6; 13. 1. On the Indo-European relation of the army to the folk, see Schrader, _Reallex._ 349 f. For Rome, Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 3 f.

[9] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 2; Plut. _Rom._ 14, 20; Ovid, _Fast._ iii. 131; Dio Cass. Frag. 5. 8; Varro, _L. L._ v. 55; Colum. v. 1. 9.

[10] As Romulus was the eponymous hero of the Ramnes (or of all the Romans?) and Lucerus (Fest. ep. 119) of the Luceres.

[11] The original seat of the hero at Rome was on the Capitoline near the site of the later temple of Juno Moneta; Plut. _Rom._ 20. It was closely connected, therefore, with the auguraculum on the spot; Varro, _L. L._ v. 47; Cic. _Off._ iii. 16. 66; Fest. ep. 16. Perhaps his name has some etymological relation with titiare, “to chirp as a sparrow”; Varro, _L. L._ v. 85 (titiis avibus); Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 277 and n. 3; Forcellini, _Lex._ s. v. The Sodales Titii, who attended to his worship (cf. Dion. Hal. ii. 52. 5; Tac. _Ann._ i. 54; _Hist._ ii. 95) were accustomed to take a certain kind of auspices from birds; Varro, ibid. His tomb was in a place called Lauretum on the Aventine (Pais, ibid. 279), confused probably with Laurentum, where he is said to have been killed. All these circumstances indicate that Titus Tatius was an indigenous Roman, or at most a Latin hero, and that his connection with the Sabines is an ill-founded, relatively late idea. The primary origin of the word Titienses is Etruscan; Schulze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 218.

[12] Possibly because the rites of the Titian sodales seemed to be Sabine (cf. Tac. _Ann._ i. 54); but even if they were, this circumstance would not make the Titian tribe Sabine.

[13] Varro, however, placed them on the Aventine. A Sabine settlement on the Quirinal has not been proved; cf. Lécrivain, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1514.

[14] In Dion. Hal. ii. 47. 4; cf. 7. 2; Plut. _Rom._ 13.

[15] _L. L._ v. 46, 55; Serv. _in Aen._ v. 560.

[16] P. 2, n. 6, and n. 1 above.

[17] Serv. ibid.

[18] Cf. Hülsen, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1273.

[19] Proposed by Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 311 ff., English, i. 153 ff. In his opinion the three tribes were of different nationalities. His view, with or without the theory of national syncretism, has been accepted by many scholars, including Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 480 ff., 497-514; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 82 ff.; Peter, _Gesch. Roms._ i. 60; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 97 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 23 f. (with some reserve); Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 621; Ihering, _Geist des röm. Rechts_, i. 309, 313; Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 89 ff.; Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 79; Puchta, _Curs. d. Inst._ i. 73; Soltau, _Röm. Volksversamml._ 46 f.; Kubitschek, _Rom. trib. or._ 4; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 96 f.; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 7; Schrader, _Reallex._ 801; Nissen, _Templum_, 145 f.; _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 496.

[20] Against the view that the three tribes were once independent communities are Volquardsen, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxiii. 542 ff.; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 510; Lécrivain, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1514 a; Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 241, 249 ff.; Platner, _Top. and Mon. of Anc. Rome_, 33. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 114, thinks they probably had reference only to the army. The double nature of many Roman institutions—a phenomenon on which scholars chiefly rely for their theory of a once existent two-tribe state—may better be explained by the union of the Sabines with the Romans after the institution of the three tribes; as this relatively later date would at the same time explain the six-fold character of various institutions. That the union took place at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. is believed by Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 277. Or the stated increase in the number of members of the vestals, augurs, pontiffs, and more particularly of senators, may be due to an ancient theory, dimly hinted at in the sources, of an admission of the second and third tribes successively to representation in these bodies; cf. Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 320 f., English, i. 157; Bloch, _Orig. d. sén._ 32 ff.

[21] Bormann, in _Eran. Vind._ 345-58, following a hint offered by Niese, _Röm. Gesch._ (1st ed. 1886) 585, has gone so far as to deny their existence, setting them down as an invention of Varro; but Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 230 ff., proves that Cicero and other sources did not draw from Varro their information regarding the tribes. Against Bormann, see also Pais, ibid. I. i. 279, n. 1.

[22] That the primitive Roman tribes were in character substantially identical with the primitive Greek phylae cannot be doubted. Apparently the four Ionic phylae in Attica offered no resistance to dissolution at the hands of Cleisthenes; cf. Hdt. v. 66; Arist. _Ath. Pol._ 21. (For the best treatment of the Greek phylae, see Szanto, E., _Ausgewählte Abhandlungen_, 216-88, who maintains that the institution was artificial.) In like manner the three Roman tribes disappeared, leaving but scant traces; p. 7.

[23] Mantua, till late an Etruscan city, had three tribes; Serv. _in Aen._ x. 202. In this connection it is significant that Volnius, an Etruscan poet, declared the primitive tribal names to be Etruscan; Varro, _L. L._ v. 55. The information suggests the possibility that some Etruscan cities had these same tribes; cf. Fest. 285. 25; _CIL._ ix. 4204 (locality unknown). In fact these names can be ultimately traced to Etruscan gentilicia; Schulze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 218, 581. The triplet champions of Alba point to a division of this community into three tribes; Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 386; Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 502. The story that T. Tatius was killed at Lavinium indicates the existence of a tomb of the hero in that place—a clear sign of a tribe of Tities there; Livy i. 14. 2; Dion. Hal. ii. 52; cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 152. A trace of Ramnes is found at Ardea; Serv. _in Aen._ ix. 358. There were Ramnennii in Ostia (_CIL._ xiv. 1542) and Ramnii in Capua; ibid. x. 3772; Schulze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 218. The existence of a tribe of Luceres in Ardea is vouched for by Lucerus, its eponymous hero, king of that city; Fest. ep. 119; Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 279. The word in various forms occurs in certain Etruscan towns; Schulze, ibid. 182. These facts make it probable that some at least of the Latin as well as Etruscan cities had the same three tribes.

[24] The Etruscans had twelve cities in each of their three districts; Strabo v. 4. 3; Livy v. 33. Each city had three consecrated gates and three temples to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva; Serv. _in Aen._ i. 422. The Umbrians had three hundred cities in the Po valley, destroyed by the Etruscans; Pliny, _N. H._ iii. 14. 113. The Bruttians were organized in a confederation of twelve cities; Livy xxv. 1. 2. The Iapygians were divided into three branches (Polyb. iii. 88. 4), each of which comprised twelve smaller groups; Bloch, _Orig. d. sén._ 9 f.; Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 245 ff., 252 f. The tripartite division also existed in many pagi which continued to historical time; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 83.

[25] These facts are too well known to need illustration; cf. Nissen, _Templum_, 144; Bloch, _Orig. d. sén._ 1 ff.

[26] Varro, _L. L._ v. 55. Tribus = tri-bu-s: bu- is related to φυ- “to grow,” Skt. bhū-; tribus, corresponding to φυ-λή, would then signify “three-branch;” Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 163; Pott, _Etym. Forsch._ i. 111, 217; ii. 441; Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb. d. lat. Spr._ 69; _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 636; Bloch, ibid. 9. Schlossman, in _Archiv f. lat. Lexicog._ xiv (1905). 25-40, connecting tribus with tres, interprets it not as a third but as an indefinite part, cf. entzweien with the meaning to divide in several parts. Schrader, _Reallex._ 801, is doubtful as to the etymology; cf. Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 636. The connection of the word with tres is denied by Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 96; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 8, n. 5. Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad._ 1906. 204, prefers to connect it with Celt *trebo- (Old Irish treb), “house,” Goth. thaúrp, “village.” Oscan trebo- also means “house.”

[27] The existence of four Ionic tribes in all Ionic cities cannot be maintained; cf. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, in _Sitzb. d. Berl. Akad._ 1906. 71.

[28] The tribus Sapinia was the territory of the Sapinian community (Livy xxxi. 2. 6; xxxiii. 37. 1), just as the trifu Tarinate was the territory of the community (tuta, tota, Osc. touto; _Tab. Bant._ 2) Tadinum; _Tab. Iguv._ vi. b. 54; cf. iii. 24; Buck, _Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian_, 278 f., 298; Bücheler, _Umbrica_, see index, s. Tref, Trefiper; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 87.

[29] Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad._ 1906. 207.

[30] Livy i. 55. 3 f.; _CIL._ ix. 1618, 5565; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 8 ff.; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 80.

[31] Dion. Hal. iv. 15; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 9-15. Doubtless oppidum applied primarily to the enclosing wall, thence to the space enclosed; Caes. _B. G._ v. 21; Varro, _L. L._ v. 153. From the beginning it must have been the chief or central settlement of the pagus, though the organization was not urban but territorial-tribal; cf. Pöhlmann, _Anfänge Roms_, 40 ff.

[32] Livy ix. 41. 6; x. 18. 8; _CIL._ i. 199; Isid. _Etym._ xv. 2. 11: “Vici et castella et pagi sunt quae nulla dignitate civitatis ornantur, sed vulgari hominum conventu incoluntur et propter parvitatem sui maioribus civitatibus attribuuntur;” Fest. ep. 72; Nissen, ibid. 11.

[33] Thus the three tribes of Cyrene were made up each of a nationality or group of nationalities (Hdt. iv. 161), and the ten tribes of Thurii were named after the nationalities of which they were respectively composed; Diod. xii. 11. 3.

[34] The Romans founded their colonies according to Etruscan rites, and they believed their city to have been established in the same way; Varro, _L. L._ v. 143; Cato, in Serv. _in Aen._ v. 755; Fest. 237. 18; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 88. The word Roma is now declared to be Etruscan; Schultze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 579 ff.; Schmidt, Karl Fr. W., in _Berl. Philol. Woch._ 1906. 1656.

[35] Richter, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, 30 ff., still believes that the earliest settlement was on the Palatine. His view is controverted by Degering, H., in _Berl. Philol. Woch._ xxiii (1903). 1645 f., who prefers the Quirinal; cf. also Carter, J. B., in _Am. Journ. of Archaeol._ xii (1908). 172-83.

[36] Cf. Richter, ibid. 38; Meyer, E., in _Hermes_, xxx. 13.

[37] Cf. Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 504.

[38] Cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 55; Verrius Flaccus, in Gell. xviii. 7. 5. The idea of Isidorus, _Etym._ ix. 6. 7, is of course absurd.

[39] This subject will be considered in connection with the Servian tribes; p. 48 f.

[40] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2.

[41] P. 74.

[42] Like the Attic phylobasileis they continued through historical time to perform sacerdotal functions; Dion. Hal. ii. 64. 3; _Fast. Praen. Mar. 19_, in _CIL._ i². p. 234: “(Sali) faciunt in comitio saltu (adstantibus po)ntificibus et trib. celer;” Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 242.

[43] Verg. _Aen._ v. 553 ff.; Serv. _in Aen._ v. 560; Holzapfel, ibid. 243.

[44] P. 2, n. 6.

[45] Fest. 285. 25; cf. Serv. _in Aen._ x. 202.

[46] There were curiae in Lanuvium, an old Latin town; _CIL._ xiv. 2120. Juno Curis, Cur(r)itis, Quiritis, goddess of the curiae, was worshipped in Tibur (Serv. _in Aen._ i. 17), and in Falerii (Tertul. _Apol._ 24; _CIL._ xi. 3100, 3125, 3126; cf. Holzapfel, _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 247; Roscher, _Lex. d. griech. u. röm. Myth._ II. i. 596 f.). A connection between Cūris and cūria is not clear; Deecke, _Falisker_, 86.

[47] Aristotle, _Politics_, 1329, b 8, considers Italus, king of the Oenotrians, to have been author of the mess-associations (συσσίτια), adding that the institution was derived from the country of the Opici and the Chaonians. With the Opici he includes Latins as well as Ausonians; Dion. Hal. i. 72. 3. On the relation of these peoples to one another, see especially Pais, _Anc. Italy_, ch. i. Greek writers identify the curia with the phratry (Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 3 f.; Dio Cass. Frag. 4. 8), the ἑταιρεία, and the syssition (Dion. Hal. ii. 23. 3; Dio Cass. ibid.). Although the institutions designated by these four names show considerable variety of form and function, they are similar in general character and may have a common origin; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 514.

The myth which names the curiae after the Sabine women suggests that some of the curial names, and perhaps the curiae themselves, might be found among the Sabines. On Rapta and Titia however see p. 11, n. 7.

[48] Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 2; Dio Cass. Frag. 5. 8; Plut. _Rom._ 20; Fest. 174. 8; ep. 49; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ ii. 12; Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 638; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2.

Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 47 f., entertains the peculiar idea that the curiae, invented to counteract the independent tendencies of the tribes, were not divisions of the tribes, the members of each curia being drawn from all three tribes. His view is contradicted by the sources and he admits that he cannot prove it.

St. Augustine, _Enarr. in Psalm._ 121. 7 (iv. 2. 1624 ed. Migne), and still later Paulus, the epitomator of Festus, 54, suppose that there were thirty-five curiae. Notwithstanding Hoffmann, _Patr. u. pleb. Cur._ 44 ff., the opinion of these late writers doubtless arose from an identification of the curiae with the tribes; cf. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1818.

[49] P. 11 f.

[50] The word is derived from *co-viria, “a dwelling together,” “an assembly,” by Pott, _Etym. Forsch._ ii. 373 f. (cf. Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb. d. lat. Spr._ 160; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 161), who is followed by Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 496, n. 8, 610, n. 4; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 96. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 5, 90 and notes, gives the word the meaning “an association of citizens,” deriving it from quiris (cf. _Abriss_, 11), which he connects with κῦρος, κῦριος, as did Lange in 1853 (_Kleine Schriften_, i. 147). Afterward—_Röm. Alt._ i. (1876) 91—Lange expressed some doubt as to this connection. But the fact that curia applies to the house not only of the curiales, but also of the senate and of the Salii, as well as to various other buildings, seems to indicate that the meaning “house” is primary for the Latin language if not ultimately original. Corssen, who accepts this meaning, derives cu- from sku-, “to cover,” “to protect” (_Ausspr._ i. 353 f.; Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 1116), cf. Old High Germ. hū-t, hū-s, Eng. “house.” Although Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 90, n. 2, protests against this explanation, it is accepted by Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 511, Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 52, and others. Far less probable is a connection with cura, curare, assumed by most ancient writers; cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 155; vi. 46; _Vit. pop. rom._ in Non. Marc. 57; Fest. ep. 49; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2; Dio Cass. Frag. 5. 8; Isid. _Etym._ xv. 2. 28. These sources have misled Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 32, into fruitless speculation on the functions of the curia.

[51] Tac. _Ann._ xii. 24.

[52] Fest. 174. 6; Jordan, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, I. i. 165 f.; iii. 43 f.; Gilbert, _Gesch. u. Top. d. Stadt Rom_, i. 102 f.; 195 ff.; Richter, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, 33, 340; Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome_, map opp. 58; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 99.

[53] P. 8, n. 5; Dion. Hal. ii. 50. 3; Fest. 254. 25; ep. 64; cf. Roscher, _Lex._ II. i. 596.

[54] Worshipped in the Fordicidia; Ovid, _Fast._ iv. 634; Lyd. _De Mens._ iv. 49; Wissowa, _Rel. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 159.

[55] On the curial worship, see Varro, _L. L._ vi. 13; Fest. 254. 25; 317. 12; Dion. Hal. ii. 23. 1-3; 50. 3; 65. 4; Ovid, _Fast._ ii. 527 ff.; iv. 629 ff.; Plut. _Q. R._ 89; cf. Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, 71-2, 302-6. On the stultorum feriae, see Wissowa, ibid. 142; Fowler, ibid. 304 ff.

[56] Dion. Hal. ii. 23. 1; Fest. 245. 28.

[57] Varro, _L. L._ v. 83; vi. 46; Dion. Hal. 64. 1; 65. 4; Fest. ep. 49, 62; Lyd. _De Mag._ i. 9.

[58] Dion. Hal. ii. 22. 1.

[59] _CIL._ vi. 1892; xiv. 296; Gell. xv. 27. 2; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31.

[60] Fest. ep. 64: “Curiales flamines curiarum sacerdotes.” For the flamen of the Curia Iovis of Simitthus, see _CIL._ viii. 14683; cf. 2596 and 11008. The statement of Festus, 154. 26, that there were but fifteen flamines must be modified. But there may have been fewer than thirty curial flamines; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 390. Of the two curial officials mentioned by Dionysius, ii. 21. 2, therefore, one was the curio and the other a lictor (Mommsen, ibid. 309, n. 5; Genz, _Patr. Rom._, 47) or a flamen (Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 242).

[61] Cf. Wissowa, _Rel. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 338, n. 3, 413, n. 2.

[62] Livy iii. 7. 7; xxvii. 8. 1; Fest. ep. 126. This official was probably instituted after the curiones had become mere priests; Genz, ibid. 48.

[63] P. 157. The comitium was a place of assembly adjoining the Forum.

[64] II. 7. 2 f.; 23. 3.

[65] Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 52, 65, following J. J. Müller, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1874), 96-136, refuses to credit a military character to the curiae because it is mentioned by no other writer and because we can find no trace of it in historical time. His reasoning is not cogent. The curia may have lost its earlier military function, as did the phratry (_Il._ ii. 362 f.).

[66] That the antiquarians had some evidence as to the military character of the curiae is suggested by Fest. ep. 54: “Centuriata comitia item curiata dicebantur, quia populus Romanus per cetenas turmas divisus erat.”

[67] _Il._ ii. 362 f.

[68] Tac. _Germ._ 7. 3.

[69] Schrader, _Reallex._ 349 f.

[70] All adult male citizens had a right to attend this assembly, all who were physically qualified and of military age were liable to service when called to it; but probably on no occasion were those present in the assembly identical with the military levy of the year; cf. p. 203.

[71] P. 7.

[72] II. 7. 4. The curiales must have been neighbors in order to use a common drying oven; n. 8 below.

[73] Fest. 174. 12. The first is evidently named after the Forum, the second after the Velia; cf. Plut. _Rom._ 20, who states that many were named after places. Of the other five Velitia (Fest. ibid.), Titia (ibid. ep. 366), Faucia (Livy ix. 38. 15), and Acculeia (Varro, _L. L._ vi. 23) have gentile endings. We should not imagine these four to be named after gentes, which were of later origin; Botsford, in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxi. (1907). 685 ff. It would be safer to assume that they, like gentilicia, are derived from the names of persons real or imaginary. Rapta (Fest. 174. 12) and Titia possibly suggested to the ancients the derivation of the curial names from those of the captive Sabine women; cf. p. 8, n. 6.

[74] Dion. Hal. iv. 12. 2. This statement is confirmed by the nature of the Fornacalia, the chief festival of the curiae; it was celebrated in connection with the drying of the far in ovens; Pliny _N. H._ xviii. 2. 8; Fest. ep. 83, 93. Evidently the members of a curia were those who had a common drying oven; Wissowa, _Rel. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 142.

[75] Διῄρηνται δὲ καὶ εἰς δεκάδας αἰ φράτραι, πρὸς αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἡγεμὼν ἐκὰστην ἐκόσμει δεκάδα, δεκουρίων κατὰ τὴν ἐπιχώριον, γλῶτταν προσαγομευόμενος.

[76] Polyb. vi. 25. 1; cf. 20. 9.

[77] _L. L._ v. 91.

[78] There is no need of assuming, with Bloch, _Origines du sénat Romain_, 102-5, that the decuriae mentioned by Dionysius are “purely imaginary.”

[79] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 334 f.; Eng. 163; cf. also Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 612 f. The antiquated view is still held by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 96, and by Lécrivain, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1504. Though Ihne, _History of Rome_, i. 113, n. 3, believes that the curiae were composed of gentes, he is doubtful as to the number.

[80] “Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, curiata comitia esse; cum ex censu et aetate, centuriata; cum ex regionibus et locis, tributa.”

[81] Mommsen, too, supposes that genera here means gentes but is used so as to include also the plebeian stirpes; nevertheless he knows that the voting in the curiate assembly was by heads rather than by gentes; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 9, n. 2; 90, n. 5.

[82] Livy i. 43. 10: “Viritim suffragium ... omnibus datum est” (i.e. in the curiate assembly). This statement of the lack of relation between the gens and the curia is repeated from _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxi. 511 f.

[83] It is in the main a reproduction of my article on the subject in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxi (1906). 498-526.

[84] P. 25 ff.

[85] _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; 12. 23: “Senatus, qui constabat ex optimatibus, quibus ipse rex tantum tribuisset, ut eos patres vellet nominari patriciosque eorum liberos.”

[86] In the expression “omnibus patriciis, omnibus antiquissimis civibus,” Cicero (_Caec._ 35. 101) intends no more than to include the patricians among the oldest citizens, whom he is contrasting with the newly-admitted municipes. Only the most superficial examination of the passage (cf. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 7) could make “omnibus patriciis” equivalent to “omnibus antiquissimis civibus.”

[87] I. 8. 7.

[88] Ibid.: “Consilium deinde viribus parat: centum creat senatores.”

[89] Livy iv. 4. 7: “Nobilitatem istam vestram quam plerique oriundi ex Albanis et Sabinis non genere nec sanguine sed per coöptationem in patres habetis, aut ab regibus lecti aut post reges exactos iussu populi.”

[90] Livy i. 34. 6: “In novo populo, ubi omnis repentina atque ex virtute nobilitas sit.”

[91] II. 8. 1-3. In 12. 1, he shifts his point of view: Romulus chose the hundred original senators from the patricians.

[92] _Rom._ 13; cf. _Q. R._ 58.

[93] Cf. further Ovid, _Fast._ iii. 127; Vell. i. 8. 6; Fest. 246. 23; 339. 11.

[94] There is no inconsistency, however, in the fact that some noble gentes claimed descent from Aeneas or from deities (cf. Seeley, _Livy_, 57) or from Alban or Sabine ancestors (cf. Livy i. 30. 2; iv. 4. 7; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 3; iii. 29. 7); they were nobles in their original homes before the founding of Rome, but became patricians by an act only of the Roman government.

Although after the creation of the first hundred patres, the ancients do not distinctly state that each newly-made senator was the founder of a new patrician family, they do represent the enlargement of the senate and of the patriciate as going hand in hand; in this way they continue to make the patriciate depend upon membership in the senate; cf. Livy i. 30. 2; 35. 6; Dion. Hal. ii. 47. 1; iii. 67. 1; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 75.

[95] _Rep._, ii. 8. 14; cf. (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ ii. 11.

[96] _Cat._ 6. 6; cf. Isid. _Etym._ ix. 6. 10: “Nam sicut patres suos, ita illi rem publicam habebant” (or “alebant”).

[97] I. 8. 7.

[98] 339. 11.

[99] 247.

[100] ii. 8. 1.

[101] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 227.

[102] From the root pa, to protect, preserve, conservare; Pott, _Wurzel-Wörterb. d. Indog. Spr._ (2d ed.), 221; Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 424; Schrader, _Sprachvergl. u. Urgesch._ 538; Lécrivain, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1507.

[103] _Dig._ 1. 16. 195. 2: “Pater familias appellatur qui in domo dominium habet.” In like manner patronus is protector of clients, pater patriae protector of his country; Pott, ibid. 227.

[104] Ulpian, in _Dig._, ibid.: “Pater autem familias recte hoc nomine appellatur, quamvis filium non habeat; non enim solam personam eius, sed et ius demonstramus: denique et pupillum patrem familias appellamus.”

[105] Livy i. 32. 10 (from a fetial formula).

[106] Rubino, _Röm. Verfassung und Geschichte_, 186; Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 228, n. 16.

[107] In the same way reges is made to include the whole family of the rex; Livy i. 39. 2. For other illustrations of the same principle, see Rubino, ibid. 188, n. 1.

[108] The Twelve Tables seem to apply it to all patricians, not to senators alone: Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 37. 63: “Conubia ... ut ne plebei cum patribus essent;” Livy iv. 4. 5: “Ne conubium patribus cum plebe esset.” These passages, however, do not afford absolute proof; for Gaius, bk. vi _ad legem Duodecim Tabularum_ (_Dig._ 1. 16. 238: “Plebs est ceteri cives sine senatoribus”), probably commenting on the very law quoted by Cicero and Livy, seems to understand patres as senators; cf. the prohibition of intermarriage between senators and their agnatic descendants on the one hand and freed persons on the other; _Dig._ xxii. 2. 44; Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, i. 130; Vassis, in _Athena_, xii. 57 f. In some instances, however, as in the expression “a patribus transire ad plebem” (Vell. ii. 45. 1) patres is certainly equivalent to patricii.

[109] Cf. gentilicius from gentilis; tribunicius from tribunus, Pott, ibid. 227. Patricius is an adjective signifying paternal, ancestral, belonging to parents or progenitors; Corssen, ibid. i. 53.

[110] In his work on the Comitia, quoted by Fest. 241. 21: “Patricios eos appellari solitos qui nunc ingenui vocentur.”

[111] X. 8. 10: “En umquam fando audistis patricios primo esse factos non de caelo demissos, sed qui patrem ciere possent, id est nihil ultra quam ingenuos...?”

[112] VI. 40. 6. The speaker contrasts ingenui with patricii.

[113] Plut. _Q. R._ 58: Those who were first constituted senators by Romulus were called patres and patricii as being men of good birth, who could show their pedigree. In its adjectival and adverbial uses ingenuus connotes not the quality of free birth, but respectability, nobility. The original meaning is “born within,” hence indigenous, native; cf. Forcellini, _Totius Latinitatis Lexicon_, s. v. In this sense it could not apply to the patricians, who generally claimed a foreign origin. But native is superior to alien; doubtless in this secondary meaning of excellence it attached to the nobility, the close relation of the word to gens (family, lineage) attracting it in that direction. Afterward it was so democratized as to include all the freeborn. With this meaning we find it as early as Plautus, _Mil._ 784, 961. According to Dionysius, ii. 8. 3, the identification of patricii with ingenui in its sense of freeborn was accepted not by the most trustworthy historians, but by certain malicious slanderers: “Some say they were called patricians because they alone could cite their fathers, the rest being fugitives and unable to cite free fathers.”

[114] P. 30.

[115] The word is probably derived from the same root as populus; Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 368; cf. p. 1, n. 3 above.

[116] _Rep._ ii. 9. 16.

[117] ii. 9. 2.

[118] Notably among the Sabines, Livy ii. 16. 4; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 3.

[119] Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 9. 16; Dion. Hal. ii. 9. 2.

[120] Cf. the citations in Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 71, n. 1. Dionysius, ii. 63. 3, distinguished the two classes as early as the interregnum which followed Romulus.

[121] Dion. Hal. v. 40. 3; vi. 47. 1; vii. 19. 2; x. 43. As late as 134 Scipio called his clients to follow him to the Numantine war; Appian, _Iber._ 84.

[122] Livy iii. 58. 1.

[123] Dion. Hal. ii. 10. 3.

[124] Livy ii. 56. 3; 64. 2; Dion. Hal. ii. 10. 3; iv. 23. 6; ix. 41. 5.

[125] Dion. Hal. ii. 10. 3 (it was not lawful for either patron or client to vote against the other). Marius, a client of Herennius, was elected to the praetorship; Plut. _Mar._ 5. A law declared that election to a curule office (according to Plutarch, or as Marius asserted to any office) freed a man and his family from clientage. Evidently this law was passed in or after 367 B.C. Mucius, a client of Ti. Gracchus, was elected to the plebeian tribunate; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 13. Cn. Flavius, who was the son of a freedman and probably therefore a client, was elected curule aedile for 304; Livy ix. 46. 1; Val. Max. ii. 5. 2.

[126] Gaius 1. 3: “Plebs autem a populo eo distat, quod populi appellatione universi cives significantur connumeratis etiam patriciis; plebis autem appellatione sine patriciis ceteri cives significantur.” Evidently Pomponius held the same view; _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 1-6; cf. Capito, in Gell. x. 20. 5; Fest. 233. 29; 330. 19; Isid. _Etym._ ix. 6. 5 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 4, n. 2.

[127] Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 12. 23; Livy i. 8. 7; Zon. vii. 9; Isid. _Etym._ ix. 6. 6.

[128] Illustrations of this common use are Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; 12. 23; Livy ii. 54. 3; iv. 51. 3; x. 13. 9; xxv. 2. 9; 3. 13; 3. 16; xxx. 27. 3; xxxiv. 54. 4; xxxvii. 58. 1; xliii. 8. 9. The Greeks always regard populus as the equivalent of δῆμος; cf. Plut. _Rom._ 13. Not only does the tribune in addressing the plebs call them populus Romanus (Sall. _Iug._ 31), but the consuls also apply the term to the same class (Livy xxv. 4. 4); and a statement of Cicero (_Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 17), which has the appearance of a legal definition, makes the people of the thirty-five tribes under a tribune the universus populus Romanus.

[129] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 172.

[130] Cic. _Fam._ x. 35; _Verr._ v. 14. 36; _Mur._ 1. 1; Livy xxix. 27. 2: Tac. _Ann._ 1. 8; Macrob. _Sat._ 1. 17. 28; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 169, n. 4.

[131] E.g. senatui populo plebique Romanae; Cicero, _Fam._ x. 35 (address).

[132] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 6, n. 4; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 84.

[133] For the division of the populus into tribes and curiae, see Cic. _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; Livy i. 13. 6; Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 2; App. _B. C._ iii. 94. The author of _Vir. Ill._ 2. 12, in supposing that the plebs alone were assigned to the tribes is certainly wrong; but his mistake is pardonable in view of the general agreement among our sources that the populus, πλῆθος, contained in the curiae were mainly plebeian.

[134] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 7. 13; 8. 14; 18. 33; Livy i. 13. 4; 13. 6; 28. 7; 30. 1; 33. 1-5; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 2 f.; 47. 1; 50. 4 f.; 55. 6; iii. 29. 7; 30. 3; 31. 3; 37. 4; 48. 2; iv. 22. 3.

[135] Cf. Dion. Hal. ii. 8. 4.

[136] Livy i. 17. 11; 35. 2; 43. 10; 46. 1; Dion. Hal. ii. 10. 3; 14. 3; 60. 3; 62. 3; iv. 12. 3; 20. 2.

[137] Cf. _Lectures on the History of Rome_, i. 80, 83: “I beg you to mark this well ... that even ingenious and learned men like Livy and Dionysius did not comprehend the ancient institutions and yet have preserved a number of expressions from their predecessors from which we, with much labor and difficulty, may elicit the truth.”

[138] The school of Mommsen, which still clings to Niebuhr’s theory of an exclusively patrician populus, has abandoned the attempt to support it by a reconstruction of lost sources.

[139] The late regal period may have left a few documents which, if used by the annalists, might have thrown light on the condition of that time. It has not yet been determined whether the inscription recently found in the Roman Forum belongs to the late regal or to the early republican period.

[140] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 69, grants to the ancients far more knowledge of their own history, but claims a “wider horizon.”

[141] Niebuhr treats Dionysius with great respect; cf. _Lectures_, i. liv: “The longer and more carefully the work is examined, the more must true criticism acknowledge that it is deserving of all respect, and the more it will be found a storehouse of most solid information.” Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 621 f., and 626 f., assumes that Dionysius is alone responsible for the view that the plebeians were in the primitive tribes and the curiae. A glance at the citations given above, p. 24 f., will show, however, that Cicero and Livy shared this view.

[142] Cf. Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. 1. 82. The usual opinion (cf. Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 8 f.) is that the sources of Dionysius are later and less trustworthy than those of Livy, but Pais asserts that on the whole the two authors drew from the same sources.

[143] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 339, Eng. 165.

[144] _Lectures on Roman History_, i. 81, 100 f.

[145] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 332, Eng. 158.

[146] In ibid. i. 330, Eng. 162, he excludes the “freed clients” from the gens; in 339, Eng. 165, he states that the nobles alone _had_ the gens, the clients belonged to it in a dependent capacity.

[147] Cf. the edition of Sandys, 252; Rose, _Aristotelis Frag._ 385.

[148] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 326, Eng. 160. Genz, _Patricisches Rom_, 6, has the same idea.

[149] _Il._ ii. 362 f.; ix. 63 f.

[150] _CIA._ i. 61; cf. Dem. xliii. 57.

[151] This is illustrated, for instance, by a law quoted by Philochorus, in Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ i. 399. 94: Τοὺς δὲ φράτορας ἐπάναγκες δέχεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ὀργεῶνας καὶ τοὺς ὁμογάλακτας, οὺς γεννῆτας καλοῦμεν (“The members of the phratry must receive the orgeones as well as the homogalaktes, whom we call gennetae”). This fact is now too well known to need further proof; cf. Gilbert, _Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens_, 148 f.; Thumser, _Griechische Staatsaltertümer_, 324 f.

[152] P. 11.

[153] _Top._ 6. 29: “Gentiles sunt inter se, qui eodem nomine sunt. Non est satis. Qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt. Ne id quidem satis est. Quorum maiorum nemo servitutem servivit. Abest etiam nunc. Qui capite non sunt deminuti. Hoc fortasse satis est. Nihil enim video Scaevolam pontificem ad hanc definitionem addidisse;” cf. Cincius, in Fest. ep. 94.

As the word itself indicates, gentiles are members of a gens, and no other members are known to the sources. If it were true, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 66, supposes, that there were dependent members not termed gentiles, a name would have been given this dependent relation, or the jurists would have defined it, or some ancient writer would at least have mentioned it. The attempt of Kübler, _Wochenschr. f. kl. Philol._ xxv (1908). 541 f., to prove, on the authority of Cicero, _Tim._ 11. 41, that clients were termed quasi gentiles is simply absurd. The passage does not even hint at clientage; and the quasi gentiles of the immortal gods, according to this passage, were related to the gods by birth, as the word gignatis proves. From this point of view men might be called the children of the gods; but because the divine element in both men and gods comes alike from the Creator, it is possible to place them more nearly on a level with one another—in a relation like that of gentiles. Kübler’s other remarks on the gens, 539-43, are equally unconvincing.

[154] Cic. _Brut._ 16. 32; Livy iv. 16. 3; Suet. _Aug._ 2. Whether these two gentes had ever been patrician does not affect the question at issue.

[155] Val. Max. ix. 2. 1.

[156] Cic. _Har. Resp._ 15. 32, mentions sacrificia gentilicia of the Calpurnia.

[157] Suet. _Ner._ 1.

[158] Cic. _Dom._ 13. 35.

[159] Fest. ep. 23.

[160] Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 10.

[161] Unless Sp. Cassius, consul 502, 493, 486 B.C. and author of the first agrarian rogation, is a myth; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 94.

[162] Cf. Cic. _Orat._ i. 39. 176. The patrician and plebeian branches are sometimes spoken of as distinct gentes; Suet. _Tib._ 1.

[163] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 113 f.; Drumann-Gröbe, ibid. 359.

[164] Cic. _Phil._ i. 13. 32; Gell. ix. 2. 11; Fest. ep. 125.

[165] Mommsen, ibid. 116.

[166] L. Poplilius Volscus, patrician; Livy v. 12. 10. Q. Publilius Philo, plebeian; Livy viii. 15. 9.

[167] This patrician gens included an Aebutius who was tribune of the plebs (Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 8. 21) and several other plebeians; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 442 f.

[168] Mommsen, ibid. 117 ff.

[169] V. 14. 4: “Comitiis auspicato quae fierent indignum dis visum honores volgari discriminaque gentium confundi.”

[170] _Dom._ 13. 35: “Ita perturbatis sacris, contaminatis gentibus, et quam deseruisti et quam poluisti.”

[171] Sall. _Iug._ 95. 3; Livy iii. 27. 1; 33. 9; vi. 11. 2; Gell. x. 20. 5; cf. ix. 2. 11.

[172] _L. L._ viii. 4: “Ut in hominibus quaedam sunt agnationes ac gentilitates, sic in verbis.”

[173] In _Lib. Praen._ 3.

[174] It will suffice to quote Gaius iii. 17: “Si nullus agnatus sit, eadem lex XII Tabularum gentiles ad hereditatem vocat”; cf. Cic. _Verr._ i. 45. 115: “Lege hereditas ad gentem Minuciam veniebat.” The Minucian gens was plebeian. Its right to the inheritance in question rested on this law of the Twelve Tables. For the gentile right of tutelage, see the so-called Laudatio Turiae, 15, 22 (_CIL._ vi. 1527; Girard, _Textes_, 778).

[175] Cf. p. 20; see also Auct. Inc. _De Diff._ 527 (Keil): “Gens seriem maiorum explicat.”

[176] E.g. “Family will take a person everywhere”; C. D. Warner, quoted by the _Standard Dictionary_, s. v.

[177] Mommsen’s theory of the gens—a development from Niebuhr’s—is criticized in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii (1907). 668 f. The distinction between patrician gentes and plebeian stirpes, on which he especially relies, is there shown to be groundless.

[178] Gell. xv. 27. 2.

[179] II. 8. 4.

[180] _Sén. Rom._ ii. 34 f.

[181] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 233 f.; 247 f.; cf. Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 70. On the patrum auctoritas, see p. 235 below.

[182] E.g. _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 359; iii. 168; Eng. ii. 147; iii. 73: “the common council of the patres—the curies.”

[183] _Cic._ Frag. A. vii. 48; Livy ii. 56, especially § 3; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; ix. 41.

[184] Livy xxvii. 8. 3.

[185] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 148.

[186] _Cic. Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31.

[187] _Cic. Dom._ 14. 38; Livy vi. 41. 10.

[188] P. 185 below; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 147 f.

[189] In the face of all evidence to the contrary two or three scholars persist in maintaining essentially the opinion of Niebuhr that through the republic the curiae continued patrician. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 98 f., 108, 1014, n. 2, imagines that from the beginning the clients belonged to the curia in its administrative capacity, shared in its sacra, attended its meetings, but did not vote. The plebs, however, were not even passive members. His reasons do not deserve mention. Vassis, Ῥωμαών Πολιτεία ἡ βασιλευομένη κα ἡ ἐλευθέρα (Athens, 1903), also excludes the commons from the curiate assembly throughout its history. The fancies of Hoffmann, _Patr. und pleb. Curien_, need not detain us.

[190] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 623 f.

[191] Cf. p. 152, 172.

[192] Cf. p. 170, 172.

[193] P. 173 ff., 345.

[194] P. 75, 96, 209.

[195] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 625, n. 3.

[196] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 140 f.

[197] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 269; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 92. Clason, _Krit. Erört. über den röm. Staat_, 12, supposes they were admitted by the Ogulnian law, in 300. Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 41, 62, places their admission not earlier than the institution of the Servian tribes and not later than the decemvirate, greatly preferring the latter date.

[198] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 13; _Abriss_, 5.

[199] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 54 f.

[200] Ibid. iii. 91.

[201] Ibid. iii. 63.

[202] Ibid. iii. 67 f.

[203] Ibid. i. 91, n. 1; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 261 f. Reference here is only to the auspicia publica of the magistrates. It is established below (p. 101 ff.) that from the beginning the plebeians had a right to private auspices.

[204] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 77.

[205] Cf. Töpffer, _Attische Genealogie_, 177.

[206] _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 93.

[207] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 109.

[208] P. 69.

[209] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 106 f. and n. 80.

[210] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 13.

[211] _Rep._ ii. 20. 35: “Duplicavit illum pristinum patrum numerum et antiquos patres maiorum gentium appellavit, quos priores sententiam rogabat, a se adscitos minorum.” The connection shows that Cicero is speaking of two classes of senators distinguished by the rank of the gentes from which they respectively came.

[212] P. 28 f.

[213] P. 11 f.

[214] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 14.

[215] P. 17 f. and notes.

[216] P. 20 f.

[217] For the sources, see Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 459 f.; Stengel, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 1885.

[218] _Andeutungen über den urspr. Religionsunterschied der röm. Patr. und Pleb._ 1 f.

[219] Cf. Livy xxxv. 51. 2; Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 761. Schwegler, ibid. 464-8, who insists on this fact, shows clearly that no historical value attaches to the myth; see also Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 218, n. 1.

[220] Pais, ibid. 217 ff. Dionysius, i. 4. 2 f., expressly states that this story is a Greek falsification.

[221] See the examples collected by Pais, ibid.

[222] Cf. Livy i. 8. 5.

[223] Cf. ibid. ii. 1. 4.

[224] Dionysius, i. 85. 3, states that the colonists from Alba were mostly plebeians, but that a considerable number of the highest nobility accompanied them. It is a significant fact, however, that no patrician family is known to have derived its origin from this earliest colony. Those who claimed Alban and Trojan descent preferred to connect their admission to citizenship with the Roman annexation of Alba Longa, e.g. the Tullii, Servilii, Quinctii, Geganii, Curiatii, and Cloelii; Livy i. 30. 2. On the Alban and Sabine origin of most of the nobility, Livy iv. 4. 7. In so far as the local cognomina are indicative of origin (cf. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 11 ff.), they point to a diversity of foreign connections. The Tarquinian gens, which in later time was thought of as patrician, came from Etruria, ultimately from Greece. The Aemilii were Greek (Plut. _Aem._ 1; Fest. ep. 23) or Sabine (Plut. _Num._ 8) or Oscan (Fest. 130. 1).

[225] Cf. p. 31 above. For details, see _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii. 679 ff.

[226] That Caere was the first community to receive the civitas sine suffragio may justly be inferred from the expression “Caerite franchise,” which designates this kind of limited citizenship (cf. p. 62). The general fact stated in (6) is further confirmed by the law which granted the right of extending the pomerium to those magistrates only who had acquired new territory for Rome; Gell. xiii. 14. 3; Tacitus, _Ann._ xii. 23.

[227] Since the publication of the _Staatsrecht_, writers have made slight modifications or extensions of the conventional theory. Greenidge, in Poste, _Gaii Institutiones_, xix, suggests that the dual forms in Roman law may have as their basis a racial distinction between the patricians and the plebeians. A serious objection to this kind of reasoning is that if we are on the lookout for dualities, trinities, and the like, we shall find them in abundance everywhere. All sorts of theories as to the racial connections of the two social classes have been proposed. Zöller, _Latium und Rom_, 23 ff., supposes that the patricians were Sabine and the plebeians Latin. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, i. 257, holds that the plebeians were Ligurians, whereas Conway, in _Riv. di Stor. ant._ vii (1903). 422-4, prefers to consider them Volscians. These notions are equally worthless. Undoubtedly race is a potent factor in history; but Gumplowicz, _Rassenkampf_ (1883), has killed the theory by overwork.

Among the writers who have rejected the conventional view are Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ (1880); Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ (1882); Pelham, _Outlines of Roman History_ (1893; reprint of his article on “Roman History,” in the _Encycl. Brit._); Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii (1893); Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i (1902). 254.

[228] Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 80; Featherman, _Social History of the Races of Mankind_, ii. 408; Hellwald, _Culturgeschichte_, i. 175; Barth, _Philosophie der Geschichte_, i. 382. It would be practicable by the citation of authorities to prove the existence of such distinctions in nearly every community, present or past, whose social condition is sufficiently known.

[229] Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 124; Tarde, _Laws of Imitation_, 233 f.; Fairbanks, _Introduction to Sociology_, 158; Grave, _L’individu et la société_, 23; Funck-Brentano, _Civilisation et ses lois_, 71 f.; Caspari, _Urgeschichte der Menschheit_, i. 125 f.; Hellwald, ibid. i. 175, 177; Ross, _Social Control_, 80.

[230] Giddings, ibid. 262; Ammon, _Gesellschaftsordnung_, 133 f.; Cherbuliez, _Simples notions de l’ordre social à l’usage de tout le monde_, 38 f.; Dechesne, _Conception du droit_, 36; Grave, ibid. 23 f.; Caspari, ibid. i. 133 f.; Harris, _Civilization considered as a Science_, 211; Lepelletier de la Sarthe, _Système sociale_, i. 329; Mismer, _Principes sociologiques_, 63 f.; Rossbach, _Geschichte der Gesellschaft_, i. 13 f.; Schurtz, _Urgeschichte der Kultur_, 385; Hittell, _Mankind in Ancient Times_, i. 228 f.; Maine, _Early History of Institutions_, 130; Seebohm, _Tribal System in Wales_, 139; Post, A. H., _Anfänge des Staats- und Rechtslebens_, 150 f.

[231] Giddings, ibid. 262; cf. Arnd, _Die materiellen Grundlagen ... der europäischen Kultur_, 444 f.; Frohschammer, _Organisation und Kultur der mensch. Gesellschaft_, 84 f.; Bastian, _Rechtsverhältnisse bei verschiedenen Völkern der Erde_, 20 f.; Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, ii. 333, 335.

[232] Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_; Spencer, ibid. ii. 338 f.; cf. for the Malays, Skeat and Blagden, _Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula_, 499.

[233] Cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 183; Spencer, ibid. ii. 334 f.; Seebohm, _Tribal System in Wales_, 72.

[234] Aristotle, _Politics_, 1294, a 21; Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 293 f.; Jenks, _History of Politics_, 30 f.; Grave, _L’individu et la société_, 25; Combes de Lestrade, _Éléments de sociologie_, 185; Schurtz, _Urgeschichte der Kultur_, 148, 385; Featherman, _Social History of the Races of Mankind_, see index, s. Classes; Hittell, _Mankind in Ancient Times_, i. 228; Maine, _Early History of Institutions_, 134; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 60 f.; Farrand, _Basis of American History_, 114, 201; Bluntschli, _Theory of the State_, 149.

[235] Grave, ibid. 30 f.; Combes de Lestrade, ibid. 184 f.; Funck-Brentano, _Civilisation et ses lois_, 68 f.; Spencer, ibid. ii. 348 f.; Schurtz, ibid. 150 f.; Featherman, ibid. ii. 128, 197 f., 311; Letourneau, _Sociology_, 480 f.; Bastian, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, 8 f.

[236] Cf. Schurtz, ibid. 148; Farrand, ibid. 114, 129, 141. For the Malays, see Skeat and Blagden, ibid. 494 ff.

[237] Maine, ibid. 132.

[238] Maine, ibid.; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 63 f., 93 f.

[239] Seebohm, _Tribal System in Wales_, 134 f.

[240] As in Wales; Seebohm, ibid. 139; cf. the Inca grandees, who all claimed descent from the founder of the monarchy; Letourneau, _Sociology_, 479.

[241] Tac. _Germ._ 13. 3: “Insignis nobilitas aut magna patrum merita principis dignationem etiam adulescentulis adsignant.” It is clear that the family of a youth who receives an office or dignity because of the merits of his ancestors is coming near to nobility.

[242] A certain man of illegitimate birth, hence of inferior social standing, through martial skill and daring becomes a leader of warriors, acquires wealth, marries the daughter of a notable, “waxes dread and honorable” among his countrymen, who elect him to a high military command by the side of their hereditary chief; the taint of his birth is forgotten; Od., xiv. 199; cf. Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 123.

[243] Livy viii. 39. 12; x. 38. 7: “Nobilissimum quemque genere factisque,” with reference to the Samnites; some were nobles by birth, others by prowess; cf. 46. 4: “Nobiles aliquot captivi clari suis patrumque factis ducti;” some of these captives were noble through their own prowess, others through that of their ancestors. The Samnite nobility was in the formative stage like that of the German nobility in the time of Tacitus. The Yakonan of California are in this condition; Farrand, _Basis of American History_, 129.

[244] Maine, _Early Hist. of Inst._ 135 f.; Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 294 f.

[245] Cf. Giddings, ibid.

[246] Maine, ibid. 136.

[247] Laws of Athelstan.

[248] Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 296; cf. Maine, _Early Hist. of Inst._ 141. Thus in the time of Tacitus the German youth of common blood who entered the comitatus of a chief had a fair opportunity to become noble; _Germ._ 13. 3-5; 14. 1 f. Among the Danes, too, some noble families were once peasant; Maine, ibid. 135.

[249] Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, i. 235 f., 252; Maine, ibid. 138; Ammon, _Gesellschaftsordnung_, 135; Schurtz, _Urgeschichte der Kultur_, 148 f.; Bluntschli, _Theory of the State_, 131, 155; Tarde, _Laws of Imitation_, 237.

[250] Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 315; cf. Combes de Lestrade, _Éléments de sociologie_, 185; Rossbach, _Gesch. der Gesellsch._ i. 14. A nobility formed purely by conquest, if such indeed exists, must be rare, and can hardly be lasting; Schurtz, _Urgesch. der Kul._ 149.

[251] Giddings, ibid. 315; cf. Grave, _L’individu et la société_, 32.

[252] Strabo viii. 4. 4, p. 364; Aristotle, _Politics_, 1270, a 34.

[253] Schurtz, _Urgesch. der Kult._ 165.

[254] Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 145.

[255] Bluntschli, _Theory of the State_, 142; Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, iv. 11. There were nobles both in England and in Normandy before the conquest. After the battle of Senlac most of the English nobles submitted to William, and were allowed to redeem their lands; Freeman, ibid. iv. 13 f., 36 f. It was only in punishment for later rebellion that they lost their holdings, and some English thanes were never displaced; cf. Powell, in Traill, _Social England_, i. 240.

[256] The most violent and oppressive Germanic invaders are supposed to have been the Vandals, and yet they doubtless retained for the administration of the government the trained Roman officials; Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, ii. 263. The Ostrogoths were more liberal in their treatment of the Romans (ibid. iv. 250, 271, 282), and the Franks still more liberal; Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch._ ii. 202.

[257] Featherman, _Social History of the Races of Mankind_, ii. 354; Tarde, _Laws of Imitation_, 238, n. 1, 239; Hellwald, _Kulturgesch._ i. 175 f.; Schurtz, _Urgesch. der Kult._ 149; cf. Demolins, _Comment la route crée le type social_.

[258] P. 16.

[259] P. 37, n. 4.

[260] P. 31; _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii (1907). 679 ff.

[261] The idea that the primitive community is essentially illiberal with its membership is erroneous. For the mingling of conquerors and conquered, see p. 42 f. and notes. On the ethnic heterogeneity of states in general, see Gumplowicz, _Rassenkampf_, 181. The laws of Solon granted citizenship to alien residents who were in perpetual exile from their own country, or who had settled with their families in Attica with a view to plying their trade; Plut. _Sol._ 24. Under his laws, too, a valid marriage could be contracted between an Athenian and an alien; Hdt. vi. 130. The Athenians, like the Romans, believed that many of their noble families were of foreign origin. In Ireland “strangers settling in the district, conducting themselves well, and intermarrying with the clan, were after a few generations indistinguishable from it;” Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 103. Nearly the same rule holds for South Wales; Seebohm, _Tribal System in Wales_, 131. To the Germans before their settlement within the empire the idea of an exclusive community must have been foreign; for as yet the individual was but loosely attached to his tribe. Persons of many tribes were united in the comitatus of a chief; the two halves of a tribe often fought on opposite sides in war; a tribe often chose its chief from another tribe. Intermarriage among the tribes was common, even between Germans and Sarmatians. A single tribe often split into several independent tribes, and conversely new tribes were formed of the most diverse elements; Seeck, _Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt_, i. 209 with notes; Kaufmann, _Die Germanen der Urzeit_, 136 f. Under these circumstances the primitive German community cannot be described as exclusive. In like manner our sources unanimously testify to the liberality of early Rome in granting the citizenship to strangers. It is no longer possible to oppose to this authority the objection that such generosity does not accord with primitive conditions.

[262] Gaius i. 120 f.

[263] Mommsen’s theory of gentile ownership, adopted by Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 790, depends upon his view that the gens was as old as the state; in his opinion it was originally stronger but gradually weakened, whereas the state went through the opposite process; _Röm Staatsr._ iii. 25. But if, as I have elsewhere pointed out (_Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii. 685 ff.), the gens developed from the family during the decline of the kingship and the rise of aristocracy, the theory of a primitive gentile ownership falls to the ground.

[264] We are not to think of the state as granting a certain district to the tribe, which then parcelled it among the component curiae, etc., for this reason that the tribes and the curiae did not themselves possess common lands. Rather the state divided a given district among the families which were already included, or which it wished to include, in a given curia or tribe. In this way the later tribes were formed in historical time, and in this way the Claudian tribe was originally constituted; Livy ii. 16. 4 f.; cf. Plut. _Popl._ 21. When therefore Dionysius, ii. 7. 4, states that Romulus divided the land into thirty lots and assigned a lot to each of the thirty curiae, he means, if he correctly understands the matter, that land was assigned not to the curia as a whole but to the families which composed the curia, unless indeed the curiae once had a right of landholding not possessed in historical time.

[265] Christ, W., in _Sitzb. d. Berl. Akad. d. Wiss._ 1906. 207.

[266] In the Twelve Tables heredium has the meaning of hortus, “garden;” Pliny, _N. H._ xix. 4. 50. It was a praedium parvulum consisting of two iugera; Fest. ep. 99.

[267] In the earliest colonies this was the amount assigned to each man; cf. Livy iv. 47. 6 (Labici); vi. 16. 6 (Satricum); viii. 21. 11 (Tarracina, founded 329). The first two are not so distinctly historical as the third; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 24, n. 1. Supposing Rome to have been a colony, the historians infer that Romulus made a similar distribution among its earliest settlers; cf. Varro, _R. R._ i. 10. 2; Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 2. 7; Fest. ep. 53; Juvenal xiv. 163 f.; Siculus Flaccus 153; Livy vi. 36. 11; Plut. _Popl._ 21; Columella v. 1. 9; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 507.

[268] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 23 f.

[269] Dion. Hal. iv. 13. 1; Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 43; Livy i. 46. 1.

[270] Dion. Hal. v. 57. 3; Plut. _Popl._ 21. Moreover the division into the five classes was based on unequal holdings.

[271] Cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 518, n.

[272] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 168.

[273] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2 might refer to a condition in which land was still inalienable and the right of changing residence restricted.

[274] The text followed is that of Jacoby. The reading represented by Jordan, _Cato_, p. 8, is not satisfactory. We have no ground for impugning the statement of Dionysius that Fabius actually called the country districts phylae, tribes. He may have termed them at once μοῖραι, “regions,” and phylae with perfect consistency; cf. Kubitschek, _Rom. trib. or._ 7, n. 34.

[275] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 434-7; English, 205 f.

[276] _Verf. d. Serv._ 95 f.

[277] Cf. Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 72 ff., who supposed that the twenty-six rural regiones were in most respects like tribes, but contained only plebeians, who were politically inferior to the city people; see also Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 736 f.

[278] _Röm. Tribus_, followed by Grotefend, _Imp. rom. trib. descr._

[279] The supposition that there were originally but four rests upon those passages which mention only that number in connection with Servius, as Livy 1. 43. 13; Fest. ep. 368; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 7. 7; the discussion of the four city tribes as though they were the only Servian tribes by Dionysius (iv. 14. 1), whereas in the next chapter he describes those also of the country; and the designation of the rural districts as regiones rather than tribes by Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 43: “Et extra urbem in regiones xxvi agros viritim liberis attribuit.” In _L. L._ v. 56, however, he calls the country districts tribes.

[280] Grotefend, ibid. 27.

[281] Inferred from an obscure passage in Fest. 213. 13, and from inscriptions cited by Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 215; Grotefend, ibid. 67.

[282] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 504; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 39 and n. 2; Pelham, _Rom. Hist._ 39; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 457 ff.; Greenidge, _Rom. Pub. Life_, 67.

[283] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 163 ff. Mommsen calls attention to epigraphic evidence, cited more fully by Kubitschek, _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 26 f., which assigns Ostia unmistakably to the Voturia tribus. He notices further that the same sort of evidence which places Ostia in the Palatina would give Puteoli, Sutrium, Canusium, and Fundi to the same city tribe, which is impossible. The error of including Alba and Ostia in the Palatina is due to neglect of the fact that men excluded from the country tribes were assigned to those of the city irrespective of domicile; cf. _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 442 f., with notes.

[284] _Stor. di Rom._ I. i. 320, n. 1, relying on Livy ix. 46. 14.

[285] Fest. 246. 30: “‘Pro censu classis iuniorum’ Ser. Tullius cum dixerit in descriptione centuriarum;” cf. 249. 1; Livy 1. 60. 4; iv. 4. 2. Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 22. 39, writes discriptio, which Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 464, following Bücheler, in _Rhein. Mus._ xiii (1858). 598, accepts as the correct form.

[286] P. 67.

[287] Fabius Pictor, in Livy 1. 44. 2. Altogether unnecessary therefore is Soltau’s supposition (_Altröm. Volksversamml._ 458, n. 2), in itself improbable, that Fabius, who wrote his annals in Greek, applied the word φυλαί incorrectly to the rural districts. However that may be, Cato, as good an authority, spoke of these same districts as tribes. If the number thirty was suggested to Fabius by the curiate organization (cf. Ullrich, _Centuriatcomitien_, 9), this circumstance would be no argument against the existence of country tribes. On the strength of the army in the early republic, see p. 83.

[288] P. 57.

[289] Ibid.; cf. Pais, _Leg. of Rom. Hist._ 140.

[290] Just as he supposed the Suburana to have been evolved, name and all, from the pagus Succusanus; _L. L._ v. 48; cf. Fest. 302. 15; ep. 115.

[291] Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 43: “Et extra urbem in regiones xxvi agros viritim liberis attribuit.” As this statement does not rest upon an independent source, but is merely an interpretation of Fabius and Cato, it has not the value which Huschke (_Verf. d. Serv._ 72 f., 85 f.), Mommsen (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 168 f.), and Meyer (in _Hermes_, xxx. 11) attach to it.

[292] Cf. Livy i. 43. 13; Fest. ep. 368.

[293] IV. 14.

[294] Dion. Hal. iv. 15.

[295] Dion. Hal. iv. 15. 4-6. His idea of a census of the country people he derived from Lucius Piso (§ 5 f.) and from the censors’ office through Fabius (22. 2)—a fact which militates against Mommsen’s theory that under Servius the country was not yet ager privatus.

[296] Livy vi. 5. 8.

[297] P. 56.

[298] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 162 ff.

[299] _Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 135, 142; _Hermes_, xxx. 11; accepted by Neumann, _Grundherrsch. d. röm. Rep._ 14 f.; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 90.

[300] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 168.

[301] P. 50

[302] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 164 f.

[303] Ibid. 163 and n. 3, in opposition to his former view and that of Grotefend; cf. p. 52.

[304] There might remain the conjecture that the regiones, or pagi, had the same constitution as the tribes, but in that case the difference between pagus and tribus would be one of name only, and would therefore be without historical significance. Meyer’s view (_Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 135, 142) that the sixteen earliest country tribes were not formed till after the institution of the plebeian tribunate depends partly on his notion that the tribunes were originally the heads of the four urban tribes and partly on the difference in the naming, the city tribes being named after localities and the country tribes after gentes; cf. _Hermes_, xxx. 11. The latter circumstance, he asserts, establishes a later origin for the rural tribes. This argument is by no means convincing; the difference may have arisen from different conditions in country and city; probably no urban ward had one patrician gens so predominant as to give its name. If one kind of name is earlier than another, we should naturally suppose the gentile name to be the earlier, and in that case we should prefer the view of Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. i. 320, n. 1; _Leg. of Rom. Hist._ 140; cf. above, p. 52, n. 2.

The patrician gentile name does not imply patrician domination any more than the eupatrid name of an Attic deme implies eupatrid domination of that deme.

[305] _Hermes_, xxx. 12; followed by Neumann, _Grundherrsch. d. röm. Rep._ 13 f.; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 90 f.

[306] P. 6.

[307] Among the scholars who insist that originally country as well as city was divided into tribes are Müller, J. J., in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 112 ff., and more recently Kubitschek, _De trib. or._ (1882); _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ (1889), 2. Beloch, _Ital. Bund_ (1880), 28, begins with twenty-one tribes in 495, considering it impossible to penetrate earlier conditions. Niese, _Röm. Gesch._ (1906). 38 and n. 3, more positively assigns the creation of twenty-one tribes to that date.

[308] Livy ii. 16. 5; cf. Dion. Hal. v. 40. 5.

[309] In Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2650.

[310] Some place the immigration in the time of Titus Tatius; Verg. _Aen._ vii. 706 ff.; Suet. _Tib._ 1; Appian, _Reg._ 12; Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 293; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 26, n. 1. That the earlier tradition assigned the event to the date mentioned in the text is asserted by Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, ibid. iii. 2663.

[311] Livy ii. 21. 7 (495): “Romae tribus una et xxx factae.” This statement is not that thirty-one tribes were instituted in that year, but that the number thirty-one was reached, “factae” being copulative. If “una et xxx” is not a copyist’s error, it probably depends on the Fabian view that there were originally thirty tribes. At all events it is inconsistent with the later statement (vi. 5. 8) that the number twenty-five was not reached till 387. The epitomator of Livy accordingly corrected the number to twenty-one, which most editors now write in the text itself. That there were twenty-one tribes in 491, when Coriolanus was tried, is assumed too by Dion. Hal. vii. 64. 6: Μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ εἴκοσι τότε φυλῶν οὐσῶν, οἶς ἡ ψῆφος ἀνεδόθη, τὰς ἀπολυούσας φυλὰς ἔσχεν ὁ Μάρκιος ἐννέα· ὤστ’ εἰ δύο προσῆλθον αὐτῷ φυλαί, διὰ τὴν ἰσοψηφίαν ἀπελέλυτ’ ἄν, ὥσπερ ὁ νόμος ἠξίου (“There being at the time twenty-one tribes, to whom the vote was given, Marcius received the votes of nine tribes for acquittal; so that, had two more tribes been favorable, he would have been acquitted by an equality of votes, as the law required”). This is not a mistake, as many assume, but an understatement; cf. Müller, J. J., in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 110 f. Meyer’s explanation (_Hermes_, xxx. 10, n. 2), which makes διὰ τὴν ἰσοψηφλίαν signify “owing to the equal value of the votes,” is improbable and unnecessary.

[312] For the form of the word, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 171; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 117. Crustumeria had been taken four years earlier (Livy ii. 19. 2, 499); so that a tribe of the same name could have been admitted in 495.

[313] Livy vi, 5. 8.

[314] Ibid. viii, 15. 12.

[315] Ibid. 17. 11.

[316] Ibid. ix, 20. 6.

[317] Ibid. x, 9. 14.

[318] Ibid. ep. xix.

[319] _B.C._ i. 49. 214: Ῥωμαῖοι μὲν δὴ τούσδε τοὺς νεοπολίτας οὐκ ἐς τὰς πέντε καὶ τριάκοντα φυλὰς, αἳ τότε ἦσαν αὐτοῖς, κατέλεξαν, ἵνα μὴ τῶν ἀρχαίων πλέονες ὄντες ἐν ταῖς χειροτονίαις ἐπικρατοῖεν, ἀλλὰ δεκατεύοντες ἀπέφηναν ἑτέρας, ἐν αἷς ἐχειροτόνουν ἔσχατοι. For δεκατεύοντες scholars have attempted to substitute δέκα, δέκα πέντε, δέκα ἐνεδρεύοντες (Mendelssohn, _App._ ii. p. 53, n.). The meaning given in the rendering offered above, though not found elsewhere, is possible. The passage has reference to the Latins and faithful Italians admitted by the Julian law of 90.

[320] III. 17 (Peter, _Reliquiae_, i. 280): “L. Calpurnius Piso ex senati consulto duas novas tribus.”

[321] II. 20. 2.

[322] Kubitschek, _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 2-6, tries to prove that the lex Iulia, 90, provided for the enrolment of the Latins and faithful allies in fifteen old rural tribes, and that the lex Plautia Papiria, 89, assigned the more obstinate rebels to eight other existing rural tribes.

[323] Cf. Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 26 f.

[324] _B. C._ i. 53. 231.

[325] That there was an increase is held by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 179, n. 1; Drumann-Gröbe, _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 370. This view is favored by Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 199 f. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 111 f., compromises.

[326] Livy, ep. lxxvii; App. _B. C._ i. 55. 242; p. 404.

[327] App. _B. C._ i. 59. 268; Cic. _Phil._ viii. 2. 7.

[328] Vell. ii. 20. 2; Livy, ep. lxxxiv; App. _B. C._ i. 64. 287; Cic. ibid.; Exup. 4; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 180, 439.

[329] Livy, ep. lxxxvi.

[330] Mommsen, ibid. 180.

[331] P. 71. Their military purpose is recognized by Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2, whereas Livy, i. 43. 13, connects with them nothing but the collection of taxes.

[332] Livy i. 43. 13; Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 13; Varro, _L. L._ v. 45; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 166, n. 1.

[333] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2; Laelius Felix, in Gell. xv. 27. 5; Flaccus, in Gell. xvii. 7. 5. In referring to the year 204 Livy, xxix. 37. 3 f., represents the tribes as districts. The Pupinian tribe is often spoken of as a district, as by Varro, _R. R._ i. 9. 5. On the local nature of the urban tribes, see Varro, _L. L._ v. 56; Livy i. 43. 13; Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 1.

[334] Kubitschek, _Rom. trib. or._ 24 f.; _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 2.

[335] Cf. Grotefend, _Imp. rom. trib. descr._ 7.

[336] Kubitschek, _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 2 f.

[337] Cic. _Flac._ 32. 79 f. On the growth of the tribe, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 175 ff.; Kubitschek, ibid. See also the maps in the latter work.

[338] Flaccus, in Gell. xvii. 7. 5. A list was kept of the estates comprising a tribe; Cic. ibid.

[339] Cf. the admission of new tribes; Livy vi. 5. 8: “Tribus quattuor ex novis civibus additae;” viii. 17. 11.

[340] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2.

[341] P. 64.

[342] Livy xxix. 37. 3 f.; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 379, n. 3.

[343] Somewhat different is the view of Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 2 f.; _Röm. Forsch._ i. 151; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 402; controverted by Soltau, ibid. 384 ff.

[344] The Romans had but two pursuits, agriculture and war, for the sedentary occupations were given to slaves and strangers; Dion. Hal. ii. 28; ix. 25. 2. It was assumed that those who were without property could take no interest in the state; ibid. iv. 9. 3 f.; Livy viii. 20. 4.

[345] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 630.

[346] It is well known too that freedmen were not regularly employed in military service; Livy x. 21. 4; p. 354 f. below.

[347] Widows and orphans were enrolled in a different list from that of the tribes, and hence were not included in the statistics of population which have come down to us; cf. Livy iii. 3. 9; ep. lix; Plut. _Popl._ 12; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 365 f., 401. Livy, ii. 56. 3, seems to exclude the clients. Only those lacked membership, however, who possessed no land. Clients of free birth were as liable to military service, according to their ratable property, as any other class of citizens; p. 22.

[348] Law of the Twelve Tables, in Gell. xvi. 10. 5; Schöll, _Leg. Duod. Tab. Rel._ 116; Bruns, _Font. iur._ 18 f.; Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 18. 51; _Att._ iv. 8 a. 3; Fest. ep. 9; Charis. p. 75 (Keil). The derivation from ab asse dando proposed by Aelius Stilo, though absurd, was accepted by Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40; _Top._ 2. 10; Fest. ep. 9 (as an alternative); Isid. _Etym._ x. 27; Quint. _Inst._ v. 10. 55. The derivation ab assidendo is nearer the truth; Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. Wörterb._ 1012; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 466; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 237 f.; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 426. See also Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 67; Gell. xix. 8. 15.

[349] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 9. 16; 22. 40; P. Nigidius, in Gell. x. 5. 2; Fest. ep. 9, 119; Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 11; Quint. v. 10. 55; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 281; Vaniček, ibid. 506, 1149.

[350] The army in the field must have consisted largely of men in patris aut avi potestate, whose names were reported to the censors, not for taxation but for military service, by those who had authority over them; cf. Livy xxiv. 11. 7; xliii. 14; Dion. Hal. ix. 36. 3; Fest. ep. 66. Scipio’s complaint (Gell. v. 19. 16: “In alia tribu patrem, in alia filium suffragium ferre”) indicates that the sons were regularly enrolled in the tribe of the father. That the list comprised plebeians only (Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 457 f.) has proved untenable; Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 153 f.

[351] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2; Livy i. 43. 14; Varro, _L. L._ v. 181.

[352] Livy, ibid.; Varro, ibid.; cf. p. 63, n. 4 below.

[353] Dion. Hal. iv. 19. 3; Fest. ep. 9; Ennius, in Gell. xvi. 10. 1; cf. 12 f. Before the introduction of pay for military service in 406 the soldiers bore their own expenses; Livy iv. 59. 11; v. 4. 5; viii. 8. 3; Flor. i. 6. 8; Diod. xiv. 16. 5; Lyd. _De mag._ i. 45 f.; p. 71 ff. below.

[354] Plutarch, _Cam._ 2, makes Camillus the author of the tax on orphans for the support of the knights’ horses, thus connecting this measure with the general introduction of pay—a statement of some importance notwithstanding Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 683.

[355] Zon. vii. 20: Οἰκόσιτοι ἐστρατεύοντο.

[356] Cic. _Rep._ v. 2. 3.

[357] Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 150 f., 159 f. with citations.

[358] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36; Livy i. 43. 9; Plut. _Cam._ 2.

[359] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 469, is of the opinion that before Servius all the plebeians had this standing, and that Servius left the newly conquered plebeians in that class, because if admitted to the army, they might revolt! Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 95.

[360] On the meaning of the word, see Pseud. Ascon. 103: “Ut pro capite suo tributi nomine aera praeberet.” On the removal from the tribe into this class; Livy iv. 24. 7; xxiv. 18. 6, 8; 43. 3; xliv. 16. 8. The removal from the tribe is understood when it is not mentioned; Varro, in Non. Marc. 190; Livy ix. 34. 9; xxvii. 11. 15; Gell. iv. 12.

[361] Livy vii. 20. 7; Dio Cass. Frag. 33; Strabo v. 2. 3; Gell. xvi. 13. 7; Schol. Hor. _Ep._ i. 6. 62. On the aerarii and Caerites, see further Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 392-4, 401 ff., 406; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 674-6; iii. 1284 f.; Hülsen, ibid. iii. 1281 f.; see also the works of Herzog, Lange, Madvig, and Willems.

[362] P. 466, n. 2.

[363] It would be absurd to suppose that while the absolutely poor citizens could vote in the proletarian century, those who possessed considerable wealth, though not in land, were excluded.

[364] Unutterable confusion was brought into this subject by Varro, _L. L._ v. 181: “Tributum dictum a tribubus, quod ea pecunia, quae populo imperata erat, tributim a singulis pro portione census exigebatur;” cf. Livy i. 43. 13; Isid. _Etym._ xvi. 18. 7. Neither is tributum derived from tribus nor _vice versa_. Tribuere signifies “to divide,” “to apportion;” tributum, “that which is apportioned,” tribus being only indirectly connected with these words; Schlossmann, in _Archiv f. lat. Lexicog._ xiv (1905). 25-40.

[365] Livy vi. 14. 12.

[366] Ibid. 32. 1.

[367] Dion. Hal. v. 20; cf. iv. 11. 2; xi. 63. 2; Plut. _Popl._ 12.

[368] Livy ii. 9. 6; xxiii. 48. 8; xxxiii. 42. 4; xxxix. 7. 5; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 6. 23; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 162, n. 4.

[369] Instances of public expenditure for the equipment or pay of troops before this date (Dion. Hal. v. 47. 1; viii. 68. 3; ix. 59. 4; Livy iv. 36. 2) are either exceptional or more probably historical anticipations of later usage. That before 406 the soldiers drew pay from their tribes (Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 32; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 540) is disproved by Soltau, _Altröm Volksversamml._ 407 f.

[370] Marquardt, ibid. 164-7.

[371] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 392.

[372] Varro, _L. L._ v. 181.

[373] The function of the tribuni aerarii was to pay the soldiers; Cato, _Epist. Quaest._ i, in Gell. vi (vii). 10. 2; Varro, v. 181; Fest. ep. 2; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 1. 1. Perhaps they also collected money into the treasury; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 3. From Cato’s statement they appear to have been financially responsible; and we are informed that as early as 100 they constituted a rank (ordo) evidently next below the equites; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 9. 27. Under the Aurelian law of 70 they made up a decury of jurors; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 3; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 1. 31. From these facts it is clear that the aerarian tribunes were officers of the aerarium, but no connection with the tribes can be discovered; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 409-12.

[374] Diod. xx. 46; Livy ix. 46. 10 f.; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 403.

[375] Mommsen, ibid. This class came to an end in the Social War; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1285.

[376] In Mommsen’s opinion (_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 403) these censors transferred to the country tribes as many landholding members of the urban tribes as possible.

[377] Livy ix. 46. 13 f.

[378] Livy xlv. 15.

[379] The expression tribu movere or in aerarios referre was still used, but meant no more than the transfer from a rural to an urban tribe and to the aerarian class within the latter; p. 62, n. 7.

[380] Cf. Livy xxiv. 18. 8 f.

[381] Livy xxiv. 43. 2 f.; Cic. _Cluent._ 42. 120.

[382] P. 86.

[383] I. 43. The account given by Dionysius Hal. iv. 16 f.; vii. 59, is the same in principle, though slightly different in detail.

[384] P. 52.

[385] Fest. 246. 30; or “discriptio classium,” ibid. 249. 1.

[386] Livy i. 60. 4.

[387] Quoted by Cic. _Orat._ 46. 156, for the forms “centuria fabrum” and “procum.” Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86-8, is an extract from the Tabulae of later time; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 245, n. 1.

[388] P. 52. Proof of the date is the fact that the ratings are in the sextantarian _as_, legally adopted in 269 or 268 (page 86). The _as_ of this standard was valued at one tenth of a denarius, so that 1000 asses = 100 denarii = 1 mina; Dion. Hal. iv. 16 f.; Polyb. vi. 23. 15: Οἱ ὑπὲρ τὰς μυρίας τιμώμενοι δραχμάς, descriptive of the highest rating—100,000 asses; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249, n. 4; Hill, _Greek and Roman Coins_, 47. It could not have been later than 241, in which year the reform of the centuriate assembly must have been far advanced, if not completed; page 215.

[389] P. 84.

[390] It is wrong to suppose with Soltau, in _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xli (1895). 412, n. 6, that all the details of the Servian system were known only in this way.

[391] Cf. Livy i. 44. 2; Dion. Hal. iv. 15. 1.

[392] Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 9 ff., supposes Calpurnius Piso to have been the intermediary. But a problem in which so many of the quantities are unknown is incapable of solution.

[393] P. 205, n. 5, 215.

[394] Livy i. 43. 8; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; p. 207.

[395] P. 80.

[396] P. 81.

[397] P. 81.

[398] P. 82 f.

[399] Livy viii. 8. 3; Dion. Hal. iv. 22. 1.

[400] It is unnecessary here to consider the question as to the historical personality of Servius Tullius. In this volume the name will be given to the king (or group of kings?) who instituted the so-called Servian tribes and the military centuries and made a beginning of the census.

[401] P. 201.

[402] Helbig, _Sur les attributes des saliens_, in _Mémoires de l’acad. d. inscr. et belles-let._ xxxvii (1906). 230 ff.; cf. _Comptes rendus de l’acad._ etc. 1904. ii. 206-12. Helbig finds that the Latino-Etruscan equipments of the time preceding Hellenic influence, as shown by archaeology, correspond closely with those of the Salii, whom he regards therefore as religious survivals from that early civilization. It is from archaeological data, combined with the well-known equipment of the Salii, that the close resemblance between the early Latino-Etruscan and the Mycenaean military system is established.

[403] Not merely the chief, as Helbig, _Comptes rendus_, 1900. 517, supposes. The ἠνίοχοι καὶ παραβάται who fought at Delium, and whom he rightly regards as a survival from the age of war-chariots, acted as a company not as individuals; Diod. xii. 70. 1.

[404] Helbig, _Le Currus du roi Romain_, in _Mélanges Perrot_, 167 f. It was like that chiseled on a gravestone found by Dr. Schliemann on the acropolis of Mycenae, in the main identical with the Homeric chariot, represented in later time on the famous sarcophagus at Clazomenae; Pellegrini, in Milani, _Studi e materiali_, i. 91-3, 98.

[405] That the army of Romulus—the primitive Roman army—was a single legion, and that the Servian reform consisted accordingly in doubling it, is an ancient hypothesis accepted by some moderns, as Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 38 f. An organization in definite numbers, however, as 1000 from each tribe, cannot arise till the state has grown sufficiently populous to make up the army of a part only of its available strength, when folk and army have ceased to be identical (Schrader, _Reallex._ 350), and it is agreed that this condition was not reached till after the adoption of the Servian reform; Delbrück, _Gesch d. Kriegsk._ i. 225; Smith, ibid. 52 f., 56.

[406] _Il._ ii. 362.

[407] Schrader, ibid. For the Sueves, see Caesar, _B. G._ iv. 1; for the Lacedaemonian army, see p. 71. The assumption of Helbig, _Comptes rendus_, 1904. ii. 209, that the army was composed of patricians only is altogether unwarranted. Equally groundless is the notion of Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 250, that the Homeric army was composed chiefly of nobles with a few light-armed dependents.

[408] Cf. Liers, _Kriegswesen der Alten_, 78; Niese in _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 264, 266, 289.

[409] _Il._ iv. 293 ff.

[410] Represented by the dances of the Salii; Helbig, ibid. 211 f.

[411] Paus. iv. 8. 11; Polyaen. i. 10; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 30 f.; Niese, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 274 ff.

[412] Cf. Thuc. v. 70; Polyaen. i. 10.

[413] Cf. Thuc. v. 69. For this and other depths, see Delbrück, ibid. i. 25; Liers, _Kriegswesen der Alten_, 45; Lammert, in _N. Jahrb. f. kl. Philol._ xiii (1904). 276 f.

[414] Tyrtaeus, Frag. xi (Bergk). For the shield which covered “hips, legs, breast, and shoulders,” v. 23 f. It was abolished by Cleomenes III; Plut. _Cleom._ 11; cf. Liers, ibid. 34; Lammert, ibid. 276 f.

[415] XII. 26; Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 16. A public gift of a bronze cuirass is mentioned by Aristotle, _Lac. Pol._ 75, Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ ii. p. 127. Gilbert, _Const. Antiq._ 73; Delbrück, ibid. 25, maintain that the cuirass was a regular part of the equipment. This is true of soldiers who carried smaller shields.

[416] Beloch, _Griech. Gesch._ i. 200 f.; cf. Liers, _Kriegswesen der Alten_, 34 f.; Droysen, _Griech. Kriegsalt._ 3 ff.

[417] Cf. the name of one of these regiments Μεσσοάτης (Schol. Thuc. iv. 8) derived from the village or local tribe Messoa. Schol. Aristoph. _Lysistr._ 453, mentions five by name; cf. Aristotle, Frag. 541. Perhaps a sixth for guarding the kings was drawn from all the tribes; Busolt, _Griech. Gesch._ i. 535 ff. with notes. Lenschau, in _Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ cxxxv. 83, holds that there were but four phylae.

[418] The name pentecosty indicates that it originally comprised fifty men, which suggests that the century may have been a higher group. Before the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. v. 68) the Lacedaemonian organization had departed far from its original form.

[419] Droysen, _Griech. Kriegsalt._ 70; Gilbert, _Const. Antiq._ 72. Compulsory service beyond the border ceased with the fortieth year; Xen. _Hell._ v. 4. 13.

[420] Cf. Liers, _Kriegsw. der Alten_, 14.

[421] Busolt, _Griech. Gesch._ ii. 180 ff.; Helbig, in _Mém. de l’acad. des inscr._ xxxvii¹ (1904). 164. But the Athenian army did not become efficient till long after Solon; cf. Niese, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 278-82.

[422] The Romans believed that they got the phalanx from the Etruscans; _Ined. Vat._, in _Hermes_, xxvii (1892). 121 from an early historian, Fabius Pictor or Posidonius or Polybius (Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 323); Diod. xxiii. 2 (Müller); Athen. vi. 106. p. 273 f.; Wendling, in _Hermes_, xxviii (1893). 335 ff.; Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 364 ff.; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 40. The circumstance does not prove that the Romans were then in subjection to the Etruscans.

[423] Some of the ancients derive classis from calare, “to call,” hence “summoning;” Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; Quint. _Inst._ i. 6. 33; accepted by Walde, _Lat. Etym. Wörterb._ 125; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 242; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 464. Others connected it with κᾶλος “firewood,” hence “gathering;” Serv. _in Aen._ i. 39; Isid. _Etym._ xix. 1. 15; Schol. Luc. i. 306. Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 494, proposes to derive it from a root “clat,” which appears in the Greek κλητεύειν (Lat. *clat-ē-re), Germ. laden, which would still give the meaning “summoning;” cf. Curtius, _Griech. Etym._ 139; Vaniček, _Griech. Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 143 (*cla-t, cla-t-ti-s). Mommsen accepted the meaning “summoning” in the early editions of his _History_, but rejects it in the _Staatsrecht_, iii. 262 f. (cf. his _History_, English ed. i. 1900. 115 f., 118) on the ground that however adapted it may have been to the later political classes, it could not well apply to the fleet and army, and hence could not belong to the earlier use of the word, which denoted the line in contrast with those who fought outside the line. But against his reasoning it could be urged that classis with the idea of “summoning” first applied to the line of heavy infantry—the only effective part of the army; and when once the connotation of “line” had been established, it could easily extend to the fleet.

[424] Gell. vi (vii). 13: “‘Classici’ dicebantur non omnes, qui in quinque classibus erant, sed primae tantum classis homines, qui centum et viginti quinque milia aeris ampliusve censi erant. ‘Infra classem’ autem appellabantur secundae classis ceterarumque omnium classium, qui minore summa aeris, quod supra dixi, censebantur. Hoc eo strictim notavi, quoniam in M. Catonis oratione, qua Voconiam legem suasit, quaeri solet, quid sit ‘classicus,’ quid ‘infra classem;’” Fest. ep. 113; cf. Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 41. 104; Pseud. Ascon. 188; Gaius ii. 274.

[425] The statement of Diod. xxiii. 2 (Müller), and of the _Ined. Vat._ (in _Hermes_, xxvii. 121) that the Romans derived their round shield from the Etruscans accords with archaeological evidence for the use of the round shield by the early Etruscans; Pellegrini, in Milani, _Studi e materiali_, i. 91 ff.; Helbig, in _Comptes rendus de l’acad. des inscr._ 1904. ii. 196.

[426] The notion of Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 227, that the army was not organized in centuries till after the beginning of the republic has no foundation whatever.

[427] P. 76. The original number cannot be determined.

[428] Tubero, in Gell. x. 28. 1; Non. Marc. 523. 24. From this fact it appears that military conditions made a far greater demand upon the early Romans than upon the Lacedaemonians.

[429] Helbig, in _Comptes rendus de l’acad. des inscr._ 1900. 516 ff.; _Mém. de l’acad._ etc. xxxvii¹ (1904). 157 ff.; _Hermes_ xl (1905). 109. The objection of Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 37, n. 3, is not well founded.

[430] Incertus Auctor (Huschke), p. 1.

[431] _Ined. Vat._, in _Hermes_ xxvii (1892). 121; Helbig, ibid, xl (1905). 114. The transvectio equitum was instituted in 304; Livy ix. 46. 15. On the close connection of the Roman cavalry with that of the Greeks of southern Italy, see Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. ii. 607, n. 1.

[432] The priores had each two horses; Granius Licinianus xxvi, p. 29: “Verum de equitibus non omittam, quos Tarquinius ita constituit, ut priores equites binos equos in proelium ducerent;” cf. Fest. ep. 221. On the Tarentine cavalry, see Livy xxxiii. 29, 5. The inference is that the posteriores had one horse each.

[433] Helbig, in _Hermes_ xl (1905). 107. _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1899. 167, fig. 17 (cf. p. 157); 1900. 325, fig. 28; Pellegrini, in Milani, _Studi e materiali_, i. 106.

[434] Pellegrini, ibid. i. 97, fig. 5; 104, fig. 10.

[435] P. 75.

[436] P. 3, n. 8.

[437] VI. 13. 4.

[438] The principal sources are Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36; 22. 39; Livy i. 13. 8; 15. 8; 36. 7; 43. 8 f.; Dion. Hal. ii. 13; vi. 13. 4; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. (9.) 35; Fest. ep. 55; Plut. _Rom._ 13. On the basis of these sources we could reckon an increase to 1800, 3600, or 5400 according to our assumption as to the number of horsemen to the century; cf. Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercenturien_, 3-8.

[439] Helbig, in _Hermes_, xl (1905). 101, 105, 107.

[440] Livy i. 13. 8; Dion. Hal. ii. 13. 1 f.; Fest. ep. 55.

[441] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36: Livy i. 36. 2, 7; Fest. 344. 20; ep. 349. Writers differ slightly in the form of the names.

[442] P. 73, n. 7.

[443] This distinction of rank among the patrician centuries of the comitia centuriata is proved by the expression “proceres patricii” in the Censoriae Tabulae, quoted by Fest. 249. 1: “Procum patricium in descriptione classium, quam fecit Ser. Tullius, significat procerum. I enim sunt principes;” Cic. _Orat._ 46. 156: “Centuriam fabrum et procum, ut censoriae tabulae loquuntur, audeo dicere, non fabrorum aut procorum.” Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 109, n. 1, has rightly referred it to one of the sex suffragia, for no century outside this group could have been so designated; cf. Livy ii. 20. 11, who speaks of the cavalry as proceres iuventutis. The mention of a century of leading patricians implies the existence of one or more centuries of the less distinguished members of the same rank, which must have been the rest of the sex suffragia. The superior rank of the equites in early Rome is proved by Dion. Hal. ii. 13. 1; iv. 18. 1; Livy i. 43. 8 f.; ii. 20. 11. In ii. 24. 2 Livy implies that the patricians did not serve on foot (militare), and in iii. 27. 1 he speaks of a patrician who, as an exception among his rank, served on foot because of his poverty. In ii. 42 f. he distinguishes the cavalry from the infantry as patricians from plebeians. The fact that in the political conflict between the two social classes the patricians often threatened to carry on foreign wars with the aid merely of their clients (cf. Dion. Hal. x. 15, 27 f., 43) proves that the phalanx was essentially plebeian. On the honorable place of the equites in the camp, see Nitzsch, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ vii (1862). 145. That the sex suffragia remained patrician down to the reform of the comitia centuriata is probable; cf. Sallust, _Hist._ i. 11, who represents the struggle between the social classes as continuing to the opening of the war with Hannibal; see also Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 254.

[444] Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 4; cf. Polyb. vi. 25. 1; Varro, _L. L._ v. 91: “Turma terima (e in u abiit) quod ter deni equites ex tribus tribubus Titiensium Ramnium Lucerum fiebant: itaque primi singularum decuriones dicti, qui ab eo in singulis turmis sunt etiamnunc terni;” cf. Curiatius, in Fest. 355. 6.

[445] Cf. Polyb. vi. 25. 1.

[446] Three hundred is given as normal by Polyb. i. 16. 2; vi. 20. 9. In iii. 107. 10 f. he states it at 200, increased to 300 when to meet extraordinary cases the legion was strengthened to 5000; cf. ii. 24. 3. Livy, xxii. 36. 3, agrees with the latter statement. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 477, believes that the normal number was 300, decreased to 200 when a greater number of legions was levied.

[447] Niese, _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 283, rightly assumes that the first and second classes at Athens were not cavalry; Helbig is right in understanding them to be mounted hoplites. Niese’s criticism (ibid. 287 and n. 1) of Helbig’s view is not convincing.

[448] Considerable time was required for the establishment of the earliest known meaning of classis before the second and third divisions were added.

[449] This is a conjecture of Bruncke, in _Philol._ xl (1881). 362, favored by Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 222.

[450] P. 79, 86.

[451] Usually scholars (cf. Domazewski, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1953 f.; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 227; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 39) assume fifteen centuries for the fifth rating, on the authority of Livy i. 43. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 17. 2; vii. 59. 5. But our knowledge of the phalanx is only inference, which to be acceptable must have at least the merit of possibility. The number fifteen is wrong because it could not have been divided evenly between the two legions; and on the other hand it will be shown later (p. 208) that in all probability the fifteenth century was not military but was added in the make up of the comitia centuriata.

[452] Müller, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 129, is right in supposing that the legion was strengthened between the time of Servius and 387, but it was not in the way he assumes. The tradition of a legion (half phalanx) of 4000 men is preserved in Livy vi. 22. 8.

[453] Polyb. vi. 20.

[454] Cf. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 121 ff.

[455] Livy iv. 46. 1: “Dilectum haberi non ex toto passim populo placuit: decem tribus sorte ductae sunt. Ex his scriptos iuniores duo tribuni ad bellum duxere.” If this passage does not state a historical fact, at least it gives the idea of the writer as to the custom of earlier time.

[456] P. 72, 76.

[457] Cf. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 51 ff.

[458] In time of especial danger, however, the legion was increased to five thousand; Polyb. vi. 20. 8.

[459] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 268, n. 2.

[460] That the phalanx was a comparatively late institution at Rome, or that it was slow in becoming the only military system, is indicated by the survival in tradition of a more primitive mode of warfare. Sometimes in the early republic a single gens with its clients took the field; for the Fabian gens, see Livy ii. 48 ff. Often the patricians threatened to arm their clients, to carry on a war without the aid of the troublesome plebeians; cf. Dion. Hal. x. 15, 27 f., 43. As there was no motive in later time for the invention of such stories, they must contain a kernel of real tradition; hence they could not go back to the sixth century, and it is difficult to believe that they are so old as the fifth.

Collateral evidence that the second and third divisions were instituted relatively late may be found in the circumstance that the scutum, the distinctive piece of armor of these divisions, was introduced no earlier than the age of Camillus—the period of the war with Veii and the Gallic conflagration; Livy viii. 8. 3; Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 366. It was Samnite (Athen. vi. 106, p. 273 f.; cf. Sall. _Cat._ 51), and was therefore probably adopted in the fourth century when Rome first came into contact with that people.

[461] It is evident to the reader that these proportions are those of the discriptio centuriarum of Livy and Dionysius (p. 66 above), and it will be made clear below (p. 86) that the ratings were originally in terms of iugera, the minima of the five ratings being in all probability 20, 15, 10, 5, and 2½ or 2 iugera respectively.

[462] For the date, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 334 f.; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1902 f.; Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. ii. 13, 33 f.

[463] There may be some truth in the etymology suggested by Varro, _L. L._ v. 89; cf. Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 256.

[464] Cf. Liers, _Kriegsw. d. Alten_, 46.

[465] Dionysius Hal. iv. 17. 1, includes the fourth rating in the phalanx of heavy infantry. For other possibilities of arrangement, see Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 46 f.

[466] Thuc. v. 68; p. 86 above.

[467] Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 229; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 45 ff. That the second and third divisions of the phalanx were sometimes withdrawn to operate on the flanks (Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 249) is possible, though we have no proof of it.

[468] P. 76. From early times the Greek and Italian states kept arsenals with which to arm the poor in crises; Liers, _Kriegsw. d. Alten_, 36 f.

[469] P. 84.

[470] Fest. ep. 14, 18, 369; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 56-58. From them the centurions and decurions engaged their servants; Cato, in Varro, _L. L._ vii. 58; Varro, _Vit. pop. rom._ iii, in Non. Marc. 520; Veget. ii. 19. Hence they served the civil magistrates as attendants; cf. Censoriae Tabulae, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88; Livy iii. 33. 8; Suet. _Caes._ 20; Non. Marc. 59. They must have corresponded with the squires of the Greek and Roman cavalry; p. 73. They were sometimes called adscriptivi, or as carriers ferentarii. If, as has been suggested, the secretaries and other attendants of the higher officers were also drawn from them, this circumstance would help explain the honor attaching to the collegium accensorum velatorum of imperial time; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 289; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 233.

[471] Notwithstanding Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 135 f.

[472] Livy viii. 8. 8. Leinveber, in _Philol._ N. F. xv (1902). 36, estimates 558 accensi to the legion.

[473] The cornicines tubicinesque; Livy i. 43. 7.

[474] The cornicines marched in front of the banners; Joseph. _Bell. Iud._ v. 48; Fiebiger, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1602.

[475] The number is unknown. In the legio III Augusta there were thirty-six cornicines; _CIL._ vii. 2557; Fiebiger, ibid. 1603.

[476] Livy i. 43. 3.

[477] Varro, _L. L._ v. 88: “Centuria qui sub uno centurione sunt, quorum centenarius iustus numerus;” Fest. ep. 53: “Centuria ... significat ... in re militari centum homines;” Isid. _Etym._ ix. 3. 48; cf. Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 107.

[478] Estimates have been made by Müller, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 127; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 224; Beloch, _Bevölk. d. griech.-röm. Welt_, 42 f.; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 67. In the United States the ratio is more than four to one; _Special Reports: Suppl. Analysis and Derivative Tables, Twelfth Census of the United States_, 1900, Washington, 1906. p. 170 f. The estimate given in the text is based upon the “Deutsche Sterbetafel” for men, in E. Czuber, _Warscheinlichkeitsrechnung_ (Leipzig, 1903), p. 572, 574. The ratio is almost exactly three.

[479] Livy i. 43. 2. For the year 401, see Livy v. 10. 4: “Nec iuniores modo conscripti, sed seniores etiam coacti nomina dare, ut urbis custodiam agerent;” for 389, vi. 2. 6; for 386, vi. 6. 14; for 296, x. 21. 4: “Nec ingenui modo aut iuniores sacramento adacti, sed seniorum etiam cohortes factae libertinique centuriati. Et defendendae urbis consilia agitabantur;” cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 409, n. 5. The last of the definite instances here mentioned could alone be historical, and in this case not centuriae or legiones but cohortes seniorum are spoken of.

[480] Cf. Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 227 f.

[481] If the senior centuries were formed in the way assumed by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 261 (“Nicht selbständig gebildet worden, sondern daraus hervorgegangen, dass wer aus einer Centurie des ersten Aufgebots Alters halber ausschied, damit in die entsprechende Centurie des zweiten Aufgebots eintrat”), about a half generation must have been required to evolve them. An objection to his idea is that the military centuries as well as the legions were formed anew at each year’s levy (Polyb. vi. 20, 24), whereas the political centuries were made up by the censors (cf. Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40: “In una centuria censebantur”), doubtless modified annually by the consuls. A military century and a political century accordingly could not have been composed of the same men.

The Tabulae Iuniorum contained the names of all juniors in honorable service in the field; Livy xxiv. 18. 7. Tabulae Seniorum are not mentioned. Classis Iuniorum (Fest. 246. 30) may apply to all eighty-five (or eighty-four) centuries of juniors, as Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 474, supposes, or to the first class; Tubero, _Historiae_, i, in Gell. x. 28. 1: “Scripsit Servium Tullium regem, populi Romani cum illas quinque classes iuniorum census faciendi gratia institueret.” It is doubtful whether there was a separate list of seniors.

[482] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40: “Illarum autem sex et nonaginta centuriarum in una centuria tum quidem plures censebantur quam paene in prima classe tota.”

[483] Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 240.

[484] The confusion of the comitia with the army, which the ancient writers began, the moderns have intensified till the subject has become utterly incomprehensible. Chiefly to Genz, _Servianische Centurienverfassung_ (1874) and Soltau, _Alröm. Volksversammlungen_ (1880) belongs the credit of putting in a clear light the fact that the original Servian organization was an army. Both authors, however, have made the fundamental mistake of supposing that for a time during the early republic the army officiated as an assembly.

[485] Livy xxiv. 8. 19.

[486] After the inclusion of the Tribus Clustumina; Beloch, _Ital. Bund_, 74; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 58, n. 1.

[487] Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 223 f.; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 58.

[488] Beloch, _Bevölk. d. griech.-röm. Welt_, 53; Meyer, _Forsch. z. alt. Gesch._ ii. 162, n. 3; Delbrück, ibid. i. 14. Ferrero’s estimate (_Greatness and Decline of Rome_, i. 1) of a total population of 150,000 seems to be too large.

[489] P. 81.

[490] Cf. Liers, _Kriegsw. d. Alten_, 10.

[491] Ascribed to Camillus; Plut. _Cam._ 40; cf. Fröhlich, _Gesch. d. Kriegsführung und Kriegskunst der Römer zur Zeit der Rep._; Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 708.

[492] P. 80; cf. 63.

[493] Fröhlich, ibid. 21 f.; Schiller, ibid.

[494] P. 76.

[495] Fest. 189. 13; ep. 56, 225; Fabius Pictor, _Annales_, i, in Gell. x. 15. 3 f.

[496] Gell. i. 11. 3; Vergil, _Aen._ vii. 716: “Hortinae classes.”

[497] Gell. vi (vii). 13. 3: “In M. Catonis oratione, qua Voconiam legem suasit, quaeri solet, quid sit classicus, quid infra classem;” p. 90 below.

[498] _CIL._ i. 200 (Lex Agr.). 37: (“Recuperatores ex ci)vibus L quei classis primae sient, XI dato.”

[499] P. 66 f.; cf. Fest. 249. 1: “In descriptione classium quam fecit Ser. Tullius.” The attempt of Smith, _Röm. Timokr._, especially 140 ff., to prove that the five classes were introduced by the censors of 179 has nothing in its favor. It rests upon Livy xl. 51. 9: “Mutarunt suffragia, regionatimque generibus hominum causisque et quaestibus tribus descripserunt.” This passage makes no reference to the classes. In “generibus hominum” are included chiefly the “genus ingenuum” and the “genus libertinum.” “Causis” applies to those conditions of the libertini, such as the possession of children of a definite age, which might serve as a ground for enrolment in a rural tribe; and “quaestibus” refers to the distinction between landowners and the “opifices et sellularii” of the city. “They changed the arrangement for voting, and drew up the tribal lists on a local basis according to the social orders, the conditions, and the callings of men;” cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 265 f.; p. 354 f. below. Among the many objections to Smith’s theory these two may be mentioned: if the classes were introduced at this late historical time, (1) they would not have been ascribed to Servius Tullius; (2) they would have been adapted to the economic conditions of the second century B.C., whereas in 179 they were largely outgrown by the depreciation of the standard of value, the increase in the cost of living, and the growth of enormous estates. The _Römische Timokratie_ is ably written, but its main thesis—the institution of the classes in the second century B.C.—remains unproved.

[500] P. 64.

[501] _Verf. d. Serv._ 643 f. et passim. He made a mistake however in supposing that from the beginning land was valued in terms of money.

[502] Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 111; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 247 ff.; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2631. When the change was made from a land to a money rating, the land of the fifth class was appraised relatively higher than that of the others. Neumann, _Grundherrsch. d. röm. Rep._ 9 f., prefers to assume 16 (= 2 + 14) iugera for the highest class in order to explain the often mentioned estates of seven and fourteen iugera. But it is difficult to work out a consistent scheme on this basis. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 78 ff. et passim, strongly objects to the view in any form, as he doubts the existence of the Servian classes. In general he has greatly exaggerated the difficulties of their administration.

[503] Sall. _Iug._ 86; Gell. xvi. 10. 14, 16; cf. Cass. Hem. 21 (Peter, _Reliquiae_, i. 102 f.).

[504] Haeberlin, in _Riv. ital. numis._ xix (1906). 614 f.

[505] Samwer-Bahrfeldt, _Gesch. d. alt. röm. Münzw._ 176 f.; Hill, _Greek and Roman Coins_, 47, 49, n. 1; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 1509 ff.; Hultsch, ibid. v. 206; Regling, in _Klio_, vi (1906). 503. Babelon, _Trait. d. mon. Grecq. et Rom._ i. 595, still holds the view that the triental _as_ was introduced in 269; cf. his _Orig. d. la mon._ 376; _Mon. d. la rép. Rom._ i. 37.

[506] P. 66 f.

[507] As silver is at present worth 51¼ cents an ounce (so quoted in New York, Sept. 5, 1908), a denarius (= ⅟₇₂ lb. Troy) of the coinage preceding 217 is worth by weight today 8½ cents. A more just comparison would be based on the present coined values. As a dollar contains 371¼ grains of silver, a denarius would be worth 21½ cents; or with a liberal allowance for the alloy, we might say about 20 cents. The sesterce, ¼ denarius, would therefore be equivalent to five cents. An estate of 100,000 asses of heavy weight (sesterces) would be worth about $5000, of the sextantarian standard $2000. It is hardly possible that so large a proportion of the population as was contained in the first class should average the former amount of wealth to the family. In fact the purchasing power of money was enormously higher than these equivalents indicate. In 430 the value of an ox or cow was legally set at 100 libral asses and of a sheep at ten. Reckoning a beef at the low modern value of $45, and a sheep at $4.50, we obtain a value of 45 cents for the libral _as_, or 22½ cents for one of 5 oz. weight (sesterce), which would give the denarius a purchasing power of 90 cents.

[508] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249. In his _History_ (Eng. ed. 1900), iii. 50, he expresses some doubt as to the numbers.

[509] I. 43; cf. p. 66.

[510] IV. 17. 2.

[511] Plut. _Popl._ 21.

[512] The view of Goguet, _Centuries_, 29 (following Niebuhr), that Livy has made a mistake, is not so likely.

[513] VI. 19. 2: (All must serve in war) πλὴν τῶν ὑπὸ τὰς τετρακοσίας δραχμὰς τετιμημένων· τούτους δὲ παριᾶσι πάντας εἰς τὴν ναυτικήν. That it was the minimal rating of the fifth class, and not a still lower rating for military use only, is proved by a statement of Sall. _Iug._ 86, that till the time of Marius the soldiers were drawn from the classes.

[514] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 251.

[515] Commercially the denarius was then, after 217, worth sixteen asses; Hultsch, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ v. 209.

[516] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40; Gell. xvi. 10. 10.

[517] XVI. 10. 10.

[518] Cf. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1522.

[519] This interpretation differs slightly from that of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 237.

[520] In like manner those possessing above 100,000 asses were at times divided into groups for the distribution of military burdens according to wealth; cf. Livy xxiv. II. 7-9. This too has no reference to the organization of the comitia.

[521] _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 43: “Maximus census C̅X̅ assium fuit illo (Servio) rege, et ideo haec prima classis.”

[522] Fest. ep. 113.

[523] VI (VII). 13.

[524] Plut. _Popl._ 21; Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 164.

[525] VI. 23. 15.

[526] I. 43. 2.

[527] IV. 16. 2.

[528] After the adoption of the _as_ of an ounce weight in 217, sixteen asses of this standard were considered equivalent to a denarius or a drachma, which would give a rating of 160,000 asses for those who wore the cuirass. But the military pay was still reckoned at ten asses to the denarius (Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 45); the censors seem to have used the same ratio (Livy xxxix. 44. 2 f. compared with Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 18); and it is therefore highly probable that in this statement Polybius intended to express in drachmas the value of 100,000 asses. Taken in its entirety, the passage sufficiently proves that reference is to the highest class; the majority (οἱ πολλοί) of soldiers, he says, have breastplates, but those rated above 10,000 drachmas wear cuirasses. If, as Belot, _Rév. écon. et mon._ 77 ff., imagines, the sum of 100,000 asses fell below the rating of the lowest class, there would hardly have been a soldier without the cuirass.

[529] Gaius ii. 274. That registration was necessary is proved by Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 41. 104 ff. By the word “censi” Cicero does not mean to designate any group or division of citizens; he simply refers to the fact of registration. P. Annius Asellus, of whom he speaks, had not been registered, or in any case at that sum, and hence was not technically liable to the law; but the value of his estate could be ascertained by authority of a court of justice, according to Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 95 f. Mommsen held the opinion, on the contrary (_Abhdl. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1863. 468 f.), that the incensi were absolutely free from the law.

[530] P. 85 above.

[531] VI (VII). 13. For his rating of 125,000 asses for the first class, see p. 89.

[532] N. 5 above.

[533] Dio Cass. lvi. 10. 2; Pseud. Ascon. 188.

[534] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249, n. 4; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 95.

[535] The part containing this reference was not essentially later than the enactment of the Voconian law (p. 361).

[536] P. 403.

[537] XLV. 15. 2.

[538] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249, n. 2.

[539] P. 90, n. 4.

[540] First offered in his _Histoire des chevaliers_, i (Paris, 1866), and afterward defended in his _Révolution économique et monétaire ... à Rome_ (1885).

[541] Cf. _Rév. écon. et mon._ 82.

[542] Livy xxiv. 11. 7 f.

[543] Ibid. § 5.

[544] Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 498 f.

[545] _Rév. écon. et mon._ 50. The Roman and Campanian (cives sine suffragio) knights together amounted to 23,000; Polyb. ii. 24. 14.

[546] About 270,000 in 220; Livy ep. xx.

[547] Even with this understanding we shall have to assume for the requisition of 214 a division between 100,000 and 300,000—those rated at 100,000-200,000 asses furnishing two and those at 200,000-300,000 asses three sailors. Otherwise the number of sailors will be greatly in excess of the need.

[548] Similar conditions exist at present in America. The monstrous luxury of the few and the heavy fines recently imposed on the Standard Oil Company do not prove all Americans to be wealthy.

[549] P. 61 f.

[550] Livy i. 43. 9; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36; Fest. ep. 81, 221; Gaius iv. 27.

[551] Gaius iv. 27.

[552] _Rep._ ii. 20. 36.

[553] I. 43. 9.

[554] _Cam._ 2. This statement is valuable notwithstanding Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 683.

[555] Payment is mentioned by Livy v. 7. 12 (403) but triple pay is first spoken of in ch. 12. 12 (400); cf. Polyb. vi. 39. 12; Fest. 234. 26.

[556] Polyb. vi. 39. 15. The statement of Varro, _L. L._ viii. 71 (“Debet igitur dici ... non equum publicum mille assarium esse, sed mille assariorum”), seems to signify that in practice the cost of a public horse meant a payment to the eques of a thousand asses a year; cf. Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 49 ff., whose interpretation is preferable to that of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 257, n. 5. The fact that the support of one knight was considered equal to that of three legionaries (Livy xxix. 15. 7) is further evidence that the triple pay covered the purchase and keep of the horse. Reference in Livy vii. 41. 8, may be to the sums (aera) for the purchase and keep of the horse; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 257, n. 3.

[557] Dionysius Hal. vi. 44. 2, assigns the first recruiting of the equites from the plebeians to the year 494, dating the event about a century too early; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 478, n. 1.

[558] Livy v. 7. 5.

[559] All this may be gathered from Livy v. 7. 4-13; cf. Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 16 ff.

[560] Polyb. vi. 19. 2; Livy xxvii. 11. 14.

[561] Livy xxvii. 11. 14, 16. This passage does not refer to those who avoided duty equo privato, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 478, n. 2, supposes. Those were punished who were qualified to serve equo publico but had avoided military duty altogether. Gerathewohl, ibid. 20 f., believes that Livy has made a mistake in assigning this judgment to the censors of 209, as it would much better suit the conditions of 214.

[562] The credit of establishing this fact beyond a doubt is due to Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 14-34.

[563] _N. H._ xxxiii. 1. 30: “Equitum nomen subsistebat in turmis equorum publicorum;” cf. Fest. ep. 81: “Equitare antiqui dicebant equum publicum merere.”

[564] P. 75.

[565] There were four legions each with 4000 infantry and 300 horse at the opening of the First Punic War; Polyb. i. 16. 2. Four legions fought against Pyrrhus at Asculum, 279; Dion. Hal. xx. 1. This was the normal number for the Samnite wars; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 477.

[566] Two legions of juniors was the maximal limit of Rome’s military strength during the period of twenty-one tribes; cf. p. 77, 84. The incorporation of the Veientan territory, 387, could not at once have doubled this force.

[567] Livy xxv. 3. 1-7; cf. Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 54. The sources do not suggest that the number after reaching eighteen hundred remained unalterable. In Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36 (“Deinde equitum ad hunc morem constituit, qui usque adhuc est retentus”) reference is not to number but to character; Gerathewohl, ibid. 8 f. Mommsen’s interpretation (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 259, n. 5) is therefore wrong.

[568] In 200 the seven legions contained twenty-one hundred equites or fewer; Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 56.

[569] _Orat._ lxiv: “Nunc ego arbitror oportere restitui (Mommsen’s emendation ‘institui’ is unnecessary), quin minus duobus milibus ac ducentis sit aerum equestrium.” Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 259, wrongly holds the opinion that the measure failed to pass.

[570] See citations collected by Gerathewohl, ibid. 56, n. 1.

[571] Dion. Hal. vi. 13. 4: Ἔστιν ὅτε shows that the number varied; cf. Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 171.

[572] Suet. _Aug._ 38.

[573] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39; Livy i. 43. 8 f.; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 1. High birth and great wealth are emphasized, but no definite rating of the class is given. Their treatment of the subject is compatible with the view that the knights were then patrician—a view however which these writers did not have clearly in mind. Livy’s statement (iii. 27. 1) that a certain patrician served in the infantry because of his poverty harmonizes well with the same view; for as the aes equestre and hordearium were not yet introduced, a poor patrician would be unable to own and keep a horse. Those scholars therefore seem to be wrong who, like Grathewohl, ibid. 67, following Rubino, in _Zeitschr. f. d. Altertumswiss._ iv (1846). 219, refer the equestrian census to Servius Tullius.

[574] P. 94. It is for about this time (403) that Livy, v. 7. 5, first refers definitely to an equestrian census.

[575] This fact is most clearly stated by Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3, and is confirmed by Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39.; cf. Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 43; for further evidence, see Belot, _Rev. écon. et mon._ 5 ff.

[576] P. 92.

[577] Hor. _Ep._ I. i. 57; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 2. 32; Mart. iv. 67; v. 23, 25, 38; Pliny, _Ep._ 1. 19. 2; Juv. i. 105; v. 132; xiv. 326; Suet. _Caes._ 38.

[578] Serv. _in Aen._ iii. 89; vi. 190; xii. 259.

[579] Cic. _Div._ 16. 29 f.: “Dirae, sicut cetera auspicia, ut omina, ut signa, non causas adferunt, cur quid eveniat, sed nuntiant eventura, nisi provideris.” The last statement means only that a misfortune will happen, if an evil omen is unheeded. Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 70: “Non enim sumus ii nos augures, qui ... futura dicamus;” cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 331; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 198.

[580] Serv. _in. Aen._ iii. 20: “Auspicari enim cuivis ... licet.”

[581] Cic. _Div._ i. 16. 28: “Nihil fere quondam maioris rei nisi auspicato ne privatim quidem gerebatur, quod etiam nunc nuptiarum auspices declarant, qui re omissa nomen tantum tenent;” 46. 104; Val. Max. ii. 1. 1. On the nuptial auspices, see De Marchi, _Cult. priv. di Rom._ i. 152-5.

[582] Romulus consulted the rest of the gods along with Jupiter; Dion. Hal. ii. 5. 1.

[583] The public auspices were Jupiter’s alone; Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 20. So were the auspical chickens; _Div._ ii. 34. 72; 35. 73; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 77, n. 2. In historical time the sign called for was Jupiter’s lightning; Cic. _Div._ ii. 18. 42; _Vatin._ 8. 20; _Phil._ v. 3. 7. The epithet Elicius, notwithstanding Varro, _L. L._ vi. 95; Livy i. 20. 7; 31. 8, does not find its explanation in the auspices; Aust, in Roscher, _Lex. Myth._ ii. 656 ff.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 106.

[584] P. 100, n. 3.

[585] In Gell. xvi. 4. 4.

[586] Cato, _De sacrilegio commisso_, in Fest. 234. 30. No one could imagine Attus Navius, the swineherd, to have been a patrician, and yet he was the most famous of private augurs; Cic. _Div._ i. 17. It is significant, too, that the great authority on private auspices, P. Nigidius Figulus, author of _Augurium privatum_ in several books (Gell. vii. 6. 10), was a plebeian.

[587] Livy iv. 2. 5 f.

[588] Livy iv. 6. 1 f.

[589] Livy vi. 41. 5 f.

[590] Cic. _Div._ ii. 36. 76: “Nos, nisi dum a populo auspicia accepta habemus, quam multum iis utimur?” i. 16. 28.

[591] Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 46, n. 2, has pointed out that the phrase auspicia publica occurs only in Livy iv. 2. 5, where he believes it to be used in a special sense. In the time of Cicero no one but an antiquarian ever thought of any other kind of auspices.

[592] Livy x. 8. 9.

[593] The usual view, represented by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 89, n. 1, is that the plebeians did not possess this right originally but acquired it later; cf. also Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2581; Di Marchi, _Cult. priv. di. Rom._ i. 233. This hypothesis not only lacks support, but is also vitiated by the fact that at the time of the supposed equalization private auspices must have been declining, as Cicero found them extinct.

The treatment of private auspices here given is supplementary to the study of the social classes made in ch. ii.

[594] Messala, in Gell. xiii. 15. 4; Fest. 157. 21; Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 71 ff.; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 580.

[595] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 9; Livy vi. 41. 6; viii. 23. 15 f.

[596] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 96 ff.

[597] Messala, _De auspiciis_, i, in Gell. xiii. 15. 4; Bouché-Leclerq, ibid. ii. 581.

[598] Messala, ibid.

[599] As when for instance the consul forbids the minor magistrate to “watch the sky” on an appointed comitial day; Gell. xiii. 15. 1: “In edicto consulum, quo edicunt, quis dies comitiis centuriatis futurus sit, scribitur ex vetere forma perpetua: ne quis magistratus minor de caelo servasse velit.”

[600] _Commentarium Anquisitionis_ of a quaestor, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91: “Auspicio operam des et in templo auspices, dum aut ad praetorem aut ad consulem mittas auspicium petitum.” This passage shows that the quaestor, though asking permission, himself holds the auspices.

[601] The first alternative is held by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 89, whereas Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2584, is inclined to the latter.

[602] Gell. xiv. 7. 4, 8, quoting Varro.

[603] _Leg._ iii. 3. 10: “Omnes magistratus auspicium iudiciumque habento.” The previous paragraph is concerned with the tribunes, and in this citation the use of iudicium instead of imperium points to the tribunes. It is hardly possible that Cicero in his _Laws_ would give the tribunes a right they did not possess.

[604] In Gell. xiii. 15. 4. Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2583, seems therefore to be incorrect in excluding the tribunes from the right.

[605] In stating that the tribunes were given the right to take auspices for their assemblies, Zonaras, vii. 19, evidently confuses the oblativa with the impetrativa. It is an interesting fact that according to Cicero the first college of tribunes was elected under auspices in the comitia curiata; Frag. A. vii. 48: “Itaque auspiciato postero anno tr. pl. comitiis curiatis creati sunt.”

[606] Cic. _Div._ ii. 34. 71: “Hic apud maiores nostros adhibebatur peritus, nunc quilubet.” As in the time of Cicero auspices had come to be a mere pretence (p. 118), an attendant without skill or scruple would best serve the magistrate’s purpose. In Livy iv. 18. 6, the augurs see the omen for the dictator, but some other attendant might serve the purpose. Being a paid functionary, the bird-seer mentioned by Dion. Hal. ii. 6. 2 as assisting in an auspication could not have been a public augur; Valeton, in _Mnemos._ xviii. 406 ff.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 456, n. 8. The magistrate requested assistance in the following form: “Q. Fabi, te mihi in auspicio esse volo;” and the reply was “Audivi;” Cic. _Div._ ii. 34. 71; cf. § 72. From this formula it appears that the person summoned did not hold, but assisted in, the auspices; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 338. The auspices are always said to belong not to the augurs, but to the magistrates; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 10; Messala, in Gell. xiii. 15. 4. Instead of remaining with the augurs in the city the auspices followed a duly elected consul into the field; Livy xxii. 1. 6. Auspicari is strictly a function of the magistrate (cf. Varro, _Rer. hum._ xx, in Non. Marc. 92) though the word is sometimes applied to the observation made by augurs (Fest. ep. 18), whose function is properly termed augurium, augurare; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 200 f.; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2580 f.

[607] The derivation is unknown. Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2313 f., summarizes the principal theories. Probability seems to favor the view that it is a combination of the root of avis with a verbal noun meaning “to see” or the like; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 55.

[608] Attus Navius from his boyhood was renowned for his augural skill; Cic. _Div._ i. 17; Livy i. 36; Dion. Hal. iii. 70 f.; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 333. Romulus, too, is said to have been an excellent augur; Remus possessed similar skill (Cic. _Div._ i. 2. 3; 17. 30; 40. 89; Ennius, in Cic. _Div._ i. 48. 107), and in the opinion of Livy, i. 18. 6; iv. 4. 2, there was no augural college before Numa.

[609] Varro, _L. L._ v. 33; Cic. _Fam._ vi. 6. 7; _Senec._ 18. 64; Fest. 161. 20; _CIL._ vi. 503, 504, 511, 1233, 1449; x. 211; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2314.

[610] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 9. 16; 14. 26; Livy x. 6. 7; ep. lxxxix; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 398; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 334 f.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 451; also his article in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2316 f. In adding a supernumerary (Dio Cass. xlii. 51. 4) Caesar set an example extensively followed by the principes; cf. Dio Cass. li. 20. 3; Wissowa, ibid. ii. 2317.

[611] As distinguished from magistrates they were privati; Cic. _Div._ i. 40. 89.

[612] Auctor Incertus (Huschke) p. 4: “Collegium augurum ordo hominum prudentum erat, qui prodigiis publicis praeerant;” cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 330.

[613] Cic. _Div._ ii. 34. 71 f.; cf. Livy xli. 18.

[614] Plut. _Q. R._ 99.

[615] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 20; _Phil._ xiii. 5. 12.

[616] They are never called flamines, and no flamen was attached to their office; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 451. The great sacerdotal colleges were more political than religious, and the college of augurs was the most thoroughly political of all; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 564.

[617] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 20; Dio Cass, xxxvii. 24 f.; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 199; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2325-30.

[618] Fest. 333. 9: “Spectio in auguralibus ponitur pro aspectione; (data est) et nuntiatio, qui omne ius auspiciorum habent, auguribus non spectio dumtaxat, quorum consilio rem gererent magistratus, ut possent impedire, nuntiando quaecumque vidissent; privatis spectio sine nuntiatione data est, ut ipsi auspicio rem gererent, non ut alios impedirent nuntiando.”—Valeton’s emendation, in _Mnemos._ xviii (1890). 455 f.

[619] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 21: “Quique agent rem duelli quique domi popularem, auspicium praemonento ollique obtemperanto;” cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 332.

[620] It generally happened that both the augural and pontifical colleges were filled by statesmen, so that Cicero could lay down the principle that the sacred and political offices were held by the same persons; _Div._ i. 40. 89; cf. Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2321.

[621] Livy iv. 7. 3; viii. 23. 14-17; xxiii. 31. 13; xlv. 12. 10; Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 83; _Leg._ ii. 12. 31; _N. D._ ii. 4. 11. A defect in the auspicia impetrativa was expressed by the formula “vitio tabernaculum captum esse” (Cic. _N. D._ ii. 4. 11; _Div._ i. 17. 33; Livy iv. 7. 3; Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 178), whereas the phrase “vitio creatum esse” or the like (Livy viii. 15. 6; 23. 14; xxiii. 31. 13; xlv. 12. 10; Plut. _Marcell._ 4) denoted a failure to take the auspices or to heed unfavorable omens; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2334. On the annulment of laws through augural decrees, see Cic. _Leg._ 8. 21; 12. 31; _Div._ ii. 35. 74. The decree was no more than an opinion, on which the senate acted; Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 88. n. 3; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 201.

[622] An example of such boldness was that of C. Flaminius; Livy xxi. 63; cf. Plut. _Marcell._ 4; Zon. vii. 20. For the case of Appius Claudius Pulcher, see Livy ep. xix; Polyb. i. 52.

[623] P. 112.

[624] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 21. Strictly it was the templum minus as distinguished from the templum magnum, a region of the sky; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 7; Fest. 157. 24; Serv. _in Aen._ i. 92.

[625] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86, 91. It was always rectangular, and was usually covered with a tent; Fest. 157. 24; Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 512; iv. 200; Nissen, _Templum_, 162 ff.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 455; in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2337 ff.; Valeton, in _Mnemos._ xx (1892). 338-90; xxi. 62-91, 397-440; xxiii. 15-79; xxv. 93-144, 361-385; xxvi. 1-93; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 554 f.

[626] When wars were waged in the immediate vicinity of Rome the augurs could easily accompany the commander; cf. Livy iv. 18. 6; Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 21. But they certainly did not often go as far as Samnium; cf. Livy viii. 23. 16; ix. 38. 14. Though the augurs remained at Rome, the auspices followed the commander into the field; Livy xxii. 1. 6; p. 105, n. 1.

[627] Livy iii. 20. 6; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 201.

[628] Gell. xiii. 14. 1; Varro, _L. L._ v. 143; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 456, n. 1.

[629] Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2339.

[630] Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 197; Varro, _L. L._ vi. 53; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 456; also his article in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2339.

[631] Varro, _L. L._ v. 143; Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 21; _CIL._ vi. 1233; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 456 and notes.

[632] Varro, _L. L._ v. 33.

[633] The elder Tiberius Gracchus vitiated the election of his successors in the consulship by forgetting to renew the auspices, when, after entering the city to preside over the senate, he recrossed the pomerium to hold the election in the Campus; Cic. _N. D._ ii. 4. 11; _Div._ i. 17. 33; cf. Tac. _Ann._ iii. 19.

[634] Fest. 250. 12; 157. 29; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i, 97, n. 1; Valeton, in _Mnemos._ xviii (1890). 209 f. The reason for the auspication on such occasions is differently stated by the authorities, but the interpretation given by Jordan-Hülsen, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, 1. iii. 472 f., that this brook marked the boundary of the city auspices, seems preferable.

[635] Avispex, auspex, bird-seer; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2580.

[636] Livy i. 7. 1.

[637] Fest. ep. 64; Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 71: “Haec certe quibus utimur, sive tripudio sive de caelo” (the auspicia tripudio being used in the military sphere, leaving only the auspicia de caelo for the city); cf. i. 16. 28; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 79, n. 1; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 203; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2333.

[638] Dio Cass, xxxviii. 13. 3. Lightning from left to right especially in a clear sky was favorable; Dion. Hal. ii. 5. 2; Verg. _Aen._ ii. 692; vii. 141; ix. 628 (on the last, see Servius). A thunderclap was unfavorable to one entering office; xxiii. 31. 13; Plut. _Marcell._ 12; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 80, n. 2.

[639] Tac. _Hist._ i. 18.

[640] Cic. _Div._ ii. 18. 42.

[641] Cic. _Div._ ii. 35. 74; 18. 43; Dio Cass, xxxviii. 13. 3 f.

[642] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86: “Ubi noctu in templum censor auspicaverit atque de caelo nuntium erit, praeconi sic imperato ut viros vocet.”

[643] Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2585. The auguraculum was doubtless used only by the augurs, not as Mommsen (_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 103, n. 2) supposes, by the magistrates.

[644] Livy viii. 14. 12; Cic. _Vatin._ 10. 24: “In rostris, in illo inquam augurato templo ac loco.”

[645] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91; Val. Max. iv. 5. 3; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 11; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2585 f.

[646] Valeton, in _Mnemos._ xxiii (1895). 28 ff.

[647] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86; Livy viii. 23. 15; x. 40. 2.

[648] The auspices had to be taken on the day the business was to be transacted, counting the day from midnight to midnight; Gell. iii. 2. 10; Consorinus xxiii. 4.

[649] Verrius, in Fest. 347. 17; Serv. _in Aen._ ix. 4; Statius, _Theb._ iii. 459. Romulus, however, stood upright; Dion. Hall. ii. 5. 1.

[650] P. 105.

[651] Silence was essential to perfect auspices; Fest. 348. 29; ep. 64; Livy viii. 23. 15; ix. 38. 14; x. 40. 2; Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 57. 223.

[652] Serv. _in Aen._ iii. 89; Livy i. 18. 9.

[653] Cf. Livy xli. 18. 14.

[654] Cf. Livy ix. 38. 15; 39. 1.

[655] Cf. p. 115, 118, n. 2.

[656] Livy v. 52. 15; ix. 38. 15 f.; 39. 1; Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 3; Cic. _Att._ ii. 7. 2; 12. 1; viii. 3. 3. Hoffmann, _Patric. u. pleb. Curien_, 29 ff., is of the opinion that the assembly which passed the lex curiata was not auspicated, his idea being that the lex curiata itself conferred the ius auspiciorum publicorum. There is no ground, however, for either of these suppositions.

[657] Cic. _N. D._ ii. 4. 11; Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 2. On the censorial auspication of the comitia centuriata for the lustrum, see Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 98, n. 6, supposes this to be the auspication of the censor’s entrance into office (cf. 81, n. 1), believing that assemblies which did not vote were unauspicated. But cf. p. 111, n. 1 below.

[658] Dio Cass. liv. 24. 1; Cic. _Fam._ vii. 30. 1; cf. Varro, _R. R._ iii. 2. 1.

[659] Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 3; 49. 5.

[660] This is shown by the _Commentarium Anquisitionis_ of M. Sergius, a quaestor, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91.

[661] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86 f.: “Ubi noctu in templum censor auspicaverit atque de caelo nuntium erit ... tum conventionem habet qui lustrum conditurus est.” Mommsen’s interpretation (_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 81, n. 2, 98, n. 6) which applies these auspices to the censor’s entrance upon his office seems forced. It is not necessary, however, to suppose that this magistrate had to renew the auspices for every day of the census-taking; Mommsen, ibid. i. 113, n. 4.

[662] The current view (cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 718; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 98; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 380; Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1150) that no contio was auspicated appears therefore to require modification.

[663] Plut. _Pomp._ 52; _Cato Min._ 42.

[664] Ael. Don. in Terent. _Ad._ iv. 2. 8: “Qui malam rem nuntiat, obnuntiat, qui bonam, adnuntiat: nam proprie obnuntiare dicuntur augures, qui aliquid mali ominis scaevumque viderint.” In this late author (350 A.D.) obnuntiatio is ascribed to the augurs. When Cicero says to Antony (_Phil._ ii. 33. 83) “Augur auguri, consul consuli obnuntiasti,” he does it only to find fault with the proceeding; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 111, n. 2. These are the only instances known to us in which the distinction is not observed; Mommsen, ibid.; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2335; Valeton, in _Mnemos._ xix (1891). 75 ff., 229 ff.; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 582.

[665] Cato, _De sacr. comm._ in Fest. 234. 33: “Quod ego non sensi, nullum mihi vitium facit;” Pliny, _N. H._ xxviii. 2. 17; Serv. _in Aen._ xii. 259: “In oblativis auguriis in potestate videntis est, utrum id ad se pertinere velit, an refutet et abominetur;” cf. Cic. _Div._ ii. 36. 77; Wissowa, ibid. ii. 2335. An example of an evil omen privately reported is given by App. _B. C._ i. 30.

[666] Livy ix. 38. 16 with ch. 39. 1.

[667] Fest. 234. 27.

[668] P. 104; Cato, _De re mil._ in Fest. 214-7: “Magistratus nihil audent imperare, ne quid consul auspici peremat.”

[669] P. 114.

[670] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 32. 81: “Nos (augures) nuntiationem solum habemus, consules et reliqui magistratus etiam spectionem;” Varro, _Rer. hum._ xx, in Non. Marc. 92: “De caelo auspicari ius neminist praeter magistratum;” Fest. 333. 9 (quoted p. 106, n. 8). Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 267, supposes that the augurs had both the spectio and the nuntiatio; but this view contradicts the clear statement of Cicero; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ 1. 109, n. 1. The fact is, as has been stated (p. 106), they had the spectio for their own functions only, and as assistants of the magistrates simply the nuntiatio.

[671] The formula used is “in auspicio esse;” Cic. _Att._ ii. 12. 1.

[672] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 20 f.; iii. 4. 11; 19. 43; _N. D._ ii. 3. 8; _Div._ ii. 33. 71; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 339.

[673] P. 106 f.

[674] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 83; _Div._ i. 40. 89: “Privati eodem sacerdotio praediti rem publicam religionum auctoritate rexerunt,” an exaggeration; _Leg._ ii. 12. 31; Livy i. 36. 6. In this capacity the augur did not look for omens with a view to reporting them, but merely announced those which came unexpectedly.

[675] _Phil._ ii. 33. 82 f.

[676] P. 115.

[677] Three were present at curiate assemblies; Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2; cf. ii. 7. 2.

[678] In this case the augur not only assisted with his special knowledge, but also acted as crier; Varro, _L. L._ vi. 95.

[679] Varro, _R. R._ iii. 2. 2; 7. 1.

[680] _Leg._ ii. 12. 31.

[681] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 32. 81.

[682] P. 104, 112.

[683] Gell. xiii. 15. 1; cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 79.

[684] Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 13: “Lurco tribunus pl. solutus est et Aelia et Fufia, ut legem de ambitu ferret;” _Sest._ 61. 129: “Decretum in curia ... ne quis de caelo servaret, ne quis moram ullam adferret” (that no one should watch the heavens or interpose any delay in the proceedings for the recall of Cicero). Both measures here referred to were so popular and the magistrates were so nearly unanimous in their support that the senate felt it could in these cases forestall the opposition of one or two opponents.

[685] In the famous case of Bibulus against Caesar, 59; Suet. _Caes._ 20; cf. Dio Cass. xxxviii. 4. 2 f.

[686] Proved by the fact that the watching of the sky by Bibulus should have annulled the arrogation of Clodius (Cic. _Dom._ 15. 39 f.; _Har. Resp._ 23. 48; _Att._ ii. 12. 2; 16. 2; _Prov. Cons._ 19. 45; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 113, n. 2), which was brought about by an act of the curiae under the presidency of the supreme pontiff. Any one competent to observe the heavens necessarily had the obnuntiatio.

[687] Cic. _Sest._ 36. 78. Probably obnuntiatio against tribunes is referred to by Cic. _Phil._ v. 3. 7 f. and by Ascon. 68 (the last is the abolition of the Livian laws of 91), but the obnuntiating magistrate is not known. In Cic. _Vatin._ 7. 17 (“Num quem post urbem conditam scias tribunum pl. egisse cum plebe, cum constaret servatum esse de caelo”) the principle is laid down that any one who has the right to obnuntiate may use this power against a tribune. The validity of the tribunician law for the interdiction of Cicero from fire and water was maintained on the ground that no one was then watching the sky; Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 19. 45.

[688] Cic. _Sest._ 37. 79; cf. 38. 83; _Phil._ ii. 38. 99; _Att._ iv. 3. 3 f.; 17. 4; _Q. Fr._ iii. 3. 2 (cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 6; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 113, n. 3); Dio Cass, xxxix. 39; Plut. _Crass._ 16; App. _B. C._ ii. 18. 66 (cf. Cic. _Div._ i. 16. 29); iii. 7. 25.

[689] Cic. _Att._ iv. 9. 1.

[690] Cic. _Vatin._ 7. 16.

[691] Cic. _Dom._ 15. 39: “(Augures) negant fas esse agi cum populo, cum de caelo servatum sit.”

[692] Cic. _Att._ iv. 3. 3.

[693] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 32. 81.

[694] Cic. _Att._ iv. 3. 4. In like manner Bibulus, after obnuntiating in vain against Caesar’s agrarian law (p. 439), determined to remain at home and continually to watch the sky for the remainder of the year. This procedure invalidated all acts passed during that time by the assembly; Cic. _Dom._ 15. 39 f.; _Har. Resp._ 23. 48; _Prov. Cons._ 19. 45.

[695] This procedure too was followed by Bibulus; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 6. 1; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 82, n. 3.

[696] That they were two separate enactments, and not one complex statute by joint authors, is clearly indicated by Cic. _Har. Resp._ 27. 58: “Sustulit duas leges Aeliam et Fufiam;” _Sest._ 15. 33. Generally they are spoken of as separate laws, though Cicero occasionally, as _Vatin._ 5. 7, groups them in one. That they were plebiscites is held probable by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 111, n. 4.

[697] When Cicero, _Vatin._ 9. 23, states that these laws survived the ferocity of the Gracchi, the audacity of Saturninus, etc., he places their origin in the times before the Gracchi; and when he speaks of their abolition, 58, he tells us that they had been in force about a hundred years (_Pis._ 5. 10).

[698] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13.

[699] _Vatin._ 7. 18.

[700] Ibid. 9. 13.

[701] _Red. in Sen._ 5. 11; cf. _Har. Resp._ 27. 58; _Pis._ 4. 9: “Propugnacula murique tranquillitatis atque otii.” With other provisions of these statutes (cf. Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 13; Schol. Bob. 319 f.) the present discussion is not concerned. See further on these laws, p. 358 f. below.

[702] _Kleine Schriften_, i. 274 ff., 341; _Röm. Alt._ ii. 315, 477 f.

[703] _Att._ iv. 3. 4; 16. 5; _Phil._ ii. 32. 81.

[704] Cic. _Vatin._ 6. 15; 7. 18.

[705] Cic. _Red. in Sen._ 5. 11: “Legem tribunus pl. tulit, ne auspiciis obtemperaretur, ne obnuntiare concilio aut comitiis, ne intercedere liceret, ut lex Aelia et Fufia ne valeret;” _Har. Resp._ 27. 58; _Sest._ 15. 33; _Prov. Cons._ 19. 46; _Pis._ 4. 9; 5. 11; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 5 f.; 14. 2; Ascon. 9; Schol. Bob. 319 f.

[706] Cic. _Att._ iv. 3. 4; 16. 5; _Phil._ ii. 32. 81; cf. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 84; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 204 f.

[707] VIII. 23. 13 ff.

[708] Polyb. vi. 56. 6 ff.

[709] The former view was taken by Appius Claudius Pulcher, consul in 54 and author of a work _De disciplina augurali_ (Fest. 298. 26), and the latter by C. Claudius Marcellus, consul in 50, and by Cicero—all three being public augurs; Cic. _Div._ i. 47. 105; ii. 18. 42; 33. 70; 35. 75; Leg. ii. 13. 32 f.; _N. D._ i. 42. 118; in general _Div._ ii. At that time auspices were a mere pretence; the chicken omens were forced, and the celestial signs were not seen; Cic. _Div._ ii. 33 f., 71 f.; Dion. Hal. ii. 6. On the decline of augury and the auspices, see Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2315, 2333.

[710] Probably the jurist of that name who lived under Hadrian, and who is mentioned by Paulus, in _Dig._ v. 4. 3.

[711] XV. 27. 4: “Is qui non universum populum, sed partem aliquam adesse iubet, non comitia, sed concilium edicere debet.”

[712] For the purpose of the present discussion the plebeian assembly—that is, the assembly which convened under the tribunes of the plebs and which issued plebiscita—is assumed to be a gathering of only a part of the people. If it admitted patricians (p. 300), and if therefore there was no assembly comprised exclusively of plebeians, no argument would be needed to prove the error of the conventional distinction between comitia and concilium.

[713] In Livy iii. 16. 6, this meeting is called a concilium.

[714] P. 341.

[715] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 170, n. 8; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 149, n. 3.

[716] _Mil._ 3. 7; cf. p. 122, n. 3 below.

[717] “Cum se in mediam contionem intulissent, abstinere suetus ante talibus conciliis.”

[718] His last citation on this point, Livy v. 47. 7 (“Vocatis ad concilium militibus”) has reference to the soldiers only—to a part of the people—and is therefore altogether unlike the others. For an explanation of it, see p. 135 f.

[719] A closely related question is whether concilium is ever restricted to the deliberative stage of a session preliminary to the division into voting units, with comitia limited in a corresponding manner to the final, voting stage of the session. A few passages, as examples (2) and (4), might be explained by such a conjecture, but others, as Livy iii. 13. 9 (“Virginio comitia habente conlegae appellati dimisere concilium”) prove the supposition impossible. Concilium denotes the assembly in its final as well as in its initial stage, voting as well as deliberating, whereas in ordinary political language contio is used to denote the merely listening or witnessing assembly, whether organized or unorganized, whether called to prepare the citizens for voting or for any other purpose.

[720] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 170, n. 8.

[721] Ibid. i. 195 f. It is true that the plebeian assembly came to be subject to the obnuntiatio (p. 117), but it would be absurd on this ground to suppose that Livy’s statement refers especially to gatherings of the kind.

[722] This statement admits that concilium here designates an assembly of the whole people; but Mommsen does not tell us why the word applies with greater propriety to the “patricio-plebeian” tribal assembly than to the centuriate assembly. For the true reason, see p. 137, n. 5.

[723] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 149, n. 3.

[724] Undoubtedly the Caesar who was consul in 64 B.C.; Teuffel and Schwabe, _Rom. Lit._ i. 348. § 3; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 120, n. 6.

[725] “P. Lucullus et L. Annius, tribuni plebis, resistentibus collegis continuare magistratum nitebantur, quae dissensio totius anni comitia impediebat.”

[726] _De com. trib. et conc. pl. discr._ (1875); Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 149, n. 1; Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 802. The correctness of my results is acknowledged in the _Thesaurus linguae latinae_, iv. 44 ff.

[727] “Tribunicii candidati compromiserunt HS quingenis in singulos apud M. Catonem depositis petere eius arbitratu, ut, qui contra fecisset, ab eo condemnaretur. Quae quidem comitia si gratuita fuerint, ut putantur, plus unus Cato potuerit quam omnes leges omnesque iudices.” The translation given above is Shuckburgh’s.

[728] “Permagni nostra interest te, si comitiis non potueris, at, declarato illo, esse Romae.”

[729] _Cf._ Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 482.

[730] “Venio ad comitia, sive magistratuum placet sive legum. Leges videmus saepe ferri multas. Omitto eas, quae feruntur ita, vix ut quini, et ii ex aliena tribu, qui suffragium ferant, reperiantur. De me, quem tyrannum atque ereptorem libertatis esse dicebat illa ruina rei publicae, dicit se legem tulisse. Quis est, qui se, cum contra me ferebatur, inisse suffragium confiteatur? cum autem de me eodem ex senatus consulto comitiis centuriatis ferebatur, quis est, qui non profiteatur se adfuisse et suffragium de salute mea tulisse? Utra igitur causa popularis debet videri, in qua omnes honestates civitatis, omnes aetates, omnes ordines una mente consentiunt, an in qua furiae concitatae tamquam ad funus rei publicae convolant?”

[731] “Ferri de singulis nisi centuriatis comitiis noluerunt. Descriptus enim populus censu, ordinibus, aetatibus plus adhibet ad suffragium consilii quam fuse in tribus convocatus. Quo verius in causa nostra vir magni ingenii summaque prudentia, L. Cotta, dicebat nihil omnino actum esse de nobis; praeter enim quam quod comitia ilia essent armis gesta servilibus, praeterea neque tributa capitis comitia rata esse posse neque ulla privilegii: quocirca nihil nobis opus esse lege, de quibus nihil omnino actum esset legibus. Sed visum est et vobis et clarissimis viris melius, de quo servi et latrones scivisse se aliquid dicerent, de hoc eodem cunctam Italiam quid sentiret, ostendere.”

[732] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 161, n. 53.

[733] See list of citations for electoral assemblies, p. 133.

[734] “Tribus locis significari maxime populi Romani iudicium ac voluntas potest, contione, comitiis, ludorum gladiatorumque consessu.”

[735] “Qui (optimates) non populi concessu, sed suis comitiis hoc sibi nomen adrogaverunt.”

[736] “Iubet enim tribunum plebis, qui eam legem tulerit, creare decemviros per tribus septemdecim, ut, quern novem tribus fecerint, is decemvir sit. Hic quaero, quam ob causam initium rerum ac legum suarum hinc duxerit, ut populus Romanus suffragio privaretur.... Etenim cum omnes potestates, imperia, curationes ab universo populo Romano proficisci convenit, tum eas profecto maxime, quae constituuntur ad populi fructum aliquem et commodum, in quo et universi deligant, quem populo Romano maxime consulturum putent, et unus quisque studio et suffragio suo viam sibi ad beneficium impetrandum munire possit. Hoc tribuno plebis potissimum venit in mentem, populum Romanum universum privare suffragiis, paucas tribus non certa condicione iuris, sed sortis beneficio fortuito ad usurpandam libertatem vocare;” cf. _Imp. Pomp._ 15. 44; 22. 64.

[737] _Sest._ 51. 109.

[738] P. 301 f.

[739] “Mihi quidem eae verae videntur opiniones, quae honestae, quae laudabiles, quae gloriosae, quae in senatu, quae ad populum, quae in omni coetu concilioque profitendae sint;” cf. _Leg._ iii. 19. 44, quoted p. 127.

[740] The writers not included in this discussion, as Nepos and the poets, contain nothing at variance with the results here reached. Gudeman’s article on Concilium in the _Thes. ling. lat._ iv. 44-8, in most respects excellent, still retains the groundless distinction between republican and imperial usage.

[741] It will suffice here to mention the elder Cato; Livy xxxix. 40. 6: “Si ius consuleres, peritissumus;” Cic. _Senec._ 11. 38: “Ius augurium, pontificium, civile tracto.” On the subject in general, see Pais, _Stor. d. Rom._ I. i. 68 and notes.

[742] For citations of other authors, see Gudeman, in _Thes. ling. lat._ iv. 45.

[743] All three passages are quoted, p. 130 f.

[744] The classification of comitial functions into elective, legislative, and judicial follows Cicero, _Div._ ii. 35. 74: “Ut comitiorum vel in iudiciis populi vel in iure legum vel in creandis magistratibus.” In this volume, accordingly, “legislative” refers not merely to law-making in the narrower sense, but also to the passing of resolutions on all affairs, domestic and foreign, including necessarily the lex de bello indicendo.

[745] For separate lists of the elective and the legislative and judicial comitia, see VI (below), where will be found sufficient illustrations of (_b_).

[746] Only one instance of concilium as an elective body has been found; _Lex Iulia Municipalis_, in _CIL._ i. 206. 132: the election of magistrates “comitieis conciliove.” The explanation is that the usage of some of the Italian municipia differed from the Roman, and the author of the law had to adapt his language to local custom. With this exception the inscriptions are in line with the literature.

[747] P. 124.

[748] Discussed on p. 123 f.

[749] P. 132.

[750] Ibid.

[751] Ibid.

[752] Fest. ep. 38: “Concilium dicitur a concalando, id est vocando.” It is accepted by Curtius, _Griech. Etym._ 139; Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 143; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 136. But Corssen, _Beitr. z. ital. Sprachk._ 41 f., rejects this etymology on the ground that it does not harmonize with all the meanings of the word and of its derivative “conciliare”; also Gudeman, in _Thes. ling. lat._ iv. 44. Corssen, analyzing it into con-cil-iu-m, and connecting -cil- with a root kal-, “to cover,” supposes the original meaning to be simply “a joining together,” “a union,”—giving that signification which he considers primary. It is equally reasonable, however, to assume the development to be (1) “a calling together,” (2) “a meeting for consultation,” (3) “a natural union of individuals of any kind.” In the third sense it is applied perhaps figuratively to inanimate things, especially the union of atoms to form objects, by Lucretius i. 183, 484, 772, 1082; ii. 120; iii. 805; cf. Ovid, _Met._ i. 710.

[753] The meaning consultation, deliberation, clearly appears in Plaut. _Mil._ 597 ff.:

“Sinite me priu’ perspectare, ne uspiam insidiae sient Concilium quod habere volumus. Nam opus est nunc tuto loco Unde inimicus ne quis nostri spolia capiat consili. Nam bene consultum inconsultumst, si id inimicis usuist, Neque potest quin, si id inimicis usuist, opsit tibi; Nam bene (consultum) consilium surrupitur saepissume.”

Also in 249, 1013: “Socium tuorum conciliorum et participem consiliorum”; Cic. _Rep._ 17. 28: “Doctissimorum hominum in concilio”; Caes. _B. C._ i. 19; Nep. _Epam._ 3. 5; Verg. _Aen._ ii. 89 (or consiliis); iii. 679; v. 75; xi. 234; Livy 1. 21. 3; see also II (_a_), p. 132, and Forcellini, _Lat. Lex._ ii. 347. It is never a chance crowd; _Diff._ ed. Beck, p. 47. 43: “Concilium est convocata multitudo, conventus ex diversis locis populum in unum contrahit, coetus fortuitu congregatur.” The ancients understood this to be the meaning of the word; Varro _L. L._ vi. 43: “A cogitatione concilium, inde consilium,” an unsuccessful though instructive guess; Fest. ep. 38: “Concilium dicitur a populo consensu;” Isid. _Etym._ vi. 16. 12: “Concilium a communi intentione ductum, quasi communicilium.” This interpretation is supported by several glosses; φιλοποιεία (_Corp. Gloss. Lat._ ii. 471. 49), συμβούλιον (ibid. ii. 107. 5), coenobulium, caenobulium (ibid. iv. 321. 27). Lastly our derivative “council” points in the same direction. The meaning “deliberative assembly” has been accepted by Gudeman, in _Thes. ling. lat._ iv. 46, who has added citations from the whole range of Latin literature.

[754] Lodge, _Lex. Plaut._ i. 288; Gudeman, _Thes. ling. lat._ iv. 45.

[755] Cf. Gudeman, ibid. iv. 48.

[756] Cf. n. 1 and p. 132, II (_a_).

[757] P. 143.

[758] P. 132.

[759] The notion sometimes expressed that the word applies more appropriately to a body of representatives of the component states of a league is without foundation, though it is true that some foreign concilia are of this character.

[760] P. 133.

[761] Ibid.

[762] P. 134.

[763] Thus is explained a phenomenon for which Mommsen could find no adequate reason—that the so-called “patricio-plebeian” tribal assembly was more apt to be called concilium than were the comitia centuriata. The deliberative feature of the concilium also explains the close approach of the word to contio—another fact which Mommsen knew but did not understand.

[764] Cf. p. 131. Notwithstanding all the confidence reposed by the moderns in this utterance of Laelius, ‘debet’ suggests that he is proposing an ideal distinction rather than stating an actual usage.

[765] P. 286, 292, 301 f.

[766] Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 51; ii. 683; Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 184; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 140; cf. _SC de Bacch._ in _CIL._ i. 196. 23: “In conventionid”; Fest. ep. 113: “In conventione in contio”; _Commentaria Consularia_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88; _Corp. Gloss. Lat._ v. 280. 13; vi. 270, s. v.

[767] _Sat._ i. 16. 29: “Contra Iulius Caesar XVI auspiciorum libro negat nundinis contionem advocari posse, id est cum populo agi, ideoque nundinis Romanorum haberi comitia non posse;” cf. p. 125 f.

[768] _Att._ iv. 3. 4: “Contio biduo nulla.”

[769] Cf. Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 13: “Nundinis urbem revisitabant et ideo comitia nundinis habere non licebat, ne plebs avocaretur;” Fest. 173. 30-3.

[770] Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 1; _Lex Gen._ 81, in _CIL._ ii. Supplb. 5439: “In contione palam luci nundinis.” Another illustration is the statement of Gellius, xv. 27. 3, that wills were made in comitia calata, in a contio of the people. Mommsen’s assumption (_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 199 and n. 3) that no contio was held on a market day as a rule, to which there were exceptions, is altogether unsatisfactory. The passages cited refer to a law, not to a mere custom to be observed or not at the will of the magistrate. The contio which met on a market day must have been essentially different in nature from the contio which was forbidden for market days; cf. also Varro, _L. L._ vi. 93; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 11.

[771] The calata comitia curiata is termed contio by Gell. xv. 27. 3: “Quod calatis comitiis in populi contione fieret.” Cicero, _Rab. Perd._ 4. 11 (cf. 5. 15) speaks of the witnessing comitia centuriata as contio, and the lustral centuriate assembly was similarly termed; _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 87: “Conventionem habet qui lustrum conditurus est.” A widespread idea (held by Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 379; Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1149; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 37, and others) that all contiones were unorganized is therefore wrong.

[772] Fest. ep. 38.

[773] Cic. _Vatin._ i. 3; _Att._ xiv. 11. 1; 20. 3; xv. 2. 3; _Fam._ ix. 14. 7; x. 33. 2; Livy xxiv. 22. 1; Gell. xviii. 7. 6 f.; _Gloss. Corp. Lat._ ii. 114. 25; 269. 27; 575. 8.

[774] P. 150.

[775] Examples of military contiones are Caes. _B. G._ v. 48; vii. 52 f.; Livy i. 16. 1; ii. 59. 4 ff.; vii. 36. 9; viii. 7. 14; 31 f.; xxvi. 48. 13; xxx. 17. 9; xli. 10. 6; see also p. 202 f.

[776] Dion. Hal. iv. 37; v. 11. 2; Plut. _Popl._ 3; the candidate, too, for the regal office; Livy i. 35. 2.

[777] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 4. 10: “Cum populo ... agendi ius esto consuli, praetori, magistro populi equitumque eique, quem patres prodent consulum rogandorum ergo; tribunisque, quos sibi plebes creassit ... ad plebem, quod oesus erit, ferunto;” Varro, _L. L._ vi. 93: “Censor, consul, dictator, interrex potest (exercitum urbanum vocare).”

[778] Schol. Bob. 330; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ I. p. xix. This passage proves that a quaestor could call a contio in his own right; and the same holds probable for the aediles.

[779] It is necessary to include them in the general statement of Messala, in Gell. xiii. 16 (17). 1, that the lower magistrates had the right; cf. the note above.

[780] Fest. ep. 38: “Contio significat conventum, non tamen alium, quam eum, qui a magistratu vel a sacerdote publico per praeconem convocatur.” The sacerdos is the rex sacrorum as well as the supreme pontiff. It was necessary for the latter to hold judicial contiones; p. 259, 327. For the former, see Varro, _L. L._ vi. 28; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9-12; Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 654. Strictly the contiones of the rex sacrorum were calata comitia curiata; p. 155.

[781] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 193. For a contio of the Xviri leg. scrib. see Livy iii. 34. 1. On the duumviri for presiding at the election of consuls in 43, see Dio Cass. xlvi. 45. 3. In the opinion of the Romans the tribunus celerum, an officer under the kings, possessed the right; Livy i. 59. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 71. 6; 75. 1; Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 646; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 3: “Exactis regibus lege tribunicia.” These authors suppose that L. Junius Brutus held an assembly in the capacity of tribunus celerum, whereas Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 25. 46, speaks of him as a private citizen.

[782] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 193. But the promagistrate had a right to attend and to address a contio called for him outside the walls by a competent person; cf. Vell. i. 10. 4; p. 426 below.

[783] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 90.

[784] Livy xliii. 16. 5.

[785] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 93.

[786] For the quaestor, see _Com. Anq._ in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91 f. For the curule aediles, Cic. _Verr._ i. 12. 36; v. 67. 173; Livy x. 23. 11; 31. 9; 47. 4; xxxv. 10. 11; 41. 9; Val. Max. vi. 1. 7; viii. 1. damn. 7; Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 6. 42. For the plebeian aediles, Livy x. 23. 13; xxv. 2. 9; xxxiii. 42. 10; Gell. x. 6. 3; p. 290, 325 below; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 196, n. 2 f.

[787] Messala, _De Auspiciis_, in Gell. xiii. 16 (15). 1.

[788] Messala, _De Auspiciis_, in Gell. xiii. 16 (15). 1.

[789] Dion. Hal. vii. 16. 4; 17. 5; 22. 2; x. 41; Cic. _Sest._ 37. 79; Livy iii. 11. 8; xxv. 3 f.; xliii. 16. 7-9; (Aur. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 5; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 604, 826; p. 266 below.

[790] Cic. _Fam._ v. 2. 7: Q. Metellus Nepos forbade Cicero to address the people in contio on the occasion of his retiring from the consulship—a prohibition which Cicero declares was never before heard of. For another case, see Dio Cass. xxxviii. 12. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 716; iii. 299 f.

[791] Lange’s supposition (_Röm. Alt._ ii. 716) that by the holding of a contio a tribune could prevent a patrician magistrate’s convoking comitia is not well founded. Livy, iv. 25. 1 (“Tribuni plebi adsiduiis contionibus prohibendo consularia comitia”), does not intend to express a constitutional principle; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 289; Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1150.

[792] Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 11: “Tune, qui civibus Romanis in contione ipsa carnificem, qui vincla adhiberi putas oportere, qui in Campo Martio comitiis centuriatis auspicato in loco crucem ad civium supplicium defigi et constitui iubes, an ego, qui funestari contionem contagione carnificis veto ... qui castam contionem, sanctum Campum ... defendo servari oportere;” cf. 5. 15.

[793] Tac. _Ann._ ii. 32.

[794] Fest. 241. 29; Livy xxii. 57. 3; Suet. _Dom._ 8; Dio Cass. lxxix. 9. 3 f.; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 56, n. 4.

[795] Cf. Livy xli. 15. 10; _Lex Gen._ 81, in _CIL._ ii. Supplb. 5439.

[796] Livy iii. 66. 2; v. 11. 15; 12. 1; xxxviii. 52. 4; 53. 6. On the judicial contio, see p. 259.

[797] Livy xliii. 16. 5.

[798] XIII. 16. 13.

[799] Cic. _Att._ ii. 21. 5; _Verr._ i. 15. 44; _Sest._ 12. 29; _Rep._ i. 4. 7; Nep. _Tim._ iv. 3; _Them._ i. 3; Livy ii. 2. 4; 24. 4-6; 27. 2; iii. 31. 2; 41. 5 ff.; 54. 6; 67 f.; iv. 15; xli. 10. 13.

[800] Livy x. 13, 21; (Cic.) _Herenn._ iv. 55. 68. A contio, described by Livy vi. 39-41, was held by the tribunes Licinius and Sextius in the ninth year of their tribunate, after the day of election for the following year had been set. This meeting however was as much for the consideration of the proposed laws as of their own candidacy, and hence could not be thought of as strictly pertaining to the election. Mommsen’s opinion (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 392, n. 1) that stories of the kind prove nothing does not accord with his own general attitude toward the sources for the earlier history of Rome.

[801] P. 470.

[802] Cic. _Sest._ 50. 107 f.; _Red. in Sen._ 10. 26; _Pis._ 15. 34.

[803] P. 259 f.

[804] Livy xxxix. 17. 4 f.; Plut. _Aem._ 30; Pseud. Sall. _Declam. in Cat._ 19; cf. the _Twelve Tables_, in _Censorin._ 24. 3.

[805] Livy xlii. 33. 2.

[806] Besides the Forum or Comitium (Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 4) it sometimes met in the Area Capitolina (Cic. Frag. A. vii. 49; Livy xxxiii. 25. 6; xxxiv. 1. 4), or in the Circus Flaminius (Livy xxvii. 21. 1; Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 1; _Sest._ 14. 33). In general, see Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1151; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 380.

[807] Cic. _Flacc._ 7. 16 (contrasting the sitting contio of the Greeks); _Brut._ 84. 289; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 5. 13; _Acad. Pr._ 47. 144; _Tusc._ iii. 20. 48; _Orat._ 63. 213. But probably the contio in the Flaminian circus was seated; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 396, n. 3.

[808] P. 107, 110. Although the tribune of the plebs did not auspicate their assemblies, they like other magistrates occupied a templum during the meeting; Livy ii. 56. 10.

[809] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro _L. L._ vi. 86. For the summons by the consul, see the _Commentaria Consularia_, ibid. 88; and by the quaestor, _Commentarium Anquisitionis_ of M. Sergius, ibid. 91.

[810] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86.

[811] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 87: “Praeco in templo primum vocat, postea de moeris item vocat;” cf. 90 f.; Livy xxxix. 32. 11; Cic. _Fam._ vii. 30. 1.

[812] Documents, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86, 91.

[813] Livy xxv. 3. 17; Cic. _Sest._ 50. 107 f.

[814] Caesar, a praetor and friend of the presiding tribune, sat with him on the porch of the temple of Castor and Pollux—used on that occasion as the speaker’s platform; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 27; Cic. _Vatin._ 10. 24: “In rostris, in illo, inquam, augurato templo ac loco ... quo auctoritatis exquirendae causa ceteri tribuni pl. principes civitatis producere consuerunt.”

[815] Documents, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88, 91; cf. 93.

[816] Livy xxxix. 15. 1: “Consules in rostra escenderunt, et contione advocata cum solemne carmen precationis, quod praefari, priusquam populus adloquantur, magistratus solent, peregisset consul, ita coepit: Nulli umquam contioni, quirites, tam non solum apta sed etiam necessaria haec sollemnis deorum comprecatio fuit.” The prayer was made at the opening of elective as well as of deliberative assemblies (Cic. _Mur._ 1; Plin. _Paneg._ 63) by plebeian as well as by patrician magistrates; (Cic.) _Herenn._ iv. 55. 68. Every speech addressed to the people began with a prayer; Serv. _in Aen._ xi. 301; Cic. _Caecil._ 13. 43; Gell. xiii. 23. 1; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 390, n. 2.

[817] P. 430, 439.

[818] Caesar first brought his agrarian bill before the senate; and calling on the senators one after another by name to say whether they found any fault with it, he promised to amend it or to drop it altogether, if any clause proved unsatisfactory to any member. As the senators would not debate the merits of the proposal, but did all they could to delay its consideration, he offered the bill to the assembly without their consent; and for the remainder of his consulship he brought no more bills before the senate, but referred them directly to the people; Dio Cass, xxxviii. 2-4; cf. p. 148.

[819] Dion. Hal. v. 11. 2; Plut. _Popl._ 3. Besides the king it was supposed that the interrex and the tribunus celerum alone were competent; Dion. Hal. iv. 71. 6; 75. 1. The ancient writers seem to have been brought to this conception by a desire to contrast the despotism of the monarchy with the liberty of the republic. But according to Livy, i. 16. 5 ff., and Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 10. 20 (cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 200, n. 6) Proculus Julius, a private person, made a speech in a contio of the regal period; and in judicial assemblies speaking by private persons was necessary; cf. Livy i. 26. For the general usage in the primitive European assembly, see p. 169.

[820] In presenting his agrarian bill to the people Caesar first called on his colleague, despite the fact that the latter was known to be opposed to the measure; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 4. 1.

[821] _Commentarium Anquisitionis_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91. Clodius, tribune of the plebs, brought forward the two consuls into the Flaminian circus, where they gave their sanction and formal approval of all the tribune had been saying against Cicero; Cic. _Sest._ 14. 33. On this occasion the consul Piso condemned Cicero’s consulship for its cruelty; Cic. _Pis._ 6. 14; _Red. in Sen._ 6. 13. In 44 Cannutius, a tribune of the plebs, introduced into a contio the consul Mark Antony, who spoke regarding the assassins of Caesar; Cic. _Fam._ xii. 3. 2. Earlier instances are Livy iii. 64. 6; iv. 6. 1 f. A tribune brought the augurs into a contio, to ask of them information concerning the auspices; Cic. _Dom._ 15. 40.

[822] Although the senators were invited to sit on the platform (_Comm. Anq._ in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91), speaking by them was exceptional; in the assembly they were no more than eminent private persons; Dio Cass, xxxviii. 4. 4; cf. ch. 5.

[823] E.g. Cic. _Att._ iv. 1. 6: “Habui contionem. Omnes magistratus praesentes praeter unum praetorem et duos tribunos dederunt.” In a certain contio a tribune asked Scipio Aemilianus what he thought of the conduct of Ti. Gracchus; Val. Max. vi. 2. 3. At the suggestion of the consul Piso, Fufius, a tribune, brought Pompey upon the platform and asked his opinion as to the selection of jurors for a particular case; Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 1; cf. Ascon. 50. The tribune M. Servilius invited Cicero to speak in a contio in support of C. Cassius (Cic. _Fam._ xii. 7. 1), and it was in response to an invitation of another tribune, P. Appuleius (_Phil._ vi. 1), that he delivered the sixth _Philippic_. Other references to tribunician invitations are Cic. _Att._ xiv. 20. 5; Dio Cass. xlv. 6. 3.

[824] Ascon. 38.

[825] Sall. _Iug._ 33 f.

[826] The Rhodian ambassadors were introduced by the tribune Antony to the senate (Polyb. xxx. 4. 6), as the context (cf. § 8) indicates, not as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 313, n. 1, supposes, to the people. There is no question, however, as to the right of a magistrate to bring such persons before the popular assembly.

[827] Val. Max. iii. 8. 6: “Quid feminae cum contione? Si patrius mos sevetur, nihil.” The lex Horatia, which is alleged to have granted the Vestal Gaia Taracia among many honors the right to give testimony [Gell. vii (vi). 7. 1-3], and which is assigned by Cuq (_Inst. jurid. d. Rom._ i. 255; and in Daremb. et Saglio, _Dict._ iv. 1145) to the consul Horatius, 509, is a myth (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 608), though doubtless in the course of the republic laws of the kind were occasionally passed, the language of which might be quoted by the annalists (Gell. l. c.). The rule that women were intestabiles is proved by such exceptions.

[828] XXXIV. 2. 11.

[829] Frag. 83. 8.

[830] III. 8. 6.

[831] Appian, _B. C._ iv. 32-4; see also p. 326.

[832] Livy xlv. 21. 6; 36. 1.

[833] Livy xlv. 36; cf. the statement of Dion. Hal. x. 41. 1, that on a certain occasion the crier invited all who wished to speak. These two passages are credible, notwithstanding the doubt expressed by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 395, n. 2, if we regard the general invitation as a concession on the part of the presiding magistrate rather than as a right of the people.

[834] P. 136.

[835] Plut. _Q. R._ 63.

[836] Quint. _Inst._ iii. 11. 13: “Qui bona paterna consumpserit, ne contionetur.”

[837] (Cic.) _Herenn_. i. 11. 20; cf. _Lex Bant._ (133-118 B.C.) in _CIL._ i. 197. 2 f.

[838] Such a grant in Alexandria Troas, mentioned by _CIL._ iii. 392, Mommsen (_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 201, n. 3) believes to have been in imitation of Roman usage.

[839] Varro, _Rer. hum._ xxi, in Gell. xiii. 12. 6.

[840] Ibid.; cf. Val. Max. iii. 7. 3: “C. Curiatius tr. pl. productos in contionem consules compellebat ut de frumento emendo referrent.” Mommsen’s interpretation (_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 313, n. 2), that the tribunes could not summon the consuls but could compel them to speak when present, is not altogether satisfactory. The comment of Gellius (§ 7 f.: “Huius ego iuris, quod M. Varro tradit, Labeonem arbitror vana tunc fiducia, cum privatus esset, vocatum a tribunis non isse. Quae, malum, autem ratio fuit vocantibus nolle obsequi, quos confiteare ius habere prendendi? Nam qui iure prendi potest, et in vincula duci potest”) supports the view given above in the text. A magistracy might afford some degree of protection, but on the principle enunciated by Gellius the tribune, who had the power to arrest a consul, was in a position practically to compel him to appear at a public meeting. As further examples of the president’s power to force speaking, Cato, a tribune of the plebs, compelled the keepers of the Sibylline books to come before the people in contio and declare the prophecy; Dio Cass. xxxix. 15. 4; cf. also Cic. _Vatin._ 10. 24; _Att._ ii. 24; Plut. _Cic._ 9; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 44. 1.

[841] P. 146.

[842] P. 145, n. 3.

[843] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 2-5.

[844] Cic. _Att._ ii. 24. 3: “Caesar, is qui olim praetor cum esset, Q. Catulum ex inferiore loco iusserat dicere, Vettium in rostra produxit;” _Vatin._ 10. 24: “Cum L. Vettium ... in contionem produxeris, indicem in rostris, in illo, inquam, augurato templo ac loco collocaris, quo auctoritatis exquirendae causa ceteri tribuni pl. principes civitatis producere consuerunt.”

[845] Dio Cass. xxxix. 34. 2; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 43.

[846] Or as Foster translates, “about the distressing condition of the times.”

[847] Dio Cass. xxxix. 34; Plut. ibid.

[848] Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 24. 69.

[849] Livy x. 8. 12.

[850] Ibid. xxxiv. 4. 20.

[851] Dio Cass. xxxix. 35. 1.

[852] Ibid.

[853] Livy ii. 56. 9: “Quirites, ... crastino die adeste.”

[854] _Commentaria Consularia_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88: “Impero qua convenit ad comitia centuriata.”

[855] Livy ii. 56. 12: “Si vobis videtur, discedite, quirites.”

[856] Preparatory to voting, the plebeian tribune Laetorius ordered the removal of all, including patricians, who were not to vote; Livy ii. 56. 10: “Submoveri Laetorius iubet praeterquam qui suffragium ineant.”

[857] In the case referred to in the note above, some of the young patricians stood their ground and refused to give way before the viator; § 11; cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 48. Again on other occasions the patricians when ordered refused to withdraw before the voting (cf. Livy iii. 11. 4), from which we may infer that the right to attend the comitia presided over by tribunes was claimed by the patricians but denied them by the tribunes. The word used in these passages to designate the removal of the unqualified is “submovere.” In Livy xxv. 3. 16 (cf. Cic. _Flacc._ 7. 15) “tribuni populum summoverunt” has reference to the adjournment of the people to their voting divisions, and probably also to the exclusion of those who had no right to vote; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 390, n. 1.

[858] Acclamation was retained as a regular form of voting by the army; p. 202; cf. Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 153.

[859] Philochorus, 79 b, in Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ i. 396. The condemnation of the generals who fought at Arginusae was voted in the same way; Xen. _Hell._ i. 7. 9.

[860] Cf. Schröder, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. 16.

[861] It is interesting in this connection that in the Homeric assembly the heralds (κήρυκες), who were a sacerdotal class, kept order; cf. _Il._ ii. 97 f. In the German assembly the priests with coercive power maintained quiet; Tac. _Germ._ ii. 3; Schröder, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. 22 f. The Irish assemblies were of religious origin, and maintained some religious features till after the introduction of Christianity; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 42, 44.

[862] They excluded on the one hand comitia for religious purposes presided over by a political magistrate—for instance, the comitia centuriata under the censor for the lustrum (p. 141)—and on the other the meetings of the people under pontifical presidency for secular business, such as an appeal to the comitia from the pontifical imposition of fines (cf. Livy, xl. 42. 9), the meeting of the plebs under the supreme pontiff for the election of plebeian tribunes after the fall of the decemvirate (Cic. _Cornel._ in Ascon. 77; Livy, iii. 54. 5, 11), and the meeting of seventeen tribes for the election of sacerdotes. In the three exceptional instances last mentioned the comitia are tributa, which are never calata.

[863] Kindred words are calendae, Calabra, calator. As late as Plautus (_Pseud._ 1009; _Merc._ 852; _Rud._ 335) a common use of calatores was to designate slave messengers; cf. Fest. ep. 38; _Corp. Gloss. Lat._ ii. 95. 42: δοῦλοι δημόσιοι. This use became obsolete, but the word continued to apply to certain assistants of the sacerdotes; Serv. _in Georg._ i. 268; _Corp. Gloss. Lat._ ii. 96. 3; iv. 214. 1; v. 275. 1; 595. 34, 63; 563. 66; _CIL._ vi. 712, 2053. 5; 2184-90, 3878; x. 1726; also the _inscr._ recently discovered in the Forum; cf. Holzapfel, in _Jahresb. f. Altwiss._ 1905. 263, 265 ff.; Warren, in _Am. Journ. of Philol._ xxviii (1907). 249-72. In all the known instances they were freemen, often freedmen; Saglio, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 814. For other citations, see Samter, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1335 f. They correspond to the lictors of the magistrates.

[864] Varro, _L. L._ v. 13: “Nec curia Calabra sine calatione potest aperiri.”

[865] Saglio, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 814; Humbert, ibid. i. 1375. But the comitia curiata were convoked by lictors according to Gell. xv. 27. 2: “Curiata (comitia) per lictorem curiatum calari, id est convocari”; Theophilus, _Paraphr. Inst._ ii. 10. 1. Possibly the lictor curiatius (or curiatus; _CIL._ iii. 6078) should in this case be identified with the calator.

[866] Labeo, in Gell. xv. 27. 1 f.: “Calata comitia esse, quae pro collegio pontificum habentur aut regis aut flaminum inaugurandorum causa; eorum autem alia esse curiata, alia centuriata.” From this statement we learn that the calate assemblies for inaugural purposes were organized either in curiae or in centuries. As “comitia” connotes organization (p. 135), we may be sure that in all calata comitia the people stood in their voting groups. On the centuriate comitia calata, see p. 156.

[867] Varro, _L. L._ v. 13; vi. 27; Fest. ep. 49; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9 f.; _Fast. Praenest. Kal. Ian._, in _CIL._ i.² p. 231; Jordan, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, I. ii. 51; Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 245, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 398 f.; Hülsen, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1821.

[868] Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 1376.

[869] He may have appointed a priestly substitute for such functions.

[870] Livy xxii. 57. 3: “Scriba pontificis, quos nunc minores pontifices adpellant.” That he acted in behalf of the college is proved by Varro, _L. L._ vi. 27 (note below).

[871] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 27: “Primi dies mensium nominati Kalendae, quod his diebus calantur eius mensis nonae a pontificibus, quintanae an septimanae sint futurae in Capitolio in curia Calabra”; _Hemerol. Praenest._ Ian. 1, in _CIL._ i.² p. 231: “Hae et (aliae pri) mae calendae appellantur, quia (eorum pri) mus is dies est quos pont(i)fex minor quo(vis anni) mense ad nonas sin(gulas currere edicit in capi)tolio in curia cala(bra)”; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9 f.: “Pontifici minori haec provincia delegabatur, ut novae lunae primum observaret aspectum visamque regi sacrificulo nuntiaret. Itaque sacrificio a rege et minore pontifice celebrato idem pontifex calata, id est vocata in Capitolium plebe iuxta curiam Calabram ... quot numero dies a Kalendis ad Nonas superessent pronuntiabat.” Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 654 and Plut. _Q. R._ 24 are inexact, and still more confused is Lyd. _Mens._ iii. 7; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 39, n. 1. In the opinion of Mommsen the announcement on the calends was not to an assembly, but was merely preparatory to the assembly on the nones; but the words of Macrobius (vocata ... plebe) clearly indicate a gathering of the people on that day.

[872] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 13, 28; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 12; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 109 and n. 1. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 40, n. 2, warns us against confusing “this unorganized contio” with the comitia calata, which are always organized in curiae or in centuries. Labeo, in Gell. xv. 27. 1, states, however, that calata comitia were held for the inauguration of the king and priests. If for this occasion the purely passive assembly was organized in voting divisions, there can be no reason for doubting that it was organized also on the occasion in question, when it met in the assembly-place of the calata comitia—a place which could not be opened sine calatione—and its convocation was designated by “calare” not “vocare.” It is significant that the phrase “calata contio” is never used. Mommsen gives no authority or reason for his assumption; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 398; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 111; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 283, 323; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 440, for the view here maintained that the assembly for hearing the calendar was calata.

[873] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9.

[874] For the inauguration of the flamen Dialis, see Gaius i. 130; iii. 114; Ulpian, Frag. 10. 5; Livy xxvii. 8. 4; xli. 28. 7; the flamen Martialis, Livy xxix. 38. 6; xlv. 15. 10; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 13. 11; the flamen Quirinalis, Livy xxxvii. 47. 8; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 420, n. 3. The inauguration of augurs probably took place in their own college.

[875] For the inauguration of the rex sacrorum, see Livy xxvii. 36. 5; xl. 42. 8. Livy’s description of the inauguration of Numa (i. 18. 6-9) probably follows the historical usage in the case of the rex sacrorum.

[876] Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 859.

[877] Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 130.

[878] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 307, n. 1. This is the only function discovered for the calata comitia centuriata, mentioned by Labeo, in Gell. xv. 27. 2. The origin of the inauguration must have preceded that of the centuriate assembly; it must therefore have taken place for a time in some other form of meeting. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1331, objects to this interpretation but finds nothing better.

[879] Cic. _Brut._ 1 (of an augur); _Phil._ ii. 43. 110 (of a flamen); _Leg._ ii. 8. 21 (of sacerdotes); Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 13. 11 (of the flamen Martialis); Livy. i. 18. 6 (of the king).

[880] Fest. 343. 8; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 420, n. 5, 421, n. 1.

[881] Gell. i. 12. 11, citing the lex Papia. Gellius calls this assembly a contio, which includes the calata comitia; cf. xv. 27. 3: “Calatiis comitiis in populi contione.”

[882] P. 161, 163, 165.

[883] P. 157 f.

[884] P. 170.

[885] Quint. _Inst._ viii. 3. 3: fragor here signifies “thunders of applause.”

[886] Cic. _Fam._ xi. 13. 3; Livy xxviii. 26. 12; xl. 36. 4; xlii. 53. 1.

[887] P. 135.

[888] P. 74 f., 96.

[889] P. 211.

[890] On the meaning of suffragium, see the excellent article by Rothstein, in _Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds 60stem Geburtstage_, 30-3.

[891] Gell. xv. 27. 3: “Isdem comitiis, quae calata appellari diximus, ... testamenta fieri solebant”; Gaius ii. 101: “Calatis comitiis testamentum faciebant, quae comitia bis in anno testamentis faciendis destinata erant”; Theophilus, _Paraphr. Inst._ ii. 10. 1.

[892] _Röm. Verf._ 242-5, with notes, following J. H. Dernburg, _Beitr. zur Gesch. der röm. Testamente_, i. 53-78.

[893] _Paraphr. Inst._ ii. 10. 1, p. 154 ed. Ferrini: Ὁ βουλόμενος ὑπὸ πάρτυρι διετίθετο τῷ δήμῳ.

[894] XV. 27. 3. This view is accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 398 f.; Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 628; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 39; Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 126, 239, 270; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 221; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1333; Mispoulet, _Inst. polit. Rom._ i. 202 f.

[895] P. 161.

[896] II. 101.

[897] P. 143.

[898] P. 139.

[899] Schrader, _Reallex._ 221, 864; Leist, _Alt-arisch. Jus Gent._ 419; _Alt-arisch. Jus Civ._ ii. 171; Fustel de Coulanges, _Ancient City_, 104.

[900] Tac. _Germ._ 20. 5. The oldest Frankish laws make no mention of testaments; Schrader, ibid. 865.

[901] Demosth. xx. 102; Plut. _Sol._ 21; Telfy, in _CJA._ 1399-1412, with comment, p. 613 ff.

[902] Plut. _Agis_, 5; cf. Thumser, _Griech. Staatsalt._ 259.

[903] Bücheler und Zitelmann, _Recht von Gortyn_, 134.

[904] Aristot. _Polit._ 1309, a 24; cf. Thalheim, _Griech. Rechtsalt._ 61.

[905] Fustel de Coulanges, _Anc. City_, 105; Leist, _Alt-arisch. Jus Civ._ ii. 171.

[906] Schrader, _Sprachv. und Urgesch._ ii.³ (1907). 374 f.

[907] This view is held by Schrader, ibid. 865; Ihering, _Geist des röm. Rechts_, i. 145 ff.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 37 f.; iii. 318 ff.; Kappeyne van de Coppello, _Comitien_, 67; Poste, _Gai Inst._ 178; Hallays, _Comices_, 18; and with some hesitation by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 110, 118, 1063.

[908] _Röm. Chronol._ 241 ff.; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 38, n. 2; iii. 319; _CIL._ i.² p. 289; accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 399; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1331; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 323.

[909] Q(uando) R(ex) C(omitiavit); _CIL._ i. p. 291 f. after the two days mentioned; cf. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 31: “Dies, qui vocatur sic, ‘Quando Rex Comitiavit, Fas’ is dictus ab eo quod eo die rex sacrifiolus litat (or perhaps venit, MS. dicat) ad comitium, ad quod tempus est nefas, ab eo fas; itaque post id tempus lege actum saepe”; Fest. ep. 259: “Quando Rex Comitiavit Fas, in fastis notari solet, et hoc videtur significare, quando rex sacrificulus divinis rebus perfectis in comitium venit”; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 727; Plut. _Q. R._ 63; _Fast. Praenest._ Mart. 24; for other citations, see _CIL._ i². p. 289.

[910] _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 38, n. 2.

[911] Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 110, n. 2.

[912] See note 8 above; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 440, n. 6.

[913] See p. 159, n. 8 above.

[914] Gaius ii. 101, 103.

[915] Cic. _Dom._ 13. 34; cf. Leonhard, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 398 ff.

[916] Gell. v. 19. 4, 6 f.; Gaius i. 99; Cic. _Att._ ii. 12. 2; _Dom._ 15. 39.

[917] Gell. v. 19. 5.

[918] Cic. _Dom._ 13. 34.

[919] Gell. v. 19. 6.

[920] Gaius i. 99.

[921] Gell. v. 19. 6; cf. the leaden tessera showing on the face a man taking another by the hand and the word ADOPTIO beneath; on the back are three officials seated, doubtless pontiffs, with the word COLLEGIUM beneath; Helbig, in _Compt. rend. d. l’acad. d. inscr. et bell.-let._ xxi (1893). 350-3. It evidently illustrates the preliminary stage of an adrogatio; see also Tac. _Hist._ i. 15.

[922] Gell. v. 19. 5 f.: “Adrogationes non temere neque inexplorata committuntur; nam comitia arbitris pontificibus praebentur, quae curiata appellantur”; Tac. _Hist._ i. 15: “Si te privatus lege curiata apud pontifices, ut moris est, adoptarem.” Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 253, supposes that these comitia were under a civil magistrate; but the expressions “arbitris pontificibus” and “apud pontifices” prove pontifical management. Caesar, who passed the curiate law for the arrogation of Clodius, was supreme pontiff as well as consul.

[923] Gell. v. 19. 9.

[924] Gell. v. 19. 8; Tac. _Hist._ i. 15; Cic. _Dom._ 15. 39; _Att._ ii. 12. 2; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 1 f. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 126, 270, supposed that the curiae simply witnessed the transaction, without giving their vote; but afterward (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 38) he changed his mind.

[925] Gell. xv. 27. 3.

[926] This seems to be the meaning of Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 156: “Consuetudo apud antiquos fuit, ut qui in familiam vel gentem transiret, prius se abdicaret ab ea in qua fuerat et sic ab alia acciperetur.”

[927] Gell. v. 19. 8, 10.

[928] Appian, _B. C._ iii. 14. 49.

[929] Ibid. iii. 94. 389; Dio Cass. xlv. 5. 3.

[930] On the testamentary adoption, see further Leonhard, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 420 f.

[931] Zon. vii. 15. 9.

[932] Cic. _Dom._ 14. 37; _Scaur._ 33; Ascon. 25.

[933] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 123 ff., has collected the cases.

[934] Suet. _Aug._ 2.

[935] Livy iv. 16. 3.

[936] Cic. _Brut._ 16. 62.

[937] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 1: Τήν τε εὐγένειαν ἐξωμόσατο. The similarity of this oath to the detestatio sacrorum warrants the conclusion that it, too, was taken in the calata comitia. The abjuration of one’s rank, however, was not a detestatio sacrorum, for the reason given in n. 8 below.

[938] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 1: Καὶ πρὸς τὰ τοῦ πλήθους δικαιώματα, ἐς αὐτόν σφων τὸν σύλλογον ἐσελθὼν, μετέστη; Cic. _Att._ i. 18. 4: “C. Herennius ... tribunus pl. ... ad plebem P. Clodium traducit.” Cicero’s following statement (“Idemque fert, ut universus populus in campo Martio suffragium de re Clodi ferat”) signifies that Herennius was proposing to bring the question not before the centuries, as Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 188, n. 3, imagines, for a tribune had no means of doing so, but before the thirty-five tribes, who were the universus populus (Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 16 f.) in contrast with the curiate comitia represented by thirty lictors; cf. p. 129 f.

[939] The falsification of pedigrees by plebeian families to prove descent from patrician ancestors of the same name is sufficient evidence that the name was retained through the transition; cf. Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 7 f. Were not the sacra retained, the transition of an entire gens would mean the destruction of its old religion and the creation of a new one—which is impossible. For this reason it appears that the detestatio sacrorum did not apply to such cases of transition.

[940] Lange, ibid. ii. 19.

[941] The fact that he promulgated a bill of the same tenor as that of Herennius, even if it was merely for the sake of appearance, as Cicero, _Att._ i. 18. 5, alleges, favors the latter view.

[942] Cic. _Att._ i. 19. 5.

[943] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 2; xxxviii. 12. 1 f.; Cic. _Dom._ 13. 35; 29. 77.

[944] Cic. _Dom._ 14. 37: “Nam adoptatum emancipari statim, ne sit eius filius qui adoptarit”; 13. 35: “Tu (Clodi) neque Fonteius es, qui esse debebas, neque patris heres neque amissis sacris paternis in haec adoptiva venisti.” In _Har. Resp._ 27. 57 (“Iste parentum nomen, sacra, memoriam, gentem Fonteiano nomine obruit”) Cicero does not say that Clodius assumed the gentile name of Fonteius, but rather that he used this name as a means of destroying the name, sacra, etc. of his parents; and in fact he continued to be called Clodius; cf. Dio Cass. xxxix. 23. 2 (official use). He claimed still to belong to the Clodian gens rather than to the Fonteian (Cic. _Dom._ 44. 116), whereas Cicero, looking upon the emancipation as a sham, insists that he was a Fonteian.

[945] That he retained the Claudian imagines is implied in Cic. _Mil._ 13. 33; 32. 86. He must therefore have kept the rest of the sacra.

[946] Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 23 ff. Cicero aims to bring the greatest possible confusion into the case by representing Clodius as having given up his native religion without receiving that of Fonteius, as being a gentilis of the Claudii though he had left the Claudian gens, etc.; _Dom._ 13. 35; 49. 127.

[947] This double act is most clearly stated by Livy iv. 4. 7: “Nobilitatem istam vestram ... non genere nec sanguine sed per coöptationem in patres habetis ... post reges exactos iussu populi”; p. 17, n. 5; cf. Dion. Hal. v. 40. 5: Ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος εἴς τε τοὺς πατρικίους αὐτὸν (Appius Claudius) ἐνέγραψε. This passage shows that Dionysius regards the process as an act of the people and of the senate, though he does not speak of the latter as coöptation. In the case of Appius Claudius Livy, ii. 16. 5, says simply that he was enrolled among the patres (“inter patres lectus”), and in like manner Suetonius, _Tib._ i, states that the patrician gens Claudia was coöpted into the class of patrician gentes.

[948] V. 13. 2.

[949] Fest. 246. 23.

[950] This measure is called the lex Cassia; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 25; p. 456 below. There can be no doubt that the author was L. Cassius Longinus, a faithful friend of the dictator, who entered upon his tribunate Dec. 10, 45; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 128 f.; iii. 602.

[951] Dio Cass. xliii. 47. 3; xlv. 2. 7; Suet. _Caes._ 41.

[952] The lex Saenia; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 25.

[953] Augustus, _Mon. Ancyr._ 8; Dio Cass. lii. 42. 5.

[954] Neither the pontifical examination nor the curiate law is noticed by the authorities, who refer briefly to the two acts. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 472, and Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 1101, suppose that Caesar as supreme pontiff made the adlectio, although, as Mommsen notices, Octavianus had not yet attained to that office when he attended to the same function. Both writers (cf. Lange, ibid. i. 412) understand the curiate assembly to have been a factor in the process. On these late adlectiones, see also Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 38 f., 130; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 602; Büdinger, in _Denkschr. d. kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Cl._ xxxi (1881). 211-73; xxxvi (1888). 81-125.

[955] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 32.

[956] Ch. ii above; also p. 166, n. 3 below.

[957] Botsford, in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii (1907). 689-92.

[958] IV. 3. 4.

[959] P. 17.

[960] IV. 4. 7; p. 24, n. 5, 200, n. 1; cf. Suet. _Tib._ 1: “Patricia gens Claudia ... in patricias cooptata.”

[961] Mommsen’s theory (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 29 and n. 2) that the patriciate was conferred through the coöperation of the king and the comitia appears accordingly to rest on a weak foundation. He gives no evidence, but bases his contention on the argument (1) that the community was sovereign, (2) that—the patriciate being in his opinion equivalent to the citizenship and the comitia curiata being a group of gentes—the downfall of the comitia made the reception of gentes impossible. Ground is taken against the theory of popular sovereignty in the following chapter. Against his second point it can be urged that the original comitia were neither patrician nor “gentile”; hence there is no occasion for speaking of the downfall of such comitia or of its sweeping consequences.

[962] Livy iv. 4. 7; p. 17, n. 5, 164, n. 6.

[963] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 74 ff.

[964] Gell. v. 19. 1-3.

[965] Such an examination was the only means by which the patricians could protect their order from being flooded by plebeians; cf. Mommsen, ibid. i. 77, who notices that no known instance of this kind of adoption took place before the admission of plebeians to the pontifical college through the Ogulnian law, 300; p. 309 below.

[966] Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 924; Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, ii. 407.

[967] _Il._ i. 54; ii. 50; xix. 40 ff.; _Od._ ii. 6 f.

[968] Kovalevsky, _Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia_, 122, 124.

[969] We must except the purely sacerdotal meetings of the curiae described in the preceding chapter.

[970] Tac. _Germ._ 11. 2; cf. Schröder, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. 22 f.

[971] _Rhetra_ of Lycurgus, in Plut. _Lyc._ 6; cf. Gilbert, _Altspart. Gesch._ 131 f.

[972] Arist. _Ath. Pol._ 43. 4; cf. Gilbert, _Const. Antiq. of Sparta and Athens_, 285.

[973] This is true of the religious-judicial assemblies of the continental Celts (Caesar, _B. G._ vi. 13), which may also have exercised political functions, and of the Irish assemblies; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 44, 51, 54; cf. Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 924.

[974] The Celtic magistrates disclosed to the people those matters only which they determined to be expedient; and it was unlawful to speak on public affairs outside the assembly; Caesar, _B. G._ vi. 20. The German chiefs in council preconsidered every subject to be presented to the assembly; Tac. _Germ._ 11. 1; Schröder, ibid. 23. The prominence of the nobles in the Slavic assembly (Kovalevsky, ibid. 123 ff.) would lead to the same conclusion regarding them. For the Homeric age of Greece the meeting of the council previous to the assembly as described by _Il._ ii. 50 ff. is typical, although we could not expect the poet in every case to repeat the procedure with uniform minuteness. The preconsidering power of the Roman senate was of the same nature.

[975] _Il._ ii. 278 ff.

[976] Tac. _Germ._ 11. 4. As a rule the North American Indians enjoy the same freedom of speech in their councils; Farrand, _Basis of American History_, 160, 211.

[977] _Il._ ii. 211 ff.; xii. 212 f. Calchas the seer, a man of the people, gained the protection of Achilles before daring to speak against Agamemnon; _Il._ i. 76 ff.

[978] On the control of the Etruscan assembly by the nobles, see Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 337; Hirt, _Indogermanen_, i. 55.

[979] _Od._ ii. 28 ff.

[980] P. 154 f.

[981] _Od._ ii. 35 ff.; cf. the public complaint made by a Slavic chief of an injury he had received; Kovalevsky, ibid. 121.

[982] Such as the reception of the youth into the warrior class among the Germans; Tac. _Germ._ 13. 2; for the witnessing assembly at Rome, see p. 155 f.

[983] Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 659, 662, 688. For the Celts; Caesar, _B. G._ vi. 13; cf. i. 4 (trial of Orgetorix). For the Germans; Tac. _Germ._ 12. 1 f. For the Slavs; Kovalevsky, _Mod. Cust. and Anc. Laws_, 126. The famous trial scene in the Homeric assembly; _Il._ xviii. 497 ff. For the Macedonians; Curt. vi. 8. 25. It is probably true of Vedic India; Schrader, ibid. 688.

[984] For the Germans; Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. i. 129. For the Slavs; Kovalevsky, ibid. 128, 130, 141 f. For the Celts; Polyb. iii. 44. 5 f.; Caes. _B. G._ v. 27, 36; Livy xxi. 20. 3; Tac. _Hist._ iv. 67. The Helvetian assembly probably decided the question of migration; Caesar, _B. G._ i. 2. As to the Greeks, Agamemnon proposed to the assembly to quit the war and return home, the people gladly accepted; _Il._ ii. 86 ff. A proposal of peace came from the Trojans to the Achaean assembly; the people rejected it on the advice of Diomede, and Agamemnon concurred in their opinion; _Il._ vii. 382 ff.

[985] The German mode of electing a king or war-leader is well known; cf. Brunner, ibid. i. 129. The assembly also elected the chiefs of the pagi (Gaue) and of the villages; Tac. _Germ._ 12. 3. The Celts who were not ruled by hereditary kings elected their chiefs annually (Caesar, _B. G._ i. 16) or for a migration; ibid. 3. The Irish kings were generally elected from particular families; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 66. The Slavs elected their king and other officials; Kovalevsky, ibid. 124 f., 127, 129, 138 f. In Homeric Greece the kingship was generally hereditary, but the people might elect a war-leader to take command by the side of the king; _Od._ xiv. 237; cf. xiii. 266. There are traces of elective kingship, lasting at least a few generations, in the great majority of early European states; Jenks, _History of Politics_, 87; cf. 35 f.

[986] _Il._ i. 22 ff. For the Lacedaemonians, see Thuc. i. 87.

[987] Tac. _Germ._ 11. 5; _Hist._ v. 17. Sometimes the Germans mingled clamor with the clash of weapons; Amm. Marc. xvi. 12. 13.

[988] Caesar, _B. G._ vii. 21.

[989] Majority rule was unknown to primitive times. The members of the council talked together till they came to a unanimous agreement. If the Homeric Greeks in assembly failed to agree, each party went its own way; _Od._ iii. 150 ff. Among the Slavs the majority forced a unanimous vote by coercing the minority; Kovalevsky, ibid. 122 ff. For the Germans; Seeck, _Gesch. d. Unterg. d. antik. Welt_, i. 213.

[990] For the Homeric Greek assembly, see Hermann-Thumser, _Griech Staatsalt._ 67 f.

[991] _Il._ i. 11 ff.

[992] Ibid. i. 135 ff., 320 ff.

[993] Ibid. vii. 345 ff.

[994] In Italy, Livy i. 45. 2; 49. 8.

[995] This right is proved by the fact that the death of a king freed the neighboring states from their treaty obligations to his community, _e.g._, the Fidenates after the death of Romulus; Dion. Hal. iii. 23. 1; the Latins after the death of Tullus; Dion. Hal. iii. 37. 3; various neighbors after the expulsion of the last Tarquin; Dion. Hal. viii. 64. 2; cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 175, n. 2. At the time of the Caudine disaster (321 B.C.) the Samnite leader assumed that the Roman consuls were competent in their own right to conclude a definitive peace; Livy ix. 2 ff.

[996] Among the Quadi the right to declare war belonged to the council, not to the assembly; Amm. Marc. xxx. 6. 2. With the Saxons the will of the nobles was equivalent to the will of the people; Beowulf, cited by Seeck, ibid. i. 217. 7, see also his notes on p. 531. The Sabine senators (senes) are represented as responsible for the continual wars of their people with the Romans; Livy ii. 18. 11. In general the leading men and the senate were able by their own oath to bind the community; Caes. _B. G._ iv. 11; cf. 13. A chief might work his will by packing an assembly with men on whom he could rely; Tac. _Hist._ iv. 14. The Grand Duke of Russia, relying on his comitatus, sometimes went to war without consulting the people; Kovalevsky, _Mod. Cust. and Anc. Laws_, 142.

[997] Leist, _Graeco-ital. Rechtsgesch._ 130, 136 f. Under favorable conditions the assembly acquired sovereignty, as at Athens and for a time in Russia; Kovalevsky, _Russian Political Institutions_, 17. Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 923 f., following Mommsen (cf. also Post, _Grundlagen des Rechts_, 130; Cramer, _Verfassungsgesch. d. Germ. u. Kelt._ 61 et pass.), is altogether wrong in supposing the assembly to have been originally sovereign.

[998] Tac. _Hist._ iv. 64. Charlemagne suppressed the assemblies of the Saxons except for receiving communications from his missi and for the administration of justice; _Cap. de Part. Sax._ i. 70. 34 (Boretius 26. p. 68).

[999] Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 42.

[1000] _Od._ iii. 214 f.; xiv. 239; xvi. 75, 95 f., 114; xix. 527.

[1001] In Homeric Greece; _Il._ i. 231 f.; iii. 57. The Herulians killed their king merely because they were weary of royal government; Procopius, _Bel. Goth._ ii. 14, p. 422 A. Sometimes the Celtic commons massacred both magistrates and council, and took affairs into their own hands; Polyb. ii. 21; Caesar, _B. G._ iii. 17.

[1002] Hdt. vi. 56.

[1003] _Rhetra_ of Polydorus and Theopompus, in Plut. _Lyc._ 6. This power is essentially the same as the auctoritas of the Roman patres.

[1004] Fustel de Coulanges, _Monarchie Franque_, 598 ff.

[1005] Ibid. 638 ff.

[1006] Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, iii. 239 ff.

[1007] Kovalevsky, _Mod. Cust. and Anc. Laws_, 148.

[1008] The rest of this chapter is largely a reproduction of Botsford, _Lex Curiata_, in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxiii (1908). 498-517.

[1009] P. 2, 176.

[1010] Cic. _Rep._ 28. 50; cf. 23. 43.

[1011] Livy i. 46. 3; 60. 3; ii. 1. 6 f.; 15. 3.

[1012] Cic. _Planc._ 4. 9: “Non est consilium in vulgo.”

[1013] Cf. Livy i. 34. 12.

[1014] P. 145.

[1015] P. 235.

[1016] II. 14. 3: Τῷ δὲ δημοτικῷ πλήθει τρία ταῦτα ἐπέτρεψεν· ἀρχαιρεσιάζειν τε καὶ νόμους ἐπικυροῦν καὶ περὶ πολέμου διαγιγνώσκειν, ὅταν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἔφη.

[1017] I. 49. 7.

[1018] This interpretation, offered by Rubino, is accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 599.

[1019] _Röm. Verf._ 257 ff.

[1020] The treaty with the Sabines rested on the oaths of the two kings alone; Livy i. 13. 4; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 3; Plut. _Rom._ 19. Romulus of his own authority made a hundred years’ truce with Veii; Dion. Hal. ii. 55. 5 f. With the advice of the senate he solicited alliances with the neighboring states; Livy i. 9. 2. Numa personally contracted alliances with the surrounding states; Livy i. 19. 4. Tullus Hostilius made a treaty with the Sabines, the indemnity being fixed by a senatus consultum; Dion. Hal. iii. 32. 6. For other citations, see Rubino, ibid. 264, n. 3.

[1021] Livy i. 24. 4 ff.

[1022] P. 171, n. 5 above.

[1023] Livy i. 30. 7.

[1024] Cf. Livy ii. 22. 5. In 495 the consul, in pursuance of a senatus consultum, made peace with the Volscians at their request; Livy ii. 25. 6. In the same form Cassius the consul in 493 made peace with the Latins (Livy ii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. vi. 18-21, especially 21. 2) and in 486 with the Hernicans; Dion. Hal. viii. 68. 4; 69. 2; Livy ii. 41; cf. Rubino, ibid. 266 f.

[1025] Cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 17. 2; 59. 4.

[1026] Livy iii. 1. 8.

[1027] Dion. Hal. ix. 36. 2 f.; x. 21. 8.

[1028] Livy ii. 39. 9 f.

[1029] Cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 17. 2, 4.

[1030] P. 351; cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 269 ff.

[1031] On the epoch-making rejection of the Caudine treaty of 321, see p. 171, n. 5. 376.

[1032] Suet. _Vesp._ 8; Rubino, ibid. 261.

[1033] Cf. Rubino, ibid. 260.

[1034] Ibid. 263.

[1035] Cf. i. 14. 6; 36. 1. Too much stress should not be laid on this distinction, however, as the Romans always regarded their enemy as the aggressor, and assumed that every war was undertaken for the redress of grievances.

[1036] Livy i. 32.

[1037] Ibid. i. 32.

[1038] P. 1 f., 173. The formula is extremely ancient in origin, but it must have undergone modifications in time, as is indicated by the word prisci applied to the Latins. Possibly the reference to the populus should be similarly explained.

[1039] P. 174.

[1040] Cf. Livy i. 22; 30. 3; 35. 7; 38. 4.

[1041] P. 230.

[1042] P. 171.

[1043] For the Indo-Europeans, see Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 655 ff.; Maine, _Ancient Law_, xv f., 2 ff.; Hirt, _Indogermanen_, ii. 522 ff. There may have been occasional legislation by the assembly in its earliest history; cf. the prohibition of the importation of wine by the Suevi (Caesar, _B. G._ iv. 2), which may have been an act of the kind.

[1044] _Il._ i. 238; ix. 98; _Od._ vi. 12.

[1045] Cic. _Rep._ v. 2. 3; Livy i. 19. 1.

[1046] Livy i. 19. 5; cf. 42. 4; Tac. _Ann._ iii. 26.

[1047] Livy i. 8. 1; Verg. _Aen._ i. 292 f.

[1048] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 10. 17; Livy i. 16.

[1049] On the legislation of the kings, see Voigt, in _Abhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ vii (1879). 555 ff.

[1050] Livy ii. 1. 1.

[1051] Cf. Cic. _Rep._ i. 2. 2. To the end of the republic resort was had in national crises to the numen deorum as the ultimate source of law; Cic. _Phil._ xi. 12. 28.

[1052] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 11.

[1053] Mommsen, ibid. iii. 313; cf. Jenks, _History of Politics_, 89 f.

[1054] In the preceding chapter (p. 153, 157) an attempt is made to determine under what influence the curiate organization and the systematic vote were introduced into the assembly.

[1055] Cf. Gell. v. 19. 9: “Velitis, iubeatis, uti.... Haec ita, uti dixi, ita vos, quirites, rogo.” This reference to an arrogation is quoted here merely for the sake of the formula. For further citations, see Mommsen, ibid. iii. 312, n. 2.

[1056] For ut rogas, see Livy vi. 38. 5; x. 8. 12. Antiquo for “no” may be inferred from the use of antiquare to designate the rejection of a proposal; e.g. Livy iv. 58. 14; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 1108, n. 4; p. 467 below.

[1057] Lex may be related to lēgare, ligare, “to bind”; Brugmann, _Grundriss_, I. i. 134; Corssen, _Aussprache_, i. 444; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 112, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ 1. 315 (“bindende Vorschrift”). Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 308, n. 4, quotes J. Schmidt for the fundamental meaning of the root leg, “to place in order,” connecting it with English “law” (cf. θεσμός, Gesetz); cf. Kretschmer, _Einleitung in die Geschichte der griech. Sprache_, 165; Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 657; Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ 1906. 215.

[1058] Cf. Corssen, _Aussprache_, i. 684.

[1059] Cf. Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb._ 227; Herzog, ibid. i. 116, n. 3 (Rechtsetzen). Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 657, connecting ius with Avest. yaoš, “pure,” develops its meaning through (1) oath of purification in legal procedure, (2) legal procedure, finally (3) human law, right, as distinguished from fas; cf. Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ 1906. 212 (ius = Skt. yōs). On the meaning, see further Nettleship, _Contributions to Latin Lexicography_, 497; Clark, _Practical Jurisprudence_, 16-20.

[1060] For the leges censoriae, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 430.

[1061] Livy i. 26. 7: “Hac lege duumviri creati.”

[1062] On the legum dictio, see Serv. _in Aen._ iii. 89.

[1063] Examples of leges datae are the ordinances of the kings or of extraordinary constitutive magistracies, as the triumviri rei publicae constituendae, municipal laws and provincial regulations established by Rome; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 311 and notes.

[1064] Law of the XII Tables, cited by Gaius, in _Dig._ xlvii. 22. 4: “Dum ne quid ex publica lege corrumpant”; Cato, _Orig._ iv. 13: “Duo exules lege publica (condemnati) et execrati”; Gaius ii. 104; _CIL._ vi. 9404, 10235; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 310, n. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 598 f.

[1065] Ateius Capito’s definition in Gell. x. 20. 2 (“Lex est generale iussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu”) fails to cover all cases, as Gellius immediately shows.

[1066] E.g. the granting of the imperium to Pompey or the recall of Cicero from exile; Gell. x. 20. 3.

[1067] Livy iv. 60. 9; cf. 58. 14.

[1068] Cato, _Orig._ iv. 13; n. 2 above.

[1069] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 598 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 111 ff. The election of a king was a iussus populi, which was equivalent to a lex; Livy i. 22. 1. For an election by the centuriate assembly, see Livy vii. 17. 12. The lex curiata de imperio was regarded strictly as an election; p. 184 ff. On judicial decisions see Lange, ibid. i. 629 f.; ii. 571.

[1070] Cic. _Div._ ii. 35. 74: “Ut comitiorum vel in iudiciis populi vel in iure legum vel in creandis magistratibus”; _Leg._ iii. 3. 10; 15. 33. Iudicia populi practically disappeared, leaving comitia legum and comitia magistratuum; idem, _Sest._ 51. 109; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 326, n. 1.

[1071] The usual expression for the validity of a law is lege populus tenetur; cf. Cic. _Dom._ 16. 41; _Phil._ v. 4. 10; Gell. xv. 27. 4; Gaius i. 3. For further citations, see Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 356, n. 1; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 159, n. 1, 309, n. 3.

[1072] Cf. Livy. ix. 34. 8-10.

[1073] _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2.

[1074] Ascribed to Ancus Marcius by Livy (i. 32. 2) and Dionysius (iii. 36. 2 ff.), to Romulus and his successors by Pomponius (ibid.), but destroyed in the Gallic conflagration (Livy vi. 1. 1).

[1075] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ 1. 314 f.; Voigt, in _Abhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ vii (1879). 559; Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 657 f.

[1076] The sources uniformly represent the kings as acting alone in the admission of individuals and of entire communities to citizenship. The view of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 29, that the assembly coöperated rests upon his theory of an original popular sovereignty and of an original patrician state, neither of which has any basis in fact.

[1077] Cic. _Rep._ v. 2. 3; Livy 1. 38. 7; 44. 3; 56. 1 f.

[1078] Ibid. i. 43.

[1079] Ibid. i. 44. 1; cf. especially the summary condemnation and execution of Mettius; ibid. i. 28. Livy’s complaint (i. 49. 4) against Tarquin the Proud is that he decided capital cases without assessors, not that he allowed no appeal.

[1080] Lange’s view (_Röm. Alt._ i. 314) that under the kings there was no legislation, except the passing of the lex de imperio, cannot be proved and seems unlikely. Mommsen’s hypothesis (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 327) that under the kings the comitia were exclusively legislative, elective and judicial functions being a republican innovation, is disproved by the facts presented in this chapter. There is no reason for supposing that the republic brought to the comitia any absolutely new functions.

[1081] Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 662.

[1082] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 298 f.

[1083] Cf. Livy i. 26. 8 ff.; Cic. _Mil._ 3. 7; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 8, 305 ff.

[1084] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 2. 4; 7. 13; Livy i. 13. 4.

[1085] I. 17. 11. Cicero (_Rep._ ii. 13. 25), however, supposes he was elected by the people.

[1086] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 21. 37; Livy i. 41-6; Dion. Hal. iv. 8.

[1087] Livy i. 49. 3.

[1088] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 6 f.

[1089] Cf. Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25; 17. 31; 18. 33; 20. 35; Livy i. 17. 10; 32. 1; 35. 1, 6; 46. 1; Jordan, _Könige im alt. Ital._ 25 ff.

[1090] Cf. Livy xxii. 35. 4.

[1091] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25 (Numa); 17. 31 (Tullus Hostilius); 18. 33 (Ancus Marcius); 20. 35 (Tarquinius Priscus).

[1092] The formula for the curiate law is unknown. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 307 ff. 407 f., 459, 461 f., supposes that it not only pledged the people to obedience, but also defined the imperium and bound the king not to exceed the limitations imposed; that every constitutional modification of the imperium required a corresponding modification of the curiate act. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 111 f., further assumes that the law contained the formula of treaty on which in his opinion the state rested, and that before the age of written documents this treaty was handed down orally through the repetition of the law. Lange’s theory, which runs throughout his great work, seems to rest on the single statement of Tacitus, _Ann._ xi. 22: “Quaestores regibus etiam tum imperantibus instituti sunt, quod lex curiata ostendit a L. Bruto repetita.” But this statement proves only that the quaestors were mentioned in the curiate law, and this circumstance is otherwise explained below, p. 189. That the law defined and limited the imperium is unlikely (1) because in early time, when the act had a real meaning, precise definitions were unknown; (2) because there is no evidence for it.

P. Servilius Rullus stated, evidently in his rogation, that the object of the curiate act to be passed for the decemviri provided for in his bill was “ut ii decemviratum habeant, quos plebs designaverit” (Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 10. 26)—a formula probably copied from earlier laws. From this statement and from evidence furnished below (p. 185 f.) it is practically certain that the formula for the curiate act ran somewhat like that for an election.

[1093] It is true that Cicero (p. 183, n. 2) supposes the king to have been elected by the curiate assembly, and the imperium to have been afterward sanctioned by the same assembly. This double vote of the curiae seems as improbable as it was unnecessary. We may reasonably consider the alleged first vote a mistaken inference from the later election of higher magistrates by the centuries. The assumption of an acclamation as the first stage in the process accords far better with primitive conditions.

[1094] The people claimed that the right to elect magistrates had come down to them from Servius Tullius; Appian, _Lib._ 112 (probably from Polyb.); Livy i. 60. 4; p. 360.

[1095] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 26: “Maiores de singulis magistratibus bis vos sententiam ferre voluerunt. Nam cum centuriata lex censoribus ferebatur, cum curiata ceteris patriciis magistratibus, tum iterum de eisdem iudicabatur, ut esset reprehendendi potestas, si populum beneficii sui paeniteret”; cf. 10. 26; _Rep._ ii. 13. 25.

[1096] _Röm. Verf._ 361 f., 379 f. For a summary of the various modern views, see Nissen, _Beitr. zum röm. Staatsr._ 42-6.

[1097] P. 435.

[1098] It is not probable that an official could pass the law for a colleague, the intention being that each higher magistrate should personally propose and carry it for himself; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 610, n. 2.

[1099] _Leg. Agr._ ii. 10. 26: “Hoc inauditum et plane novum, ut ei curiata lege magistratus detur, cui nullis comitiis ante sit datus.”

[1100] In Gell. xiii. 15. 4: “Magistratus ... iustus curiata datur lege.”

[1101] In Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 29: “Tum ii decemviri, inquit, eodem iure sint, quo qui optuma lege.” In keeping with this statement is the object of the curiate act as given by the Servilian rogation (p. 183, n. 5).

[1102] Plaut. _Most._ 713; Cic. _Off._ i. 31. 111; 42. 151; _Fin._ iv. 12. 31; _Rep._ iii. 17. 27; _Cat._ i. 9. 21; _Sest._ 43. 94; _Planc._ 36. 88; _Marc._ 1. 4; _Fam._ iii. 8. 6; _Att._ xv. 3. 2.

[1103] Gaius ii. 197: “Proinde utile sit legatum atque si optimo iure relictum esset; optimum ius est per damnationem legati.” It is clear that this statement refers merely to the form.

[1104] Fabius Pictor, in Gell. i. 12. 14: “Uti quae optima lege fuit, ita te, Amata, capio.”

[1105] Cic. _Phil._ xi. 12. 30: “Senatui placere C. Cassium pro consule provinciam optinere, ut qui optimo iure eam provinciam optinuerit” (with all the formality usual in cases of appointment to that province); v. 16. 44: “Sit (Caesar) pro praetore eo iure quo qui optimo.”

[1106] Cic. _Har. Resp._ 7. 14 (reference is to the complete and perfect title with which Cicero holds his dwelling); _Phil._ ix. 7. 17 (a burial place granted by the state to a family with a perfect title); _Lex Agr._ (_CIL._ 200) 27: “_Is ager locus do_mneis privatus ita, utei quoi optuma lege privatus est, esto.”

[1107] _Lex Col. Gen._ (_CIL._ ii. Supplb. 5439) 67: “Quicumque pontif(ices) quique augures c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) post h(anc) l(egem) datam in conlegium pontific(um) augurumq(ue) in demortui damnative loco h(ac) lege lectus cooptatusve erit, is pontif(ex) augurq(ue) in c(olonia) Iul(ia) in conlegium pontifex augurq(ue) esto, ita uti qui optuma lege in quaque colon(ia) pontif(ices) auguresq(ue) sunt erunt”; ch. 66: “Ei pontifices c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) sunto, ... ita uti qui optima lege optumo iure in quaque colon(ia) pontif(ices) augures sunt erunt.” Optima lege refers to the perfection of their right to the sacerdotal places (cf. 67 above), whereas optumo iure seems to apply to the privileges and honors attaching to these positions.

[1108] Papinian, in _Dig._ iv. 4. 31 (slaves manumitted in the way here described were exempt from payment to maintain their freedom, on the ground that they were emancipated in a perfectly legal way—optimo iure); _Lex Salp._ (_CIL._ ii. 1963) 28: “Ut qui optumo iure Latini libertini liberi sunt erunt” (Just as are, or shall be, Latin freedmen or freemen of best standing); Cic. _Verr._ II. v. 22. 58: “Quae colonia est in Italia tam bono iure, quod tam immune municipium, quod ... sit usum.”

[1109] _Lex Col. Gen._ 67, quoted in n. above.

[1110] Fest. 198. 32; cf. 189. 21. Applied to the censor, dictator, and interrex in Livy ix. 34. 10-12, it has reference not to amount of power but length of office.

[1111] See p. 186, n. 5.

[1112] As the _Lex Col. Gen._ 66 f.; p. 186, n. 1 above.

[1113] P. 186.

[1114] Magistratus optuma lege is the same as magistratus iustus; cf. Messala, p. 185, n. 6. In this connection iustus does not signify legal as opposed to illegal, but legally or technically perfect, correct; cf. for the meaning “proper,” “perfect,” Cic. _Fam._ ii. 10. 3 (iusta victoria); Caes. _B. G._ i. 23 (iustum iter); Livy i. 4. 4 (iusti cursum amnis); xxxix. 2. 8 (iusto proelio). When Cicero (_Red. in Sen._ 11. 27), accordingly, speaks of the comitia centuriata as the iusta comitia, he does not imply that the other comitia and their acts lack legality, but rather that they carry less weight; and when as late as 300 the patricians claimed that they alone had iustum imperium et auspicium (Livy x. 8. 9), they could only mean that their right to these powers was better established than that of the plebeians. C. Flaminius, consul in 217, possessed imperium, which he was actually exercising over his troops, but which was not iustum, for he had neglected the auspical formalities appropriate to the entrance upon the consulship (Livy xxii. 1. 5). It would be wrong, however, to suppose with Nissen, _Beitr. z. röm. Staatsr._ 51, that he commanded on the sufferance only of his soldiers.

[1115] Including the auspices; see n. above.

[1116] The usual expression is “de suo imperio curiatam legem tulit,” or “populum consuluit;” Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25; 17. 31; 18. 33; 20. 35; 21. 38; Livy ix. 38. 15. According to Cicero, _Phil._ v. 16. 45, the senate grants the imperium to Octavianus, a private citizen. The interrex, who could not have had a curiate law, nevertheless possessed imperium (Livy i. 17. 5 f.), and the absolute imperium was granted by a decree of the senate (Livy iii. 4. 9; Sall. _Cat._ 29; _Hist._ i. 77. 22). See also Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 9: “Imperia, potestates, legationes, quom senatus creverit populusve iusserit, ex urbe exeunto;” _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 17: “Omnes potestates, imperia, curationes ab universo populo proficisci convenit” (reference cannot here be to the curiate assembly, which in this connection Cicero does not recognize as the people). For the centuriate assembly, see Livy xxvi. 18. 9: “Omnes non centuriae modo sed etiam homines P. Scipioni imperium esse in Hispania iusserunt;” 22. 15: “Centuriam vero iuniorum seniores consulere voluisse, quibus imperium suffragio mandarunt.” For the tribal assembly, see T. Annius Luscus, _Orat. adv. Ti. Gracch._ in Fest. 314. 30: “Imperium quod plebes ... dederat.” It is a fact, too, that the tribal assembly had power to abrogate the imperium; Livy xxvii. 20. 11; 21. 1, 4; xxix. 19. 6; cf. p. 342, 360, 367. Also from Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 28 (“Vidit ... sine curiata lege decemviros potestatem habere non posse, quoniam per novem tribus essent constituti”) we must infer that had these decemvirs been elected in the regular way, by the thirty-five tribes, they would have had the potestas without a curiate law. The phrase nullis comitiis in 11. 29 (“Si hoc fieri potest, ut ... quisquam nullis comitiis imperium aut potestatem adsequi posset, etc.,”) implies that the imperium or potestas may be obtained in more than one form of comitia—either the centuriata or the tributa. In the same paragraph he asserts that on the principle followed by Servilius, whom he is assailing, any one could obtain the imperium or potestas without the vote of any comitia, for he does not consider the comitia curiata real comitia, seeing that they have degenerated into a mere form. From these passages it is clear that Cicero believed the imperium or potestas to be conferred by the centuries or tribes and merely confirmed by the curiae.

[1117] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 27: “Curiatis eam (potestatem) comitiis ... confirmavit.”

[1118] Livy ix. 38 f.; Dion. Hal. v. 70. 4: Ὃν ἃν ἥ τε βουλὴ προέληται καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἐπιψηφίσῃ. To avoid unnecessary delay the sanctioning act was probably always kept free from the obligation of the promulgatio per trinum nundinum; Livy iii. 27. 1; iv. 14. 1; p. 396 f. below.

[1119] The consuls proposed the curiate law for the quaestors; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22. That these inferior officials required the law is further indicated by Cic. _Phil._ ii. 20. 50. For the lower functionaries in general, see Gell. xiii. 15. 4. The agrarian rogation of Servilius Rullus provided that the praetor should propose the law for the decemviri agris adsignandis required for the administration of his measure; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 28.

That the magisterial helpers who were in need of the curiate law included not only the quaestors but also the lictors seems to be indicated by Cic. _Rep._ ii. 17. 31: “Ne insignibus quidem regiis Tullus nisi iussu populi est ausus uti. Nam ut sibi duodecim lictores cum fascibus anteire” (the remainder of the sentence is missing). Dion. Hal. ii. 62. 1 ascribes the introduction of the lictors to Tarquin the Elder. This curiate law, however, may not be thought of by Cicero and Dionysius as a mere sanction, but rather as a legislative act which called the lictors into being; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 372, n. 1, 613, n. 1.

[1120] In the opinion of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 300 ff., the election conferred potestas only, the lex curiata imperium.

[1121] Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3.

[1122] Ibid.; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30: “Consuli si legem curiatam non habet, attingere rem militarem non licet;” Livy v. 52. 15: “Comitia curiata, quae rem militarem continent.” These statements, however, are not, as some have imagined, to the effect that the lex curiata _confers_ military power upon the magistrate.

[1123] Dio Cass. xli. 43. 3.

[1124] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25.

[1125] Cic. _Att._ iv. 18. 4: “Appius sine lege suo sumptu in Ciliciam cogitat.”

[1126] Ibid.

[1127] Such an article in favor of the decemviri agris adsignandis appeared in the Servilian agrarian rogation of 63; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 29; cf. p. 186.

[1128] According to Dion. Hal. ii. 5 f., those who are entering upon an office pass the night in tents and in the morning under the open sky take the auspices. Livy, xxi. 63. 10, states that the consul dons his official robe in his own house, but neither he nor any other authority intimates that the public auspices were taken in his private house, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 616, asserts.

[1129] Livy ix. 39. 1.

[1130] Ibid. xxi. 63. 9; Varro, in Gell. xiv. 7. 9.

[1131] Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 365 ff.

[1132] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 612, n. 1.

[1133] Sall. _Cat._ 29: “Ea potestas per senatum more Romano magistratui maxuma permittitur, exercitum parare, bellum gerere, coercere omnibus modis socios atque cives, domi militiaeque imperium atque iudicium summum habere; aliter sine populi iussu nullius earum rerum consuli ius est;” _Hist._ i. 77. 22: (The senate decreed) “uti Appius Claudius cum Q. Catulo pro consule et ceteris quibus imperium est, urbi praesidio sint operamque dent, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat.” The interpretation which includes the interrex, Appius Claudius, with those who possessed the imperium is confirmed by Livy i. 17. 5 f., who informs us that the imperium of an interrex lasted five days.

[1134] Livy ix. 38 f.

[1135] Cf. Nissen, _Beitr. z. röm. Staatsr._ 51 f.

[1136] XXI. 63. 5 ff.

[1137] Fest. 347. 14; p. 336 below.

[1138] Cf. Livy xxii. 1. 5 ff.

[1139] Nissen, ibid., supposes, too, that Appius Claudius, consul in 179, went to the army without a curiate law and for that reason the soldiers refused to obey him; Livy xli. 10. Livy mentions the neglect of other formalities, but makes no reference to the curiate act.

[1140] Livy xxv. 37. 5 f.; cf. xxvi. 2. 1.

[1141] Ibid. xxvi. 2. 2.

[1142] Dio Cass. xli. 43. In this instance the senate had conferred dictatorial power upon the magistrates by its supreme decree (Caesar, _B. C._ i. 5); that they were constitutionally in command, whereas the general direction of affairs by Pompey, however autocratic, was only informal, is expressly stated by Dio Cass. xl. 43. 5. What Nissen, _Beitr. z. röm. Staatsr._ 53 f., says of these magistrates’ lack of military imperium is therefore baseless.

[1143] Cic. _Att._ iv. 18. 4; _Q. Fr._ iii. 4. 6; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 47; xxxix. 65. The praetor was Ser. Sulpicius Galba.

[1144] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25; cf. _Q. Fr._ iii. 2. 3; p. 417 below.

[1145] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25: “Appius ... dixit ... legem curiatam consuli ferri opus esse, necesse non esse.”

[1146] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2.

[1147] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 4; _Q. Fr._ iii. 3. 2; cf. p. 111 above.

[1148] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 3 ff.; 18. 3; _Q. Fr._ iii. 2. 3; 3. 2 f.

[1149] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 3.

[1150] The compact (Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2) made between Appius and his colleague in the consulship, 54, parties of the first part, and Memmius and Domitius, candidates for the consulship for the ensuing year, parties of the second part, that the parties of the second part in the event of their election should produce three augurs to testify that the parties of the first part had proposed and carried a lex curiata, or in failure to produce the witnesses should forfeit to the parties of the first part a specified sum of money, assumes, inasmuch as the evidence was not to be forthcoming till after the election, (1) that the lex curiata was not essential to holding the elective comitia, but (2) that it was highly advantageous to the promagistrate. Cicero, who often refers to the postponement of the elective comitia of this year, never intimates that the want of a lex curiata stood in the way.

Varro, consul in 216, must have found it extremely difficult, though perhaps not impossible, after carrying his lex de imperio in the comitium, to complete the consular and pretorian elections in the Campus Martius—all between sunrise and sunset on the same day; Livy xxii. 35. 4.

[1151] P. 192.

[1152] Dio Cass. xli. 43. 3. Livy, v. 52. 15, proves that the comitia curiata could meet only within the pomerium.

[1153] Dio Cass. xli. 43. 2.

[1154] Cf. Livy v. 52. 15.

[1155] Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3. The date of the trial was Feb. 7, 56; Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 3. 2.

[1156] _Lex Cornelia de XX Quaest._ in _CIL._ i. 202; Cic. _Verr._ i. 10. 30; Schol. Gronov. 395. Mark Antony when quaestor performed the functions of his office through the year without the sanctioning law; Cic. _Phil._ ii. 20. 50.

[1157] It is always spoken of in the singular, the implication being that one act served for all; cf. especially Caesar, _B. C._ i. 6; Livy ix. 38. 15; Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3.

[1158] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 48: “Itaque auspicato ... tr. pl. comitiis curiatis creati sunt”; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; ix. 41. 2; cf. Livy ii. 56. 2; p. 262 below.

[1159] V. 46. 10.

[1160] _Röm. Verf._ 381 and n. 2.

[1161] Based on his reading of Fest. 351. 34: “(Triginta lictoribus l)ex curiata fertur; quod Hanni(bal in propinquitate) Romae cum esset, nec ex praesidi(is discedere liceret), Q. Fabius Maximus Verru(cosus egit per tr. pl. et Ma)rcellus cos. facere in(stituit.”...).

[1162] The attendance on the comitia tributa was sometimes as low as five to the tribe; Cic. _Sest._ 51. 109.

[1163] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 16 f.; in connection with the preceding note and p. 127.

[1164] Mommsen’s restoration is, “(Transit imperium nec denuo l)ex curiata fertur, quod Hanni(bal in vicinitate) Romae cum esset nec ex praesidi(is tuto decedi posset), Q. Fabius Maximus Verru(cossus M. Claudius Ma)rcellus cos. facere in(stituerunt)”; _Röm. Forsch_, ii. 412; _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 613, n. 3. Bergk, _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xix (1864). 606, with less success proposes translatione imperii; cf. also Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 679. The passage is in fact past healing, though Mommsen’s reconstruction is an improvement on Rubino’s.

[1165] The second inference is from the present tense of the verb “fertur.”

[1166] Livy xxiv. 7-9.

[1167] Ibid. 9. 3.

[1168] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 679. It is not to be assumed, however, that the senatus consultum had to be repeated at every such case of transition. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 175, 704 f., who gives the measure a wider constitutional scope, assumes that it was a plebiscite. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 413, supposes that the two consuls on entering office in 214 simply omitted the curiate sanction on the ground that they already held the imperium, which was unlimited in duration, and that the jurists accepted this procedure as constitutional. The specific motive for this action, Mommsen asserts, was the fact that they were absent from Rome at the opening of their official year. But the truth is that they were both present (Livy xxiv. 10 f.), and had accordingly no occasion for establishing such precedent on their own responsibility. All they did in the matter, then, was to take advantage of a measure already enacted.

[1169] Cf. Livy xxi. 63; xxii. 1.

[1170] The existence of the measure of 215 proves that the curiate assembly and curiate law were at the time something more than a mere formality.

[1171] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2; cf. p. 113, 194, n. 2. The Ciceronian passage, our only authority on this point, seems to imply a custom.

[1172] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30.

[1173] On the servility of the lictors, see Cic. _Verr._ ii. 29. 72; _Pis._ 22. 53.

[1174] That the comitia curiata were no longer attended by the people in the time of Cicero is attested by _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 27: “Curiatis ... comitiis, quae vos non initis”; cf. n. 6.

[1175] _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 27. On the Aelian and Fufian statutes, see p. 116, 358 f.

[1176] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31: “Illis (comitiis) ad speciam atque ad usurpationem vetustatis per ... lictores auspiciorum causa adumbratis.”

[1177] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30: “Consulibus legem curiatam ferentibus a tribunis plebis saepe est intercessum”; cf. Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3.

[1178] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 29; p. 227 above.

[1179] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25; p. 193 above.

[1180] Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 905.

[1181] This chapter historically follows ch. iv.

[1182] Livy i. 60. 4. This is the first act which Livy records, and it is his opinion that the last king never consulted the people; i. 49. 3. His view harmonizes with that of Dionysius, iv. 40. 3, that Servius intended to resign his office and establish a republic, had he lived.

[1183] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 53: “(Valerius Poplicola) legem ad populum tulit eam, quae centuriatis comitiis prima lata est.” Dionysius, iv. 20. 3, supposes that Servius actually used this assembly for elections, legislation, and declarations of war, that Tarquin the Proud set aside the Servian arrangement (iv. 43. 1), which was restored at the beginning of the republic. The first of these ideas is an inference from republican usage, not based on knowledge of any definite act of the assembly in the regal period. In this matter, Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 264, has given him too much credit.

[1184] An objection to the view represented by Soltau, ibid. 270-5, that the coöperation of the army in the overthrow of Tarquin the Proud caused its immediate transformation into the comitia centuriata, is that we have no ground for accepting as historical the details of the overthrow to which he calls attention. In p. 285-96 he attempts to reconstruct the earliest constitution of the republic on the theory that the army elected the consuls (283), that for a time those who were not actually on military duty were excluded from a vote in the centuriate assembly. The sources give no information regarding such an assembly, and we have no right to assume it, at least as a regular, recognized institution, for any period however early. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 465, supposes that with the founding of the republic the assembly began to diverge from the army, the two institutions having previously been identical; cf. Guiraud, in _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 1.

[1185] Livy ix. 13. 1.

[1186] Livy vii. 16. 4.

[1187] Livy v. 28. 7; vii. 36. 9.

[1188] Livy viii. 31.

[1189] Ibid. 32. 1.

[1190] Livy viii. 32 f.

[1191] Livy x. 19. 11.

[1192] Livy vii. 36. 9.

[1193] Ibid. ch. 37, especially § 9.

[1194] Cic. _Fam._ xi. 13. 3; Livy vii. 37. 9. viii. 32. 1; ix. 13. 1; x. 19. 11; xxviii. 26. 12; xl. 36. 4; xlii. 53. 1; Dion. Hal. iii. 13. 1.

[1195] Livy vii. 35. 1 f.

[1196] Livy v. 46. 5 ff.

[1197] Livy vii. 16. 7; p. 297.

[1198] Livy xxvi. 2. 2 (211 B.C.). On the military contio, see also p. 140.

[1199] Laelius Felix, _Lib. ad. Muc._ in Gell. xv. 27. 5: “Centuriata autem comitia intra pomerium fieri nefas esse, quia exercitum extra urbem imperari oporteat, intra urbem imperari ius non sit.”

[1200] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3: Συνῄει δὲ τὸ πλῆθος εἰς τὸ πρὸ τῆς πόλεως Ἄρειον πεδίον ὑπὸ λοχαγοῖς καὶ σημείοις τεταγμένον ὥσπερ ἐν πολέμῳ; p. 211. During the session Janiculum was occupied by a garrison, above which, in view of the Campus Martius, waved a flag; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 27; cf. Gell. xv. 27. 5.

[1201] P. 104, 140 f., 244.

[1202] _Comm. Consular._ in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88; Livy xxxix. 15. 11; Laelius Felix, in Gell. xv. 27. 5; Fest. ep. 103; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 15; Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 1. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 216, 294, n. 2, is of the opinion that the centuriate assembly was termed exercitus because it met for military exercise on the Campus Martius. But we have no evidence that the assembly ever took such exercise; in fact the drill of the proletarian mob would be hardly less ridiculous than that of the nonagenarians, both of whom had a right to vote in the assembly.

[1203] IV. 84. 5.

[1204] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 216 and n. 3.

[1205] Fabius Pictor, _Ann._ i, in Gell. x. 15. 3 f.: “Dialem flaminem ... religio est classem procinctam extra pomerium, id est, exercitum armatum, videre; idcirco rarenter flamen Dialis creatus consul est, cum bella consulibus mandabantur.” There was no objection to this flamen’s seeing the comitia centuriata, but the armed centuries it was not lawful for him to see. Cf. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 93: “Alia de causa hic magistrates (quaestor) non potest exercitum urbanum convocare; censor, consul, dictator, interrex potest, quod censor exercitum centuriato constituit quinquennalem, cum lustrare et in urbem ad vexillum ducere debet.” But the term exercitus urbanus sometimes denotes the body of men enlisted for military service from those who were ordinarily exempt; Livy xxii. 11. 9.

[1206] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 265, supposes that in the original form of census-taking the citizens were so arranged in companies under their leaders as to constitute an army ready to be led against the enemy. But the only citation he offers (Dion. Hal. ii. 14, perhaps for iv. 22. 1; see n. below) has no bearing on the matter.

[1207] IV. 22, i: Κελεύσας τοὺς πολίτας ἅπαντας συνελθεῖν εἰς τὸ μέγιστον τῶν πρὸ τῆς πόλεως πεδίων ἔχοντας τὰ ὅπλα καὶ τάξας τοὺς θ’ἱππεῖς κατὰ τέλη καὶ τοὺς πεζοὺς ἐν φάλαγγι καὶ τοὺς ἐσταλμένους τὸν φιλικὸν ὁπλισμὸν ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ἑκάστους λόχοις καθαρμὸν αὐτῶν ἐποιήσατο.

[1208] _L. L._ vi. 86: “Censor ... praeconi sic imperato ut viros vocet.... Omnes quirites pedites armatos, privatosque curatores omnium tribuum, si quis pro se sive pro alio rationem dari volet, vocato in licium huc ad me” (Mommsen’s reading, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 361, n. 6). Spengel reads, “Omnes quirites, (equites) pedites, magistratos privatosque, curatores,” etc., in which armatos does not appear.

[1209] Such an inspection by the censors, if it ever existed, must have fallen early into disuse (cf. Mommsen, ibid. iii. 397); but we could more reasonably suppose that the inspection of the arms and of the physical condition of the men always belonged to the officers who attended to the levy; Polyb. vi. 20.

[1210] Cf. Livy xliii. 14. 8: “Censores edixerunt ... qui in patris aut avi potestate essent, eorum nomina ad se ederentur.” The father gave the census of his son; Fest. ep. 66: “Duicensus (census of two) dicebatur cum altero, id est cum filio census;” Dion. Hal. ix. 36. 3. The son was classed according to the census of the father; Livy xxiv. 11. 7.

[1211] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 15. 6; v. 75. 3; Gell. iv. 20. 3 ff.

[1212] Notwithstanding Genz, _Centuriatverf._ 11; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 477.

[1213] Polyb. vi. 20 ff. The Romans were of the opinion that the same principle held for the earliest times; Varro, _L. L._ v. 89; Dion. Hal. iv. 14; cf. Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 337.

[1214] Polyb. vi. 19. 2.

[1215] The five classes contained accordingly 80, 20, 20, 20, and 28 centuries respectively; cf. p. 66 f., 77; see also table on p. 210. A great difference exists between Livy and Dionysius, on the one hand, and Cicero, on the other, as to the number of centuries in the highest class. Cicero (_Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Nunc rationem videtis esse talem, ut equitum centuriae cum sex suffragiis et prima classis addita centuria, quae ad summum usum urbis fabris tignariis est data, LXXXVIIII centurias habebat”) states that the eighteen centuries of knights, the centuries of the first class, and one century of mechanics amounted to eighty-nine, which would give but seventy to the first class. The most satisfactory explanation of this difficulty seems to be that Cicero, while professing to describe the earlier centuriate system, had in mind a formative stage of the new organization, in which the first class comprised seventy centuries; p. 67, 215, n. 2. On the number in the fifth class, see p. 66, 77, 208.

[1216] P. 68.

[1217] The two are mentioned by Livy i. 43. 3 and Dion. Hal. iv. 17. 3; vii. 59. 4. Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 1. 1, speaks of a guild of coppersmiths, and Plut. _Num._ 17, refers to the same guild and to that of the carpenters, ascribing both to Numa as founder. Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 22. 39; _Orat._ 46. 156, mentions only the century of carpenters. Placing this century with the first class, he either overlooks that of the smiths or wishes to reckon it with the second class (cf. Huschke, _Verf. des Serv._ 153). As he reckons the total number of centuries at one hundred and ninety-three, he has allowed for both.

[1218] Plut. _Num._ 17; also n. above.

[1219] I. 43. 3.

[1220] _Rep._ ii. 22. 39; cf. n. 2 above.

[1221] IV. 17. 3.

[1222] Cf. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 91 f. with citations.

[1223] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40; Livy i. 43. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 17. 3 f.; vii. 59. 5; cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 91; Cato, in Gell. xx. 2.

[1224] Plut. _Num._ 17, speaks of only one guild of musicians, the pipers. But the cornicines formed a guild in imperial times; _CIL._ vi. 524. The two centuries were united in the collegium aeneatorum; Fest. ep. 20; _CIL._ vi. 10220 f.; Domazewski, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1954.

[1225] P. 68, 80.

[1226] _Röm. Trib._ 137, accepted by Genz, _Centurienverf._ 3, 8; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 254, 317, 520, n. 1. Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 172, assumes ten and includes them in the fifth class. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 471, supposes the accensi to have included the entire fifth class, which in his opinion was not instituted till the beginning of the republic.

[1227] I. 43. 7.

[1228] _Rep._ ii. 22. 40: “Quin etiam accensis velatis, liticinibus, cornicinibus, proletariis.”

[1229] _CIL._ vi. 9219: “Praef(ectus) c(enturiae) a(ccensorum) v(elatorum)”; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. p. xi, n. 1; Ulpian, _Vat. Frag._ 138, mentions the privileges of this century. A decuria of the accensi velati is referred to by _CIL._ vi. 1973; cf. Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 136.

[1230] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 282; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 135 ff.; Domazewski, ibid. iii. 1953 f.

[1231] P. 68.

[1232] _XII Tables_, in Gell. xvi. 10. 5: “Adsiduo vindex adsiduus esto. Proletario iam civi, cui, quis volet, vindex esto.”

[1233] Livy i. 43. 8; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; Ennius, in Gell. xvi. 10. 1.

[1234] IV. 18. 2.

[1235] That there was a proletarian century, besides the accensi velati, in the comitia centuriata is proved by Livy i. 43. 8; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40. Mommsen’s attempt (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 237 f., 285 f.) to rule this century out of existence has failed, notwithstanding the approval of some recent writers, as Domazewski, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1953. Cf. Kübler, ibid. iii. 1521 ff.

[1236] IV. 17. 2; vii. 59. 3.

[1237] Cf. Livy i. 43. 10.

[1238] Cf. p. 66, 77, n. 2.

[1239] P. 77 and n. 2.

[1240] 177. 21: “‘Niquis scivit’ centuria est, quae dicitur a Ser. Tullio rege constituta, in qua liceret ei suffragium ferre, qui non tulisset in sua, nequis civis suffragii iure privaretur.... Sed in ea centuria, neque censetur quisquam, neque centurio praeficitur, neque centurialis potest esse, quia nemo certus est eius centuriae. Est autem ni quis scivit nisi quis scivit.”

[1241] As does Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 285 f.

[1242] This view accords best with the words of Livy i. 43. 7: “In his accensi, cornicines tubicinesque, in tres centurias distributi” (they were reckoned among the thirty).

[1243] Accepted by Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 152, but rejected by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 283, n. 1.

[1244] P. 7, 62, 74 ff. 93, 96.

[1245] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Equitum centuriae cum sex suffragiis”; Fest. 334. 29. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82, is uncertain.

[1246] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39 (n. above); Livy i. 36. 7; 43. 9.

[1247] P. 62, 93.

[1248] P. 93.

[1249] L. Scipio Asiagenus retained his public horse till, six years after his consulship, he was deprived of it by Cato the censor; Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 18; Livy xxxix. 44. 1. Both censors of the year 204 had public horses; Livy xxix. 37. 8. The senators were equites and voted in the equestrian centuries as late as 129; Cic. _Rep._ iv. 2. 2; cf. Gerathewohl, _Reiter und Rittercent._ 77 and n. 2 f.

[1250] P. 94.

[1251] P. 96.

[1252] Livy viii. 8, while describing the manipular arrangement under the year 340, assigns the beginning of it to the time of Camillus, considering it due to the introduction of pay; Plut. _Cam._ 40 (for change of armor at time of Camillus); cf. Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 278; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 332 f.; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 235.

[1253] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3 (p. 203, n. 2). There seems to be no reason for doubting this statement; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 1100.

[1254] P. 157 b.

[1255] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 563. His citations, however (Fest. 177. 27; Cic. _Orat._ ii. 64. 260), do not prove the point; Herzog, ibid.

[1256] Dion. Hal. iv. 21. 1; x. 17.

[1257] Livy i. 43. 11; Dion. Hal. iv. 20. 3-5; vii. 59. 3-8; x. 17. 3. On the prerogative equestrian centuries, see Livy i. 43. 8; v. 18. 1: “Praerogativa ... creant” (corrupt text); x. 22. 1: “Praerogativae et primo vocatae centuriae ... dicebant”; Fest. 249. 7.

[1258] Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49; _Q. Fr._ ii. 14. 4; _Div._ i. 45. 103; Fest. ibid.

[1259] Ch. iv.

[1260] P. 64, 86 f.

[1261] P. 86 f.

[1262] V. 18. 1 f.; “P. Licinium Calvum praerogativa tribunum militum non petentem creant ... omnesque deinceps ex collegio eiusdem anni refici apparebat.... Qui priusquam renuntiarentur iure vocatis tribubus.... Calvus ita verba fecit.” We might amend this evidently corrupt passage either by changing praerogativa to the plural, as do Müller (2d ed. 1888) and Weissenborn (8th ed. 1885), thus making it refer to the equestrian centuriae. At the same time we might read iis revocatis (scil. praerogativis). The passage would then apply to the Servian arrangement. Or we could bring it to the support of the reformed order by reading creat (cf. Madvig). The preferable interpretation of the qui priusquam ... tribubus clause seems to be “Before they could be declared elected on the official reports from the tribes,” the official reports being counted tribe by tribe, as will hereafter appear; p. 225. See also on this passage, Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 10 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 496. Here, as often elsewhere, Ullrich, _Centuriatcom._ 14, is wrong. But it is impossible to prove or to disprove anything by the emendation of such a passage.

[1263] VI. 21. 5: “Omnes tribus bellum iusserunt.” As the tribal assembly did not declare war, this passage must refer to the reformed comitia (Lange, ibid.; Plüss, ibid. 13), unless omnes tribus is carelessly used to designate the unanimous vote of the populus Romanus. The assembly tributim mentioned by Livy vii. 16. 7 for the year 357 was tribal, not centuriate as Ullrich, ibid. 15, supposes.

[1264] In fact some scholars have assigned the reform to the decemvirs, 451; cf. Peter, _Epoch. d. Verfassungsgesch._ 75; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 361 ff.

[1265] P. 77 f., 214.

[1266] X. 22. 1: “Eumque et praerogativae et primo vocatae omnes centuriae.” Praerogativae refers to the equestrian centuriae and hence to the Servian organization. It is hazardous, however, to make so much depend on a single letter; should final e be dropped from this adjective, the sentence would still read correctly.

[1267] P. 57 f., 66 f., 86 f.

[1268] I. 43. 12.

[1269] Cf. xxiv. 7. 12 (215 B.C.): “Eo die cum sors praerogativae Aniensi iuniorum exisset”; 9. 3: “Praerogativae suffragium iniit ... eosdem consules ceterae centuriae ... dixerunt”; xxvi. 22. 2 f.; xxvii. 6. 3.

[1270] Livy xl. 51 is evidence that the censors had power to make changes as extensive as these.

[1271] Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 108, preferred Fabius, and his view has been accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 499; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 326; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 75; Willems, _Droit public Röm._ 93; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 384; and others. But in his _Staatsr._ iii. 254, n. 4, 270, n. 3, following Göttling, _Gesch. d. röm. Staatsverf._ 383, he changes his preference to Flaminius on the ground that the conflict between the patricians and the plebeians continued to the war with Hannibal (Sall. _Hist._ i. 9. 11), ending, as he supposes, in the opening of the six patrician centuries of knights to the plebeians—a change which he connects with the reform under discussion. His reasoning as to the date is not cogent, and is outweighed by the consideration given in the text.

[1272] II. 21.

[1273] XXI. 63; cf. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956.

[1274] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 499; Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 10; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 73 ff.

[1275] Guiraud, in _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 7.

[1276] I. 43. 12: “Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem, qui nunc est post expletas quinque et triginta tribus duplicato earum numero centuriis iuniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Serv. Tullio summam non convenire” (Nor need we be surprised that the arrangement as it now exists after the tribes have been increased to thirty-five, their number being doubled in the centuries of juniors and seniors, does not agree with the total number instituted by Servius Tullius).

[1277] IV. 21. 3: Οὑτος ὁ κόσμος τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἐπὶ πολλὰς διέμεινε γενεὰς φυλαττόμενος ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίον· ἐν δὲ τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς κεκίνηται χρόνοις καὶ μεταβέβληκεν εἰς τὸ δημοτικώτερον, ἀνάγκαις τισὶ βιασθεὶς ἰσχυραῖς, οὐ τῶν λόχον καταλυθέντων, ἀλλὰ τῆς κρίσεως (or κλήσεως) αὐτῶν οὐκέτι τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀκρίβειαν φυλαττούσης, ὡς ἐγνων ταῖς ἀρχαιρεσίαις αὐτῶν πολλάκις παρών. (After this arrangement had continued many generations, carefully preserved by the Romans, it has assumed in our time a more democratic character, driven into this new course by certain powerful forces. The centuries were not abolished, but the decision of their votes has lost its former carefulness—or we may read, the calling of the centuries no longer retains its precise order. This fact, he tells us, he himself often noticed when present at elections.)

If κρίσεως, supported by most MSS., is retained, it should refer to the equalization of power among the classes; κλῆσεως would probably mean that the prerogative century was now drawn by lot.

[1278] P. 77 f.

[1279] _Röm. Gesch._ iii. 374 ff.

It is not improbable that the first step was the reduction of the first class to seventy centuries, the ten centuries deducted being at the same time added to the lower classes. This view will explain Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39, which otherwise must be considered a mistake; p. 67, 205, n. 5.

[1280] P. 213, n. 5.

[1281] Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 12, concludes that the change was gradual. The line of development suggested by Plüss, _Centurienverf._, however, is ill supported by the evidence. Guiraud, _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 1 ff., also accepts the view of a gradual reform but minimizes its importance.

[1282] The citations below refer to a plurality of classes for the period following the reform, without mentioning a definite number; Sall. _Iug._ 86; Cic. _Rep._ iv. 2. 2; _Flacc._ 7. 15; _Red. ad Quir._ 7. 17; Symmachus, _Pro Patre_, 7 (Seeck); Auson. _Grat. Act._ iii. 13; ix. 44 (Peiper); p. 287, 293 (Bip.). In his speech for the Voconian law, 169, the elder Cato, in Gell. vi. 13. 3, referred to the distinction between the classici and those who were infra classem, from which we may conclude that the distinction existed in his time. The agrarian law of 111 (_CIL._ i. 200. 37) mentions the first class; also Livy xliii. 16. 14. The first and second are spoken of by Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82. Ullrich’s view (_Centuriatcom._), resting on these passages, is that there were but two classes, one of seniors another of juniors. Besides involving many impossibilities, it is refuted by the frequent references to the continuance of the census as an element in the system (see note below) and by the occasional mention of the five classes. The latter number for the time of C. Gracchus is given by Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._ 2. 8. This work, though late, is generally considered good authority; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 237 f. Five are mentioned also by Gell. vi (vii). 13. 1; Serv. _in Aen._ vii. 716; Arnob. _Adv. Nat._ ii. 67, with no definite reference to a particular period. Cicero’s allusion (_Acad. Pr._ ii. 23. 73) to the fifth class implies at least that the five classes were then fresh in the memory. The mention of an amplissimus census for the time of Cicero by Ascon. _in Pis._ 16, proves the existence of more than two classes at the time. These citations, together with the fact that no other definite number but five is ever spoken of by the ancient writers, must lead to the conclusion that there was no change.

[1283] To the time of Marius the soldiers were still drawn from the census classes; Polyb. vi. 19. 2; Sall. _Iug._ 86. The first class was distinguished from the rest by its armor, Polyb. vi. 23. 15. That the political classes likewise rested on the census is proved by Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 7; 19. 44; Gell. vi (vii). 13; xv. 27. 5; Ascon. _in Pis._ 16. The agrarian law of 111 (_CIL._ i. 200. 37) implies a property qualification of the class mentioned (note above). These citations dispose of the hypothesis of Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 36 ff., 80, which represents the classes of this period as consisting of groups of tribes resting partly on the census but mainly on differences of rank.

[1284] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82; Livy xliii. 16. 14; Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._ 2. 8; Val. Max. vi. 5. 3; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 57. 3.

[1285] Livy i. 43. 12; xxiv. 7. 12; xxvi. 22. 2 f.; xxvii. 6. 3 (p. 213, n. 5 above); Cic. _Rep._ iv. 2. 2; _Verr._ II. v. 15. 38: “Qui (praeco) te totiens seniorum iuniorumque centuriis illo honore (praetorship) adfici pronuntiavit”; _Har. Resp._ 6. 11; _Leg._ iii. 3. 7; Horace, _Ars Poet._ 341: “Centuriae seniorum agitant expertia frugis.”

[1286] Varro, _L. L._ vii. 42; Cic. _Flacc._ 7. 15; _Sull._ 32. 91; _Tog. Cand._ in Ascon. 85; _Red. in Sen._ 11. 27; _Imp. Pomp._ 1. 2; _Brut._ 67. 237; _Orat._ ii. 64. 260; Ascon. 16, 95; Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._ 2. 8; Livy i. 43. 12 f.; xxvi. 18. 9; 22. 4, 8, 10, 13; xxvii. 21. 4; xxviii. 38. 6; xxix. 22. 9; xxxi. 6. 3; 7. 1; xxxvii. 47. 7; xliii. 16. 14, 16; Dion. Hal. iv. 21. 3; et passim.

[1287] I. 43. 12 f. “Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem, qui nunc est post expletas quinque et triginta tribus duplicate earum numero centuriis iuniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Servio Tullio summam non convenire. Quadrifariam enim urbe divisa ... partes eas tribus appellavit ... neque eae tribus ad centuriarum distributionem numerumque quicquam pertinuere.”

[1288] Livy xxiv. 7. 12.

[1289] Livy xxvi. 22. 2 f.

[1290] Livy xxvii. 6. 3.

[1291] Voting or the announcement of the votes according to tribes is indicated by Polyb. vi. 14. 7: Τοῖς γὰρ θανάτου κρινομένοις, ἐπὰν καταδικάζωνται δίδωσι τὴν ἐξουσίαν τὸ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἔθος ἀπαλλάττεσθαι φανερῶς, κἂν ἔτι μία λείπηται φυλὴ τῶν ἐπικυρουσῶν τὴν κρίσιν ἀψηφόρητος, ἑκούσιον ἑαυτοῦ κατγνόντα φυγαδείαν. (To those who are on trial for life, while the vote of condemnation is being taken, even if a single tribe of those whose suffrages are needed to ratify the sentence has not voted, the Roman custom grants permission to depart openly, condemning themselves to voluntary exile.) This procedure must have been in the comitia centuriata, and hence the votes of the centuries must have been taken or announced by tribes; cf. Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 220; Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 14. See also Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 2. 4: “Meis comitiis non tabellam vindicem tacitae libertatis, sed vocem [unam] prae vobis indicem vestrarum erga me voluntatum ac studiorum tulistis. Itaque me non extrema tribus (not diribitio) suffragiorum, sed primi illi vestri concursus, neque singulae voces praeconum, sed una vox universi populi Romani consulem declaravit.” The MSS. have tribus and there is nothing against it, though Müller, following Richter, has adopted diribitio for the Teubner text, 1896. The meaning is “In my election you offered not merely the ballot, the vindication of your silent liberty, but also your unanimous voice as evidence of your good will to me and of your eagerness in my behalf. Hence it was not the last tribal group of votes but your first coming together, not the single announcements of the criers but the unanimous voice of the entire Roman people which declared me consul.” From this passage we may infer (1) that the votes were cast or announced by tribes, (2) that the tribe cast more than one vote, (3) that the result was sometimes known before the last tribe was reached. Cf. further Cic. _Phil._ vi. 5. 12; 6. 16; xi. 8. 18; Livy v. 18. 2; vi. 21. 5; viii. 37. 12; xxix. 37. 13; ep. xlix; Oros. v. 7. 1; Lucan, _Phars._ v. 391 ff.; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 42.

[1292] Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49: “Unius tribus pars” (i.e. the prerogative century); Pseudacr. Schol. Cruq. ad Hor. _Poet._ 341: “Singulae tribus certas habebant centurias seniorum et iuniorum”; Livy i. 43. 12 f. implies that the number of centuries was a multiple of the number of tribes, in other words that the century was an integral part of the tribe; cf. Q. Cic. _Petit._ 5. 17 f.; 8. 32; Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 74. The most convincing evidence is that of inscriptions of the imperial period (p. 220) which prove the urban tribes to have comprised each an integral number of centuries. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 274, has therefore failed in his attempt to limit to the first class the division of the tribes into centuries.

[1293] _Röm. Gesch._ iii. 382 f., followed by Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 23 ff. Niebuhr places the change in 304, when there were but thirty-one tribes, which would give for that date but sixty-two half-tribe centuries.

[1294] P. 216.

[1295] Niebuhr, ibid. His authorities for the two classes are Livy xliii. 16. 14: “Cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis”; Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82: “Prima classis vocatur, renuntiatur; deinde, ita ut adsolet, suffragia; tum secunda classis vocatur; quae omnia sunt citius facta, quam dixi. Confecto negotio bonus augur ... alio die inquit”; cf. p. 113. In the Livian citation, however, the mention of only the first class affords no hint as to the number of classes to follow; and the keen analysis of the Ciceronian passage made by Huschke, _Verf. des Serv._ 615 and n. 8, proves confecto negotio to signify not necessarily that the voting had been finished, but rather that the comitia had advanced so far as to preclude the obnuntiatio. It should be served before the assembly convened, not after the meeting began (“Non comitiis habitis, sed priusquam habeantur”; § 81). Confecto negotio, equivalent to comitiis habitis, is the negative of priusquam habeantur. This interpretation deprives the theory of two classes, held by Niebuhr, Ullrich, and others, of its only support.

[1296] P. 216, n. 1.

[1297] P. 216, n. 2.

[1298] _Verf. des Serv._ 623.

[1299] Ibid. 617 ff.

[1300] Ibid. 634. Similar is the view of Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 36 ff., 80, that for the period 179-86 the classes were groups of tribes based

## partly on the census and partly on social rank.

[1301] P. 216, n. 3. The long-known hypothesis here mentioned was sufficiently refuted by Huschke, ibid. 619 ff., but has been more recently revived by Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 117 ff., who, however, so develops it as to make the five classes voting divisions of the century. This notion is controverted by Genz, _Centuriatcom. nach der Ref._, and defended without success by Gerathewohl, _Reit. und Rittercent._ 90 f.

[1302] This result is in fact suggested by the passage in Livy 1. 43. 12 f. (p. 217, n. 1); it is not to be wondered at that an increase in the tribes should bring about an increase in the centuries—a diminution in the centuries could not be spoken of in the same way.

[1303] P. 217.

[1304] P. 218, n. 1.

[1305] P. 216, n. 3.

[1306] ¶ above.

[1307] P. 216, n. 4.

[1308] A monk who lived 1494-1567. For his view see Drackenborch’s commentary on Livy i. 43. To the 350 centuries of juniors and seniors he added 35 or 70 centuries of knights and a century of proletarians, making a total of 386 or 421 respectively. No scholar now holds to more than 18 equestrian centuries. With this and a few other variations as to supernumerary centuries his view has been adopted by Savigny, _Vermischte Schriften_, i. 1 ff.; Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._; Genz, _Centuriatcom. nach der Ref._; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 15; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 324; Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 181-244; Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 633; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956 ff.; Greenidge, _Rom. Publ. Life_, 253; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 89 ff.; Göttling, _Gesch. der röm. Staatsverf._ 383; Peter, _Epoch. d. Verfassungsgesch._ 75; Morlot, _Comices élect._ 85 ff.

[1309] _CIL._ vi. 196-8, 1104, 10097, 10214-8; _Inscr. bull. della comm. di Roma_, 1885. 161; _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1887. 191.

[1310] There must have been in the reformed comitia two curators from each class for every tribe. This connection with the classes was wrongly transferred to the tribunes of the plebs by Livy iii. 30. 7; Ascon. 76.

[1311] III. 274 ff.; cf. his _History of Rome_ (Eng. ed. 1900), iii. 52 f.

[1312] II. 22.

[1313] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 274 with notes; cf. Guiraud, in _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 16.

[1314] _Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Quae discriptio, si esset ignota vobis, explicaretur a me; nunc rationem videtis esse talem.”

[1315] Seventy in Cicero’s description, eighty according to the annalists; p. 67 f., 205, n. 5.

[1316] It is unnecessary here to enter into the controversy regarding the text. Evidently the second hand has drawn from a reliable source (Klebs, ibid. 200-210); yet in view of its uncertainty the passage should not be made the foundation of a theory so thoroughly objectionable as Mommsen’s.

[1317] To Soltau, _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xli (1895). 411, n. 3, this explanation seems “too cheap.”

[1318] In the clause “Ut equitum centuriae cum sex suffrages et prima classis addita centuria, quae ... data, LXXXVIIII centuriae habeat,” centuriae applies to the centuries proper, but in the clause immediately following, “Quibus ex centum quattuor centuriis (tot enim reliquae sunt) octo solae accesserunt,” the word on Mommsen’s supposition must denote not the centuries themselves but the voting groups of centuries. Though Mommsen usually avoids the application of the term century to the assumed voting units, he allows himself to do so on p. 274 and in n. 2. Granting that in this instance he has used the word correctly, we should have the first class composed of simple centuries and the others of centuries which were themselves composed of centuries—an evidently absurd result of his assumption.

[1319] Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 197. Not less complicated is Le Tellier’s supposition (_Organ. cent._ 88, n. 1) that the four classes may have differed in number of votes (for example, 30, 28, 28, 14), and that the several voting groups of a class comprised the same number of centuries, in some cases with a fraction of a century, e.g., 2, 2½, 2½, 5 centuries for the four classes respectively. This combination would be as undemocratic and as impracticable as any of those proposed by Klebs.

[1320] Klebs, ibid. 187.

[1321] P. 214, n. 6.

[1322] I. 43. 12.

[1323] P. 220.

[1324] P. 217.

[1325] P. 216, n. 3. Soltau’s modifications, _Jahrb. f. Philol._ xli (1895). 410-4, of Mommsen’s hypothesis are no improvement on the original.

[1326] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 510 ff.

[1327] In this way the prerogative century, after serving as an omen (Cic. _Mur._ 18. 39), would be joined with four others of the same half-tribe.

[1328] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 526.

[1329] Livy xliii. 16. 14 (171 B.C.): “Cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis, extemplo principes civitatis ... vestem mutarunt.” This proves that the votes were made public early in the course of the voting, though not necessarily before the second class began; cf. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82. Lange too hastily rejects the evidence of these two passages. The vote of each century was announced separately; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 42: “Quod ... comitiis cum recitatur a praecone dicitur olla centuria,” which would not be true, if, as Lange supposes, the announcement was by tribal groups of five.

[1330] Cf. Gerathewohl, _Reit. und Rittercent._ 90, n. 2.

[1331] As authority for the six votes of the eighteen equestrian centuries Lange cites Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Equitum centuriae cum sex suffrages”; _Phil._ ii. 33. 82; “Prima classis vocatur, renuntiatur; deinde, ita ut adsolet, suffragia.” So far as these two passages are concerned, Lange could be right; but his view is contradicted by Festus 334. 29 (“Sex suffragia appellantur in equitum centuriis, quae sunt adiecta—MS. adfectae—ei numero centuriarum, quas Priscus Tarquinius rex constituit”), which distinguishes the sex suffragia from the remaining centuries of cavalry, and by Livy xliii. 16. 14, which gives each century a vote.

[1332] All the tribes voted; Livy vi. 21. 5 (a historical anticipation but useful for showing later custom); viii. 37. 12; xxix. 37. 13 f.; ep. xlix; Val. Max. ix. 10. 1. All the centuries voted; Livy xxiv. 9. 3; xxvi. 18. 9; 22. 13; xxvii. 21. 4; xxviii. 38. 6; xxix. 22. 5; xxxi. 6. 3; Cic. _Sull._ 32. 91; Pis. 1. 2; _Imp. Pomp._ 1. 2.

[1333] In _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 230 ff.

[1334] Lucan v. 392 ff.:

“Fingit solemnia campi Et non admissae diribet suffragia plebis Decantatque tribus et vana versat in urna.”

These verses picture a sham election held by Caesar in 49; he pretends to hold comitia, counts the votes of the plebs, who are not really permitted to be present, calls off the tribes, and draws lots for them from the empty urn.

[1335] _Orat._ 46. 156: “Centuriam, ut Censoriae Tabulae loquuntur, fabrum audeo dicere, non fabrorum.” Cicero seems to refer to recent Tabulae Censoriae; though he might quote ancient poets, he was not the man to ransack old documents even to learn the ancient usage of words.

[1336] Plut. _Num._ 17; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 1. 1.

[1337] Ascon. 75: “Postea collegia S. C. et pluribus legibus sunt sublata praeter pauca atque certa, quae utilitas civitatis desiderasset, qualia sunt (MS. quasi, ut) fabrorum fictorumque.”

[1338] P. 207, n. 1.

[1339] See citations in Olcott, _Thes. ling. lat. ep._ i. 51.

[1340] P. 208 f.

[1341] That these supernumerary centuries were abolished at the time of the reform is argued by Huschke, _Verf. des. Serv._ 622 f.; Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 28, 34; Genz, _Centuriatcom. nach der Ref._ 12; Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii. 218. That they continued in the new system is the belief of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 281 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 512; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 90.

[1342] P. 220 f.

[1343] The supposed Sullan reaction to the earlier form of the centuriate comitia is not well founded; p. 406.

[1344] P. 212.

[1345] P. 217. This is a necessary inference from the term used to describe a prerogative centuria, e.g., Aniensis iuniorum. Had the drawing been from a group of classes, the number of the class would have been added, e.g., Aniensis iuniorum secundae classis.

[1346] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82.

[1347] Livy xliii. 16. 14: “Cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis” (171 B.C.). This passage proves that the announcement distinguished the votes of the twelve equestrian centuries both from the sex suffragia and from those of the class. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82: “Sortitio praerogativae; quiescit. Renuntiatur; tacet. Prima classis vocatur, renuntiatur; deinde, ita ut adsolet, suffragia; tum secunda classis vocatur.” Here Cicero informs us that the (sex) suffragia were announced after the report of the first class had been given. The circumstance that he does not mention the separate calling of the suffragia indicates that their separation from the first class was limited to the announcement. There is no reason why the Romans should have added to the length of the centuriate sessions by assigning a part of the day to the exclusive use of these six centuries. Livy, i. 43. 8 f., has their inferiority in mind. It is unnecessary to amend the Ciceronian passage. The attempt of Holzapfel, in _Beiträge zur alten Gesch._ i (1902). 254 f., is unsuccessful. Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 237 ff., fruitlessly opposes the division of the equites into these two groups.

[1348] P. 74 f., 95 f., 209 f.

[1349] P. 211, 467, 469.

[1350] P. 201, n. 2.

[1351] The idea that Servius Tullius gave this assembly the right to elect kings (Dion. Hal. v. 12. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 458; ii. 531) is proved wrong by the circumstance that the organization attributed to him was purely military, from which the comitia centuriata slowly developed; p. 203 ff.

[1352] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 531. On the number of praetors, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 202. The election of a centurion to the function of dedicating a temple (Livy ii. 27. 6) in the period before the first secession Lange (ibid. i. 917; ii. 532) with good reason considers a myth. It is doubtful, however, whether he is right in viewing as historical the so-called lex Valeria de candidatis, assigned to the first year of the republic (Plut. _Popl._ 11; Lange, ibid. ii. 532), which ordered the presiding magistrate to accept as candidates all qualified patricians who offered themselves for the consulship—a principle said to have been afterward applied to other patrician offices.

[1353] P. 331.

[1354] Cic. _Brut._ 14. 55; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 409; ii. 115, 532.

[1355] On the centuriate elective function in general, see Lange, ibid. ii. 531-3. Willems, _Sén. Röm._ ii. 69 ff., contends unconvincingly that the Maenian statute should be assigned to 338.

[1356] P. 177.

[1357] P. 181 f.

[1358] P. 177.

[1359] P. 177.

[1360] P. 202 f.; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 599 f.

[1361] Dion. Hal. viii. 15. 3.

[1362] VIII. 91. 4.

[1363] IX. 69. 2.

[1364] Livy iv. 30. 15.

[1365] Livy iv. 58. 8, 14; 60. 9 (406); vi. 21. 3 (383) 22. 4 (382); vii. 6. 7 (362); 12. 6 (358); 19. 10 (353); 32. 1 (343).

[1366] Livy vii. 20. 3.

[1367] Livy viii. 22. 8 (327); 25. 2 with Dion. Hal. xv. 14 (326); Livy viii. 29. 6 (325); 43. 2 (306); 45. 8 (304); x. 12. 3 (298); 45. 6 f. (293).

[1368] Polyb. i. 11.

[1369] Dio Cass. Frag. 49. 5; Zon. viii. 19. 4.

[1370] Livy xxi. 17. 4.

[1371] Livy xxxi. 5-8; especially 6. 1, 3; 7. 1.

[1372] Livy xxxvi. 1. 4 f.; 2. 2 f.

[1373] Livy xlii. 30. 10 f.; 36. 2.

[1374] Oros. v. 15. 1: “Consensu populi.”

[1375] Livy xxxi. 6. 3; 7. 1; xlii. 30. 10; cf. 36. 1.

[1376] Livy xlv. 21; Polyb. xxx. 4. 4 ff.

[1377] Livy xxxviii. 42. 11; 45. 4 ff.

[1378] Livy xxxviii. 50. 3.

[1379] Livy xli. 6; 7. 8; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 3.

[1380] Appian, _Iber._ 51, 55. The condemnation of M. Aemilius Lepidus, proconsul in 136, to a fine by a judgment of the people seems to have been more for the failure of his war upon the same state than for beginning it without authorization; Appian, _Iber._ 80-82; Livy, ep. lvi; Oros. v. 5. 14.

[1381] Livy iv. 58. 14.

[1382] This is the Macedonian war beginning in 200; p. 231; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 602.

[1383] P. 176; Gell. xvi. 4. 1; Livy xxxvi. 2. 2.

[1384] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 41. 1 ff.; Cic. _Pis._ 21. 48 f.

[1385] E.g., the act which recalled Camillus from exile; Livy v. 46. 10; xxii. 14. 11; Cic. _Dom._ 32. 86.

[1386] P. 181 f.

[1387] P. 201, 240.

[1388] Livy iii. 55. 4; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54.

[1389] Livy x. 9. 5; cf. p. 242 below.

[1390] P. 250 f. 349.

[1391] P. 270 f.

[1392] P. 272.

[1393] P. 269.

[1394] Fest. 237. 17; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 622; ii. 603. The contents are unknown.

[1395] Livy iii. 34. 6. Doubt has been thrown on the early date of the Twelve Tables by Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 558-606, and on their official character as well by Lambert, _La question de l’authenticité des XII Tables et les annales maximi_; _L’histoire traditionelle des XII Tables et les critères d’inauthenticité des traditions en usage dans l’école de Mommsen_ in _Mélanges Ch. Appleton_, 503-626; _La fonction du droit civil comparé_, 390-718; _Le problème de l’origine des XII Tables_, in _Revue générale de droit_, 1902. 385 ff., 481 ff. Their views are controverted by Greenidge, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx (1905). 1-21. For other literature on the subject, see _Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ cxxxiv (1907). 17 ff.

According to Diod. xii. 26. 1, the last two tables were drawn up by Valerius and Horatius, consuls in 449.

[1396] Livy ii. 18. 5; Dion. Hal. v. 70. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 585; ii. 603. Dion. Hal. vi. 90. 2, assumes the enactment of a statute for the creation of the plebeian tribunate, 494.

[1397] Livy iii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. x. 55. 3 (cf. p. 273).

[1398] Livy vii. 17. 12: “In Duodecim Tabulis legem esse, ut, quodcumque postremum populus iussisset, id ius ratumque esset; iussum populi et suffragia esse.” After the decemviral legislation an attempt was made to extend the principle to elections, as in the case here mentioned by Livy.

[1399] P. 274 ff.

[1400] P. 287.

[1401] Livy vii. 5. 9; Sall. _Iug._ 63; Cic. _Cluent._ 54. 148; _Leg._ iii. 3. 6; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 25, 604. It is only an inference that this important constitutional change was brought about by the centuries rather than by the tribes.

[1402] P. 299 f.

[1403] P. 233, 241 f.

[1404] P. 313.

[1405] Livy iv. 6. 8. A law is not mentioned but must be inferred; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 650; ii. 603.

[1406] Livy ix. 34. 7: “Illi antiquae (legi), qua primum censores creati sunt”; cf. Lange, ibid. i. 664. In 433 a law, doubtless centuriate, of the dictator Mam. Aemilius cut down the term of the censors to eighteen months; Livy iv. 24. 5 f.; ix. 33. 6; ch. 34.

[1407] Livy iv. 43; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; cf. Lange, ibid. i. 666.

[1408] Livy vi. 42. 11.

[1409] Ibid. § 13. The laws last named, relating to the quaestorship, praetorship, and aedileship, are not mentioned by the ancient authorities but are necessarily assumed; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 476, 479.

[1410] Livy vii. 41. 4.

[1411] Appian, _Samn._ i. 3; cf. p. 298.

[1412] P. 238.

[1413] Livy viii. 12. 15; cf. i. 17. 9. The auctoritas applied to comitia curiata as well as centuriata; Cic. _Dom._ 14. 38; Livy vi. 41. 10. On the comitia tributa, see p. 314.

[1414] The view maintained by Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 33 ff., that the patres auctores were all the senators, not merely the patrician members, is disproved by Cic. _Dom._ 14. 38 (Should the patriciate become extinct, there would no longer be “auctores centuriatorum et curiatorum comitiorum”). In spite of some looseness of statement in the passage cited, there seems to be no good ground for considering either the whole oration spurious or the particular reference to the auctoritas inaccurate. The question, too complex for detailed treatment in this volume, is of practical importance for the period only from about 400 to 339.

[1415] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 605 f.

[1416] P. 412.

[1417] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 553; ii. 606.

[1418] _Leg. Agr._ iii. 2. 5; cf. _Leg._ i. 15. 42; _Rosc. Am._ 43. 125; Schol. Gron. 435; Appian, _B. C._ i. 98. 458 ff.; Plut. _Sull._ 33.

[1419] Cic. _Dom._ 30. 79; _Caecin._ 33. 95; 35. 102.

[1420] P. 416, n. 1.

[1421] Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 19 obscurely suggests that these two laws were centuriate, though Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 606, doubts it; cf. p. 455.

[1422] Cf. Appian, _B. C._ iii. 30. 117.

[1423] Cic. _Phil._ x. 8. 17; xiii. 15. 31; cf. v. 19. 53.

[1424] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 26: “Centuriata lex censoribus ferebatur.”

[1425] P. 185. Before the institution of the censorship the original motive of the sanctioning act—to leave the curiae a share in the elective function—must have given way to the purpose stated by Cicero and represented here in the text.

[1426] Livy iv. 24. 3 ff.; cf. ix. 33 f.

[1427] Livy viii. 12. 16; cf. p. 300. Livy’s words referring to the censorship are corrupt, but the passage seems to have the meaning here given; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 340, n. 2. It was not till 131 that advantage was taken of the provision; Livy, ep. lix. Herzog, _Röm. Staatswerf._ i. 257, refuses to believe that both censors might now be plebeian.

[1428] Livy vi. 35. 5. The provision that “at least” one should be plebeian is doubtless an anticipation of the Genucian law.

[1429] Livy vii. 42. 2; cf. p. 299.

[1430] The alleged centuriate resolution granting a place for a dwelling to P. Valerius Publicola, passed under his own presidency (Ascon. 13), is still earlier and less trustworthy.

[1431] Livy ii. 41; Dion Hal. viii. 71, 73 ff.

[1432] Livy iii. 31. 1. In 32. 7 he calls it the Icilian law with the idea that it was tribunician; but Dion. Hal. x. 32. 4, referring to the document kept in the temple of Diana, states that it was passed by the centuriate assembly; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 169, n. 1. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 619; ii. 607 f., wrongly asserts that it was a plebiscite; cf. p. 272 below.

[1433] P. 234 f., 298.

[1434] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 13. 21.

[1435] Livy vii. 3. 5.

[1436] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 608 f.

[1437] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 541, and note on earlier literature; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 148 f., 160 f.; iii. 353.

[1438] Livy i. 26. 5-14; viii. 33. 8. For the theory that the popular assembly was sometimes a court of the first instance, see p. 260.

[1439] Lange’s idea (ibid. i. 457 f.; ii. 542) that Servius Tullius transferred appellate jurisdiction to the comitia centuriata rests upon his view that Servius was the author of the political centuriate organization.

[1440] Cf. Fest. 297. 11-24; Cic. _Mil._ 3. 7; _Rep._ ii. 31. 54; Livy i. 26.

[1441] Dion. Hal. iv. 25. 2; Livy i. 26. 5; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 11; _Röm. Strafr._ 474.

[1442] For the earlier literature on the ius provocationis, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 542, n.

[1443] Cic. _Rep._ i. 40. 62; ii. 31. 53: “Legem ad populum tulit eam, quae centuriatis comitiis prima lata est, ne quis magistratus civem Romanum adversus provocationem necaret neve verberaret”; 36. 61; Livy ii. 8. 2; 30. 5 f.; iii. 33. 9 f.; Val. Max. iv. 1. 1; Plut. _Popl._ 11; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 16; Dion. Hal. v. 19. 4; cf. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 168.

[1444] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54; Livy iii. 55. 4; x. 9. 3-6; cf. Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 489.

[1445] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54: “Ab omni iudicio poenaque provocari indicant XII Tabulae compluribus legibus; et quod proditum memoriae est, X viros, qui leges scripserint, sine provocatione creatos, satis ostenderit reliquos sine provocatione magistratus non fuisse.”

[1446] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 311. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 68: “Quiritare dicitur is qui quiritium fidem clamans implorat”; cf. Cic. _Fam._ 32. 3; Livy ii. 55. 5 f.; iv. 14 f.

[1447] Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1886). 165 ff. Two cases of appeal, which indeed may be mythical, are mentioned by the annalists for the time before the decemviral legislation—that of Sp. Cassius, which is only one of several views as to his condemnation and death (Livy ii. 41; iv. 15. 4; Dion. Hal. viii. 77 f.; ix. 1. 1; 3. 2; 51. 2; x. 38. 3; Diod. xi. 37. 7; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Flor. i. 26. 7), and that of the plebeian M. Volscius Fictor for false testimony; Livy iii. 25. 2 f.

[1448] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54, quoted p. 240, n. 6. The statement of Cicero is too general; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 312.

[1449] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 4. 11: “De capite civis Romani nisi per maximum comitiatum ollosque, quos censores in partibus populi locassint, ne ferunto”; 19. 44; _Sest._ 30. 65; 34. 73: “De capite non modo ferri, sed ne iudicari quidem posse nisi comitiis centuriatis”; cf. _Rep._ ii. 36. 61; Plaut. _Pseud._ 1232; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 578; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 409; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 317; p. 268.

[1450] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54; Livy iii. 55. 4; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 352, n. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 638; ii. 551; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 318.

[1451] Livy iii. 55. 14; cf. 54. 15.

[1452] Livy iv. 13. 11 f.; vi. 16. 3 (385); vii. 4. 2 (362); viii. 33-35 (325; see p. 242, n. 5); Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 164 f. with notes; _Röm. Strafr._ 476; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 318; cf. p. 242.

[1453] Livy x. 9. 4.

[1454] Livy iii. 20. 7; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 66 f.; iii. 352.

[1455] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 543; Mommsen, ibid.

[1456] Livy x. 9. 5: “Improbe factum.” This denunciation might involve penal consequences according to Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 319 f. Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 167, 632 f., supposes the expression to signify that the offending magistrate was to be treated as a private person and punished for murder. Some are of the opinion that it involved loss of citizenship, whereas others suppose its effect was simply moral; cf. Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 429.

[1457] Livy ii. 18. 8; 30. 5; iii. 20. 8; viii. 33 (dictator permits appeal); Dion. Hal. v. 75. 2 f.; vi. 58. 2; Zon. vii. 13. 13; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 18; Lydus, _Mag._ i. 37; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 163, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 756 f.

[1458] Livy ii. 55. 5; iii. 45. 8; 55. 6, 14; 56. 5; 67. 9; viii. 33. 7: “Tribunos plebis appello et provoco ad populum”; xxxvii. 51. 4; Dion. Hal. ix. 39. 1 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 277.

[1459] Livy iii. 24. 7; 25. 2; 29. 6; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 840; ii. 544.

[1460] The appeal of Fabius from the jurisdiction of the dictator in 325 was granted not under compulsion but in grace; Livy viii. 35. 5. On the freedom of the dictatorship from this restriction in the period between 449 and 325, see p. 241, n. 5. The court mentioned by Livy ix. 26. 6 ff. (314) seems to have been an extraordinary quaestio under the presidency of a dictator; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 165, n. 6. On the subjection of his authority to appeal, see Fest. 198. 32: “Optima lex ... in magistro populi faciendo, qui vulgo dictator appellatur, quam plenissimum posset ius eius esse significabat, ut fuit M’. Valerio M. f. Volusi nepotis, qui primus magister populi creatus est. Postquam vero provocatio ab eo magistratu ad populum data est, quae ante non erat, desitum est adici, ‘ut optima lege,’ utpote imminuto iure priorum magistrorum.”

[1461] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 165; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 319.

[1462] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 6; Livy ii. 29. 4: “Ab lictore nihil aliud quam prendere prohibito”; ii. 55. 5; Dion. Hal. vi. 24. 2.

[1463] Livy i. 26. 5: “Duumviros ... qui ... perduellionem iudicent secundum legem facio”; § 7: “Hac lege duumviri creati”; vi. 20. 12: “Sunt qui per duumviros, qui de perduellione anquirerent creatos auctores sint damnatum.” Creare applies to appointments though less commonly than to elections; cf. Livy ii. 18. 4 f.; 30. 5; iv. 26. 6; Fest. 198. 4 (of the dictator); Livy iv. 46. 11; 57. 6 (of the magister equitum). In vi. 20. 12, quoted above, Livy may possibly be thinking of election, which seems to have become the rule before the disuse of the office; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 304, 309.

[1464] Livy i. 26; Fest. 297. 11.

[1465] _Dig._ xlviii. 4. 11: “Qui perduellionis reus est, hostili animo aduersus rem publicam uel principem animatus”; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 303.

[1466] Livy vi. 20. 12; see n. 1 above.

[1467] Ibid. vi. 19. 6 ff.

[1468] Cf. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 177.

[1469] P. 258.

[1470] This comitial resolution may be anticipated in the account of the process against Horatius given by Livy i. 26. 5: “Duumviros ... secundum legem facio”; cf. § 7: “Hac lege duumviri creati.” The king, whose judgments were absolute, could not have thus been forced; hence more probably lex in these phrases is not a comitial act but the formula of appointment; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 356 and n. 1. The procedure in the trial of C. Rabirius was in this respect similar; a law compelling the praetor to appoint duumviri is suggested by Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 12.

[1471] Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 27. 2, finds fault with the procedure against Rabirius on the ground that the duumviri for judging him were appointed by the praetor, not elected as they should have been “according to ancestral usage.”

[1472] Livy i. 26. 5; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 16; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 12. 27; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 544; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 617 f.

[1473] P. 104.

[1474] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 303-5.

[1475] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Livy ii. 41. 11; Dion. Hal. viii. 77. 1; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 309.

[1476] _Röm. Alt._ i. 610; ii. 545.

[1477] Cf. the trial of Horatius for murder by the duumviri perduellioni iudicandae; p. 243.

[1478] Livy ii. 41. 10.

[1479] Livy iii. 24. 3; 25. 2.

[1480] Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 23: “Quia ... de capite civis Romani iniussu populi non erat lege permissum consulibus ius dicere, propterea quaestores constituebantur a populo, qui capitalibus rebus praeessent: his appellabantur quaestores parricidii, quorum etiam meminit lex Duodecim Tabularum”; cf. Fest. 258. 29; ep. 221.

[1481] Pliny _N. H._ xxxiv. 4. 13: “Camillo inter crimina obiecerit Sp. Carvilius quaestor, quod aerata ostia haberet in domo.” According to Livy v. 23. 11; 32. 8 f., it was misappropriation of the Veientan spoil. Diodorus, xiv. 117. 6, states that according to one report the accusation was that he had driven white horses in his triumph. The appeal was to the comitia centuriata; Cic. _Dom._ 32. 86. This case indicates either inconsistency in legal usage, quite possible in early time, or more probably the union of inconsistent traditions. The facts that Pliny mentions a quaestor apparently as prosecutor, not simply as witness (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 582), and that Cicero represents the trial as belonging to the centuries suffice to indicate a questorian prosecution before that assembly. Should we venture to bring consistency to so uncertain a story, we could suppose that in his absence, the tribunes, taking up the case, lightened the penalty to a fine.

[1482] Varro, _L. L._ 90-92 (mutilated excerpts from the record of this trial, preserved in the _Commentaria Quaestorum_ and containing part of the edict for summoning the assembly and the accused).

[1483] That is, after the increase in the number of praetors; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 884; ii. 551; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 543, n. 2.

[1484] P. 243, 248.

[1485] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 543 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 389, 884, 910; ii. 555.

[1486] P. 241.

[1487] Cf. Livy xxvi. 3. 9; xliii. 16. 11; Gell. vi. 9. 9; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 409.

[1488] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 196.

[1489] Livy iii. 59. 4; Dion. Hal. xi. 49. 3.

[1490] Livy iii. 56-8; Dion. Hal. xi. 46, 49.

[1491] Livy iii. 58. 10; Dion. Hal. xi. 49; Zon. vii. 18. 11.

[1492] Livy iii. 58. 10; Dion. Hal. xi. 46. 5; Gell. xx. 1. 53. False testimony in a case of this kind, which was vindicia not murder, was not capital; hence it did not ordinarily come before the tribunes; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 324, n. 6. The political importance of the case, however, was a sufficient motive to their undertaking it.

[1493] Livy iv. 16. 5 f.; 21. 3 f.; Cic. _Dom._ 32. 86; _Rep._ i. 3. 6; Val. Max. v. 3. 2 g; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 668; ii. 553. Roman law regarded false testimony in capital cases as murder; hence the prosecution of Minucius might legally have come before the quaestors; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 324, n. 6.

[1494] Livy vi. 1. 6.

[1495] Livy viii. 28; Dion. Hal. xvi. 5 (9); Suid. s. Γάιος Λαιτώριος. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 325, n. 1, denies that a case of the kind could come before the tribunes.

[1496] Dion. Hal. xvi. 4 (8); Val. Max. vi. 1. 11; Suid. ibid. This prosecution could be brought on the ground of misconduct of office; Mommsen, ibid.

[1497] Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 45. 180; Val. Max. viii. 1. 8.

[1498] Livy ix. 33. 4 f.

[1499] Ibid. 34. 26.

[1500] Val. Max. viii. 1. abs. 9.

[1501] Livy ix. 23. 2; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 5.

[1502] The same thing is true of the finable actions of this period; p. 290.

[1503] This view has no other warrant than the uncertainty of our sources for the fifth and early fourth centuries B.C. That the tribunes should make early gains in jurisdiction, to be afterward partially lost, is thoroughly consistent with the law of plebeian progress, which consisted, not in a steady forward movement, but in successive advances and retreats.

[1504] Livy, ep. xix.; Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 71; _N. D._ ii. 3. 7; Polyb. i. 52. 1-3; Schol. Bob. 337; Val. Max. viii. 1. abs. 4; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 556; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 321, n. 1; iii. 357, n. 1; p. 317 below.

[1505] Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 71; _N. D._ ii. 3. 7; Val. Max. i. 4. 3.

[1506] P. 318.

[1507] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 328 f., wrongly assumes that in this case the charge of perduellio came before the tribes; the interdiction of the man by the tribes after his departure was not a iudicium but a lex.

[1508] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm Staatsr._ ii. 299.

[1509] P. 241.

[1510] P. 267, 446.

[1511] Livy xxv. 3 f.

[1512] Livy xxv. 20. 6 ff.; p. 318, n. 8 below. Livy gives us to understand that defeat resulting from ignorance or temerity could not be made a ground of prosecution.

[1513] Livy xxvi. 2. 7 through ch. 3; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 2, 321, n. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 556; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 329 f. On the right to change the form of action, see p. 287.

[1514] The two plebeian tribunes and the aedile who accompanied this commission were sent to recall Scipio, should he be found responsible for the conduct of his legate; Livy xxix. 20. 11. They do not seem to have been members of the commission.

[1515] Livy xxix. 8. 6 ff.; chs. 16-22.

[1516] Livy xxix. 19. 5; 22. 7. The form of comitia is inferred from the circumstances.

[1517] Livy xxxiv. 44. 7 f.

[1518] Livy xxix. 22. 8 f. (cf. xxxi. 12. 2); Diod. xxvii. 4; cf. Vai. Max. i. 2. 21; Appian, _Hann._ 55.

[1519] XXIX. 22. 8.

[1520] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 557. The date of the execution of C. Veturius in pursuance of a vote of the people (Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3) is unknown.

[1521] Sall. _Cat._ 51. 21 f.: “Quamobrem in sententiam non addidisti, ut prius verberibus in eos animadvorteretur? An quia lex Porcia vetat? At aliae leges item condemnatis civibus non animam eripi sed exilium permitti iubent”; 51. 40: “Postquam res publica adolevit et multitudine civium factiones valuere, circumvenire innocentes, alia huiusce modi fieri coepere, tum lex Porcia aliaeque paratae sunt, quibus legibus exilium damnatis permissum est”; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 3. 8: “De civibus Romanis contra legem Porciam verberatis aut necatis”; Pseud. Sall. _in Cic._ i. 5: charges against Cicero that in putting Roman citizens to death he has abolished the lex Porcia. Livy x. 9. 4: “Porcia tamen lex ... gravi poena, si quis verberasset necassetve civem Romanum, sanxit”; cf. Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 12 f.; _Verr._ v. 63. 163; Gell. x. 3. 13. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 320, doubts whether it allowed exile to one condemned by a vote of the people. Against him is Polyb. vi. 14. 7, quoted p. 217, n. 5.

[1522] Livy xxxii. 7. 8; Fest. 234. 10; The opinion here given is that of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 205, 558. A different view is represented by Orelli-Baiter, Cic. _Op._ viii. 3. 252 f.

[1523] The decisive evidence is a coin, described by Mommsen, _Röm. Münzwesen_, 552, representing an armed man evidently in the act of condemning a civilian, whose appeal is indicated by the word PROVOCO beneath. The inscription on the obverse P. LAECA reveals the author of the law.

[1524] _Röm. Alt._ i. 249; ii. 559.

[1525] VI. 37 f.

[1526] Livy, ep. lvii; cf. Cic. _Rep._ i. 40. 63: “Noster populus in bello sic paret ut regi.”

[1527] _Leg._ iii. 3. 6: “Militiae ab eo qui imperabit provocatio nec esto,” which however, Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 117, n. 2 (cf. _Röm. Strafr._ 31, n. 3) sets down as merely a pious wish of the author.

[1528] Livy, ep. lv: (In the consulship of P. Cornelius Nasica and D. Junius Brutus) “C. Matienus accusatus est apud tribunos plebis, quod exercitum in Hispania deseruisset, damnatusque sub furca diu virgis caesus est, et sestertio nummo veniit.” The new epitome, l. 207-9, speaks of desertores who on this occasion were thus flogged and sold. It is not known that the tribunes tried cases of desertion or that they inflicted the kind of punishment here described. C. Titius, sent for trial to the tribunes on the charge of having stirred up a mutiny (Dio. Cass. Frag. 100; year 89), may have been a civilian.

[1529] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 9.

[1530] _Iug._ 69.

[1531] Modestinus, in _Dig._ xlix. 16. 3. 15; Menander, ibid. 16. 6. 1 f.

[1532] An example of a military consilium is given by Livy xxix. 20 f.

[1533] _Rep._ ii. 31. 54: “Neque vero leges Porciae, quae tres sunt trium Porciorum, ut scitis, quicquam praeter sanctionem attulerunt novi.”

[1534] Cic. _Verr._ v. 62. 162.

[1535] Livy xliii. 16. 8 ff.

[1536] Polyb. vi. 14. 6; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 560.

[1537] Cic. _Brut._ 25. 97; 27. 106; _Leg._ iii. 16. 37; _Sest._ 48. 103; Schol. Bob. 303; Cic. Frag. A. vii. 50; Ascon. 78; Pseud. Ascon. 141 f.; Orelli-Baiter, Cic. _Op._ viii. 3. 278 f.

[1538] Cic. _Planc._ 6. 16.

[1539] IV. 50. 6 ff.

[1540] Livy viii. 18; Val. Max. ii. 5. 3.

[1541] IX. 26.

[1542] (1) In 186 for the trial of the Bacchanalians (Livy xxxix. 8-19); (2) in 180 two courts for the detection and trial of poisoners in Rome and Italy (Livy xl. 37). The two courts established in 186 for the trial of poisoners and for putting down the last of the Bacchanalians are mentioned by Livy xxxix. 41 without a hint as to the manner of their appointment; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 135, n. 4.

[1543] Polyb. vi. 16. 2; Cic. _Dom._ 13. 33.

[1544] Dion. Hal. xx. 7. Though no mention is here made of a quaestio extraordinaria, we may assume one for every such instance. In actual iudicia populi the senate had no part.

[1545] Livy xxvi. 33 f.

[1546] The following pre-Gracchan quaestiones extraordinariae, according to our authorities, owed their existence to a popular vote. (1) The lex de pecunia regis Antiochi of the two Q. Petilii, tribunes in 185, for the establishment of a special court to try L. Scipio Asiagenus and some others for the misappropriation of public money; Livy xxxviii. 54, p. 399 below.—(2) The plebiscite of M. Marcius Sermo and Q. Marcius Scylla, tribunes in 172, directed the senate to establish a special court for the trial of M. Popillius on the charge of having unjustly subjugated and enslaved the Ligurians; Livy xlii. 21. 5.—(3) By the lex Caecilia, 154, a special quaestio repetundarum was established for the trial of L. Lentulus, retired consul of 156; Val. Max. vi. 9. 10.—(4) Another special court for the trial of L. Hostilius Tubulus on the charge of having accepted bribes while president of a murder court (quaestio inter sicarios) was ordered by a plebiscite of P. Mucius Scaevola in 141, whereupon the accused went into exile; Cic. _Fin._ ii. 16. 54; iv. 28. 77; v. 22. 62; _N. D._ i. 23. 63; iii. 30. 74; _Att._ xii. 5 b; Ascon. 22; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 197.

[1547] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 728. The formula varied with the occasion, and other magistrates were often associated with the consuls in this supreme power.

[1548] Cic. _Cat._ i. 11. 28: “Numquam in hac urbe, qui a re publica defecerunt, civium iura tenuerunt”; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 359; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 560.

[1549] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 16; p. 368 below. The idea of Tiberius is to be inferred from the law which his brother afterward passed.

[1550] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; Cic. _Lael._ 11. 37; _CIL._ i². p. 148.

[1551] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 172.

[1552] Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 12: “C. Gracchus legem tulit, ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu vestro iudicaretur”; _Cat._ iv. 5. 10; _Verr._ v. 63. 163; _Sest._ 28. 61; Schol. Gronov. 412: “Lex Sempronia iniussu populi non licebat quaeri de capite civis Romani”; Schol. Ambros. 370; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; p. 371 below.

[1553] For examples of special courts afterward instituted, see p. 390.

[1554] Sall. _Cat._ 51. 40; Cic. _Cat._ i. 11. 28; iv. 5. 10.

[1555] Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82 f.; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 561. It is not probable, as Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 330; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 201, has assumed, that the Sempronian law transferred jurisdiction in such cases from the centuries to the tribes. The comitia tributa had long exercised the right to condemn those who had fled into exile to avoid trial; p. 249, 267, 257, n. 5 (3).

[1556] Cic. _Sest._ 28. 61; cf. Dio Cass. xxxviii. 14. 5; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 200 f.

[1557] Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82; _Leg._ iii. 11. 26; cf. _Cluent._ 35. 95; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 465.

[1558] Vell. ii. 7. 4.

[1559] Livy, ep. lxi: “Quod indemnatos cives in carcerem coniecisset” (Mommsen reads “in carcere necasset” or “in carcerem coniectos necasset”; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 111, n. 1); Cic. _Part. Or._ 30. 104, 106; _Orat._ ii. 25. 106; 30. 132; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 562; iii. 50; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 278-80.

[1560] _History of Rome_, v. 5-7. His view is an inference from the circumstances.

[1561] The prosecutor was L. Crassus; Cic. _Brut._ 43. 159; cf. _Orat._ i. 10. 40; ii. 40. 170; _Verr._ II. iii. 1. 3; Val. Max. vi. 5. 6.

[1562] Valerius Maximus, iii. 7. 6, assumes that the accused went into exile; Cicero, _Fam._ ix. 21. 3, informs us of a rumor that he committed suicide. Both reports may be true; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 282; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 51.

[1563] P. 358.

[1564] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 223 ff.

[1565] (1) After the case against Carbo may be mentioned the accusation of perduellio against C. Popillius Laenas, 107, on the ground of a disgraceful surrender to the Tigurini. It was on this occasion that the ballot was first used in a trial for perduellio. The accused seems to have been condemned to exile; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 36; _Herenn._ i. 15. 25; iv. 24. 34; Oros. v. 15. 24. This case, which resembles those of far earlier time, has nothing to do with violation of the right of appeal; (Cic.) _Herenn._ ibid.—(2) Similar in this respect was the prosecution of Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus for the murder of his son. The accused went into exile before judgment was pronounced; Oros. v. 16. 8; Val. Max. vi. 1. 5.—(3) More famous is the prosecution of Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, 100, by L. Appuleius Saturninus because the former refused to swear to maintain the agrarian law of the latter. Technically the charge was that Metellus refused to do his duty as a senator. The accused withdrew into exile before the trial, whereupon, by vote of the assembly, he was interdicted from fire and water; Livy, ep. lxix.; Appian, _B. C._ i. 31. 137-40; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82; _Sest._ 16. 37; 47. 101.—(4) Decianus, tribune of the plebs, 97, in accusing P. Furius, tribune of the preceding year, let fall some complaint regarding the murder of Saturninus, and on that ground was accused, probably by a tribune of the plebs, and condemned to exile; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 9. 24; Schol. Bob. 230.—(5) The prosecution of M. Aemilius Scaurus for maiestas by Q. Varius, tribune, Dec. 91, was withdrawn in the second anquisitio; Ascon. 19, 21 f.; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 72. 11; Quintil. v. 12. 10; Cic. _Scaur._ 1, 3; _Sest._ 47. 101.—(6) L. Cornelius Merula and Q. Lutatius Catulus, 87, avoided trial, probably for perduellio, by suicide; Diod. xxxviii. 4; Appian, _B. C._ i. 74. 341 f.—(7) On the first day of the following year, 86, P. Popillius Laenas, tribune of the plebs, hurled from the Tarpeian Rock Sextus Lucilius (or Licinius?), tribune of the preceding year, and set a day of trial for the colleagues of the latter. The accused fled to Sulla and in their absence were interdicted from fire and water. They were charged with perduellio; their offence was the veto of the popular measures of Cornelius Cinna. This is the only certain case of calling retired tribunes to account for their official conduct, and may be regarded as a symptom of the revolution then in progress; Vell. ii. 24; Livy, ep. lxxx; Dio Cass. Frag. 102. 12; Plut. _Mar._ 45.

[1566] P. 255, n. 1 (4).

[1567] Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 38; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 326.

[1568] Dio Cass. lvi. 40. 4; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 326; iii. 359 f.

[1569] P. 243.

[1570] P. 203, n. 2.

[1571] Cic. _Rab. Perd._; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 26 ff.; Suet. _Caes._ 12; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 563 f.; iii. 240; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 150-5; Wirz, in _Jahrb. f. Philol._ xxv. (1879). 177-201. In the opinion of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 298, n. 3; 615, n. 2, following Niebuhr, a tribunician accusation involving a fine was then introduced, and the oration of Cicero was delivered in this second trial. Drumann-Gröbe, ibid.; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 357 f.; Schneider, _Process des Rabirius_ (Zürich, 1899), and others maintain that Cicero spoke in the trial conducted by the duumviri and that after it was dropped no further accusation was brought. Wirz, ibid., supposes that the senate quashed the process of the duumviri on the ground of illegality, that the accuser (Labienus) then brought a tribunician accusation for perduellio, but intimated a possible finable action in addition, and that the trial was ended, without resumption, by the hauling down of the flag.

[1572] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 13. 33: “Orbis terrarum gentiumque omnium datur cognitio sine consilio, poena sine provocatione, animadversio sine auxilio”; p. 435.

[1573] Cic. _Har. Resp._ 4. 7.

[1574] Anquisitio seems to mean an examination on both sides—including testimony for and against the accused; Fest. ep. 22; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 345, n. 3.

[1575] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91 f.

[1576] Cic. _Dom._ 17. 45: “Cum tam moderata iudicia populi sint a maioribus constituta ... ne inprodicta die quis accusetur, ut ter ante magistratus accuset intermissa die, quam multam inroget aut iudicet, quarta sit accusatio trinum nundinum prodicta die, quo die iudicium sit futurum, tum multa etiam ad placandum atque ad misericordiam reis concessa sint, deinde exorabilis populus, facilis suffragatio pro salute, denique etiam, si qua res ilium diem aut auspiciis aut excusatione sustulit, tota causa iudiciumque sublatum sit.”

[1577] The trinum nundinum, which included three market days (Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 34), could not have contained less than seventeen days or more than twenty-four.

[1578] Livy, xliii. 16. 11.

[1579] E.g. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 306, 344. The theory has little in its favor and is not generally accepted; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 167 f.

[1580] On the quarta accusatio, see Cic. _Dom._ 17. 45, quoted p. 259, n. 6. An example of the mitigation of a capital to a finable action is the case against T. Menenius for the mismanagement of a campaign which he had conducted as consul; Livy ii. 52. 3-5 (476). Two examples of change in the form of action in the opposite direction are given on p. 249 f.

[1581] Cic. _Dom._ 17. 45, quoted p. 259, n. 6.

[1582] Cf. the case of Appius Claudius Pulcher, p. 248.

[1583] Livy ii. 33. 1; Calpurnius Piso, in ibid. § 3; 58. 1; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; cf. Cic. _Rep._ ii. 33. 58; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 274 f. with notes. Meyer, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxvii (1882). 616 f., suggests a doubt as to whether they were instituted at that time. Niese, _De annalibus Romanis observationes_ (1886), and Meyer, in _Hermes_, xxx (1895), 1-24, have tried to prove that they were not instituted till 471 and that their original number was four. Niese’s view is controverted by Joh. Schmidt, in _Hermes_, xxi (1886). 464-6. Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 260, 275, assumes that they came into existence as a result of the abolition of the decemvirate.

[1584] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 48: “Tanta igitur in illis virtus fuit, ut anno XVI post reges exactos propter nimiam dominationem potentium secederent ... duos tribunos crearent, ... Itaque auspicato postero anno tr. pl. comitiis curiatis sunt”; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; cf. ix. 41. 4 f. (included clients and patricians); Livy ii. 56, especially § 3, 10. These authors represent the tribunes as trying vainly to force the patricians from the assembly while the voting was under way. The question of excluding the patricians, however, is connected with the statute of Publilius Philo (339) rather than with the so-called plebiscite of Publilius Volero (471); p. 300 f.

Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 2, places the first tribal meeting in 491, twenty years before the date to which its institution is otherwise assigned. If his account is not an anticipation of later usage, it is exceptional.

[1585] (1) Because there were no other magistrates at the time, (2) because the meeting was auspicated; p. 262, n. 2.

[1586] Inferred from the circumstance that this dignitary presided over the assembly which elected the first college of tribunes after the fall of the decemvirs; Livy iii. 54. 5, 9, 11; p. 285 below.

[1587] Livy iii. 13. 6; 56. 5; viii. 33. 7; ix. 26. 16; xxxviii. 52. 8; Suet. _Caes._ 23. Naturally the plebeians were in most need of protection; cf. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 169.

[1588] Livy ii. 33. 3: “Auxilii non poenae ius datum illi potestati”; cf. Ihne, ibid. 170.

[1589] Gell. iii. 2. 11; xiii. 12. 9; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 3. 8; Dion. Hal. viii. 87. 6; Serv. _in Aen._ v. 738; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 291, n. 2.

[1590] Plut. _Q. R._ 81.

[1591] In this respect the plebeian body was analogous to a corporation; Gaius, in _Dig._ xlvii. 22. 4 (quoting a law of the Twelve Tables). But it was not a private association. It could neither limit its membership nor change its organization. Proof of these two facts is that the change of organization from curiate to tribal and the consequent exclusion of the landless resulted from a centuriate law; p. 271. Notwithstanding the fact that its resolutions lacked the force of law, the close relation existing between it and the state gave it from the beginning a prominent place in the constitution.

[1592] Livy ii. 56. 11-13 (The consul asserted that according to ancestral usage he himself had no right to remove any one from the place of assembly); cf. 35. 3: “Plebis non patrum tribunos esse.”

[1593] Livy ii. 35. 3: “Auxilii non poenae ius datum illi potestati”; 56. 11-13.

[1594] Cf. Livy ii. 35. 2; 52. 3 ff.; 54. 3 ff.; 61.

[1595] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 2; Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 175 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 157.

[1596] Hence they had no viatores; so that for a time after they assumed criminal jurisdiction the aediles acted as their bailiffs; p. 290.

[1597] Livy iii. 55. 10: (In the opinion of some iuris interpretates) “Tribunos vetere iure iurando plebis, cum primum eam potestatem creavit, sacrosanctos esse.”

[1598] Fest. 318; Livy iii. 55. 6-10; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 3. The wording of the oath as given above is derived from the law which, according to Livy, was carried by the consuls Valerius and Horatius in 449; but there can be no doubt that this statute confirmed the oath taken long before by the plebs. As to the connection of Ceres with the plebeian organization, Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 272 ff., believes that her temple was not built before the middle of the fifth century, whereas Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 45, holds to the traditional date (493); cf. De Sanctis, _Storia d. Romani_, ii. 30. The building of the temple did not necessarily precede the institution of the tribunate. On the sacrosanctitas of the aediles, see Cato, in Fest. 318. 8; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 472 f.

[1599] As late as 131 a tribune of the plebs, C. Atinius Labeo, regarding the censor Q. Caecilius Metellus as a homo sacer for alleged violation of the tribunician sanctity, attempted without legal trial to hurl him from the Tarpeian Rock; Livy, ep. lix; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 44. 142 f., 146; Cic. _Dom._ 47. 123. See also Vell. ii. 24. 2; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 8.

[1600] Cic. _Balb._ 14. 33; Fest. 318. 9; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 147; also in _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xxii (1876). 139-50; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 286. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 176, expresses the belief that the lex sacrata had nothing more than a religious influence, that the offender suffered in his conscience and in public opinion only. The known leges sacratae, collected by Herzog, were (1) the first Valerian law of appeal; Livy ii. 8. 2 (cf. ii. 1. 9); (2) the act which rendered the persons of the tribunes sacred, and which, as intimated above, was not strictly a statute; Livy ii. 33. 1, 3; Fest. 318. 30; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 2; Cic. Frag. A. vii. 48; (3) the lex de Aventino; Livy iii. 31. 1; 32. 7; Dion. Hal. x. 32. 4; (4) the Valerian-Horatian law of appeal; Livy iii. 55. 4; (5) the military lex sacrata of 342; Livy vii. 41. 3; (6) the law of M. Antonius for the abolition of the dictatorship, 44; Appian, _B. C._ iii. 25. 94; Dio Cass. xliv. 51. 2.

[1601] Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 263.

[1602] Dion. Hal. vi. 84, 89. 1; cf. vii. 40; xi. 55. 3; Fest. 318; Livy iv. 6. 7. The idea that there was such a treaty is represented among moderns by Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 249 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 591; ii. 566, and opposed by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 146 f.; De Sanctis, _Storia d. Romani_, ii. 29.

[1603] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 15; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 287, n. 1. The fictitious character of the legal basis on which the plebeians are represented as acting in this early period of their history may be illustrated, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 299, n. 3, has pointed out, by their assumption of the agrarian proposal of Sp. Cassius as one of their fundamental principles, the application of which neither magistrates nor private individuals were at liberty to impede; cf. Livy ii. 54, 61; Dion. Hal. ix. 37, 54; Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 480, 531, 567. The fault is not all with the annalists.

[1604] P. 274.

[1605] Livy, ep. lviii; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 10.

[1606] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3.

[1607] Dion. Hal. vii. 17. 5: Δημάρχου γνώμην ἀγορεύοντος ἐν δήμῳ μηδεὶς λεγέτω μηδὲν ἐναντίον μηδὲ μεσολαβείτω τὸν λόγον. Ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα ποιήσῃ, διδότω τοῖς δημάρχοις ἐγγυητὰς αἰτηθεὶς εἰς ἔκτισιν ἧς ἂν ἐπιθῶσιν αὐτῶ ζημίας. Ὁ δὲ μὴ διδοὺς ἐγγυητὴν θανάτῳ ζημιούσθω, καὶ τὰ χρήματ’ αὐτοῦ ἱερὰ ἔστω. Τῶν δ’ ἀμφισβητούντων πρὸς ταύτας τὰς ζημίας αἱ κρίσεις ἔστωσαν ἐπὶ τοῦ δήμου; cf. x. 32. 1; 42. 4. Although we may feel uncertain as to the author and the date of this plebiscite, we need not doubt its existence, especially as the principle it contains is derived from leges sacratae by Cicero (_Sest._ 37. 79; cf. Pliny, _Ep._ i. 23), and was often put into practice; Livy iii. 11. 8; xxv. 3 f.; Dion. Hal. x. 41 f.; Cic. _Inv._ ii. 17. 52; Val. Max. ix. 5. 2; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 260 n. 2; ii. 289, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 602 f.; ii. 567. For the state, however, it had no more validity than had the original lex sacrata, of which the so-called Icilian plebiscite was an expansion.

[1608] Gell. xiii. 12. 9: “Tribuni, qui haberent summam coercendi potestatem.”

[1609] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 179; Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 174.

[1610] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 299, n. 1, expresses the opinion that the original form of the story represented Coriolanus as consul proposing a law for the abolition of the tribunate.

[1611] Dion. Hal. vii. 20-67, especially 59. 9 f.; 65; Livy ii. 34 ff.; Plut. _Cor._ 16-20; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 605; ii. 565.

[1612] P. 56, n. 4, 270 f.

[1613] Livy iii. 11. 8 f.; Dion. Hal. x. 5 ff.

[1614] Livy iii. 13. 8; Dion. Hal. x. 8. 3.

[1615] Livy’s idea that this assembly met in the Forum (iii. 13. 8) is sufficient evidence of his point of view. Cicero’s opinion (_Dom._ 32. 86; cf. _Sest._ 30. 65) may be biassed by his personal feelings; p. 268, n. 6.

[1616] Dion. Hal. x. 41 f. Various attempts of tribunes in this period to punish retired magistrates for abuse of office are also alleged by the ancient writers; cf. p. 264.

[1617] P. 265 f.

[1618] Livy ii. 35. 3; cf. 56. 11 f.

[1619] Livy iii. 55. 6.

[1620] Livy ii. 54.

[1621] Frag. 22. 1.

[1622] P. 241; cf. also Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 157. A far different view as to the form of assembly which received appeals in tribunician capital cases is represented by Cicero, in whose opinion the comitia centuriata were established as the sole power to judge concerning the caput of a citizen even in pre-decemviral time by the leges sacratae (_Sest._ 30. 65); and accordingly he believes that the sentence of exile was passed on Kaeso Quinctius by that body (_Dom._ 32. 86). But in this opinion Cicero’s personal bias already referred to (p. 267, n. 6) cannot be neglected: in discrediting the decree of exile passed against himself by the tribal comitia, it was agreeable to his purpose to deny that this assembly ever had enjoyed such competence. The view given in the text, represented by the annalists and confirmed by a law of the Twelve Tables, is obviously preferable.

[1623] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Gell. xi. 1. 2 f.; Fest. 202. 11; 237. 13; ep. 144; cf. p. 233 above. Dionysius, x. 50. 1 f., wrongly gives two cattle and thirty sheep as the maximum.

[1624] X. 50. 1 f.

[1625] With less probability Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 620; ii. 576 f., regards it as a concession to the plebs to satisfy their craving for the limitation of the consular power by written law.

[1626] Livy ii. 43. 3; 44. 6; Dion. Hal. viii. 87. 4; ix. 5. 1; 18. 1; x. 26. 4; Dio Cass. Frag. 22. 3; Zon. vii. 17. 7.

[1627] Livy iii. 11. 1.

[1628] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 297.

[1629] The veto of governmental acts, assigned them for the pre-decemviral period by the historians (cf. Livy ii. 44), is therefore an anachronism. The very fact mentioned by Livy, in the chapter here cited, of the patrician attempt to win as many tribunes as possible points to obstruction rather than to the veto as their weapon. The increase in the number of tribunes from two to ten indicates the same condition.

[1630] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 157.

[1631] Cf. Livy ii. 42. 6; 43. 3; 44. 1; 48. 2 f.; 52. 2 f.; 54. 2; Dion. Hal. viii. 87. 4 f.; ix. 5. 1; 37. 1 f.

[1632] Livy ii. 56. 2: “Rogationem tulit ad populum, ut plebei magistratus tributis comitiis fierent.”

[1633] The senate gave its consent; Livy ii. 57; Dion. Hal. ix. 49. 3 f.

[1634] Livy ii. 56. 3: “Haud parva res sub titulo prima specie minime atroci ferebatur, sed quae patriciis omnem potestatem per clientium suffragia creandi quos vellent tribunos auferret”; cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 5.

[1635] That the ancients had this conception of the curiate assembly which elected tribunes cannot be doubted; p. 24, 32; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 283, n. 1.

[1636] P. 54, 60 f.

[1637] IX. 49. 5; cf. 41. 3. Patrician magistrates auspicated their comitia, plebeian magistrates did not; p. 104.

[1638] VII. 17. 6: Καί τινες τῶν δημάρχων ἄλλα τε κατὰ τῶν εὐπατριδῶν συνέγραψαν, καὶ τὸ ἐξεῖναι τῷ πλήθει καὶ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ συνιέναι καὶ ἄνευ ἐκείνων βουλεύεσθαι καὶ χρηματίσαι πάνθ’ ὅσα ἂν ἐθελήσῃ; cf. Livy ii. 60. 4 f.

[1639] Livy ii. 56. 11 f.

[1640] Livy iii. 11. 4; vi. 35. 7; Dion. Hal. x. 3. 5; ch. 4; 40. 3 f.; 41.

[1641] P. 300 f.

[1642] IX. 43. 4.

[1643] Dion. Hal. ix. 49. 5; Livy ii. 56. 2; Dio Cass. xxxix. 32. 3; Suet. _Caes._ 76; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 799, n. 2.

[1644] Diod. xi. 68. 8: Ἐν τῇ Ῥῶμῃ τότε πρώτως κατεστάθησαν δήμαρχοι τέτταρες, Γάιος Σικίνιος καὶ Λεύκιος Νεμετώριος, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Μάρκος Δουίλλιος καὶ Σπόριος Ἀκίλιος. Livy, ii. 58. 1, following Piso, supposes that the number was now increased from two to five. Dio Cassius probably placed the increase from five to ten at this date; Zon. vii. 15. 1; 17. 6; Dio Cass. Frag. 22. 1. In the opinion of Meyer, in _Hermes_, xxx (1895). 1-24; _Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 141 f., the plebeian tribunate was instituted at this time and the original number was four; cf. p. 55, n. 1 above. But Diodorus does not say so; indeed his grouping of the four tribunes in pairs suggests a doubling—a fact which he has perhaps condensed from his source.

[1645] It has been shown above (119 ff., 126 ff.) that the assembly of tribes under tribunician presidency is rightly so designated.

[1646] Livy ii. 61. 1; 63. 2; iii. 1. 2 f.; Dion. Hal. ix. 51 f.

[1647] Livy iii. 31. 5 f. (454); Dion. Hal. x. 34 f., 42, 48; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 28. 101.

[1648] Livy iii. 10; 25. 9; 30. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 15. 3; 20. 4; 26. 4; Dio Cass. Frag. 21.

[1649] Livy iii. 30. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 30. 6 (457). The object, as stated by Livy, was increased protection for the commons. Any enlargement of the number after they had acquired the veto would have been a positive disadvantage; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 161; cf. above p. 270, n. 2. The change was made with the consent of the senate, doubtless through a centuriate law.

[1650] P. 233, 265, n. 1 (3).

[1651] P. 265, n. 1 (3).

[1652] Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 170.

[1653] Livy. ii. 9. 6. Even if these acts are not historical, there can be no doubt that the senate had the power which they imply.

[1654] Cf. Livy ii. 15. 1 f.

[1655] Livy ii. 3. 5; 5. 1.

[1656] Cf. Livy iii. 70. 14.

[1657] Livy ii. 36. 1; 37. 1.

[1658] Livy ii. 37. 8.

[1659] Cf. Livy iii. 21. 1 f.

[1660] Livy iii. 4. 9 (464). As long as the dictatorship was in use (till near the end of the third century B.C.) there was no need of resorting to this measure, although it cannot be doubted that the senate had the right.

[1661] Cf. Livy iii. 11. 1.

[1662] Livy iii. 11. 4; 14. 5; 16. 6; 17. 4; Dion. Hal. x. 3. 3 f.; 4. 2.

[1663] Livy iii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. x. 55. 3; p. 233 above.

[1664] Cf. Livy ii. 58. 1; iii. 24. 9; 30. 6.

[1665] Cf. p. 264 ff.

[1666] P. 234.

[1667] Livy. iii. 55. 7; cf. p. 264.

[1668] Ibid. § 6 f.

[1669] Livy iii. 55. 8 ff.; cf. Cic. _Balb._ 14. 33; _Tull._ 20. 47; Appian, _B. C._ ii. 108. 453; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 303 with notes.

[1670] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 15.

[1671] Livy iii. 55. 3: “Cum velut in controverso iure esset, tenerenturne patres plebi scitis, legem centuriatis comitiis tulere, ut quod tributim plebis iussisset, populum teneret, qua lege tribuniciis rogationibus telum acerrimum datum est”; cf. 67. 9; Dion. Hal. xi. 45. 1.

[1672] On the tribunician legislation of the period 449-339, see p. 292 ff.

[1673] P. 271.

[1674] XI. 45. 3: Εἴρηται δὲ καὶ πρότερον, ὅτι ἐν μὲν ταῖς φυλετικαῖς ἐκκλησίαις οἱ δημοτικοὶ καὶ πένητες ἐκράτουν τῶν πατρικίων.

[1675] VI. 35. 7: “Qui (patres) ubi tribus ad suffragium ineundum citari a Licinio Sextioque viderunt, stipati patrum praesidiis nec recitari rogationes nec sollemne quidquam aliud ad sciscendum plebi fieri passi sunt.” When the tribes were again called for voting, the dictator, accompanied by a crowd of patricians, took a seat in the assembly and supported the tribunician protest; Livy vi. 38. 5 ff. On another occasion some years earlier the patres old and young came into the Forum, and taking their places in the several tribes, appealed to their tribesmen to vote against the proposal of the tribunes; Livy v. 30. 4 f. Still earlier C. Claudius and other senior patricians spoke in a tribunician assembly against the measure then before the plebs. Soltau’s objection (_Berl. Stud._ ii. 47) to the interpretation here represented has little weight, as it rests upon the theory that from the beginning everything was carefully defined and regulated by law.

[1676] P. 153, 156 f.

[1677] P. 157, 211.

[1678] P. 211.

[1679] P. 271, n. 3.

[1680] P. 300 f.

[1681] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 157, regarding the alleged pre-decemviral plebiscites as genuine acts of the plebs, believes that this conditioned validity of such acts was established at some unknown time prior to the decemvirate. The view of Herzog that certain statutes termed plebiscites in the sources were in reality centuriate laws is accepted in this chapter.

[1682] P. 235.

[1683] Livy iii. 55. 15; iv. 6. 3 (Canuleian plebiscite); 12. 8 (for the election of a prefect of the market, 440); 49. 6 (“Temptatum ab L. Sextio tribuno plebis, ut rogationem ferret, qua Bolas quoque sicut Labicos coloni mitterentur, per intercessionem collegarum, qui nullum plebi scitum nisi ex auctoritate senatus passuros se perferri ostenderunt, discussum est,” 415); 51. 2 f. (413); vi. 42. 9 (Licinian-Sextian plebiscite); vii. 15. 12 f. (law against bribery, 356); 27. 3 (347); viii. 23. 11 f. (the plebiscite for prolonging the consular imperium, 327); x. 6. 9 (Ogulnian plebiscite, 300); 21. 9 (plebiscite ordering the praetor to appoint triumviri for conducting colonies, 296). Cf. also Dion. Hal. x. 26. 4 f. (457); 30. 1; 48. 1 (454); 50. 3; xi. 54. 4 (444); Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 208 ff. All the citations from Dionysius, excepting the last, refer to pre-decemviral time, and hence are anticipations of a later condition.

The first triumph by order of the people, without the consent of the senate, according to Livy iii. 63. 11 (cf. Dion. Hal. xi. 50. 1), took place in 449. It is to be noticed, however, that a magistrate always had a right to triumph without permission either of the senate or of the people (Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 214 f.), provided he paid his own expenses; Polyb. vi. 15. 8; Livy xxxiii. 23. 8. The resolution of the people on this occasion, if historical, may have been a mere pledge of sympathy and confidence; cf. p. 293. But Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 194, doubts its reality.

The “ancient law long ago abolished,” which required the consent of the senate to proposals brought before the people, and which Sulla is said to have renewed (Appian, _B. C._ i. 59. 266; cf. p. 406), is ordinarily referred, as by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 193, to the condition on the validity of the plebiscite under discussion. Appian may have had this restriction in mind, for we know at least that under the constitution as reformed by Sulla the tribunes did propose laws de senatus sententia; _CIL._ i. 204 (year 71); Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 94; Girard, _Textes_, 66; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 154; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559.

[1684] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 157.

[1685] Lange’s idea (_Röm. Alt._ ii. 619; cf. i. 611, 614, 642) that there was no statute which made the consent of the senate essential to the validity of the plebiscite does not appear to be well considered. Had the tribunes not been bound by written enactment, they would have felt themselves free to legislate without the senate’s coöperation, and even the law they tried in vain to disregard.

[1686] Livy iii. 55. 13.

[1687] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158.

[1688] Diod. xii. 25. 3: Ἐὰν δὲ οἱ δήμαρχοι μὴ συμφωνῶσι πρὸς ἀλλήλους, κύριοι εἶναι τὸν ἀνὰ μέσον κείμενον μὴ κωλύεσθαι; Livy iv. 48. 10-16 (416); 53. 6; v. 25. 1 (395); vi. 36. 8; 37. 3; 38. 5. The same passages show the dependence of the government upon the tribunes for checking innovations.

[1689] Livy iii. 69. 5 f.; iv. i. 6; 30. 15; 53. 2, 6 (407); 55. 1-5 (406); 60. 5 (403); v. 12. 3, 7 (397); vi. 27. 9 f. (376); 31. 4 (cf. 31. 1 f., year 374); vi. 36. 3 f.; Dion. Hal. xi. 54. 3 (444).

[1690] It is true that Livy (iv. 50. 6, 8; 56. 10-13, year 408; v. 9. 4 ff., year 402; vi. 35. 9) assigns the tribune this right; but on one occasion (vii. 17. 12, year 356) he informs us that such a protest was disregarded by the magistrate. We may suppose that in this period they often attempted the power, but usually without success. They possessed a growing influence in the right to address the people, which must often have added an overwhelming force to their protests; cf. Livy iv. 25. 1 (434); 58. 14 (406); v. 2. 2 ff. (403); ch. 6 (403). This kind of obstruction may be meant by Livy iv. 36. 3 (424); 43. 3 (421); v. 17. 5 (397); vii. 21. 1 ff. (353). The government, on the other hand, continued to use the levy for the obstruction of tribunician bills; Livy iv. 55. 1 (409); v. 11. 9 (401).

[1691] The principal recorded seditions are (1) the revolt against the decemvirate in 449 (Livy iii. 50 ff.); (2) a plebeian secession to the Janiculum in the struggle for the Canuleian law (Florus i. 25); (3) a state of anarchy in 376 (Diod. xv. 61. 1), which, according to Matzat (_Röm. Chron._ ii. 110), lasted about four months; (4) a state of anarchy in the struggle for the Licinian-Sextian laws (Diod. xv. 75. 1; Livy vi. 35. 10), which, according to Matzat (ibid. ii. 112), continued three years, 376-373; (5) a secession of the plebs to the Janiculum in the struggle which resulted in the Hortensian legislation, 287 (Livy, ep. xi; Dio Cass. Frag. 37; Zon. viii. 2. 1).

[1692] P. 104, 110, 116 f.

[1693] X. 47. 1.

[1694] P. 116 f.

[1695] P. 230.

[1696] Cf. Livy vi. 3. 2 (389); 33. 7 f. (377); vii. 19. 7 (353).

[1697] Livy vi. 14. 1: “Dictator ... minime dubius bellum cum his populis patres iussuros” (385). In 381 the senate decreed that the Tusculans should be punished with war (Livy vi. 25. 5), no mention being made of the people; and the declaration of war against the Latins in 340 appears to have been merely acclaimed by the people who chanced at the time to be in front of the senate-house; Livy viii. 6. 4-8.

[1698] Livy v. 49. 2 (390).

[1699] Livy iv. 58. 1 f.; v. 28. 5 (394); 50. 3 (390); vi. 10. 9 (382); vii. 19. 4 (353); 22. 5 (351); 38. 1 (343); viii. 2. 1 (341); 19. 1-3 (330); x. 11. 13 with 12. 1, 13 (298); 45. 4 (293); p. 302.

[1700] Livy viii. 11 f., 14 (340, 338). It punished for revolt; ibid. viii. 20. 7 (329).

[1701] Livy vi. 26. 8; viii. 11. 16; p. 304.

[1702] P. 273.

[1703] Livy v. 19. 6 (396); cf. iv. 27. 1 (431).

[1704] Livy v. 50 (390).

[1705] Cf. Livy vii. 28. 5 f. (345).

[1706] Livy iv. 59. 11 (406); p. 367. The statement of Diodorus, xiv. 16. 5, that the Romans voted to pay for military service does not necessarily point to an act of the assembly; and the opposition of the tribunes to the measure indicates that at least in Livy’s opinion it was an act of the senate alone.

[1707] Cf. the tributum for the new wall; Livy vi. 32. 1.

[1708] Cf. Livy v. 30. 8 (393); p. 295, 310.

[1709] Livy iv. 11; 47. 6; v. 24. 4; 30. 8; ix. 28. 8 (313); Vell. i. 14. 1; p. 310.

[1710] Livy vi. 4. 5 (389).

[1711] Livy v. 13. 5 (399).

[1712] Livy iv. 30. 9 (428).

[1713] Livy x. 1. 3 (303).

[1714] Livy iv. 46. 10; 56. 8; vi. 11. 10; vii. 6. 12; 21. 9; vii. 3. 4; viii. 17. 3; 29. 9 (325).

[1715] Livy v. 9. 6 (402).

[1716] Livy v. 9; 17. 2 f. (397); 31 f. (392, 391); viii. 3. 4 (341).

[1717] Livy viii. 16. 11; 20. 7; 39. 15 (322).

[1718] P. 277, n. 4.

[1719] Livy vi. 19. 3 (384).

[1720] Livy iii. 54. 5, 9, 11 (449).

[1721] Livy iii. 65. 1 (448). That the coöptation of tribunes was once legal is proved by a formula quoted by Livy iii. 61. 10. That the coöpted tribunes were patrician is now generally disbelieved (cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 195) because it does not accord with the conventional view of a constitution kept in perfect working order from the beginning to the end of Roman history. The irregular is possible and is less likely to be invented.

[1722] Livy iii. 65. 1-4; Diod. xii. 25. 3. Diodorus, who mentions the penalty, connects the law closely in time, as does Livy, with the reëstablishment of the constitution.

[1723] V. 10. 11; 11. 1-3.

[1724] Livy iv. 16. 3 (439).

[1725] Continuous fasti tribunicii, however, did not exist.

[1726] Thereafter when a vacancy occurred during the year, it was filled by election; Appian, _B. C._ i. 13. 54; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 13.

[1727] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; Cic. _Fam._ vii. 30. 1; cf. Gell. xiii. 15. 4.

[1728] Livy ix. 46. 1 f.; xxv. 2. 7; Varro, _R. R._ iii. 17. 1; Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49; Piso, in Gell. vii. 9. 2.

[1729] Sall. _Iug._ 63.

[1730] Gell. xiii. 15. 4.

[1731] P. 280.

[1732] P. 241, 268.

[1733] Cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 19. 45; Livy xxvi. 3. This subject is admirably presented by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 578-80.

[1734] Cic. _Inv._ i. 38. 68.

[1735] Cf. Livy v. 11. 4; 12. 2; 29. 6 f.; viii. 33. 17; xxvi. 3. 6.

[1736] Livy xxvi. 3. 6-9; p. 307 f., 322 above.

[1737] P. 234, 269 above; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Livy iv. 30. 3. The equivalents are mentioned in connection with the lex Aternia Tarpeia; Gell. xi. 1. 2; Fest. 202. 11; 237. 13; ep. 144; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 622; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 172, 639. The law is no proof of the existence of coins at that time.

[1738] Cato, _Orig._ v. 5; Fest. 246 (lex Silia); Cic. _Rep._ 35. 60; Livy iv. 30. 3; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 409; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 580.

[1739] Livy viii. 37. 8 ff. A tribune of the plebs brought before the tribes certain Tusculans, accused of having incited neighboring states against Rome, 323. They were acquitted; p. 310.

[1740] Livy iv. 11. 3-7. This is one of the few prosecutions of inferior officials for maladministration; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 2. The event is too early to be certain.

[1741] Livy iv. 40. 4; 41. 10 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 581.

[1742] Livy v. 11. 4 ff.; 12. 1.

[1743] P. 244 f.

[1744] Livy vi. 1. 6.

[1745] Livy vii. 3-5.

[1746] _Off._ ii. 31. 112.

[1747] Livy x. 37. 7; cf. xxix. 19. 6 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 3.

[1748] Livy x. 46. 16.

[1749] Livy, ep. xi; cf. p. 306 below.

[1750] Livy, ep. xi; Dion. Hal. xvii. 4 f.; Dio Cass. Frag. 36. 32. Dionysius states the fine at 50,000 denarii.

[1751] Livy v. 29. 6 f. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 823; ii. 581, looks with suspicion on this case because it is the only one of the kind in the period. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 1, considers it an anticipation of the condemnation of the tribunes in 84 for having taken the side of Sulla.

[1752] Livy iv. 21. 3 f.

[1753] Livy vi. 38. 9; Plut. _Cam._ 39.

[1754] P. 247, 248, n. 1.

[1755] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 282, 475. In time the aediles themselves received viatores through a lex Papiria of unknown date; _CIL._ vi. 1933.

[1756] Dion. Hal. vii. 35. 4; Plut. _Cor._ 18. For this reason tribunician sentences continued to the end to be executed by a tribune or an aedile; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 146.

[1757] Dion. Hal. vi. 90. 2; cf. 95. 4; Zon. vii. 15. 10.

[1758] Livy iii. 31. 4-6; Dion. Hal. x. 48; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 29. 201.

[1759] P. 264, 272. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 475, n. 3, however, who looks upon it as a legally credible tradition, remarks that the competence of the aediles, at that time coextensive with that of the tribunes, must afterward have been limited by the Twelve Tables.

[1760] As in 204, when an aedile was sent to arrest Scipio, should circumstances favor his apprehension: Livy xxix. 20. 11; xxxviii. 52. 7. More frequently they executed the sentence; p. 290, n. 5.

[1761] Livy vii. 16. 9; Dion. Hal. xiv. 12 (22); Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 17; Plut. _Cam._ 39; Val. Max. viii. 6. 3.

[1762] Livy x. 13. 14; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 341.

[1763] Livy x. 23. 13. We are not informed whether these cases came before the assembly.

[1764] Livy x. 47. 4.

[1765] Livy vii. 28. 9. The rank of the prosecutor cannot be more definitely stated.

[1766] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. (6.) 19. The accuser, Cn. Flavius, was curule aedile; Livy ix. 46. 1.

[1767] Livy x. 23. 11 f. The prosecutors were curule aediles.

[1768] Livy viii. 22. 3; Val. Max. viii. 1. 7. Fourteen of the twenty-nine tribes then existing had declared against him, when the prosecuting aedile by an unintentional expression turned the vote in his favor. This result is to be explained on the supposition that the proceedings were at that point interrupted, and the whole vote taken again; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 486.

[1769] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 584. From the nature of the process we infer that it was aedilician; and as the accuser was a patrician, his aedileship must have been curule.

[1770] P. 233, 269, 287.

[1771] P. 264.

[1772] P. 103.

[1773] P. 102, n. 1.

[1774] P. 273 ff.

[1775] Livy iii. 54. 14.

[1776] Ibid. § 15.

[1777] Livy iii. 55. 14.

[1778] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 279, n. 1, 302.

[1779] We have no means of testing the historical truth of these three alleged plebiscites. The first Icilian was of transient character, and the first Duillian was unnecessary, though not especially suspicious on that account. The second Duillian represents constitutional principles known to have been early established. They are doubted by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 149 f.

[1780] XII. 25. 2. He does not state that this arrangement was embodied in a law, although otherwise it could not have been effective.

[1781] Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. i. 558 f. The fact that Fabius Pictor (in Gell. v. 4. 3) places the election of the first plebeian consul in the twenty-second year after the Gallic conflagration indicates (1) that Diodorus did not depend upon Fabius, (2) that Livy’s view of this constitutional change is essentially that of Fabius; cf. Pais, ibid. I. ii. 136, n. 2.

[1782] Livy iii. 63. 8-11; Dion. Hal. xi. 50. 1; _Act. Triumph. Capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 44; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 194.

[1783] Livy vii. 17. 9; _Act. Triumph. Capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 44. In this case it is possible that the senate for a time resisted, to yield finally under pressure.

[1784] Cf. Polyb. vi. 15. 8; Dio Cass. Frag. 74. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 623.

[1785] Postumius, consul in 294, when refused a triumph by the senate, refrained from bringing the case before the people because he foresaw tribunician resistance, but declared his intention to triumph by right of his consular imperium; Livy x. 37. 6-12; Dion. Hal. xvii, xviii. 5. 3 (18); _Act. Triumph. Capit._ in _CIL._ i². p. 45. Q. Minucius, consul in 197, when refused by the senate, asserted that he would triumph on the Alban Mount, also by right of his consular imperium and after the example of many illustrious men; Livy xxxiii. 23. 3; _CIL._ i². p. 48; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 214 f.; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 134.

[1786] P. 273, 284.

[1787] Cf. Livy iv. 20. 1; vi. 42. 8.

[1788] P. 285; cf. p. 301.

[1789] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 37. 63; Livy iv. 1-6; Flor. i. 17. 25. The commonly accepted theory that this decemviral enactment merely confirmed a custom which had existed from the beginning of Rome is supported neither by the sources nor by a comparison of early usage in other states.

[1790] P. 234.

[1791] P. 286.

[1792] Livy iii. 71 f.; Dion. Hal. xi. 52. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 198, n. 4, finds difficulties in the details; but we are not warranted in denying the truth of the event on the ground of irregularity in the proceedings, even while we admit that much is uncertain in the history of the period to which the act is assigned.

[1793] P. 230, 283.

[1794] The institution of new offices and the increase in number within existing magisterial colleges by act of the centuries (cf. p. 234) is merely the application of a long-recognized popular right.

[1795] Livy iv. 12. 8. This alleged act of the tribes is suspicious because of its isolation; for in this period offices were instituted by the centuries. It is either exceptional or an anticipation of later usage; cf. p. 306.

[1796] Livy iv. 25. 13 f. The same author, vii. 15. 12 f., states that the first lex de ambitu was enacted in 358; p. 296.

[1797] Livy iv. 51. 2 f.; Flor. i. 17. 2 (22); Zon. vii. 20. 5. The act, like that of 440, is either exceptional or an anticipation of later usage; cf. p. 309.

[1798] Livy vi. 20. 13. The context indicates that in Livy’s opinion it was a resolution of the plebs. Dio Cass. Frag. 25.

Whether the order of the people, 437, directing the dictator at public expense to present a golden crown of a pound weight to Jupiter was dictatorial or tribunician cannot be determined; Livy iv. 20. 4.

[1799] Cf. iv. 48. 1; 53. 6; v. 12. 3; vi. 5. 2; 6. 1.

[1800] Livy iv. 36. 2 (424).

[1801] Livy iv. 59. 11; Diod. xiv. 16. 5; Zon. vii. 20. 6; Flor. i. 6 (12). 8; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 540, 668 f.; ii. 627; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 212 f.; p. 284 above.

[1802] Livy vi. 42. 2; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 461.

[1803] The word utique, “at least,” inserted in this article by Livy, vi. 35. 5, belongs to the Genucian law of 342; p. 299.

[1804] Livy vi. 35. 4 f.; 42. 9; xxxiv. 4. 9.

[1805] In his account of the Licinian-Sextian legislation he makes no mention of this last regulation, but assumes its existence for the following period; cf. p. 291 f., on aedilician prosecutions for violations of this article.

Other sources for the second Licinian-Sextian plebiscite are Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 9; Plut. _Cam._ 39; _Ti. Gracch._ 8; Appian, _B. C._ i. 8. 33; Vell. ii. 6. 3; Val. Max. viii. 6. 3; (Aurel. Vict.), _Vir. Ill._ 20.

The statute, especially the agrarian portion, is discussed by Meyer, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxvii (1882). 610-27; Niese, in _Hermes_, xxiii (1888). 410-23; _Röm. Gesch._ 55, 148; Soltau, in _Hermes_, xxx (1895). 624-9; Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. ii. 72 ff., 134 ff. Niese refuses to believe that this agrarian legislation came so early, and prefers a date shortly after the close of the war with Hannibal. Soltau, controverting Niese’s view, insists that the chief regulation mentioned by Livy—the limitation of occupation to five hundred iugera—belongs to Licinius and Sextius, and that the article was afterward renewed, with the addition of the other provisions stated by Appian, probably about the time of the Hortensian legislation. Against the earlier date is especially urged the circumstance that the large number of iugera allowed to the individual is incongruous with the narrow limits of the Roman territory at that time. The provision for the relief of debtors, too, has the appearance of an anticipation of a plebiscite on the same subject passed in 447; p. 298 below; cf. Matzat, _Röm. Chron._ ii. 113, n. 9; 128, n. 6.

[1806] Livy vii. 15. 12 f.; Isler, _Ueber das poetelische Gesetz de ambitu_, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxviii (1873). 473-7; Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 195-213; _Röm. Alt._ i. 716; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 241 f.; Ihm, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1801; cf. p. 295 above.

[1807] P. 202.

[1808] P. 235, 314.

[1809] Livy vii. 16. 7 f.; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 246-8; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 191; ii. 26, 621.

[1810] Livy vii. 16. 8.

[1811] Livy vii. 16. 1. Two laws of 356 have a certain degree of financial interest: the dictatorial law which made provision for an impending war (Livy vii. 17. 7); and the alleged resolution of the people (p. 293) to grant the same dictator the privilege of a triumph.

[1812] Tac. _Ann._ vi. 16; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 183, n. 3.

[1813] Livy vii. 21, 5; cf. Herzog. _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 245. That the bank commission owed its existence to a law is an inference from the circumstances. The form of assembly is unknown. With this Valerian-Marcian law, 352, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 621 f., conjecturally identifies the lex Marcia against usurers; Gaius iv. 23. In his opinion also (ibid. ii. 622; cf. Rudorff, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 51) the lex Furia de sponsu mentioned by Gaius, iii. 121; iv. 22, “discharging the sponsor and fide-promissor of liability in two years and limiting the liability of each to a proportionate part” (Poste’s interpretation) belongs to L. Furius, dictator in 345 (Livy vii. 28. 2); whereas others assign it to the year 95 (cf. Poste, _Gai. Inst._ 359) and others to a time subsequent to Cicero (cf. Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, ii. 30). It was later than the lex Appuleia de sponsu, which is referred to by Gaius iii. 122, and which must have been enacted after the establishment of the provincial system. It is to be attributed, accordingly, to the famous tribune of 103, 100 (Poste, ibid. 359) rather than to the like-named tribune of 390 (Livy v. 32. 8; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 621). These considerations render the later dating of the lex Furia the more probable. The lex Publilia de sponsu, the date of which is also unknown, granted the surety (sponsor) an action against the principal debtor in case the latter failed to reimburse him within six months; Gaius iii. 127; iv. 22, cf. 171.

[1814] Livy vii. 27. 3; Tac. _Ann._ vi. 16. The author is not named.

[1815] P. 238.

[1816] Livy vii. 42. 1-3. Appian, _B. C._ i. 54, testifies to the existence of an ancient law forbidding interest; cf. Tac. _Ann._ vi. 16.

[1817] Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. ii. 270, with his usual acumen has argued against the existence of the Genucian as well as of the Publilian statute; but the reasons urged by this eminent scholar do not seem to me to be convincing. The period in which they fall is certainly within the reach of tradition. The abolition of debts through the Valerian law was in keeping with the populistic spirit of the masses in that age, as was the prohibition of interest.

[1818] Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. ii. 278, n. 4: “Thus C. Junius Bubulcus and Aemilius Barbula, consuls in 317, reappear in 311 B.C.; L. Papirius Cursor is consul in 320, 319, 315, 313; P. Decius is consul in 312 and in 308,” etc.; cf. further Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 519, n. 5. It is true that on one occasion Livy, x. 13. 8 f. (298), speaks of the law and of a proposal of the tribunes to obtain a dispensation for the candidate Fabius by a vote of the people, oblivious of the violation of the law by this same Fabius as well as by many others.

[1819] Livy xxiii. 31. 13 f.; Plut. _Marc._ 12 (215). On that occasion when the people were told that the election of two plebeians as colleagues in the consulship was displeasing to the gods, they proceeded to choose a patrician in place of the second plebeian; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 253, n. 2. The first definitive election of two plebeians was in 172; _Fast. Cos. Capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 25: “Ambo primi de plebe.”

[1820] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 253.

[1821] Livy viii. 12. 14-16.

[1822] P. 235.

[1823] P. 237.

[1824] P. 307.

[1825] P. 274, 313.

[1826] The most detailed study of this subject, including a critique of the principal modern views, is made by Soltau, _Gültigkeit der Plebiscite_, in _Berl. Stud._ ii (1885). 1-176. His criticism is more satisfactory than his construction.

[1827] This point is established by the circumstances (1) that no writer of the period refers to the principle mentioned; (2) that Cicero regards the thirty-five tribes under tribunician presidency as the universus populus Romanus—a definition which is incompatible with the legal exclusion of the patricians from that form of assembly (p. 129 f.); (3) that on one occasion, 209, after the Hortensian legislation Livy (xxvii. 21. 1-4) represents the voting assembly under tribunician presidency as composed not only of plebs but of all ranks (concursu plebisque et omnium ordinum), and that the patricians were evidently free to take part in the debates of the concilium; cf. Livy xliii. 16. 8; (4) Caesar, _B. C._ iii. 1, seems to represent the praetors and tribunes as presiding together over the same comitia (“praetoribus tribunisque plebis rogationes ad populum ferentibus”)—which would prove that no difference of composition existed between the pretorian and the tribunician assemblies of tribes.

[1828] P. 230.

[1829] Livy ix. 5. 2.

[1830] _Inv._ ii. 30. 92.

[1831] Livy ix. 8. 14: the tribunes protested against breaking it.

[1832] Livy ix. 10. 10: the circumstance that he assaulted the Roman fetialis is sufficient evidence of his view.

[1833] IX. 9. 4. Gellius, xvii. 21. 36, less credibly states that the treaty was repudiated by order of the people.

[1834] Livy ix. 5-11; Cic. _Off._ iii. 30. 109; _Inv._ ii. 30. 92; Zon. vii. 26. 15.

[1835] Livy ix. 9. 4.

[1836] Livy viii. 36. 11 f. (ambassadors of the Samnites, applying for peace to the dictator, are ordered by him to address the senate, which replies that it will accept the arrangements of the magistrate, 324); ix. 20. 8 (an unequal alliance with Apulia negotiated by the consul, 317); ix. 43. 6 f. (the Hernicans, beaten in war, apply to the senate, and are referred to the consuls, who accept their submission, 307); ix. 45. 1-3 (Samnite ambassadors ask peace of the senate, which replies that the consul will pass through their country and will report to the senate on the conditions which he finds there, 304); x. 3. 5 (the dictator, fining the Marsians of a part of their territory, grants them a renewal of the treaty, 302). In none of these instances is mention made of the people; and most of them preclude a popular vote.

[1837] Sall. _Iug._ 39.

[1838] Cf. Livy ix. 20. 2 f. (318), in which a proposal of peace was rejected by the people. In the treaty with the Lucanians, 298, Livy, x. 11. 13; 12. 1, mentions the senate only; Dionysius, xvii, xviii (xvi. 12). 1. 3, speaks of both senate and assembly.

[1839] Cf. Livy ix. 20. 2 f.

[1840] Polyb. vi. 14. 10 f.; 15. 9.

[1841] P. 181.

[1842] _Röm. Alt._ i. 514; ii. 638; p. 283 above.

[1843] Livy viii. 13. 10 ff.; ch. 14.

[1844] The gift of citizenship, adprobantibus cunctis, to L. Mamilius, dictator of Tusculum, 458, does not necessarily imply a public vote; Livy iii. 29. 6. Even if this were the opinion of Livy, it need be no more than an anticipation of later usage. In 381 the Tusculans received the citizenship, how we are not informed; Livy vi. 26. 8; Dio Cass. Frag. 28. 2. In the account of the settlement of Latium and Campania in 340, involving the grant of citizenship to the Capuan equites, no mention is made of either senate or people; Livy viii. 11. 13-16. The sources are likewise silent as to a popular vote in the grant of citizenship sine suffragio to the Caerites; Livy vii. 20. 8; Dio Cass. Frag. 33 (Boissevain i. p. 138); Strabo v. 2. 3, p. 220; Gell. xvi. 13. 7. From Livy and Dio Cassius it may be reasonably inferred that the event took place after 353, though Boissevain’s date, 273, seems to be too late. Probably they were admitted between 353 and 332—before the hundred years’ peace had far advanced.

[1845] Livy viii. 17. 12.

[1846] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 638.

[1847] I. 14. 4.

[1848] Livy viii. 21. 10. Nothing is said as to the chairmanship of the assembly. The event is referred to by Dio Cass. Frag. 35. 11.

[1849] Livy ix. 43. 24.

[1850] P. 352.

[1851] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 610 f., 638.

[1852] P. 234. The only exception is the creation of a prefecture of the market by a plebiscite in 440; p. 295.

[1853] Livy viii. 23. 11 f.

[1854] Livy x. 22. 9.

[1855] Livy ix. 42. 2.

[1856] Livy x. 16. 1.

[1857] Dion. Hal. xvii, xviii (xvi. 16). 4. 4.

[1858] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 640.

[1859] Livy x. 24. 18; cf. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 531. For other versions of the event, see Livy x. 26. 5 f.

[1860] Livy, ep. xi; p. 359 above. Probability favors the tribunician assembly.

[1861] Livy ix. 20. 5.

[1862] Fest. 233. 14.

[1863] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 609.

[1864] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 73, 632. Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 1144, assumes that it was proposed by L. Furius, praetor in that year.

[1865] Livy ix. 30. 3.

[1866] P. 234.

[1867] Livy ix. 30. 3 f. In ix. 38. 2 he refers to a naval commander whom the senate placed in charge of the coast, and whom Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 580, n. 1, supposes to have been a duovir. That a duovir commanded a fleet in 282 is proved by Livy, ep. xii; Dio Cass. Frag. 39. 4. Probably the triumviri capitales, 289, were created by a similar act of the tribes; Livy, ep. xi; p. 312.

[1868] P. 309.

[1869] P. 311.

[1870] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 534, 636.

[1871] Fest. 246. 19.

[1872] The brief statement of Festus, ibid., is here interpreted in the light of Livy xxiii. 23. 6. In general on the Ovinian plebiscite, see Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 393-446; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 153-173, 668-89; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 259 ff.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 418; iii. 873, 879.

[1873] Cf. Livy iv. 5. 2; p. 287 above.

[1874] Cf. Gell. x. 20. 4, 9 f.

[1875] Cf. Livy viii. 16. 4; ix. 7. 15; 28. 2; Diod. xix. 66. 1; p. 299, n. 3.

[1876] Livy x. 13. 8 f.

[1877] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 641.

[1878] Livy x. 22. 9.

[1879] It is the only instance mentioned for this early time.

[1880] Livy x. 13. 10: “Iam regi leges, non regere”; cf. Appian, _Lib._ 112; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 641.

[1881] P. 295 f.

[1882] P. 293, 295, n. 6.

[1883] _Div._ i. 26. 55; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11. 13 (on the reading, see Mommsen, in _Hermes_ iv (1870). 7; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 634.

[1884] Livy viii. 13. 1.

[1885] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11. 5; Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 11. 54. On these games, see Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 497; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 111 f., 385 f.

[1886] Livy ii. 36; Dion. Hal. vii. 68; Plut. _Cor._ 24; Val. Max. i. 7. 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 634.

[1887] Livy ix. 46. 7.

[1888] _Röm. Alt._ i. 828; ii. 634.

[1889] Cic. _Dom._ 49. 127 f.; _Att._ iv. 2. 3.

[1890] Livy x. 6 f. He has evidently made a mistake in supposing the number of pontiffs to have been increased to only eight (chs. 6. 6; 8. 3; 9. 2; cf. Bardt, _Priester der vier grossen Collegien_, 32 f.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 432, n. 4.)

[1891] P. 240, 241, 269, 280.

[1892] P. 241 f.

[1893] P. 295.

[1894] Livy viii. 18. 3 ff.; Val. Max. ii. 5. 3; Oros. iii. 10; August. _Civ. Dei_, iii. 17. p. 124 Domb. The lex de veneficio mentioned by Livy, ep. viii, may refer to the act which established this court; but it would not be legitimate to argue from this expression a popular vote. The epitomator undoubtedly drew all his information from the text.

[1895] Livy ix. 26. 6 ff.; cf. however, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 637.

[1896] Livy viii. 37. 8; Val. Max. ix. 10. 1; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 42. 43. 136; p. 288, n. 1.

[1897] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 637.

[1898] Livy ix. 16. 10; xxvi. 33. 10.

[1899] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 34. 59; Livy viii. 28; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 105; Dion. Hal. xvi. 5 (9); Suidas, s. v. Γάιος Λαιτώριος; cf. Kleineidam, _in Festg. f. F. Dahn_, ii. 1-30.

[1900] Varro, ibid., assigns the law to a dictator, C. Popillius, which may be a mistake for C. Poetelius, dictator in 313; Livy ix. 28. 2.

[1901] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 74.

[1902] P. 238.

[1903] P. 284.

[1904] Livy, iv. 11. 3-7, represents the tribunes of 442 as attempting to call to account the colonial commissioners of that year (cf. p. 288). In 418 they planned to offer a bill for colonizing Labici (Livy iv. 47. 6). In 415 a bill for colonizing Bolae, introduced by a tribune of the plebs, was vetoed by a colleague; Livy iv. 49. 6; cf. Diod. xiii. 42. 6. Many similar instances are given for the time immediately following; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 626 f. with citations. Although we may question the truth of these individual cases, we have no ground for doubting that such agitation continued long before the tribunes succeeded in carrying a colonial law.

[1905] Livy x. 21. 9; p. 307.

[1906] Livy viii. 36. 9 f.; ix. 42. 5.

[1907] Cf. Livy x. 6. 3; 21. 9; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 282 f.

[1908] Cf. Livy x. 17. 10; 20. 16; 25. 3; 30. 10: “Praemia illa tempestate militiae haudquaquam spernenda”; 31. 4; 44. 1; 45. 14; 46. 15.

[1909] Livy x. 13. 14; 23. 13; 47. 4.

[1910] Livy x. 46. 5 f.

[1911] Livy x. 31. 8; 47. 6; ep. xi; Zon. viii. 1. 10; Val. Max. i. 8. 2.

[1912] Livy x. 23. 11 f.

[1913] P. 307, n. 1, 332.

[1914] P. 279.

[1915] Boissevain’s reading.

[1916] The chief source is a mutilated fragment of Dio Cassius viii. 37. 2-4, which is paraphrased in the text above. The account given by Zonaras viii. 2 is a brief epitome of the fragment, adding the circumstance of the foreign war. The restoration of the fragment is due chiefly to Niebuhr, _Rhein. Mus._ ii (1828). 588 ff. See also the edition of Dio Cassius by Boissevain, i. 110 f. and by Melber, i. 108 f. The secession to the Janiculum is mentioned by Livy, ep. xi, and by Pliny, _N. H._ xvi. 10. 37.

[1917] Pliny, _N. H._ xvi. 10. 37: “Q. Hortensius dictator, cum plebes secessisset in Ianiculum, legem in aesculeto tulit, ut quod ea iussisset omnes quirites teneret”; Gaius i. 3: “Unde olim patricii dicebant plebiscitis se non teneri, quia sine auctoritate eorum facta essent; sed postea lex Hortensia lata est, qua cautum est ut plebiscita universum populum tenerent; itaque eo modo legibus exaequata sunt”; Laelius, in Gell. xv. 27. 4: “Ita ne leges quidem proprie, sed plebisscita appellantur, quae tribunis plebis ferentibus accepta sunt, quibus rogationibus ante patricii non tenebantur, donec Q. Hortensius dictator legem tulit, ut eo iure, quod plebs statuisset, omnes quirites tenerentur”; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 8: “Quia multae discordiae nascebantur de his plebis scitis, pro legibus placuit et ea observari lege Hortensia: et ita factum est, ut inter plebis scita et legem species constituendi interesset, potestas eadem esset.”

[1918] P. 235, 372.

[1919] This fact is clearly expressed by Gaius; see p. 313, n. 2 above.

[1920] Before acquiring this right they had been accustomed to sit on their bench at the door of the curia, in order to watch the proceedings within. Though as yet without an unrestricted legal right of intercession, they had attempted to force their veto upon the senate; Val. Max. ii. 2. 7; Zon. vii. 15. 8; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 316 f. The wording of the law of 304 regarding the dedication of a temple or altar indicates that the tribunes had not yet acquired the right to convoke the senate and bring measures formally before it; Mommsen, ibid. p. x, n. 2.

[1921] P. 270.

[1922] Granius Licinianus, in Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 30: “Lege Hortensia effectum, ut fastae essent (nundinae), uti rustici, qui nundiniandi causa in urbem veniebant, lites componerent. Nefasto enim die praetori fari non licebat”; § 29: “Iulius Caesar sexto decimo auspiciorum libro negat nundinis contionem advocari posse, id est cum populo agi: ideoque nundinis Romanorum haberi comitia non posse”; cf. p. 471 below.

[1923] P. 139.

[1924] P. 471 below; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 644; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 287 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 372 f.

[1925] P. 243, 287 f.

[1926] P. 247, 289.

[1927] P. 309.

[1928] P. 290.

[1929] p. 248 ff.

[1930] P. 330 ff.

[1931] P. 248.

[1932] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 50. 1.

[1933] Livy xxii. 35. 3; 40. 3; 49. 11; xxvii. 34. 3 f.; xxix. 37. 13 f.

[1934] P. 62.

[1935] Livy xxiv. 18. 3, 6.

[1936] Livy xxii. 53. 4 f.

[1937] Livy xxiv. 43. 1-3; cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2093.

[1938] A similar attempt in 204 by Cn. Baebius, tribune of the plebs, to prosecute the censors C. Claudius and M. Livius while in office was quashed by the senate; Livy xxix. 37; Val. Max. vii. 2. 6; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 4.

[1939] P. 249. The state agreed to insure from the enemy and from storms cargoes shipped for the use of the army; Livy xxiii. 49. 1-3; xxv. 3. 10. Postumius took advantage of this insurance to send out old, unseaworthy ships with cargoes of little value, and after wrecking them, to report many times the real amount of the loss; ibid. § 10 f. The senate, fearing to give offence to the powerful order of publicans, failed to act when informed by the praetor; § 12. Thereupon the tribunes brought the accusation. For the trial, see ibid. § 13-9 and ch. 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 177, 588. The weight of the _as_ in which the fine was estimated is not given by Livy xxv. 3. 13.

For a similar transfer of the case against Cn. Fulvius, retired praetor, from the tribes to the centuries, 211, see p. 249.

[1940] Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 5. Here, too, should be mentioned the condemnation of a member of the same board in a similar action for neglect to inspect the watchmen; Val. Max. ibid. § 6.

[1941] Cato, _Orat._ i: “Dierum dictarum de consulatu suo.”

[1942] Livy xxvii. 46. 1 f.

[1943] Cato, _Orat._ xiii; Livy xxxviii. 57. 10; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 459 ff.

[1944] For the cognomen, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1475.

[1945] Polyb. xxiii. 14; Gell. iv. 3-5, 7-12; Diod. xxix. 24 (from Polyb.); Livy xxxviii. 54; Val. Max. iii. 7. 1 d; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 49. 16-9.

[1946] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 464 f.

[1947] In the story of the trial given by Antias the two Petilii were the prosecutors of Publius (Livy xxxviii. 50 f.). In ch. 54 f. Livy, again following Antias, represents these tribunes as authors of a plebiscite for the appointment of a special court to inquire concerning the money received from King Antiochus, and states that L. Scipio was condemned by this court. The story may not be without foundation; but if such a plebiscite was adopted, it could not have had the desired result.

[1948] This incident is considered doubtful by Bloch, in _Rev. d. étud. anc._ viii. (1906). 109.

[1949] According to Diod. xxix. 21, Scipio was threatened with the death penalty; but the trial actually took the form described above in the text.

[1950] Gell. vi. 19. 2. It was probably in connection with this trial that Cato delivered his speech “Concerning the money of King Antiochus”; Livy xxxviii. 54. 11; Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 15; Cato, _Orat._ xv.

[1951] The edicts of these conflicting tribunes are given by Gell. vi. 19. 5, 7; cf. Livy xxxviii. 56. 10; Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 8. 18. The dissenting edict states that the fine was imposed nullo exemplo, yet it was within the competence of the tribune; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 2.

[1952] The account here given closely follows Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 417-510. For other authorities on the trial, see p. 329.

[1953] Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 19; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 590; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 4.

In 142 P. Scipio Aemilianus when censor had deprived Ti. Claudius Asellus of his public horse. Afterward this man as tribune of the plebs brought against him an accusation for malversation in his censorship; Gell. iii. 4. 1; cf. ii. 20. 6. It was a finable case (ibid. vi. 11. 9), in which was charged against him a lustrum malum infelixque; Lucilius, in Gell. iv. 17. 1; cf. Cic. _Orat._ ii. 64. 258; 66. 268. The prosecution probably failed; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 591; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 4.

[1954] Cf. Plautus, _Capt._ 476.

[1955] Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 27. 100; Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 15. Cato’s _Oration_ liv was delivered on one of these occasions. For his general character and activity, see Livy xxxix. 40.

[1956] Livy xliii. 7 f. With this trial was concerned the senatus consultum of 170; cf. Bruns, _Font. iur._ p. 162. See further Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 287, 591; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 3; cf. i. 699 f.

[1957] P. 358.

[1958] P. 231 f.

[1959] Fest. 193. 21; 314. 33; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 591.

[1960] Livy, ep. xlvii; cf. Lange, ibid. ii. 313, 591.

[1961] P. 359.

[1962] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 14; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 131 f.; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 2270.

[1963] Fest. 314. 30; cf. Livy, ep. lviii.

[1964] P. 256 f.

[1965] Vell. ii. 12. 3 assigns the tribunate of Domitius to 103, Ascon. 80 f. to 104. Probably the latter refers to his entrance upon the office, December 10, 104; but see Bardt, _Priester der vier grossen Collegien_, 7 f.

[1966] P. 391.

[1967] Ascon. 80; Cic. _Caecil._ 20. 67; _Verr._ ii. 47. 118 (in both Ciceronian passages the motive of the accusation is said to have been personal); cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 592; iii. 70; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 3.

[1968] Ascon. 1; Cic. _Deiot._ 11. 31; Val. Max. vi. 5. 5; Dio Cass. Frag. 92. A personal motive is suggested for this trial also by the sources.

[1969] Cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ v. 1324-7.

[1970] Dio Cass. Frag. 95. 3; App. _B. C._ i. 33. 148; Schol. Bob. 230; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 9. 24; _Flacc._ 32. 77; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 592; iii. 86; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 1; Mühl, _App. Sat._ 94 ff., 105 f.; Rohden, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 259.

[1971] P. 257, n. 5 (4). Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 352, holds the unusual opinion that he was condemned by a quaestio.

To the time shortly preceding the dictatorship of Sulla belong certain threats of tribunician prosecution which may be mentioned here. In 87 a day was set for the trial of L. Cornelius Sulla himself by the tribune M. Vergilius. The accused, taking no notice of the prosecution, departed for the East; Cic. _Brut._ 48. 179; Plut. _Sull._ 10; cf. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1537. In the same year Appius Claudius Pulcher, summoned to trial by a tribune of the plebs, retired into exile, whereupon his propretorian imperium was abrogated; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 83; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2489; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 352. In 84 Cn. Papirius Carbo, consul, was threatened with a prosecution, or more strictly with an abrogation of his office, if he should fail to return to Rome to hold the election of a colleague; App. _B. C._ i. 78. 358 f.

[1972] P. 414.

[1973] Plut. _Lucull._ 37; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 221; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 353.

[1974] Suet. _Caes._ 23; cf. p. 377 below.

[1975] Dio Cass. xliv. 10.

[1976] Whether the case against Rabirius in 63, begun as perduellio, was transformed into a finable action is uncertain; p. 258. The attack of Clodius on Cicero in 58 took the form, not of a judicial case, but of an interdict through a plebiscite; p. 446.

[1977] P. 291.

[1978] Fest. 238. 28; Varro, _L. L._ v. 158; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 283 ff.; Tac. _Ann._ ii. 49.

[1979] Livy xxxiii. 42. 10.

[1980] Livy xxxv. 10. 11.

[1981] Livy xxxv. 41. 9.

[1982] Livy xxxviii. 35. 5 f.

[1983] Piso, in Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 6. 41; Serv. _in Ecl._ viii. 99; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 2.

[1984] Val. Max. vi. 17; Plut. _Marcell._ 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 823; ii. 585.

[1985] Livy xxv. 2. 9; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 585. The statement of Gellius v. 19. 10, that women had nothing to do with comitia (“Feminis nulla comitiorum communio est”), does not refer to their lack of suffrage, as Lange assumes, for Gellius is explaining why women could not be arrogated. Originally they had no right to be present in contiones or comitia; but in time the principle was modified to a limited extent; p. 147. It was not necessary, however, that the accused should be present in person during the trial; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 496.

[1986] Plut. _Q. R._ 6; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 126; ii. 585.

[1987] Ateius Capito, in Gell. iv. 14.

[1988] P. 248, 317.

[1989] Ateius Capito, in Gell. x. 6; Livy, ep. xix; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 4; Suet. _Tib._ 2; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 492, n. 4. This, says Mommsen, is the only aedilician prosecution for a crime committed directly against the state in the period after the decemviral legislation. With this case compare Cicero’s threat mentioned in the text below.

[1990] Suet. _Tib._ 2.

[1991] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 586; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 496.

[1992] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 12. 33; Val. Max. ix. 11. 2; Lange, ibid. iii. 134; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 352.

Valerius Maximus, vi. 1. 8, refers to a prosecution (probably aedilician) of Cn. Sergius by Metellus Celer for stuprum, which seems to have occurred about this time; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 4.

[1993] _Verr._ i. 12. 36; v. 58. 151; 67. 173; 69. 178; 71. 183.

[1994] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 586.

[1995] Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 3; _Sest._ 44. 95; _Vat._ 17. 40; Ascon. 49; Dio Cass. xxxix. 18 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 586; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 1; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 341, 353.

On the aedilician jurisdiction in general, see especially Girard, _Org. jud. d. Rom._ 243 ff.

[1996] P. 269, 287.

[1997] Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 439 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 195 f.; ii. 36.

[1998] Livy xxxvii. 51. 4 f.

[1999] Livy xl. 42. 9 f.

[2000] Cic. _Phil._ xi. 8. 18.

[2001] Fest. 343. 6; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 439, n. 8. For the pontifical cases above mentioned, see also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 593-5.

[2002] Cf. ch. v and p. 322.

[2003] P. 313 f.

[2004] P. 307.

[2005] P. 107, 113.

[2006] On the lack of a popular opposition to the nobility during this period, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 26. On the antiquated character of the assemblies, ibid. 39 f.

[2007] For this era we have to depend upon the epitome of Livy and occasional notices of other authors. The complete Livian narrative which treats of the age, should it ever be discovered, would doubtless reveal a considerable number of other comitial measures; but we could hardly expect to find any of more importance than those which are actually known.

[2008] P. 235, 300.

[2009] Cic. _Brut._ 14. 55. Cicero informs us that the law under consideration was passed after the tribunate of M’. Curius, which must have preceded his consulship (290). The enactment should preferably be placed after that of Hortensius, when the patres were no longer in a position to oppose it; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 409; ii. 216, 654; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 281 f. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 69 ff., attempts to assign it to 338.

[2010] Livy x. 15. 7 ff.; Cic. ibid.

[2011] Dion Hal. xix, 16. 5 (xviii. 19); xx. 13 (3). 3.

[2012] In this year C. Marcius Rutilus, elected censor a second time (_Fast. cos. capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 22), persuaded the people to adopt this law; Val. Max iv. i. 3; Plut. _Cor._ 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ I. 797; ii. 122, 654; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 317-20; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 520.

[2013] Livy, ep. xv; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22. Lydus, _Mag._ i. 27, supposes the newly created quaestors to have been naval officers, and wrongly states their number at twelve. Whether the lex Titia de provinciis quaestoriis (Cic. _Mur._ 8. 18; Schol. Bob. 316) belongs to this date or to some later time cannot be determined; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 532, n. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 654. See further on the act of 267, Mommsen, ibid. ii. 527, 570 ff.; Lange, ibid. i. 891; ii. 124.

[2014] Livy, ep. xix; Lyd. _Mag._ i. 38, 45.

[2015] Val. Max ii. 8. 2; Zon. viii. 17. 1; 18. 10; Polyb. ii. 23. 5.

[2016] P. 307, n. 1, 312.

[2017] Fest. 347. 3; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 884, 910; ii. 654; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 594 f.; Girard, _Organ. jud. d. Röm._ i. 263 ff.

[2018] Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 43. 141; cf. Polyb. vi. 16. 3.

[2019] We are informed by Theophilus, iv. 3. 15, that this statute was a plebiscite adopted at a secession of the plebs, meaning most probably that of 287. But his view may be merely an inference from Ulpian, in _Dig._ ix. 2. 1 and Pomponius, ibid. i. 2. 2. 8; cf. Roby, _Röm. Priv. Law_, ii. 186. The law is the subject of _Dig._ ix. 2 f.; Justinian, _Inst._ iv. 3; Theoph. _Inst._ iv. 3. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 69, assigns it to 287. On p. 71 f. he adds other chapters which he has gathered from various sources. See also Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 793 ff. Injury committed by dogs was made actionable by the lex Pesolania of unknown though early date; Paul. _Sent._ i. 15. 1; cf. _Dig._ ix. 1. 1. 15. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 39, n. 18, assigns it to the time closely following the decemviral legislation; cf. Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 1158.

The lex Mamilia concerning arbitri, but not more definitely known (Cic. _Leg._ i. 21. 55), may belong to the consul C. Mamilius, 239.

[2020] Gaius iii. 210, Poste’s rendering; cf. also the following §§; Justin. _Inst._ iv. 3. 15.

[2021] Gaius iii. 215, 217; cf. Ulpian, in _Dig._ vii. 1. 13. 2; Cic. _Brut._ 34. 131.

[2022] As here used, “Flaminian” is not confined to the lifetime of Flaminius, but designates the period during which lasted the impetus given by him to the activity of the assemblies—approximately to the end of the war with Hannibal.

[2023] P. 213, 215.

[2024] Cato, _Orig._ ii. 10 (in Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 7): “Ager Gallicus Romanus vocatur, qui viritim cis Ariminum datus est ultra agrum Picentium”; Cic. _Brut._ 14. 57; _Acad. Pr._ ii. 5. 13. There is reason for believing that about this time the Licinian-Sextian agrarian enactments were revived and extended by a comitial statute; p. 296, 363.

[2025] Cf. Cic. _Inv._ ii. 17. 52; Val. Max. v. 4. 5.

[2026] Cic. _Acad. Pr._ ii. 5. 13; Val. Max. ibid.

[2027] _Senec._ 4. 11.

[2028] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 149.

[2029] Kubitschek, _Röm. trib. or._ 26 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 176.

[2030] II. 21. 8. On this law in general, see further Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. 125-7; iv. 26 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 344 ff.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 157 f.; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 15.

[2031] Zon. viii. 20. 7; Plut. _Marcell._ 4; cf. Livy xxi. 63. 2.

[2032] Livy xlv. 35. 4.

[2033] Livy xxvi. 21.5. Next is mentioned the plebiscite of Ti. Sempronius, 167, for granting the imperium to three promagistrates; Livy xlv. 35-40; cf. xxxii. 7. 4; xxxviii. 47. 1; Plut. _Aemil._ 30 ff. The triumphs of Pompey, 80 and 71, must have been made possible by leges de eius imperio, though none are mentioned; Plut. _Pomp._ 14, 21; Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 21. 61 f. The lex Cornelia, 80, which permitted Pompey to bring his army home from Africa, was essential to the triumph but was not the law which granted the imperium; Sall. _Hist._ ii. 21; Gell. x. 20. 10; Plut. _Pomp._ 13; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 678. The law for the triumph over Juba was passed for Caesar in 48 in advance of his victory; Dio Cass. xliii. 14. 3. There must have been many other such plebiscites not mentioned by the sources. Magistrates had no more right than promagistrates without especial authorization to command troops within the city limits, though the triumph on the Alban Mount continued to be permissible without an act either of the senate or of the comitia; p. 293.

[2034] P. 307.

[2035] Polyb. vi. 16. 3.

[2036] Livy xxi. 63. 3; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 353, 898; Nitzsch, _Röm. Rep._ i. 156 f.

[2037] Ascon. 94; Dio Cass. lv. 10. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 162, 657; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 898.

[2038] App. _B. C._ 1. 7. 29; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 8.

[2039] Fest. 347. 14; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 45; cf. Hill, _Greek and Rom. Coins_, 48. According to Festus, Flaminius was author, whereas Pliny states that the change was made under the dictatorship of Q. Fabius Maximus. One seems to refer to the enactment of the law, the other to its administration.

[2040] P. 90.

[2041] Zon. viii. 26. 14.

[2042] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 47.

[2043] Böckh, _Metrologische Utersuchungen_, p. 472; Mommsen-Blacas, _Hist. d. monn. Rom._ ii. 67, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 496; ii. 167, 674; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 365; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 1511; Samwer-Bahrfeldt, _Röm. Münzw._ 190 f.

[2044] Livy xxiii. 21. 6; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. 289.

[2045] Livy xxiv. 18. 12; xxvi. 36. 8.

[2046] Livy xxxvii. 51. 10; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 173 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 365.

[2047] Cf. Livy xli. 27; Polyb. vi. 17.

[2048] Livy xxv. 7. 5 f.

[2049] Livy xxvii. 11. 8.

[2050] Tab. x, in Schöll, _Duod. Tab. Rel._ 153 ff.; Marquardt, _Privatl. d. Röm._ 345.

[2051] _Mil._ 164; Hor. _Od._ iii. 24. 58; Ovid, _Trist._ ii. 471 ff.; cf. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 23. 56; Pseud. Ascon, 110; Hartmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1359. It remained in force to the end of the republic. Other laws on gambling, which cannot be assigned to dates, were the lex Cornelia (_Dig._ xi. 5. 3), the lex Publicia (ibid.), and the lex Titia (ibid.).

[2052] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 663, 670.

[2053] Fest. 246. 32; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 662.

[2054] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxv. 17. 197. A M. Metilius was tribune in 217.

[2055] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 161 f., 670; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 354.

[2056] Livy xxxiv. 1 ff.; Tac. _Ann._ iii. 33 f.; Oros. iv. 20. 14; Zon. ix. 17; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. 290.

[2057] P. 356. The lex lenonia mentioned by Plautus (Fest. ep. 143), if indeed it is not a mere joke, should also be classed as sumptuary; cf. p. 528, n. 2.

[2058] Polyb. vi. 56; Plut. _Rom._ 13.

[2059] Livy xxxiv. 4. 9: “Vectigalis iam et stipendiaria plebs esse senatui coeperat.”

[2060] Livy xxii. 1. 19; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 170.

[2061] _Sat._ i. 7. 33.

[2062] Livy xxvii. 20. 11.

[2063] Livy xxix. 20. 11.

[2064] Livy xxxiv. 4. 9; Cic. _Senec._ 4. 10; _Orat._ ii. 71. 286; _Att._ i. 20. 7; Fest. ep. 143, including a quotation from Plautus; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 5; xiii. 42; xv. 20; Frag. Vat. 260 ff. (Ad legem Cinciam de donationibus); Bruns, _Quid conferant Vaticana fragmenta ad melius cognoscendum ius Romanum_, 112 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 366; Garofalo, in _Bull. dell’ ist. di diritt. Rom._ xv (1903). 310-2. In the opinion of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 191, the law may have resulted in part from the selfishness of the rich, with a view to checking the presentation of gifts among themselves.

[2065] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 4. 11; _Lex Iul. Col. Gen._ 93; Mommsen, _Ephem. Ep._ ii. 139; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 123.

[2066] Vat. Frag. 294, 298-309; Paulus, _Sent._ v. 11. 6; Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, i. 526 f.

[2067] Such was the lex Pinaria, which ordered the appointment of a judge on the thirtieth day after an action was instituted (Gaius iv. 15); also the lex Silia creating the legis actio per condictionem, for the recovery of a certain sum of money, extended by the lex Calpurnia so as to apply to any certain object; Gaius iv. 18 f., and comment by Poste; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ see index, s. Lex Calpurnia and Silia; Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, ii. 71; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 594; _Röm. Civilprocess_, 230 ff.; Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 44 ff. On the probable date, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ see indices, s. v.—The lex Crepereia, having to do with a legis actio before the centumviral court, set the sponsia at a hundred and twenty-five sesterces; Gaius iv. 95.—The lex Aebutia tended to substitute for the legis actio the formulary process of later time; Gaius iv. 30 f.; Gell. xvi. 10. 8; Greenidge, ibid. 93, 170 ff.; Roby, ibid. ii. 347; Karlowa, _Röm. Civilproc._ 216, 324; Voigt, ibid. 124 ff. Lange assigns these laws to the period of the war with Hannibal, Voigt to earlier time.

To the year 214 Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 660, assigns the lex Atinia on the usucapio of stolen property; Gell. xvii. 7; Just. _Inst._ ii. 6. 2; _Dig._ xli. 3. 4. 6; cf. Roby, ibid. i. 475.—No date can be found for the lex Licinnia de actione communi dividundo; Marcianus, in _Dig._ iv. 7. 12.

[2068] Livy xx, Frag.; Krüger and Mommsen, in _Hermes_, iv (1870). 371-6; Tac. _Ann._ xii. 6. Livy states that a marriage of a patrician with a relative of the sixth degree caused a riot of the plebs, which drove the patres for refuge to the Capitol.

[2069] Ulpian, Frag. v. 6; cf. _De gradibus cognationum_.

[2070] Plut. _Q. R._ 6; Livy xlii. 34. 2 (case of a man’s marrying his cousin shortly after the war with Hannibal); Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 126; ii. 659 f.; Marquardt, _Privatl. d. Röm._ 30 f.

[2071] Livy xxxix. 9. 7.

[2072] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 659 f.

[2073] Cf. Lange, ibid. i. 231; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 27. It supplemented the Twelve Tables, v. 1 f. (Gaius i. 144; ii. 47; Schöll, _Duod. Tab. Rel._ 126).

[2074] Cic. _Off._ iii. 15. 61; _N. D._ iii. 30. 74; Varro, _L. L._ vi. 5; _Lex Iul. Munic._ 112.

[2075] Plaut. _Pseud._ 303; _Rud._ 1382.

[2076] The author may have been the Plaetorius who carried a law concerning the urban praetor; p. 342, n. 1; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 306, thinks it the result of continual war, which while giving young men experience in military affairs, deprived them of the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the management of property.

[2077] Livy xxiii. 31. 10.

[2078] P. 310.

[2079] Livy xxvi. 33. 10-4. For the decree of the plebs, § 14: “Quod senatus iuratus, maxima pars, censeat, qui adsient, id volumus iubemusque.”

[2080] Ibid. ch. 34.

[2081] Livy xxii. 10. 1.

[2082] It is given in full by Livy xxii. 10; cf. xxxiii. 44. 1 f.; xxxiv. 44. 1-3.

[2083] The consular law of Ti. Sempronius Longus, 215, appointing duumviri, one of them the builder, Q. Fabius, for dedicating the temple of Venus Erucina; Livy xxiii. 30. 13. f.—The lex granting Q. Lutatius Catulus permission to dedicate the Capitoline temple, 78; Cic. _Verr._ II. iv. 31. 69; 38. 82; _CIL._ i. 592.—The rogation of the praetor Caesar, 62, which threatened to deprive Catulus of the function; Suet, _Caes._ 15; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 44. 2.

[2084] In consequence of a pestilence a pretorian law of P. Licinius Varus, 208, placed the games in honor of Apollo in the class called stativi—those which were celebrated annually on stated days; Livy xxvii. 23. 7; xxx. 38. 10 f.; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 241; Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, 179 f.

[2085] Livy xxv. 5. 2, for the first instance and for the pontifical presidency. Such a departure in favor of the people was hardly possible in the period of comitial stagnation preceding the tribunate of Flaminius, 232; and the law must have been passed, or at least amended, after the institution of the last two tribes; for it specified definitely seventeen tribes; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 16. On this measure, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 27 f.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 437; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 131. Pais, _L’elezione del pontefice massimo_, etc. (1908), maintains on the contrary that the plebiscite in question was passed about 254, and that it resorted to seventeen tribes as the legal half of the total number (33) then existing. On the use of the word comitia, see p. 130 above.

[2086] The first recorded instance occurs at the date mentioned; Livy xxvii. 8. 1-3.

[2087] Cf. Cic. _Sest._ 46. 98.

[2088] P. 391.

[2089] P. 234, 305, 306.

[2090] Livy, ep. xx; _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 32. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 784; ii. 152, 654, conjecturally identifies it with the Plaetorian plebiscite, which assigned two lictors to the urban praetor when acting as judge, and defined his jurisdiction; Censorin. 24. 3.

[2091] Livy xxvii. 36. 14; p. 306 above. In 171 because of the impending Macedonian war the consular lex Licinia Cassia permitted the consuls to name their tribuni militum (Livy xliii. 31)—a precedent followed thereafter in emergencies.

[2092] P. 305; Polyb. vi. 15. 6.

[2093] Livy xxvii. 22. 6. On the comparatively frequent use of the promagistracy during the war with Hannibal, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 310.

[2094] Livy xxii. 25; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 355.

[2095] Polyb. iii. 87. 6; Livy xxii. 8. 5 f.

[2096] Cf. Herzog, ibid. i. 358 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 169.

[2097] Livy xxvii. 20. 11-3; 21. 1-4; Plut. _Marcell._ 27. It is surprising that in 204 the question of abrogating the proconsular imperium of Scipio through a plebiscite was discussed in the senate; Livy xxix. 19. 6.

The grant of a burial place “virtutis caussa senatus consulto populique iussu” (_CIL._ i. 635) to a C. Poplicius Bibulus was not to this Bibulus but to some unknown person of the same name near the close of the republic.

[2098] P. 360.

[2099] Livy xxvii. 21. 10; xxx. 19. 9.

[2100] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 850, 861; ii. 151, 654.

[2101] Livy xxvii. 6. 7; cf. p. 298 above. Two other dispensations from laws by act of the people are recorded for the latter part of this century: (1) the plebiscite of 203, which exempted C. Servilius from the law prohibiting the election of a man to the plebeian tribunate or aedileship in the lifetime of a father who had filled a curule office (Livy xxx. 19. 9); (2) a plebiscite of 200 for permitting L. Valerius Flaccus to take the oath of office for the aedileship as a proxy for his brother, who being flamen Dialis was forbidden to swear; Livy xxxi. 50. 7-9.

[2102] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 369.

[2103] VI. 11. 1.

[2104] VI. 51. 3.

[2105] Ibid. § 5.

[2106] Ibid. § 7.

[2107] Polyb. vi. 56.

[2108] Ibid. 11. 11.

[2109] VI. 18.

[2110] VI. 12.

[2111] VI. 13.

[2112] P. 217, n. 5.

[2113] A plebiscite of M’. Acilius and Q. Minucius, 201, ordered the senate to negotiate peace with Carthage; Livy xxx. 43. 2. Tribal ratification may be assumed for every treaty, and for that reason is generally not mentioned in this volume.

[2114] Polyb. vi. 14.

[2115] Polyb. vi. 12. 4.

[2116] VI. 15. 9 f.

[2117] Ibid. § 11.

[2118] VI. 16. 1 f. Polybius speaks of the decisions of the senate; but since that body as a whole was not a court, and since there was no appeal from either the special or the standing quaestiones, he must be thinking here of the consilia of the magistrates, which also were composed of senators.

[2119] VI. 16. 3. Doubtless he has in mind the Claudian statute of 219; p. 335.

[2120] VI. 16. 4 f.

[2121] VI. 17. 9.

[2122] P. 33, 173.

[2123] Polyb. vi. 18. 5-8; Sall. _Iug._ 41.

[2124] Livy xxxii. 27. 6. A law may be assumed for this act.

[2125] Livy xl. 44. 2; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 198, n. 4; more accurately, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 259, 655; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2728.

[2126] Cf. Arnold, _Rom. Prov. Administr._ 47.

[2127] Cato, _Orat._ xxv; Fest. 282. 28; Non. Marc. 470; Livy xl. 59. 5.

[2128] Livy xxxiii. 42. 1; cf. Cic. _Orat._ iii. 19. 73; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 211 f., 675; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 357, 446. The people continued occasionally to create temporary magistracies and commissions. A lex Plaetoria for the appointment of duoviri aedi dedicandae (_CIL._ vi. 3732) probably belongs to 151; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 621, n. 1.

[2129] Livy xl. 44. 1. Cf. in general on the leges annales, Fest. ep. 27; Cic. _Phil._ v. 17. 47; _Leg._ iii. 3. 9; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 65 f.; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; Arnob. ii. 67. A rogation of similar import was offered by a certain M. Pinarius Rusca (Cic. _Orat._ ii. 65. 261), who is perhaps to be identified with a praetor of that name in 182; Livy xl. 18. 2; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 529, n. 1.

[2130] This interval is assigned to the lex Villia by none of the ancient authorities, but is found to be the practice after its enactment; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 526 f.

[2131] Cic. _Phil._ v. 17. 47.

[2132] Cf. Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 8.

[2133] Wex, in _Rhein. Mus._ iii (1845). 276-88; Nipperdey, in _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig_, v. (1870). 1-88; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 707; ii. 259-61, 655; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 529 f., 537; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 386 f., 664 ff.; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 335 ff.; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1114.

[2134] They were not in force in 196 (Livy xxxiii. 42. 1) or in 194 (Livy xxxiv. 53. 1 f.; xxxv. 9. 7). On the other hand Cicero’s description (_Dom._ 20. 51; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 8. 21) of these laws as veteres should place them a hundred years or more before his time. The two passages of Cicero are the only sources; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 919; ii. 315 f., 655; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 835. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 501, thinks they may have resulted from the Gracchan agitation.

[2135] _CIL._ i². p. 146; Obseq. 18.

[2136] _Orat._ xxxvi.

[2137] Livy, ep. lvi (mentioned in connection with the year 134); Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 85-7. Long does not consider the date settled; but see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 521; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 485; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1117.

[2138] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 712; ii. 316, 655.

[2139] Livy xl. 19. 11; Schol. Bob. 361; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 717; ii. 257, 663; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 92; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 391; Hartmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1801, Mommsen, _Strafr._ 867, n. 2.

[2140] Polyb. vi. 56. 4; Livy, ep. xlvii; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 717; ii. 312, 663; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 92; Hartmann, ibid.

[2141] P. 250.—Of minor importance is the lex Rutilia, 169, which besides confirming the earlier statute for the election of twenty-four military tribunes (p. 342) defined the rights of the tribuni “rufuli” and “a populo” respectively; Fest. 261. 29; ep. 260; cf. Livy vii. 5. 9; xxvii. 36. 14; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 365.—The rogation of Ti. Sempronius, tr. pl. in 167, for granting the imperium to certain promagistrates for the day of their triumph has been considered above; p. 335, n. 2.

[2142] _Lex Ant. de Termess._ in _CIL._ I. 204. ii. 13-7; cf. Livy xxxii. 27. 3 f. (cutting down such expenses in Sardinia); xxxiv. 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 207, 673; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 307.

[2143] Cato, _Orat._ lxix, in Gell. xx. 2. 1; cf. Livy xxxii. 8. 3; xli. 14. 11; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 280, 673.

[2144] App. _Lib._ 135; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 19. 51. Appian and Cicero speak of a senatus consultum only; but a lex Livia is vouched for by the _Lex Agr._ of 111; _CIL._ i. 200. 81; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 643; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ i. 465.

[2145] Livy xxxiii. 25. 6. A lex Maevia, seemingly on Asiatic affairs, supported by Cato but otherwise unknown, belongs perhaps to 189; Cato, _Orat._ lxxv.

[2146] Livy, ep. xlix; new ep. l. 98-100; Cic. _Brut._ 23. 89; _Att._ xii. 5. 3; Val. Max. viii. 1. absol. 2.

[2147] Cic. _Off._ iii. 30. 109.

[2148] Livy xl. 38. 9; cf. 59. 1 (179 B.C.).

[2149] Val. Max. ii. 8. 1; Oros. v. 4. 7; cf. Cic. _Pis._ 26. 62; Livy xxxvii. 46. 1 f.; xl. 38. 9; Gell. v. 6. 21; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 262, 676; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 133.

[2150] P. 293.

[2151] Livy xxxii. 29. 3 f. These colonies were actually founded in 194; Livy xxxiv. 45. 1; Vell. i. 15. 3.

[2152] Livy xxxiv. 53. 1 f. The former was founded in 192; Livy xxxv. 40. 5.

[2153] _Lex Agr._ of 111, in _CIL._ i. 200. 43; Livy xxxiv. 45.

[2154] Livy xxxvii. 57. 7.

[2155] Livy xxxix. 55. 5. On the colonies of 181, see Livy xl. 29. 1; 34. 2; Vell. i. 15; _CIL._ i. 538, in which nothing is said either of the senate or of the people.

[2156] I. 41. 1.

[2157] P. 307, 311.

[2158] It was in the capacity of administrator of public property that the senate controlled this field. The only other instance of popular legislation in this period touching state economy was the plebiscite of M. Lucretius, 172 (Livy xlii. 19. 1 f.; cf. xxvii. 11. 8; Gran. Licin. xxviii), for renewing the tribunician law of 210, which directed the censors to farm the vectigalia of Campania; p. 337 above.—In 169 a tribunician rogation of P. Rutilius threatened to annul the censorial contracts (Livy xliii. 16. 6) as a rebuke to the censors for their arbitrary management of the business. When this object was secured, the bill was allowed to drop. It is true, as Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 24, n. 1, remarks, that no one questioned the right of the people to cancel an administrative act of the censors; but it was quite another thing to find a college of tribunes unanimously disposed to interfere. The significant fact is that in all the time between the peace with Hannibal and the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus no important financial act was passed by the comitia.

[2159] Livy xxxv. 7; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 221, 660.

[2160] A rogatio Iunia concerning usury, known only through Cato’s opposition to it (_Orat._ vi), belongs to this period—perhaps to 195 (Livy xxxiv. 1. 4; xxxv. 41. 9 f.) or to 191 (Livy xxxvi. 2. 6).

[2161] Livy, ep. xli.

[2162] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 41. 104 ff.; _Rep._ iii. 10. 17; Gaius ii. 274; Dio Cass. lvi. 10. 2; Pseud. Ascon. 188; Gell, vi (vii). 13; xx. i. 23; p. 90 above.

[2163] Gaius ii. 226 and Poste’s comment; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 298, 660; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 95, 128; Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, i. 345. It took the place of a lex Furia of earlier date for limiting to one thousand asses the amount which a legatee or, in view of death, a donee could accept; Gaius, ibid.; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 940 ff. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 502, places the lex Furia between 203 and 170.

[2164] Cato, _Orat._ lxviii, lxxv; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 660; Voigt, _Die lex Maenia de dote vom Jahre 568 der Stadt_; _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 789-801, attempts to determine the contents as well as the date; cf. Arndts, in _Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch._ vii (1868). 1-44.

[2165] Livy xxxvii. 36. 7 f.; cf. Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 5. 13.

[2166] Ibid. § 9; p. 57 f., 334 above.

[2167] P. 340.

[2168] Livy xxxviii. 36. 5 f.

[2169] Cic. _Brut._ 20. 79; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 135, n. 1.

[2170] A pretorian law of Valerius Flaccus, 98, for the purpose is mentioned by Cic. _Balb._ 24. 55; cf. _CIL._ vi. 2181 f.; Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 309. Naturally before the establishment of the right of the people in this matter (p. 283, 304) the grant was made by the consuls and the censors.

[2171] Cic. _Balb._ 9. 24.

[2172] Cf. the bestowal of citizenship upon the Carthaginian Muttines by a plebiscite ex auctoritate patrum in 210; Livy xxvii. 5. 7; Varro, in Ascon. 13.

[2173] See the literature on the ius postliminii in Schiller, _Röm. Staatsalt._ 618. There were certain cases of restoration of citizenship, however, which were thought to require a comitial vote; Cic. _Balb._ 11. 28. But on this question opinions differed; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 656, n. 1.

[2174] Cf. the lex Plautia Papiria, in Cic. _Arch._ 4. 7: “Data est civitas Silvani lege et Carbonis: Si qui foederatis civitatibus adscripti fuissent, si tum, cum lex ferebatur, in Italia domicilium habuissent et si sexaginta diebus apud praetorem essent professi”; also _Balb._ 8. 19 (singillatim); _CIL._ ii. 159; iii. 5232 (viritim); Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 132.

[2175] Gell. xvi. 13. 6; Cic. _Balb._ 8. 21. Heraclea and Naples preferred their freedom; Cic. ibid.; _Fam._ xiii. 30. 1.

[2176] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 133.

[2177] This spirit expressed itself in the lex Minicia of unknown date, though probably anterior to the social war. It ordered that children born of a union between a Roman and a person of a nationality with which there was no conubium should follow the condition of the alien parent; Gaius i. 78 f.; Ulp. v. 8; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 182.

[2178] Livy xxxix. 3. 5 f.

[2179] Livy xli. 9. 9-11; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 21, 115; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 964, n. 1; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 92, n. 1.

[2180] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 435 f.; cf. however Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 27; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 993.

[2181] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 705; ii. 27.

[2182] Livy ix. 46; Plut. _Mar._ 5.

[2183] Livy xxxix. 19. 5 f.; Cic. _Sest._ 52. 110; _Phil._ ii. 2. 3. A law of Augustus, 18 B.C., permitted all excepting senators to marry freedwomen; Dio Cass. liv. 16. 2; lvi. 7. 2. Conubium had not been impossible, but had been considered disgraceful both by society and by the law.

[2184] Cf. Livy x. 21. 4; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 515; ii. 27; p. 60 above.

[2185] P. 334.

[2186] Livy, ep. xx; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 436, n. 3. The statement of the epitomator is that by the censors “Libertini in quattuor tribus redacti sunt, cum antea dispersi per omnes fuissent, Esquilinam,” etc. It refers either to the censorship of Flaminius (Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 995) or far less probably to the one immediately preceding. On the city tribes, see p. 64.

[2187] P. 205 f.

[2188] Suet. _Claud._ 24; Livy vi. 46. 6; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 2. 32; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 422; Herzog, ibid. i. 977.

[2189] Plut. _Flamin._ 18.

[2190] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 234; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 436 f. This interpretation seems necessary notwithstanding Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 884.

[2191] As in 217; Livy xxii. 11. 8.

[2192] In general, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 26-38; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 420 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 976 ff., 992 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._, see index, s. Libertini. On the censorial distribution of the libertini in 179, see p. 85, n. 3.

[2193] P. 338.

[2194] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 174, 211, 670; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 23.

[2195] Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 2; Diod. xxxvii. 3. 5; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 23; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 425.

[2196] Macrob. ibid. § 3; Schol. Bob. 310; Fest. 242. 12.

[2197] Fest. 201. 31; Cato, _Orat._ xxvii.

[2198] Gell. ii. 24. 3; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 3-5; Athen. vi. 274 C.

[2199] Pliny, _N. H._ x. 50. 139.

[2200] Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 6.

[2201] The author may, as Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 311, 672, assumes, be identical with the Cn. Aufidius who was tribune in that year; Livy xliii. 8. 2. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2288 f., regards the identity as no more than possible.

[2202] Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 17. 64.

[2203] Cic. _Cornel._ i. 25 (Frag. A. vii); Ascon. 69.

[2204] Livy xxxiv. 44. 4.

[2205] Mention of this law is made in connection only with the Roscian statute of 67, which is spoken of as a restoration of an earlier act; p. 428 f. below.

[2206] P. 253 ff.

[2207] Cic. _Off._ ii. 21. 75.

[2208] Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 3. 8.

[2209] _Dig._ xlviii. 15.

[2210] _Curc._ 621 f.; _Merc._ 664 f.

[2211] In _Verhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xxxvii (1885). 320.

[2212] Ibid. 327.

[2213] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 663; cf. _CIL._ i². p. 144.

[2214] _Röm. Strafr._ 780, n. 4.

[2215] _Declam. in Cat._ 19. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664 f., prefers to assign it to the tribune of 139; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 563, n. 4, doubts its existence.

[2216] Cic. _Fam._ viii. 12. 3; 14. 4; Suet. _Dom._ 8. 3 (Scantinius; Ihm); Juv. ii. 44; Quint. _Inst._ iv. 2. 69. Voigt, in _Verhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xlii (1890), 273, assigns it to 226 or 225. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 667 f., places it between 227 and 50. The date 149 rests upon W. W. Fowler’s restoration of the new epitome, 115 f.: “M. Sca(n)ti(ni)us ... am tulit (de) in stupro deprehensi(s).” Quite another matter, however, is referred to in this passage, if Kornemann’s reading is correct: “Sca(n)tius (qui repuls)am tulit in stupro deprehens(us se occidit).” The date of the law, therefore, still remains in doubt.

[2217] Schol. Bob. 233; Cic. _Brut._ 27. 106; _Off._ ii. 21. 75; _Verr._ iii. 84. 195; iv. 25. 56; Val. Max. vi. 9. 10; Tac. _Ann._ xv. 20; Lex Acil. in _CIL._ i. 198. 23, 74, 81; Mommsen, ibid. p. 54 f.; _Strafr._ 708; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 321 f., 664; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 419.

[2218] In general the leges repetundarum were for the protection of Italy as well as of the provinces; cf. p. 376, 377, 442.

[2219] Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 17; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 415 f.

[2220] P. 255, n. 1 (3).

[2221] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 13. 21; Censor, xx. 6. f.; Livy xliii. 11. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 353; ii. 223, 676; Mommsen, _Röm. Chron._ 40 ff.; Matzat, _Röm. Chron._ i. 46.

[2222] P. 116; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 308 f.

[2223] Schol. Bob. 319; cf. Cic. _Sest._ 26. 56: “De tempore legum rogandorum.”

[2224] Livy, new ep. liv. 193 f.: “A. Gabinius verna(e ... rogationem tulit) suffragium per ta(bellam ferri),” indicates servile descent.

[2225] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 35; cf. 15. 34; _Amic._ 12. 41; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 2. 4.

[2226] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 35 f.; _Brut._ 25. 97; 27. 106; _Sest._ 48. 103; _Amic._ 12. 41; Ascon. 78; Pseud. Ascon. 141 f.; Schol. Bob. 303; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 105-10; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 658; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 422; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 340 f.

[2227] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 30. 84; Ascon. 46; Val. Max. iii. 7. 9; cf. Cic. _Brut._ 25. 97; Vell. ii. 10. 1; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 7.

[2228] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 344; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 94.

[2229] See especially Cic. _Leg._ iii. 15. 34: “Quis autem non sentit omnem auctoritatem optimatium tabellariam legem abstulisse?”

[2230] P. 347.

[2231] P. 184.

[2232] App. _Lib._ 112 (White’s rendering); cf. Livy, ep. l.

[2233] Livy, ep. lvi; App. _Iber._ 84.

[2234] App. _Iber._ 83; cf. p. 188, n. 2, 342, 367.

[2235] Cic. _Amic._ 25. 96; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 335, 688.

[2236] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 8.

[2237] Polyb. vi. 18. 5-8 (Shuckburgh’s rendering).

[2238] The main part of his history was composed before the third war with Carthage; Christ, W., _Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur_ (4th ed. 1905), 585; Cuntz, O., _Polybius und sein Werk_ (1902), 82. It is understood, however, that certain parts were inserted after the beginning of the revolutionary period.

[2239] It is true that the Gracchan trouble opened his eyes to some of the defects in the constitution; but the aristocratic recovery after the tribunate of Tiberius (and perhaps after that of Gaius) confirmed his belief in the fundamental soundness and in the recuperative power of the state.

[2240] P. 360 f.

[2241] Livy xxxv. 10. 12: “Multos pecuarios damnarunt.” In Livy xxxiv. 4. 9 Cato while speaking in defence of the Oppian law, in 195, is represented as mentioning the article which established the limit of five hundred iugera.

[2242] _Orig._ v. 5.

[2243] These are provisions of an agrarian law passed before the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus (App. _B. C._ i. 8. 33 f.) but not expressly referred to Licinius and Sextius in any ancient source. The first article seems to assume a greater development of slavery than could be true of the year 367, and the second would belong more naturally to a repetition than to the original enactment; p. 296, n. 4, 334, n. 1.

[2244] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9.

[2245] App. _B. C._ i. 9. 37 and 11. 46 states that an additional two hundred and fifty iugera were allowed for each son, and Livy, ep. lviii, sets the maximum at a thousand iugera. Combining the two sources, we reach the probable result given in the text; cf. also (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 64. 3; Siculus Flacc. p. 136. 10 (CC is a corruption of ↀ). See Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 450, n. 3; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 114; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87.

[2246] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; cf. Greenidge, ibid.

[2247] App. _B. C._ i. 11. 46. It is not stated that these lots should become private property. Appian mentions this article as the only compensation for improvements on the lands surrendered. The fact that article 2 was withdrawn from the bill before it became a law may account for its omission from this source.

[2248] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; App. _B. C._ i. 11.

[2249] _CIL._ i. 200. 14: “_Sei quis_ ... agri iugra non amplius xxx possidebit habebitve.” In all probability this specification came originally from the Sempronian law.

[2250] Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 88; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; App. _B. C._ i. 27. 121; Weber, _Röm. Agrargesch._ 151.

[2251] This is a necessary deduction from a speech of Tiberius quoted by App. _B. C._ i. 9. 35; cf. 11. 43; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9. The _Lex Agr._ of 111 (_CIL._ i. 200. 21) refers to assignments made by C. Gracchus to Latins and allies as compensation for public lands surrendered by them to the government for colonial purposes; cf. § 31. Doubtless a similar provision was included in the statute of Tiberius. Although viritim assignments had hitherto benefited citizens only, Latins and Italians had been admitted to Latin colonies founded by Rome; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 91.

[2252] Cf. _Lex Agr._ in _CIL._ i. 200. 6: “_Extra eum agrum, qui ager ex_ lege plebive scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebei) rog(avit), exceptum cavitumque est nei divideretur.” The exceptions numbered from a to g in the text above are taken from the agrarian law of 111. As these exceptions were made in the agrarian law of C. Gracchus, it is here assumed that they were made previously by Tiberius.

[2253] _Lex Agr._ in _CIL._ i. 200. 31 f.; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ i. 4. 10; ii. 22. 58 (land held similarly in Africa).

[2254] Cf. Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90.

[2255] In the earliest arrangement of the kind the part was one third, as the name indicates; Livy xxxi. 13. 9; _CIL._ i. 200. 31 f.; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 113; Weber, _Röm. Agrargesch._ 149-51. The word is derived from trientare, as stabulum from stare; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90.

[2256] _CIL._ i. 200. 14; cf. 25 f. See Mommsen’s comment, p. 91; Frontin. _Contr._ p. 15; Hygin. _Cond. Agr._ p. 116. 23; _Lim. Const._ p. 201. 12; Siculus Flacc. p. 157; Weber, _Röm. Agrargesch._ 120 f.

[2257] Voigt, in _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ x (1888). 229; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 113.

[2258] _CIL._ ibid. 28.

[2259] _CIL._ 200. 1, 4, 6, 13, 22; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ i. 7. 21; ii. 29. 81; _Att._ i. 19. 4; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 91; Greenidge, ibid. 112 f.

[2260] _CIL._ ibid. 24-6; Voigt, ibid. 227. The classification of public land reserved from distribution by the agrarian law of 111 is that of Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90 f.

[2261] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31; App. _B. C._ i. 9. 37; Livy, ep. lviii.

[2262] They are so called in _Lex Lat. Bant._ 15, in _CIL._ i. 197; _Lex Rep._ 13, 16, 22, ibid. 198; _Lex Agr._ 16, ibid. 200.

[2263] _Lex Agr._ in _CIL._ i. 200. 13 f., 17, 21-3; Cic. _Att._ i. 19. 4; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87. Illegal occupations alone are thereafter mentioned; Cic. _Orat._ ii. 70. 284; App. _B. C._ i. 36. 162.

[2264] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 10; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 121; Strachan-Davidson’s explanation (_Appian_, p. 13) seems to be incorrect.

[2265] Livy, ep. lviii; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 10-3; App. _B. C._ i. 12 f.; Cic. _N. D._ i. 38. 106.

[2266] Livy, ep. lviii; App. _B. C._ i. 13. 55; Vell. ii. 2. 3; Flor. ii. 2. 6.

[2267] P. 347 f.

[2268] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 13.

[2269] Livy, ep. lviii: “Promulgavit et aliam legem agrariam, qua sibi latius agrum patefaceret, ut iidem triumviri iudicarent, qua publicus ager, qua privatus esset.”

[2270] _CIL._ i. 552-5, 583; ix. 1024 f.

[2271] _B. C._ i. 19. 78 f. The context indicates that in Appian’s opinion the people had nothing to do with the measure.

[2272] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 688 (cf. iii. 22) and Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 158, suppose without evidence that Scipio effected his object by means of a law.

[2273] P. 373 below. On the agrarian law of Ti. Gracchus, see further Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 159-91; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 445-52; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 382-400; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 110-28; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 156-84.

[2274] Livy, ep. lviii; Vell. ii. 2. 3: “Octavio collegae pro bono publico stanti imperium abrogavit”; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 12; App. _B. C._ i. 12; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 10. 24; Dio Cass. Frag. 83. 4.

[2275] P. 360.

[2276] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 12; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 80, 395; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 185 ff. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 125-7, and Pöhlmann, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad._ 1907. 465 ff., contend for its legality.

[2277] P. 233 f.

[2278] P. 255.

[2279] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 16; Dio Cass. Frag. 83. 7. These sources are obscure and somewhat inconsistent. The proposals of Tiberius can, better than in any other way though not with absolute certainty, be inferred from the laws of his brother.

[2280] P. 360.

[2281] P. 307 f.

[2282] Livy, ep. lix; Cic. _Amic._ 25. 96.

[2283] _B. C._ i. 21. 90: Καὶ γάρ τις ἤδη νόμος κεκύρωτο εἰ δήμαρχος ἐνδέοι ταῖς παραγγλείαις, τὸν δῆμον ἐκ πάντων ἐπιλέγεσθαι. White translates, “For in cases where there was not a sufficient number of candidates, the law authorizes the people to choose from the whole number then in office”; and scholars usually suppose that in the first clause reference is to candidates. But if tribunus, the equivalent of δήμαρχος, stood in the law, it must have signified tribune, not candidate; and in that case παραγγελίαις, however Appian may have understood it, must be the equivalent of renuntiationibus, “announcements of votes.”

[2284] Cf. Strachan-Davidson, _Appian_, p. 23. It was under the second contingency that C. Gracchus was reëlected tribune without being a candidate; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 8. The third time, though as some averred he had a majority of votes, the presiding tribune dared reject them; ibid. 12; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 94, n. 3. Fowler’s suggestion (_Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 217) that the law permitted but one reëlection of an individual is on the whole unlikely.

[2285] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 35; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 461; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 163 f.

[2286] The measure was being agitated at the time to which Cicero referred the dialogue _On the Republic_, iv. 2; cf. Q. Cic. _Petit. Cons._ 8. 33; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 657; iii. 25. On the Claudian law, see p. 335 above.

[2287] P. 358.

[2288] _Lex Acil. Rep._ 23, 74, in _CIL._ i. 198; Zumpt, in _Abhdl. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1845. 1-70, 475-515; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664; iii. 26; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 420; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 135, 211. The Latin Lex Bantina (_CIL._ i. 197), identified by some with the Lex Iunia, seems rather to belong to the tribunate of C. Gracchus; p. 379.

[2289] Cic. _Off._ iii. 11. 47; _Brut._ 28. 109; Fest. 286. 10; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 237 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 166 f.

[2290] App. _B. C._, i. 21, 34. 152; Val. Max. ix. 5. 1; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 418-21; Long, ibid. 241; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 462; Greenidge, ibid. 167 ff.; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 93; Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 422.

[2291] In March, April, and May, according to Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 44.

[2292] On the order of his enactments, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 38; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 210; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 466; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 95, n. 4; Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 42 ff.; Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. (1905). 216 ff. Meyer calls attention to the fact that while Appian, _B. C._ i. 21 f., states the enactments in substantially correct order, he wrongly identifies the date of reëlection—midsummer 123—with the date of entrance upon his second term—December 10, 123—in this way pushing forward into the second year a large group of enactments which belong to the latter part of his first term.

[2293] P. 367.

[2294] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; Diod. xxxv. 25, 2; Fest. ep. 23 (abacti); Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 655; iii. 30 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 202.

[2295] P. 368.

[2296] P. 255 f. For the comitial interdict against Popillius, see p. 256.

[2297] Cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 204 f.; Fowler, _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 224.

[2298] Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1346. For examples, see Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 114, and especially, Oliver, _Roman Economic Conditions_, 61 ff.

[2299] Livy, ep. lx; App. _B. C._ i. 21. 89; Schol. Bob. 303; Vell. ii. 6. 3; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5.

[2300] App. ibid. § 90; Diod. xxxv. 25; Cic. _Sest._ 48. 103.

[2301] Cic. _Off._ ii. 21. 72; _Tusc._ iii. 20. 48; Diod. ibid; Oros. v. 12. 4; cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 261-3; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 203-7.

[2302] The view here offered was suggested in Botsford, _History of Rome_ (1901), 156. It is presented in greater detail by Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx (1905). 221 ff.

[2303] Begun by his lex de provocatione; p. 371.

[2304] Placed before the frumentarian law by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 31. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 95, n. 4, and Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 43, hold the view represented above in the text.

[2305] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 9.

[2306] _CIL._ i. 200. 6, 22; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 32.

[2307] P. 364 f., 386.

[2308] App. _B. C._ i. 23. 98; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 6 f.; cf. Voigt, in _Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xxiv (1872). 68 ff.

[2309] Livy, ep. lx; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 88.

[2310] Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 209; cf. _CIL._ i. 200, 1, 3, 4, 6, 22. Dio Cassius, Frag. 84. 2, intimates that after the death of Scipio the distribution of the public land was renewed with energy. Reference must accordingly be to the operation of the law of Gaius.

[2311] Cf. App. _B. C._ i. 21 f.

[2312] App. _B. C._ i. 14. 58.

[2313] P. 358.

[2314] P. 345.

[2315] P. 368. The measure is referred to as a lex iudiciaria by Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 14. 6.

[2316] The epitomator of Livy, lx, supposes that Gaius offered and actually carried a measure for adding six hundred knights to the senate with the understanding that the jurors were to be drawn from that body thus enlarged; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 530, n. 1. Such an act, however, could not have been termed a lex iudiciaria, as it would have been concerned simply with the composition of the senate. Everything is opposed to the assumption that the bill in this form passed or at least that it was put into effect. Plutarch, _C. Gracch._ 5 f., seems to signify that his law provided for an album of six hundred jurors, one half to be drawn from the senate, the rest from the knights. It is by no means necessary, with Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx (1905). 426, n. 16, to interpret the expression ὁ δὲ τριακοσίους τῶν ἱππέων προσκατέλεξεν αὐτοῖς οὖσι τριακοσίοις, καὶ τὰς κρίσεις κοινὰς τῶν ἑξακοσίωον ἐποίησε (cf. _Ag. et Cleom. et Gracch._ _Comp._ 2) as “adding three hundred equites to the senate to form the body of iudices.” These sources have confused the projects with the law as actually passed; cf. Strachan-Davidson, _Appian_, p. 23.

[2317] App. _B. C._ i. 22. 92; Vell. ii. 6. 3; 32. 3; Varro, in Non. Marc. 454; Tac. _Ann._ xii. 60; Pseud. Ascon. 103, 145; Flor. ii. 1. 6; 5. 3 (iii. 13. 17); Diod. xxxv. 25; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5; Livy, ep. lx; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 668; iii. 38-40; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 466 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 263-9; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 434; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 212-7; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 457-64; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ ii. 219-21.

[2318] This is true at least of the extraordinary quaestio established by the Mamilian law of 110; Cic. _Brut._ 34. 128; cf. 33. 127; Schol. Bob. 311; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 381 f., 435.

[2319] _CIL._ i. 198.

[2320] _CIL._ i. 198. 16. There was under the republic a census qualification for the knights who acted as iudices (Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 20), though we have no authority that the limit of four hundred thousand sesterces existed before the principate. Originally Mommsen supplied the lacuna with a statement of the money qualification as here given; but afterward, changing his mind, he filled the gap with “equum publicum habebit habuerit.”

[2321] An article of the lex Acilia provides that within ten days after the enactment of this statute the said praetor shall choose the four hundred and fifty persons from whom the jurors of that court are to be drawn; thereafter the revision is to be annual; _CIL._ i. 198. 12, 14.

[2322] Strachan-Davidson, _Appian_, p. 23, followed by Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 429, identifies the two—on untenable ground, for the reliable sources speak distinctly of a Sempronian law and an Acilian law.

[2323] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 531, n. 1, preferably regards the Sempronian as the later; but in that case the transfer would have been achieved in substance by the Acilian statute—a view which is contradicted by the sources.

[2324] This idea would explain the fact that the extant fragments of the lex Acilia contain no reference to a Sempronian lex iudiciaria.

[2325] Cic. _Verr._ i. 17. 51 f.; II. i. 9. 26; _Brut_. 68. 239; Pseud. Ascon. 149, 165.

[2326] P. 370.

[2327] _CIL._ i. 198. Reference to the IIIviri of the Sempronian agrarian law (§ 13, 16, 22) proves it to belong to 133-119, while the fact that it does not admit senators among the jurors requires it to follow the judiciary law of C. Gracchus; and more particularly, the implication that at the time of its enactment the lex Rubria (p. 383 below) was in force places it between 123 and 121; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 55; Ruggiero, _Diz. Ep._ i. 41. In general on the law, see Rudorff, _Ad legem Aciliam_; Zumpt, in _Abhdl. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1845. 1-70, 475-515; _Röm. Criminalr._ i. 99 ff.; Huschke, in _Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch._ v (1866). 46-84; Hesky, in _Wiener_ _Studien_, xxv (1903). 272-87; Brassloff, ibid. xxvi. 106-17; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664; iii. 40; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 642; _Röm. Strafr._ 708 f.; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 420; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 214, n. 2; Ruggiero, ibid. 41-4; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 256.

[2328] _Lex Rep._ 2 f.; cf. 8 f.

[2329] _Lex Rep._ 1.

[2330] Vell. ii. 8. 1; cf. Cic. _Verr._ iii. 80. 184; Ruggiero, _Diz. Ep._ i. 42.

[2331] _Lex Rep._ 8 f.

[2332] The principle was expressed in an article of the lex Memmia de incestu of 111 (Val. Max. iii. 7. 9), and probably in every law for the establishment of a court. It was used throughout the history of the republic; cf. Livy x. 37. 7; 46. 16 (year 293); p. 289 above; Suet. _Caes._ 23 (59); Dio Cass. xxxix. 7. 3 (57).

In this connection mention may be made of the lex Hostilia, which allowed

## actions for theft to be brought in behalf of persons absent in the

service of the state or in captivity or in wardship; Just. _Inst._ iv. 10. The date is unknown, though Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 282, n. 14, inclines to assign it to 209 or 207.

[2333] _Lex Rep._ 19-26; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 216 f. Ruggiero, ibid. 43, is obviously wrong.

[2334] _Lex Rep._ 76-8; cf. 83-5.

[2335] § 28 states that money within a specified limit might legally be received—perhaps by the patron of the accuser—from which we may infer that the law defined precisely what was permitted and what forbidden all persons participating in the trial; cf. Brassloff, in _Wiener Studien_, xxvi. 109 f.

[2336] Cic. _Cluent._ 56. 154: “Illi (senatus) non hoc recusabant, ne ea lege accusarentur, qua nunc Habitus accusatur, quae tum erat Sempronia, nunc est Cornelia” (“They did not object to being accused under that law under which Habitus is now being tried, which was then the Sempronian but is now the Cornelian statute”). The trial was before the quaestio veneficis under the Cornelian law which constituted this court and which is described as essentially identical with a Sempronian law. _CIL._ i. p. 200. xxxiii: (“C. Claud. Ap. F. C. N. Pulcher) ... IUDEX. Q. VENEFICIS,” aedile 99, praetor 95, consul 92, corroborates the existence of such a court before Sulla. For other proofs, see Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 36 ff.; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664.

[2337] P. 255, n. 1 (4), 358.

[2338] Cic. _Cluent._ 55. 151.

[2339] Ibid. 52. 144.

[2340] In 66 Cluentius Habitus was brought to trial before the quaestio inter sicarios et veneficos on the charge (1) of having corrupted the jurors in an earlier trial of the kind, (2) of poisoning; Cic. _Cluent._; cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 12.

[2341] The whole tenor of Cicero’s _Pro Cluentio_ is to the effect that the knights were not bound by the provision against bribery. He had a strong motive, however, for bringing into prominence the article which provided for the punishment of magistrates and senators, and for suppressing the one, if there was one, concerning the punishment of equites; and this suppression was rendered easy by the fact that the Cornelian law then in force mentioned senatorial jurors only. Appian, _B. C._ i. 22. 97 (cf. 35. 158, 161), assumes that under the Sempronian law there were trials for the bribery of jurors, rendered useless, however, and finally done away with by the conspiracy and violence of the knights; cf. Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 18 f. This interpretation of the known facts seems preferable to the view of Cicero, which, however, is accepted by most scholars; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 635; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 421; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 216 f.

[2342] _CIL._ i. 197; Ritschl. _Prisc. lat. mon. epigr. tab._ xix.

[2343] Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 48-53; Girard, _Textes_, p. 26-9.

[2344] As indicated by the “Ioudex, quei ex hace lege plebeive scito factus erit”; § 2.

[2345] Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 431. Kirchhoff, _Stadtrecht von Bantia_, 90-7, regards it as a part of a judiciary law. Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 46 f., connects it with a treaty between Rome and Bantia. See also Krüger-Brissaud, _Hist. d. source d. droit Rom._ 94.

[2346] Cic. _Verr._ iii. 6. 12; _Att._ i. 17. 9; Schol. Bob. 259; Vell. ii. 6. 3; Gell. xi. 10; App. _B. C._ v. 4. 17 f.; Fronto, _Ad Verum_, p. 125; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 674 f.; iii. 34; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 468 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 217-21. Hitherto the senate had exercised unrestricted power in granting such remissions; Polyb. vi. 17. 5.

[2347] App. _B. C._ v. 4. 19; Diod. xxxv. 25.

[2348] App. _B. C._ i. 22. 94-7.

[2349] Varro, in Non. Marc. 454; Flor. ii. 5. 3 (iii. 17).

[2350] Diod. xxxvii. 9; cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 9. 20. As a substitute for his law concerning the taxation of Asia his opponents vainly offered the rogatio Aufeia, probably pretorian, on the same subject; Gell. xi. 10; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 675; iii. 35.

[2351] Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 2. 3; _Balb._ 27. 61; _Dom._ 9. 24; _Fam._ i. 7. 10; Sall. _Iug._ 27; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 41; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 470. Before the enactment of this law it was possible for the people to grant a province to whomsoever it pleased, whether magistrate or private person. A lex of 131, probably tribunician, had given the province of Asia to P. Licinius Crassus, consul; Livy, ep. lix; Cic. _Phil._ xi. 8. 18. The Sempronian law did not affect their right. In 107 a plebiscite of C. Manlius granted Numidia, with the conduct of the Jugurthine war, to C. Marius, consul; Sall. _Iug._ 73; Gell. vii. 11. 2; _CIL._ i. p. 290 f. On the Sulpician law for granting the conduct of the Mithridatic war to Marius, then a private citizen, see p. 404.

[2352] Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 7. 17.

[2353] Cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 222 f.

[2354] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 672.

[2355] P. 368.

[2356] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5; cf. Livy xxv. 5. 5-8. In speaking on the rogation of Cn. Marcius Censorinus, a proposal not otherwise known, Gaius is said to have remarked: “Si vobis probati essent homines adulescentes, tamen necessario vobis tribuni militares veteres faciundi essent”; Charis. 208. The new epitome of Livy proves that the military question was more prominently before the public at this time than has hitherto been supposed.

[2357] XXXV. 25. For the Gracchi in general Diodorus draws from Posidonius, an exceedingly hostile source.

[2358] Livy lx; App. _B. C._ i. 23 f.; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 6, 8 f.; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 3. The date is established by Vell. i. 15. 4; Oros. v. 12. 1; cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 95, n. 4; Mommsen, in _CIL._ p. 87, 96.

[2359] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 9; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 224 f.

[2360] Vell. i. 15. 4; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 3; cf. Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 522; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 55. His plan to colonize Capua (Plut. _C. Gracch._ 8) was not carried out.

[2361] The lex Sempronia or Graccana, mentioned in the _Liber Coloniarum_, in _Gromatici_ (Lachmann), p. 229, 233, 237, 238; cf. p. 216, 219, 228, 255; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 224, n. 2.

[2362] This fact is deduced from the literary references to the subject and from the terms of the agrarian law of 111; _CIL._ i. 200. 5, 13; cf. Mommsen’s comment, p. 90. The same principle holds for any other colonies founded in Italy between 133 and 111.

[2363] _Lex Acil._, in _CIL._ i. 198. 22; _Lex Agr._, _CIL._ i. 200. 59; Vell. i. 15. 4; ii. 7. 8; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 10 f.; App. _B. C._ i. 24; _Pun._ 136; Livy, ep. lx; Fronto, _Ad Verum_, ii. p. 125; Sol. 28. For the date, see Vell. i. 15. 4; Oros. v. 12. 1; Eutrop. iv. 21.

[2364] Vell. ii. 6. 2; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5, 8 f.; App. _B. C._ i. 23. 99; 34. 153; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 474 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, 233-7. About the end of 123 or the beginning of 122 Gaius had proposed to give the Latins equal suffrage with the Romans; Plut. ibid. 8 f.: Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 45. The promulgation of this earlier rogation must have preceded that of the Livian bills.

The bill (or possibly bills) which included the Italians among the recipients of the citizenship could have been offered only between his return from Carthage and the elections of midsummer, 122; Kornemann, ibid. 51; Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 425.

[2365] Cf. Fannius, in Jul. Victor vi. 6. p. 224 Or.; Charisius, p. 143 Keil.

[2366] Appian, _B. C._ i. 23. 101; Plut. C. _Gracch._ 9. Plutarch, who alone speaks of the exemption from rent, seems to consider the measure to have applied retroactively to the Sempronian settlements as well as to those proposed by Livius. Although this could hardly have been the intention of the Livian act, the exemption of the colonists under it would naturally lead to the extension of equal privileges to the beneficiaries of the Sempronian agrarian laws.

[2367] Appian, _B. C._ i. 35. 156 (cf. p. 397 below) assumes that the colonial bill of Livius became a law. If that is true, there is no reason for supposing that the other was dropped before being brought to vote. Gaius might have prevented both by his veto (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 45); but even if he felt the intention to be mischievous, he could not have afforded to oppose so popular measures. Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87, is of the opinion that Minervia may have been a Livian colony; but he cannot understand why the others provided for were not founded. The reason doubtless is that the senate, which had used Livius as a tool, never seriously intended to execute the law.

[2368] A rogation of Gaius, proposed about the same time as the lex de civitate danda, concerning the order of voting in the comitia centuriata is mentioned by (Sall.) _Rep. Ord._ ii. 8: “Mihi ... placet lex quam C. Gracchus in tribunatu promulgaverit, ut ex confusis quinque classibus sorte centuriae vocarentur: ita coaequatur dignitate pecunia.” His object, to eliminate the influence of wealth, could be achieved by determining by lot the order of voting of the five classes; or a new grouping of the centuries could be substituted for the classes; but he could not have proposed that the centuries should vote one by one.

[2369] We know that in 91 they vehemently opposed the admission of the allies; p. 399, 400 below; cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 106, n. 1.

[2370] Opimius, consul in 121, ordered the equites to come each with two armed slaves to the support of the government; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 14. Sallust, _Iug._ 42, states that the senate, by holding out to the equites the hope of an alliance with the aristocracy, detached them from the plebs; cf. Meyer, ibid. 106.

The lex Acilia Rubria, passed most probably in 122, seems to have had to do with the participation of aliens in the worship of Jupiter Capitolinus; _S. C. de Astypalaeensibus_, in _CIG._ ii. 2485. 11 (cf. Böckh’s comment); Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 42. It is to be connected with the rogation for granting the citizenship to the allies, and probably aimed to liberalize the worship in the Sempronian spirit.

[2371] Cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 231.

[2372] Dio Cassius, Frag. 85. 3, in a mutilated passage seems to refer to the great possibilities of a longer career. It would be unreasonable to suppose that so creative a mind could rest content at any given point.

[2373] Fest. 201. 19; Flor. ii. 3. 4 (iii. 15); Diod. xxxiv. 28 a (from Posidonius); (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 5; Oros. v. 12. 5; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 13; App. _B. C._ i. 24. 105; _Pun._ 136; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 47; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 248; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 96.

[2374] App. _B. C._ i. 27. 121; cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 352; Greenidge, ibid. i. 285; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 4 f.

[2375] Ibid. § 122.

[2376] It seems to be a mistake for Spurius Thorius (Cic. _Brut._ 36. 136: “Sp. Thorius .... qui agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege vectigali levavit”). By interpreting this sentence “Sp. Thorius ... who relieved the public land of a defective and useless law by the imposition of a vectigal,” Mommsen (in _Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ 92 f.) attempts to bring Cicero into agreement with Appian. But the interpretation is violent and is not generally accepted. The statement of Cicero applies to the law of 111 far better than to that which Appian mentions under the name of Borius.

[2377] App. ibid.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 688; iii. 51; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 353 f.; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 9; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 285-8. If, as Greenidge supposes, the Livian colonial rogation became a law, it did not affect the vectigal imposed by the Sempronian statutes (p. 383 above).

It may have been as a compensation for the repeal of this Sempronian statute and of that of Rubrius that a lex of an unknown author provided in this year for the establishment of the colony of Narbo Martius in Narbonensis; Vell. i. 15. 5; ii. 7. 8; Eutrop. iv. 23; Cic. _Brut._ 43. 160; _Cluent._ 51. 140; _Font._ 5. 13; Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 522.

[2378] _Brut._ 36. 136 (quoted p. 385, n. 5 above); cf. _Orat._ ii. 70. 284; App. _B. C._ i. 27. 123; _CIL._ i. 200; Rudorff, in _Zeitschr. f. gesch. Rechtswiss._ x (1842). 1-194; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 75 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 478; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 351-86; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 288.

[2379] The classification here given is a close reproduction of Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87-106; cf. _Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ i. 89-101.

[2380] _Lex Agr._ 27 (cf. 4), in _CIL._ i. 200.

[2381] Ibid. 20-23.

[2382] Ibid. 2; cf. 13 f.

[2383] Ibid. 3, 15 f. The word sortito in these passages, e.g. “IIIvir sortito ceivi Romano dedit adsignavit,” proves a reference to the founding of colonies, as viritim assignations were not by lot; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87.

[2384] Ibid. 5.

[2385] Ibid. 13 f. Although occupation was forbidden by the agrarian law of Ti. Gracchus (p. 366 above), they did take place, and are legalized by this article of the law of 111, in so far as they do not exceed the specified limit.

[2386] _Lex Agr._ 12: “Eum agrum quem ex h(ace) l(ege) venire dari reddive oportebit”; cf. 32. We do not know what land is meant. Perhaps Sipontia is included in this category; cf. 43; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 89.

[2387] _Lex Agr._ 19 f.; App. _B. C._ i. 27. 123; Cic. _Brut._ 36. 136: “Sp. Thorius ... qui agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege vectigali levavit” (“Sp. Thorius ... who by a mischievous and useless law freed the public land of vectigal”).

[2388] P. 365.

[2389] _Lex Agr._ 11-3; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90.

[2390] _Lex Agr._ 45, 55, 59-61, 66-9, 79, 89.

[2391] Ibid. 75 f., 79 f., 85.

[2392] Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 98 ff.

[2393] _Lex Agr._ 96. This part of the inscription is hopelessly mutilated.

[2394] Ibid. 29.

[2395] P. 385.

[2396] P. 255.

[2397] P. 256 f.

[2398] Cic. _Brut._ 34. 128; cf. _Red. in Sen._ 15. 38; _Red. ad Quir._ 4. 9; 5. 11; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 279 f.; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 6 f.

[2399] P. 255.

[2400] Tac. _Ann._ xii. 60, confirmed by a statement of Cicero, in Ascon. 79, that senators and knights first sat together as jurors under the Plautian law of 89 (p. 402 below).

[2401] Cassiod. _Chron._ 384 C: “Per Servilium Caepionem consulem iudicia equitatibus et senatoribus communicata”; Obseq. 41 (101).

[2402] Cf. further Cic. _Inv._ i. 49. 92; _Brut._ 43. 161; 44. 164; _Cluent._ 51. 140; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 668; iii. 67 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 2 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 477-82. But that the knights continued in uninterrupted possession of the courts is proved by Cicero, _Verr._ i. 13. 38; Pseud. Ascon. 103, 145.

[2403] P. 355.

[2404] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 72. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 53; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 478. His lex sumptuaria of the same year, perhaps combined in one law with the provision concerning the libertini, limited not only the expense of meals but also the kind of food and the mode of preparing it; Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 57. 223; cf. Gell. ii. 24. 12; (Aurel. Vict.) ibid.—Two other sumptuary laws, both of which were enacted before 97, may be mentioned here. The statute of P. Licinius Crassus, pretorian or tribunician, ex senatus consulto, perhaps 104, made some changes in the lex Fannia and the lex Didia; Gell. ii. 24. 7; xv. 8; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 7; Fest. ep. 54; p. 356 above.—It was repealed by the plebiscite of M. Duronius before 97; Val. Max ii. 9. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 71, 88.

[2405] Ascon. 67 f.; cf. p. 382, 392.

[2406] The reading of the MS. of Velleius, ii. 11. 1 (“natus equestri loco”) should not be corrected to “agresti loco” to conform with Plut. _Mar._ 3. Velleius has mentioned his equestrian birth to explain his connections with the publicans referred to in the following sentence.

[2407] The opposition of Marius to the populace is proved by his intercession against a frumentarian rogation of the same year, the purport of which is not definitely stated; Plut. _Mar._ 4.

[2408] Cic. _Pis._ 15. 36; _Red. in Sen._ 11. 28. On the pontes, see p. 469.

[2409] Varro, _R. R._ iii. 5. 18. On the custodes, see also p. 467 below.

[2410] Cic. _Pis._ 5. 11; _Red. in Sen._ 7. 17; cf. p. 466.

[2411] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 17. 38.

[2412] Plut. _Mar._ 4; Cic. ibid.; Lange, _Rom. Alt._ ii. 490; iii. 51; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 322 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 304-6. The opposition of the consuls to this measure, and the consequent threat of Marius to imprison them, Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 8, regards as a farce. This interpretation of the circumstances, however, is unnecessary for explaining the policy of Marius; as a champion of the peasants, rather than of the plebs as a whole, be consistently passed his election law and opposed the frumentarian bill.

[2413] Plut. _Cat. Min._ 42.

[2414] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 36; Oros. v. 15. 24; cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 195 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 527; iii. 66. On the leges tabellariae in general, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 94, 340; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 105-10; Lange, ibid. see indices, s. v.

[2415] P. 388.

[2416] Cic. _N. D._ iii. 30. 74; Ascon. 46; Livy, ep. lxiii; Dio Cass. Frag. 87; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 10. 5 f. A plebiscite of C. Memmius, 111, de incestu (p. 377, n. 5) refers to the same subject.

[2417] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 697 f.

[2418] Sall. _Iug_. 40. 65; Cic. _Brut._ 33. 127 f.; Schol. Bob. 311. In 111 a plebiscite of the C. Memmius mentioned in n. 4 had commissioned L. Cassius, praetor, to bring Jugurtha to Rome as a witness against those accused of having bribed him; Sall. _Iug._ 32.

[2419] Livy, ep. lxvii; Ascon. 78; cf. (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 14. 24, which refers to a defence against the tribunes. For the earliest case of the kind, see p. 360; cf. p. 342.

[2420] The court was established by a plebiscite of C. Norbanus, 104; Dio Cass. Frag. 90; Gell. iii. 9. 7; Strabo iv. 1. 13; Cic. _N. D._ iii. 30. 74; _Balb._ 11. 28; Val. Max. iv. 7. 3; vi. 9. 13.

[2421] Ascon. 78: “Ut, quem populus damnasset cuive imperium abrogasset, in senatu non esset.” The disgraceful defeat of Caepio in Gaul and his embezzlement of the treasury found at Tolosa excited the people to this line of action; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 484. On the author, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1738. 63.

[2422] The lex Acilia repetundarum (_CIL._ i. 198. 13, 16), adopted in 122, implies that they did not have the right; but they must have acquired it before 102; App. _B. C._ i. 28. 126.

[2423] Ateius Capito, in Gell. xiv. 8. 2; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 228.

[2424] P. 341.

[2425] Cic. _Amic._ 25. 96.

[2426] Cic. ibid.; _Brut._ 21. 83; _N. D._ iii. 2. 5; 17. 43.

[2427] P. 347.

[2428] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 18; _Fam._ viii. 4. 1; _Ad Brut._ i. 5. 3; _Phil._ ii. 2. 4; xiii. 5. 12; Suet, _Ner._ 2; Vell. ii. 12. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 537, 675; iii. 71; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm_, 418; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 49 f.; ii. 40-2; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 484 f.

[2429] Priscian, _Inst. Gram._ p. 90: “Cato nepos de actionibus ad populum, ne lex sua abrogetur: facite vobis in mentem veniat, quirites, ex aere alieno in hac civitate et in aliis omnibus propter diem atque fenus saepissimam discordiam fuisse.” This is the only source for the measure.

[2430] P. 388 f.

[2431] Ascon. 67 f.

[2432] The only source is Cic. _Off._ ii. 21. 73.

[2433] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 46; Mommsen-Blacas, _Hist. d. mon. Rom_, ii. 101 (for date and character).

[2434] P. 389.

[2435] Ascon. 21; Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 9; _Balb._ 23. 53; 24. 54. Cicero here informs us that by a provision of this law citizenship was offered to Latins as a reward for evidence in cases arising under it. This article was borrowed from the lex Acilia; p. 378. See also Val. Max viii. 1. 8; Cic. _Brut._ 62. 224; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 309-11. Proof of the repeal of the Acilian law no later than that year is the circumstance that on the reverse of the stone which contains it is inscribed the agrarian law of 111; Mommsen, _CIL._ i. p. 55 f.

[2436] Cic. _Verr._ i. 9. 26.

[2437] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 8 f. The quotation is from Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 310.

[2438] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 9; cf. Mommsen. _Röm. Strafr._ 709; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 423.

[2439] Cic. _Brut._ 62. 224.

[2440] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 73. 1: “Ut gratiam Marianorum militum pararet, legem tulit, ut veteranis centena agri iugera in Africa dividerentur, intercedentem Baebium collegam facta per populum lapidatione submovit”; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 76; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 485; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 262. In the opinion of Mühl, _App. Sat._ 77 f., the colonia Mariana (p. 396 below) was founded under this law.

[2441] P. 86, 89.

[2442] Cic. _Orat._ ii. 25. 107; 49. 201; _N. D._ iii. 30. 74.

[2443] As indicated by the fact that the trial of C. Norbanus in 95 took place under the law; Cic. _Orat._ 21. 89; 25. 107; 50. 203; _Off._ ii. 14. 49; Val. Max. viii. 5. 2.

[2444] The theory that the court established by the Appuleian law was special is held by Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, iii (1898). 440, n. 1; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 664, n. 1; _Röm. Strafr._ 198. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 76, 82, supposes that in his first tribunate he established a special court and in his second by his lex maiestatis a quaestio perpetua. Mühl, _App. Sat._ 74, also strongly favors the second. The statement of Gran. Licin. xxxiii (?). 4—“Cn. Manilius (for Manlius or Mallius; cf. _CIL._ i². p. 152 f.) ob eandem causam quam et Cepio L. Saturnini rogatione e civitate est cito (for plebiscito?) eiectus”—Lange applies to the rogation for a special court. The circumstance that the trial of Norbanus took place no less than five years after the enactment of the law and the general tenor of Cicero’s account of that trial (see n. 4 above) point clearly to the existence of a standing court; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 485; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ ii. 275; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 262 f.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 23-32.

To the same tribune, either in 103 or in 100, may belong the lex Appuleia de sponsu (Gaius iii. 122; p. 298, n. 1 above). In that case the lex Furia de sponsu (Gaius iii. 121; iv. 22; cf. same page above) must belong to the first century B.C.

[2445] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 73. 5: “Tribunus plebis refectus (Saturninus) Siciliam, Achaiam, Macedoniam novis colonis destinavit et aurum (Tolosanum), dolo an scelere Caepionis partum, ad emptionem agrorum convertit.” For Corsica, see p. 396.

[2446] Cic. _Balb._ 21. 48. The MS. reads “ternos,” which may be a mistake for a larger number (trecenos?).

[2447] App. _B. C._ i. 29. 130, 132; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 111 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 486.

[2448] (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 12. 21; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 114 f.; Herzog, ibid. i. 486 f.

[2449] _B. C._ i. 29. 131; cf. Plut. _Mar._ 29.

[2450] Cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 265.

[2451] App. _B. C._ i. 30 f.; Plut. _Mar._ 29; (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. _Ill._ 73; 8; Vell. ii. 15. 4; Val. Max iii. 8. 4; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82; _Har. Resp._ 19. 41; _Sest._ 47. 101; _Leg._ iii. 11. 26. After the downfall of Appuleius, Metellus was recalled by a plebiscite of Q. Calidius, 98; Cic. _Planc._ 28. 69; _Dom._ 32. 87; _Red. ad Quir._ 4. 9; 5. 11; Val. Max. v. 2. 7; App. _B. C._ i. 33. 147-9; Dio Cass. Frag. 95. 1; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 62. 3. On this Calidius, see further Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1354. 5. A fruitless attempt to recall Metellus had been made in 99 through the tribunician rogatio Porcia Pompeia; Oros. v. 17. 11; App. _B. C._ i. 33.

[2452] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 6. 14. According to Oros. v. 12. 10, P. Furius, tribune in 99, secured the enactment of a law for confiscating the property of those who conspired against the state.

[2453] Pliny, _N. H._ iii. 12. 80: “Marianam a C. Mario deductam”; Seneca, _Ad. Helv._ vii. 9; Solin. iii. 3; Mela ii. 7. 122; Mommsen, in _CIL._ x. p. 838, 997; Kornemann, in Pauly Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 522.

[2454] Obseq. 46 (106); Val. Max viii. 1. damn. 3; cf. Cic. _Orat._ ii. 11. 48.

[2455] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 6. 14; 12. 31; Obseq. ibid. A criminal lex Titia, the contents of which also are unknown—Auson. _Epigr._ 92 (89). 4—may belong to this tribune; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 661, 668.

[2456] Cic. _Dom._ 20. 53; _Leg._ iii. 4. 11; 19. 43. The enactment was merely the confirmation of an old custom or law introduced between the Licinian-Sextian legislation and 122; cf. _Lex Acil._ 72, in _CIL._ i. 198.

[2457] Cic. _Dom._ 16. 41; _Sest._ 64. 135; Schol. Bob. 310. This, too, was a confirmation of an earlier usage; Dion. Hal. vii. 58. 3; x. 3. 5; Livy iii. 35. 1; p. 189, 260, n. 1 above; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 336, 376 f.

[2458] Cic. _Off._ iii. 11. 47; cf. p. 354, 370.

[2459] Cic. _Balb._ 21. 48.

[2460] Cic. _Brut._ 16. 63; Schol. Bob. 296.

[2461] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 20.

[2462] Ascon. 67. On the law in general, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 90; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 128; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 490. On Caecilius and Didius, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1216. 95; v. 407-10.

[2463] Vell. ii. 13. 1; Dio Cass. Frag. 96. 2; Diod. xxxvii. 10.

[2464] The citations of the preceding note, and Ascon. 68; Livy, ep. lxx; less clearly Flor. ii. 5. 1, 4 (iii. 17).

[2465] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 4 f.; _CIL._ vi. 1312 (i. p. 279 vii). Livy, ep. lxxi, merely mentions them.

[2466] _B. C._ i. 35. 156.

[2467] P. 383 above.

[2468] This may be inferred from the silence of Cicero, _Leg. Agr._ i. 7. 21; ii. 29. 81; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 102; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 181; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 490.

[2469] App. _B. C._ 36. 162 f.; Flor. ii. 5. 6 (iii. 17): “Exstat vox ipsius nihil se ad largitionem ulli reliquisse nisi siquis aut caenum dividere vellet aut caelum.”

[2470] _CIL._ vi. 1312; cf. i. p. 279. vii. A beginning was actually made of the colonization; and this is all that could be indicated by the verb ὑπήγετο (App. _B. C._ i. 35. 156), “he was for conducting.”

[2471] Ep. lxxi.

[2472] Cf. Vell. ii. 13. 2; Livy, ep. lxx f.

[2473] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 46. The idea was to issue one silver-plated copper denarius to every seven silver denarii; Mommsen, _Röm. Münzw._ 387 (Mommsen-Blacas, _Hist. d. mon. Rom_, ii. 41 f., 82); Babelon, _Mon. d. la rép. Rom_, 1. introd. p. lix.

[2474] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 674; iii. 103.

[2475] _B. C._ i. 35. 157 f. The same view seems to be held by (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 4. It is accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 97; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 436. The objection is that a judiciary measure, as the Livian, could not have dealt primarily with the composition of the senate; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 489.

[2476] II. 13. 2. Florus, ii. 5. 4 (iii. 17), is non-committal.

[2477] LXXI; accepted by Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 177.

[2478] Cf. App. _B. C._ i. 35. 157.

[2479] Flor. ii. 5. 3 (iii. 17); App. _B. C._ i. 35. 158.

[2480] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 7. 16; _Cluent._ 56. 153; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 177 f.

[2481] Velleius, ii. 14. 1, regards it as an afterthought, whereas Appian, _B. C._ i. 35. 155, asserting that, petitioned by the Italians for the citizenship, he had already promised to grant it, intimates that this was his main object. At all events the Italians expected it of him and were prepared to support him in his effort by force of arms.

[2482] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 4; Oros. v. 18. 2.

[2483] Vell. ii. 14. 1; App. _B. C._ i. 35. 155 f.; 36. 162; Livy, ep. lxxi; Flor. ii. 5. 6. Most probably he combined this measure with his colonial rogation; App. _B. C._ i. 36.

[2484] App. _B. C._ i. 35 f.

[2485] Livy, ep. lxxi; Flor. ii. 5. 7 (iii. 17).

[2486] Ascon. 68.

[2487] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 6. 14; 12. 31; _Dom._ 16. 41; Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i. 24); Ascon. 68; Diod. xxxvii. 10. 3.

[2488] According to Diod. xxxvii. 10. 3, he declared that though he had full power to prevent the decree, he would not willingly exert it; for he knew well that the wrongdoers in this matter would speedily suffer merited punishment.

[2489] Cf. the elogium, n. below.

[2490] Elogium, in _CIL._ vi. 1312 = i. p. 279. vii: “M. Livius M. F. C. N. Drusus, Pontifex, tr. mil. X. vir. stlit. iudic. tr. pl. X. vir. a. d. a. lege sua et eodem anno V. vir. a. d. a. lege Saufe(i)a, in magistratu occisus est.”

[2491] On M. Livius Drusus, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 96-106; Long, _Rom. Rep._ II. ch. xiii; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 488-93; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, V. ch. xiii; Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, bk. IV. ch. vi; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 451-74; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 79 f.

[2492] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 2; Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 19. 55; Schol. Gronov. 431; Ascon. 30; _Dig._ xxii. 5. 13; xlviii. 16. 3. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; iii. 101; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 491, 494. Hitzig, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1416, places it earlier.

[2493] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 20. 57; Pliny, _Paneg._ 35; Seneca, _De Ira_, iii. 3. 6; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 495. It is almost certain that the punishment mentioned was prescribed by this law; Hitzig, ibid.

[2494] This conclusion is deduced from the circumstance that Varius was tried under his own law. The charge could not possibly have been that of favoring the Italians, but must rather have been the instigation of the sedition by which his statute was originally carried; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 35.

[2495] Cic. _Brut._ 89. 304: “Exercebatur una lege iudicium Varia, ceteris propter bellum intermissis.”

[2496] This is an inference from the fact that the court which tried Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 88, and which sat under the Varian law, was composed in accordance with the subsequent Plautian judiciary law (Cic. Frag. A. vii. _Cornel._ i. 53). A special court was composed in no other way than by the law which established it. In general on the Varian law, see Ascon. 21 f., 73, 79; Val. Max. viii. 6. 4; App. _B. C._ i. 37; Cic. _Tusc._ ii. 24. 57. From Appian we learn that the law was passed before the outbreak of the Social War, and Cicero, _Brut._ 89. 305, informs us that the prosecutions under it continued through the war. The last trial mentioned is that of Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 88, referred to above. See also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 108; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 493; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 198; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 164 f.; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 384 f.; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 188 f.; and especially Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 32-6, where further sources are cited.

[2497] Cic. _Brut._ 62. 222. It belongs to about 90; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 693.

[2498] _Off._ ii. 21. 72. It is an interesting fact that, as this passage shows, Cicero did not object to frumentarian laws on principle, but condemned the Sempronian act because it was burdensome to the treasury.

[2499] Gell. iv. 4. 3.

[2500] Vell. ii. 16. 4; cf. App. _B. C._ i. 49. 212 (who speaks merely of a senatus consultum). This statute seems to have considered the Po the northern boundary of Italy; Sall. _Hist._ i. 20.

[2501] Cic. _Balb._ 8. 21: “Ipsa Iulia lege civitas ita est sociis et Latinis data, ut, qui fundi populi facti non essent, civitatem non haberent.” On fundus see Fest. ep. 89. Heraclea and Naples declined the citizenship; Cic. ibid.

[2502] P. 57 f.

[2503] Cic. _Arch._ 10. 26; _Balb._ 8. 19; 14. 32; 22. 50; _Fam._ xiii. 36; Sisenna, Frag. 17, in Peter, _Hist. Rom. Reliq._ i. 280; Frag. 120, ibid. 293: “Milites, ut lex Calpurnia concesserat, virtutis ergo civitate donari”; cf. Kiene, _Röm. Bundesgenossenkrieg_, 224 f., 229 f. The identity of the author is uncertain; he may be the Calpurnius who was praetor in 74; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1395. 98.

[2504] Cic. _Arch._ 4. 7: Schol. Bob. 353.

[2505] Dio Cass. Frag. 102. 7.

[2506] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 9. 3; Ascon. p. 3; Pliny, _N. H._ iii. 20. 138; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 118; cf. however Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 497 f.

[2507] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 53; Ascon. 79; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 539, 668 f.; iii. 115; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 499; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 385; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 213 f. We may connect with this change the prosecution and condemnation of Q. Varius; p. 401, n. 1 above; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 224 f.

[2508] _Röm. Strafr._ 198, n. 1, followed by Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 386. A difficulty with this interpretation is the great number of jurors provided for, apparently enough to supply all the courts.

[2509] Verr. i. 13. 38.

[2510] Cic. _Att._ i. 18. 6.

[2511] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 46; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 1512; Gardner, in Smith, _Dict._ i. 206; Babelon, _Monn. de la rép. Rom._ i. 74 f.

[2512] Strabo v. 4. 11.

[2513] P. 162.

[2514] Livy, ep. lxxvii; App. _B. C._ i. 55. 242 f.; Vell. ii. 18. 6; Ascon. 64; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1532. The libertini may have been those who fought in the recent war; App. _B. C._ i. 49. 212; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11. 32.

[2515] (Cic.) _Herenn._ ii. 28. 45; Livy, ep. lxxvii; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 123; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 501.

[2516] P. 400 f.

[2517] Plut. _Sull._ 8.

[2518] P. 403 above; also Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 84.

[2519] In this way a justitium, cessation of civil business, was indirectly brought about; Plut. _Sull._ 8; _Mar._ 35; App. _B. C._ i. 55. 244; p. 141 above; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 221; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 513; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1533; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 263, n. 6.

[2520] For the abrogation of Sulla’s imperium Vell. ii. 18. 6 is authority. Plutarch, _Sull._ 8, states that Pompeius, not Sulla, was deprived of the consulship and that from Sulla was taken merely the provincial command. Appian, _B. C._ i. 56. 249 (cf. Plut. _Mar._ 35; Schol. Gronov. 410) speaks only of the transfer of the command. That the fourth article was added after the departure of Sulla from Rome, and that the latter knew nothing of it till summoned to deliver up his command is clearly stated by Appian, ibid. ch. 56 f.; cf. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1533 f.

[2521] Plutarch, _Sull._ 8 and Livy, ep. lxxvii, speak of a decree of the senate only, whereas the account of Appian, _B. C._ i. 60. 271 (Πολεμίους Ῥωμαίων ἐψήφιστο εἶναι) implies a vote of the assembly. Velleius, ii. 19. 1 (“Lege lata exules fecit”) distinctly mentions a comitial act, though he is wrong in supposing it to be a sentence of exile, as may be gathered from his context; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 237.

[2522] App. _B. C._ i. 59. 268; Cic. _Phil._ viii. 2. 7. Scholars are at variance as regards the character and motives of Sulpicius. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 501 (cf. Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 85 f.), can see in his measures no earnest purpose of reform. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 225 f., 233 f., hesitatingly inclines to regard him as a demagogue. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1532, looks upon him as a statesman with a mind and heart for the best interests of his country. In the opinion of Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, iii. (1898). 531 f., he was essentially the successor of Drusus, a reformer in the interest of the senate, yet led by the force of circumstances to adopt revolutionary methods. Cf. also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 121-5; Long, _Rom. Rep._ II. ch. xvii; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 507-17.

[2523] P. 277, 313 f.

[2524] App. _B. C._ i. 59. 266: Εἰσηγοῦντό τε μηδὲν ἔτι ἀπροβούλευτον ἐς τὸν δῆμον ἐσφέρεσθαι, νενομισμένον μὲν οὕτω καὶ πάλαι, παραλελυμένον δ’ ἐκ πολλοῦ.

[2525] Ibid.: Εἰσηγοῦντο ... καὶ τὰς χειροτονίας μὴ κατὰ φυλάς, ἀλλὰ κατὰ λόχους, ὡς Τύλλιος βασιλεὺς ἔταξε γίνεσθαι.

[2526] P. 86.

[2527] In _Hermes_, xxxiii (1898). 652.

[2528] This view is held by Sunden, _De trib. pot. imm._ (1897) 21 ff.; Meyer, ibid. 652-4; Vassis, in _Athena_, xii (1900). 54-7. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1537, supposes that elections simply were thereby transferred to the comitia centuriata; but the word χειροτονίαι used by Appian, though often denoting elections (as in _B. C._ i. 14. 58-60; 15. 66; 28. 127, where the meaning is easily derived from the context), includes also voting on laws, as in _B. C._ i. 23. 100; 55. 244. Had he meant elections, he would here have written ἀρχαιρεσία (cf. i. 1. 1; 44. 196), as otherwise the meaning would have been doubtful. The view represented by Fröhlich, moreover, would in no way explain the passage, nor was it likely that Sulla would leave to the tribes the ratification of laws but deprive them of the politically unimportant right to elect minor officials.

[2529] Appian’s words πολλά τε ἄλλα τῆς τῶν δημάρχων ἀρχῆς ... περιελόντες (i. 59. 267) imply an extensive curtailment of the tribunician power not definitely specified. The statement of Livy, ep. lxxxix, that Sulla afterward (82) deprived the tribunes of all legislative power (p. 413 below) is not true of his dictatorial law-giving, but belongs properly to the year under consideration.

[2530] Lengle (_Sull. Verf._ 10) argues, on the contrary, that the measure could be intended for the tribunes only, because, as he supposes, a patrician magistrate always consulted the senate concerning his legislative proposals. But Lengle has reckoned without the facts. An examination of the sources will show that from the time of the dictator Publilius Philo (Livy viii. 12. 14) to the time of the dictator Julius Caesar (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 3 f.; Plut. _Caes._ 14; App. _B. C._ ii. 10) patrician magistrates occasionally brought rogations before the comitia without the senatorial sanction. But it is possible that in speaking of “an ancient law long disused” (p. 406, n. 2) Appian may wrongly have had in mind the pre-Hortensian restriction on the plebiscite; p. 277, n. 4.

[2531] _B. C._ i. 1. 1, 2, 3; 19. 81; 20. 83; 22. 91; 29. 132 (city people); 30. 136; 32. 143; 33. 147; 35. 155; 36. 162; 38. 169; 100. 469. Δημόται always means plebeians; i. 24. 106; 25. 109; 33. 146; 100. 469. Sometimes δῆμος is exactly equivalent to πλῆθος, multitude, as in i. 26. 119.

[2532] _B. C._ i. 12. 51; 13. 55; 20. 83; 21. 90; 22. 92; 23. 101; 25. 107; 28. 128; 29. 131.

[2533] _B. C._ i. 27. 122. In 33. 148 it applies to the judicial contio preliminary to the comitia centuriata.

[2534] _B. C._ i. 13. 56; 25. 112; 32. 143; 54. 236; 104. 485.

[2535] _B. C._ i. 12. 49; 32. 141.

[2536] _B. C._ i. 101. 472.

[2537] _B. C._ i. 59. 267.

[2538] Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 402 f.

[2539] Livy, ep. lxxvii.

[2540] Fest. 375. 7.

[2541] Cf. the law of 357; p. 297. See also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 126 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 502; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1537.

[2542] Billeter, _Gesch. d. Zinsfusses_, 155-7.

[2543] App. _B. C._ i. 73. 339. No mention is here made of the manner of repeal, but we may infer a comitial act from the public policy of Cinna. It seems probable that at this time, or after his return from exile, the Plautian judiciary law of 89 was also repealed; p. 402.

[2544] Cic. _Phil._ viii. (3.) 7; Vell. ii. 20. 2 f.; Schol. Gronov. 410; Jul. Exuper. 4; App. _B. C._ i. 64. 287; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 180, 439; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1283.

[2545] App. ibid.; Flor. ii. 9. 9 (iii. 21); (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 69. 2.

[2546] Livy, ep. lxxix; Vell. ii. 20. 3; App. _B. C._ i. 65. 296; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 69. 2; Plut. _Mar._ 41.

[2547] Cinna is represented as the author by Vell. ii. 21. 6; Plut. _Mar._ 43; Dio Cass. Frag. 102. 8; whereas Appian, _B. C._ i. 70. 324, mentions tribunes. Cf. Diod. xxxviii, xxxix. 1-4; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1285; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 244.

[2548] P. 405.

[2549] Livy, ep. lxxxiv: “Novis civibus senatus consulto suffragium datum est.”

[2550] P. 58 above. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 141, unnecessarily assumes a consular lex Papiria for the purpose.

In the year 87 the propretorian imperium of Appius Claudius Pulcher, father of the famous tribune of 58, was abrogated by a lex of an unknown tribune. The ground was a refusal to obey the summons of the tribune in question; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 83; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2848 f.

[2551] Vell. ii. 23. 2; Cic. _Font._ 1. 1; _Quinct._ 4. 17; Sall. _Cat._ 33; Mommsen, _Röm. Münzwesen_, 385; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 251; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 92.

[2552] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 33. 89; 34. 92; 36. 98.

[2553] _CIL._ i². p. 154.

[2554] App. _B. C._ i. 3, 98 f.; Plut. _Sull._ 33; Vell. ii. 28. 2; Oros. v. 21. 12; Diod. xxxviii, xxxix. 15; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 703 f. The office had been disused for a hundred and twenty years; Plut. ibid.; Vell. ibid.; _CIL._ i². p. 23. On the form of comitia, see p. 236.

[2555] App. _B. C._ i. 97. 451; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ iii. 2. 5.

[2556] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 43. 126; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1556; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 404. From this Ciceronian passage it is necessary to infer that the Valerian law contained an article similar to the later Cornelian lex de proscriptione; p. 421 below.

[2557] _CIL._ i². p. 27.

[2558] Livy, ep. lxxxix; App. _B. C._ i. 100. 465; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 2.

[2559] P. 406 f.

[2560] Livy, ep. lxxxix: “Tribunorum plebis potestatem minuit, et omne ius legum ferendarum ademit.” We should infer from this statement, which is the sole authority for the view it presents, that he absolutely deprived the tribunes of legislative initiative, were it not that under his constitutional arrangements they actually proposed laws de senatus sententia; _CIL._ i. 204 (year 71); Bruns, _Font. iur._ p. 94; Dessau, _Inscr. Lat._ i. p. 11; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 154; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 11; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 390 f., 411. The conference between Sulla and Scipio, mentioned by Cic. _Phil._ xii. 11. 27, referred to this arrangement. Sunden, _De rib. pot. imm._ 10 ff. (cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 399 ff.), holding that Sulla abolished the right of the tribunes to propose laws, refuses to accept 71 as the date of the epigraphic lex above mentioned.

It seems probable (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 175; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 654, n. 2), though it is not certain (Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 424, 430 f.), that the lex Plautia de vi was proposed by a tribune of 78 or 77 as the agent of Q. Lutatius Catulus, proconsul; Sall. _Cat._ 31; Schol. Bob. 368; Cic. _Cael._ 29. 70; p. 424 below. Probably the lex Plautia which recalled from exile L. Cornelius Cinna, brother-in-law of Caesar, and others who, having shared in the insurrection of Lepidus, had gone over to Sertorius, was a plebiscite de senatus sententia of 73; Suet. _Caes._ 5; Gell. xiii. 3. 5; Val. Max. vii. 7. 6; Dio Cass. xliv. 47. 4; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 185; Maurembrecher, Sall. _Hist. Proleg._ 78; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1287. Others assign the measure to 70; cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 53. For other laws, see p. 424.

The statement of Livy’s epitomator concerning the lex Cornelia de tribunicia potestate would apply more accurately to the Cornelian-Pompeian law of 88; p. 406.

[2561] From Cic. _Cluent._ 40. 110 (cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 400) we should infer that under the Cornelian government no tribunician contio was held; but we know that this is not true. In 76 a contio was summoned by L. Sicinius, tribune of the plebs; _Orat._ of Licinius Macer, in Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48. 8: “L. Sicinius primus de potestate tribunicia loqui ausus mussantibus vobis”; cf. Pseud. Ascon. 103; Plut. _Caes._ 7; Cic. _Brut._ 60. 216 f. In 74 the tribune Quinctius held contiones; Cic. _Cluent._ 34. 93; Sall. _Hist._ ibid. § 11. The oration of Licinius Macer, quoted by Sallust, _Hist._ iii. 48, is a tribunician harangue. Finally in 71 the tribune Palicanus held a contio outside the city that Pompey might attend; p. 426.

[2562] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 60. 155: Q. Opimius was prosecuted in a finable action on the ground that as tribune in 75 (Pseud. Ascon. 200) he had interceded in violation of a Cornelian law, which must have fixed the fine. The statement of Caesar, _B. C._ i. 5. 1; 7. 3, that Sulla left the tribunes the right of intercession proves no more than that he did not wholly abolish it. Cf. further Sunden, _De trib. pot. imm._ 4; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 411, n. 10.

[2563] Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 38: “Sublata populi Romani in unum quemque vestrum potestate.”

[2564] P. 245, 266, 315.

[2565] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 9. 22.

[2566] App. _B. C._ i. 100. 467; Ascon. 78 (repealed by Cotta); Pseud. Ascon. 200.

[2567] Vell. ii. 30. 4; Dion. Hal. v. 77. 5; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 23; iii. 48. 3; Pseud. Ascon. 102.

The following sources assume more or less definitely an abolition of the tribunicia potestas; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 23; 77. 14; iii. 48. 1; _Cat._ 38. 1; Plut. _Pomp._ 21; Pseud. Ascon. 102. The following speak of a limitation; Caes. _B. C._ i. 5. 1; 7. 3; Livy, ep. lxxxix; Dion. Hal. v. 77. 5; Vell. ii. 30. 4; Suet. _Caes._ 5; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 75. 11; App. _B. C._ ii. 29. 113. Tacitus, _Ann._ iii. 27, is non-committal. In general on the lex de tribunicia potestate, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 153 f.; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 410 ff.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 10-16; Sunden, _De trib. pot. imm._

[2568] In Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559.

[2569] The law concerning the quaestors was preceded by the judiciary statute (Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22), which must have been enacted near the end of 81, for the senators remained ten years (80-70) in control of the courts; Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 37.

[2570] P. 347. The relation of this Cornelian provision to the lex Villia is not more definitely known.

[2571] App. _B. C._ i. 100. 466; cf. 121. 560.

[2572] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 529.

[2573] In the thirty-sixth year of his age Pompey was not yet qualified for the quaestorship; Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 21. 62. Cicero, who was consul in his forty-third year, states that he obtained the office at the earliest legal age; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 2. 3. An interval of two years between successive offices would place the quaestorship in the thirty-seventh year; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 527, 569; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1560; but soon after Sulla it came about, probably through further legislation, that the office was often filled in the thirty-first year; Mommsen, ibid. 570 ff.

[2574] Cic. _Dom._ 43. 112; _Fam._ x. 25. 2; 26. 2 f.

[2575] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; cf. Fröhlich, ibid. iv. 1560.

[2576] P. 348.

[2577] P. 298.

[2578] App. _B. C._ i. 100. 466; cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 9; Caes. _B. C._ i. 32; Dio Cass. xl. 51. 2.

[2579] P. 332. There were probably twelve; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 163; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 543.

[2580] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22: “Lege Sullae viginti creati supplendo senatui.” The eighth chapter of this law concerning the twenty quaestors is preserved in an inscription; _CIL._ i. 202; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 90; Girard, _Textes_, p. 64. It regulates the qualifications, appointment, and pay of the apparitores of the quaestors. An important fact derived from the praescriptio is that the law was adopted in the tribal assembly. Since in the case of one law the centuriate assembly is mentioned as if exceptional (p. 422), we may infer that most of Sulla’s enactments were tribal. On the apparitores, see Mommsen, in _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. vi (1846). 1-57; _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 332-46; Habel, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 191-4; Keil, J., in _Wiener Studien_, xxiv (1902). 548-51.

[2581] Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 32, wrongly says to ten—a number reached by the legislation of Caesar; Dio Cass. xlii. 51. 3; p. 454 below. On the relation of the praetors to the courts, see p. 420.

[2582] Livy, ep. lxxxix, who connects it closely with the increase in the number of senators, placing it thus among his earlier measures; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 75. 11; Servius, _in Aen._ vi. 73; cf. Tac. _Ann._ vi. 12; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 157; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559 f.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 1-9. That the increase in the last-named college was due to Sulla seems certain, though it is nowhere stated. It is possible, too, that the increase of the epulones from three to seven was his work; Lengle, ibid. 2.

[2583] P. 391.

[2584] Livy, ep. lxxxix; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 37. 1; Pseud. Ascon. 102; wrongly Plut. _Caes._ 1; Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 73; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 157.

[2585] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 18; Lange, ibid. The Servilian agrarian rogation, 63 (p. 435 below), drawn up before the enactment of the Atian plebiscite of that year which restored the election of sacerdotes, assumes that the comitia pontificis maximi were at the time in use. Most authorities, as Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 418; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 156; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 30, have failed to notice this important fact.

[2586] P. 106, n. 10.

[2587] P. 416.

[2588] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 200; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1560.

[2589] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 164.

[2590] P. 381.

[2591] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 705.

[2592] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25.

[2593] Cf. Cic. _Fam._ viii. 8. 8.

[2594] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25. On the relation of the Cornelian legislation to the curiate law, see p. 193, 199.

[2595] Cic. _Fam._ iii. 6. 3, 6.

[2596] Cic. _Fam._ iii. 10. 6; _Q. Fr._ i. 1. 9, 26.

[2597] App. _B. C._ i. 103. 482; Oros. v. 22. 4; Eutrop. v. 9. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 404, calculates that the number was reduced to about a hundred and fifty.

[2598] Livy, ep. lxxxix; cf. Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 3. 8; Dion. Hal. v. 77. 5; Sall. _Cat._ 37.

[2599] _B. C._ i. 100. 468.

[2600] Cf. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559.

[2601] P. 402. The second view, which seems more reasonable, is held by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 156.

[2602] No authority gives this number, which however may be deduced from well-known facts; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 405 f.

[2603] Willems, ibid. 406 f.

[2604] Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1560.

[2605] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 156.

[2606] Vell. ii. 32. 3; Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 37 f.; Pseud. Ascon. 99, 102, 103, 145, 149, 161; Schol. Gronov. 384, 426; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 436 ff.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 419 ff.; Wilmanns, in _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xix (1864). 528.

[2607] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22: “Lege Sullae viginti creati (quaestores) supplendo senatui, cui iudicia tradiderat.”

[2608] P. 402.

[2609] _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 32.

[2610] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 9. It took the place of the lex Servilia of 111; p. 393.

[2611] Schol. Bob. 361. From Plut. _Mar._ 5 it seems evident that a quaestio de ambitu existed as early as 116; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 422, n. 3; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 21 f., who has collected the cases de ambitu anterior to Sulla; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 521; Lohse, _De quaestionum perpetuarum origine, praesidibus, consiliis_.

[2612] Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 39; II. i. 4. 11 f.; iii. 36. 83; _Cluent._ 53. 147; cf. _Mur._ 20. 42; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; iii. 166. The trial of Pompeius Magnus in 86 for misappropriation of booty by his father in 89 seems to have come before a quaestio de peculatu; Cic. _Brut._ 64. 230; Plut. _Pomp._ 4; Lengle, ibid. 40 f. If this supposition is right, the court must have existed before Sulla. A Cornelian law on the subject is not expressly mentioned but may be reasonably assumed.

[2613] Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 203.

[2614] Cic. _Pis._ 21. 50; Ascon. 59; cf. Cic. _Fam._ iii. 11. 2; _Cluent._ 35. 97; _Verr._ II. i. 5. 12. This law took the place of the lex Appuleia, probably of 100; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 165; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 423, 507.

[2615] Cic. _Cluent._ 20. 55; 54. 148; 55. 151; 56. 154; Frag. A. ii. (_Var._) 6; _Mil._ 4. 11; Tac. _Ann._ xiii. 44; Justin. _Inst._ iv. 18. 5 f.; _Dig._ xlviii. 8; Paul. _Sent._ v. 23. (Girard, _Textes_, p. 423).

[2616] Cic. _Verr._ i. 42. 108; Paul. _Sent._ iv. 7; v. 25; _Dig._ xlviii. 10; Justin. _Inst._ iv. 18. 7; cf. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 271 f.

[2617] _Dig._ iii. 3. 42. 1; xlvii. 10. 5; 10. 37. 1; xlviii. 2. 12. 4; Paul. _Sent._ v. 4. 8; Justin. _Inst._ iv. 4. 8; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 203; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 208, 423 f.; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1561; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 93. In the opinion of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; iii. 166, this lex did not establish a quaestio.

[2618] Cic. _Cluent._ 20. 55; 27. 75; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 442.

[2619] Cic. _Cluent._ 28. 75.

[2620] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 442. On the Cornelian courts in general, see Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 420 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 520 f.; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 413-6; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ see index, s. Quaestio and the various crimes belonging thereto; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 200 f.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 17-54; Lohse, _De quaestionum perpetuarum origine, praesidibus, consiliis_; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1561 f.

In Lange’s opinion (_Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; iii. 166) there must have been a lex Cornelia de adulteriis et pudicitia, for it is doubtful whether Sulla’s ordinance περὶ γάμων καὶ σωφροσύνης could have formed part of his lex de iniuriis; Plut. _Comp. Lys. et Sull._ 3; cf. _Dig._ xlviii. 5. 23. It seems to be demonstrated, however, by Voigt, in _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xlii (1890). 244-79, that all republican regulations of this offence, including the Cornelian, were sumptuary; cf. Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 1141. No quaestio accordingly was needed for the trial of the offence.

[2621] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 158.

[2622] P. 412.

[2623] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 47. 123; Pseud. Ascon. 193.

[2624] Suet. _Caes._ 11.

[2625] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 43. 125 f. Though Cicero says he does not know whether the law in question was the Valerian or Cornelian, he probably knew it was the latter, the terms of which he states: “Ut eorum bona veneant, qui proscripti sunt, ... aut eorum, qui in adversariorum praesidiis occisi sunt.”

[2626] Livy lxxxix; Vell. ii. 28. 4; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 6; Plut. _Sull._ 31; _Cic._ 12; Dion. Hal. viii. 80. 2.

[2627] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 44. 128.

[2628] App. _B. C._ i. 96. 100; Flor. ii. 9 (iii. 21); cf. Suet. _Ill. Gramm._ 11.

[2629] Livy, ep. lxxxix; App. _B. C._ i. 100. 470; 104. 489; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 12; Cic. _Mur._ 24. 49: _Leg. Agr._ ii. 28. 78; iii. 2. 6 ff.; 3. 12; Gromat. p. 230 ff.

[2630] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 159; cf. ii. 689; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 407 f.

[2631] Lange, ibid. iii. 159.

[2632] _CIL._ i². p. 49.

[2633] Lange, ibid. iii. 161.

[2634] Cic. _Dom._ 30. 79; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 12; cf. Pseud. Ascon. 102.

[2635] Cic. _Caecin._ 35. 102.

[2636] App. _B. C._ i. 102. 474; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 14. 35.

[2637] Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 11. They were then being made according to the law of M. Octavius (p. 401), or if that was repealed by Cinna, according to the lex Sempronia of 123 (p. 372).

[2638] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 693. The statement in iii. 161 is less exact.

[2639] App. _B. C._ i. 102. 474.

[2640] Cic. _Off._ iii. 22. 87.

[2641] P. 409 f.

[2642] Hence it was that T. Crispinus, quaestor in the following year, treated the Valerian law as no longer in force; Cic. _Font._ 15; Lange, ibid. iii. 162. To this date seems to belong the lex Cornelia de sponsu (Gaius iii. 124), which Poste, 359, reasonably assigns to the dictator.

[2643] _CIL._ i². p. 333; Vell. ii. 27. 6; Cic. _Verr._ i. 10. 31; Pseud. Ascon. 150; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 128.

[2644] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 675; iii. 162.

[2645] Its existence is assumed for the year 80; Plut. _Sull._ 35.

[2646] P. 388, n. 9.

[2647] Ibid.

[2648] Gell. ii. 24. 11; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 11.

[2649] Plut. _Sull._ 35. Here belongs also his regulation de adulteriis et pudicitia; p. 420, n. 6 above.

[2650] _CIL._ i². p. 154. A proof that he completed his legislation in this year is the fact that he looked upon the following as a time of probation for his system (App. _B. C._ i. 103; Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 48. 139), and that the newly organized criminal courts were in operation for the first time in 80; Cic. ibid. 5. 11; 10. 28; _Brut._ 90. 312; _Off._ ii. 14. 51; Gell. xv. 28. 3; Plut. _Cic._ 3.

On the form of comitia used for the ratification of his measures, see p. 236.

[2651] The general character of these proposals, among which the frumentarian alone was adopted, can be gathered from the _Oration_ of Lepidus, in Sall. _Hist._ i. 55; cf. Gran. Licin. x. p. 44: “Legem frumentariam nullo resistente adeptus est, ut annonae quinque modi populo darentur, et alia multa pollicebantur: exules reducere, res gestas a Sulla rescindere”; Tac. _Ann._ iii. 27; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 554 f.

[2652] P. 414.

[2653] Sall. _Hist._ ii. 49; Ascon. 66, 78; Pseud. Ascon. 200; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 178 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 3; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 531 f.; Klebs, ibid. ii. 2483.

Cicero, _Cornel._ i. 18 (Frag. A. vii), states that Cotta proposed to the senate the repeal of his own laws, whereupon Asconius comments that he can find the mention of no law of his except the one concerning retired tribunes above described. Cicero, however, attributes to him a lex de iudiciis privatis, which his brother caused to be repealed in the following year; _Cornel._ i. 19. It is not otherwise known.

[2654] Sall. _Cat._ 31; Gaius ii. 45; Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 1159. For the cases coming before this court, see Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 424, n. 6.

[2655] Cic. _Verr._ iii. 8. 9. C. Scribonius, consul in the preceding year, may have been author of the lex Scribonia de usucapione servitutum (_Dig._ xli. 3. 4. 28; cf. Cic. _Caecin._ 26. 74), or it may belong to the tribune of the same name of the year 50; p. 450, n. 2.

[2656] P. 413, n. 4. The consuls of 73 passed a frumentarian measure—the lex Cassia Terentia, considered below; p. 444, n. 6.

[2657] Sall. _Hist._ iv. 1, in Gell. xviii. 4. 4. Sallust speaks of nothing more than the promulgation of the law; but we know that afterward an attempt was made to collect the moneys; Ascon. 72; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 190, 221; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 467. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1380, speaks of the measure as a proposal.

The same consul with his colleague, L. Gellius Poplicola, proposed and carried a law for confirming the grants of citizenship already made by Pompey in Spain; Cic. _Balb._ 8. 19; 14. 32 f.; Pliny, _N. H._ v. 5. 36. Their joint proposal that provincials should not in their absence be tried on a capital charge took the form merely of a senatus consultum; Cic. _Verr._ II. ii. 38. 95; Münzer, ibid.; Drumann-Gröbe, ibid.

In 71 (_CIL._ i. 593 = vi. 1299) and in 62 (_CIL._ i. 600 = vi. 1305) there was a curator viarum e lege Visellia. The law mentioned could not have been later than 71, but may have been many years earlier. There were curatores viarum in 115; _CIL._ vi. 3824; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 89, n. 6.

[2658] Cic. _Flacc._ 3. 6; Ascon. 15; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 191.

[2659] Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 13. 3; _Fam._ i. 4. 1; cf. _Q. Fr._ ii. 2. 3; _Fam._ viii. 8. 5; _Sest._ 34. 74; Caes. _B. C._ i. 5.

[2660] Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 5; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 43. 3. As consul in 63 Cicero adjourned the assembly in order to hold a meeting of the senate on a certain comitial day; Cic. _Mur._ 25. 51; Plut. _Cic._ 14.

[2661] The first chapter of this law is preserved in an inscription; _CIL._ i. 204; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 94; Girard, _Textes_, p. 66.

[2662] P. 423.

[2663] Gran. Licin. x. p. 44. It was charged against him by Philippus in the senate that for the sake of concord he wished to restore the tribunician power; Sall. _Hist._ i. 77. 14.

[2664] Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48. 8; Pseud. Ascon. 103.

[2665] P. 423 f.

[2666] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 60.

[2667] Cic. _Cluent._ 34. 93 f.; Ascon. 103; Plut. _Lucull._ 5.

[2668] Licinius Macer, _Oratio ad plebem_, in Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48. 11 (cf. iv. 71); Cic. _Cluent._ 22. 61; 27. 74; 28. 77; 29. 79; Pseud. Ascon. 141; Schol. Gronov. 386, 395, 441.

[2669] Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48; Cic. _Brut._ 67. 238.

[2670] Suet. _Caes._ 5.

[2671] Plut. _Pomp._ 21; App. _B. C._ i. 121. 560; Sall. _Hist._ iv. 44 (“Magnam exorsus orationem”) probably refers to his speech in this contio. Frag. 45 (“Si nihil ante adventum suum inter plebem et patres convenisset, coram se daturum operam”) seems also to be from this speech.

[2672] Sall. _Hist._ iv. 46.

[2673] Cic. _Verr._ i. 16. 46 f.

[2674] Ibid. 15. 44; Pseud. Ascon. 147.

[2675] _CIL._ i². p. 154.

[2676] Livy, ep. xcvii; Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 47; Ascon. 75; Pseud. Ascon. 103.

[2677] Sall. _Cat._ 38; Vell. ii. 30. 4; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 9. 22; ii. 26; Plut. _Pomp._ 22; App. _B. C._ ii. 29. 113; cf. Cic. _Verr._ v. 63. 163; 68. 175; Schol. Gronov. 397; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 192 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 49-51; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 553.

[2678] Cic. _Verr._ i. 15. 45.

[2679] P. 424. Pompey found it popular to give his assent; Plut. _Pomp._ 22; cf. Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 75.

[2680] Cicero, in his _In Verrem Actio_ I, is unacquainted with the rogation and expresses the hope that the condemnation of Verres will restore confidence in the senatorial courts. In _Actio_ II, composed after the exile of Verres and not delivered, he assumes the existence of such a rogation (cf. v. 69. 177).

[2681] Cic. _Verr._ ii. 71. 174 f.; iii. 96. 223 f.; v. 69. 177 f.; Livy, ep. xcvii; Plut. _Pomp._ 22; Pseud. Ascon. 127.

[2682] On the tribuni aerarii, see p. 64, n. 3. See also Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 20; _Rab. Perd._ 9. 27; _Cat._ iv. 7. 15; Ascon. 16; Schol. Bob. 339.

[2683] P. 402.

[2684] Cic. _Cluent._ 43. 121.

[2685] Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 3; _Phil._ i. 8. 20; Ascon. 16, 30, 53, 67, 78, 90; Pseud. Ascon. 103; Schol. Bob. 229, 235, 339; Schol. Gronov. 384, 386; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 197 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 533; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 442 ff.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 51-3; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2485 f.

The reference to a lex Aurelia in Cic. _Q. Fr._ i. 3. 8, seems to be, not to a lex de ambitu, as Lange, ibid. iii. 198, supposes, but to the lex iudiciaria under discussion.

[2686] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 199 (cf. ii. 671). It must have been passed between the death of Sulla and 57; Gell. ii. 24. 13; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 13; Cic. _Fam._ vii. 26. 2.

[2687] Q. Cic. _Petit. Cons._ 11. 44.

[2688] Cic. _Cluent._ 55. 152 (year 66).

[2689] Cic. _Att._ i. 17. 9; _Off._ iii. 22. 88; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 202.

[2690] Cf. Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 141.

[2691] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 30.

[2692] Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 52; Ascon. 78.

[2693] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 18. 44; Hor. _Epist._ i. 1. 61; Juv. iii. 159; xiv. 324.

[2694] Livy, ep. xcix; Tac. _Ann._ xv. 32; Ascon. 79; Cic. _Mur._ 19. 40; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 42. 1; cf. Hor. _Epod._ iv. 15. The censors of 194 had given front seats to the senators; p. 356 f.

[2695] Vell. ii. 32. 3; Cic. _Mur._ 19. 40; p. 356 f. above.

[2696] Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 11. 3.

[2697] Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 526.

[2698] P. 425.

[2699] Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 13. 3; cf. _Fam._ i. 4. 1.

[2700] Cic. _Alt._ v. 21. 12; vi. 2. 7. Loans were sometimes made in violation of the law (_Flacc._ 20. 46 f.), and sometimes the senate granted a dispensation from it; _Att._ v. 21. 11 f.; vi. 2. 7; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 203.

[2701] Ascon. 56.

[2702] Ibid. 57.

[2703] P. 307 f.

[2704] Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 5; _Valin._ 2. 5; Ascon. 57 f.; Quintil. _Inst._ x. 5. 3 (iv. 4. 8).

[2705] Ascon. 58; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 39. 4.

[2706] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 214; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 337 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 107. Dio Cassius, xxxvi. 39, has wholly misunderstood the matter. Ferrero’s account (_Rome_, i. 194) of the Cornelian legislation is inaccurate in all points.

[2707] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 38. 4; Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 40.

[2708] _CIL._ 1², p. 156; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 256 f.; Münzer, ibid. iii. 1376 f.

[2709] Ascon. 75.

[2710] Schol. Bob. 361; Ascon. 68, 89; Cic. _Mur._ 23. 46; 32. 67. It was opposed by the people, who preferred the stricter measure of Cornelius; but Piso with a crowd of followers forced it through the assembly; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 38. 1.

[2711] Schol. Bob. 361; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 38; xxxvii. 25. 3; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 425, 508, 521 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 867; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 105 f. It was supplemented by the lex Fabia de numero sectatorum, apparently a plebiscite of 66; Cic. _Mur._ 34. 71; Mommsen, ibid. 871; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 527.

[2712] XXXVI. 40. 1 f. (Foster’s rendering); cf. Ascon. 58; Cic. _Fin._ ii. 22. 74; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 656; iii. 215; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 107 f.; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 527; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 95, 97 f., 122.

[2713] Ascon. 58. The restriction, however, was only partial; Erman, in _Mélanges_ Ch. Appleton (1903), 201-304. The author of the law seems to have been a man not only of excellent heart but of remarkably statesmanlike views, though the optimates naturally classed him as seditious. On Cornelius in general, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1252-5; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 526-9.

[2714] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 23 ff.; Plut. _Pomp._ 25; Vell. ii. 31; App. _Mithr._ 94.

[2715] Vell. ii. 31; Cic. _Verr._ ii. 3. 8; iii. 91. 213; Pseud. Ascon. 122, 176, 206; Schol. Bob. 234; Sall. _Hist._ iii. 4 f.

[2716] P. 428 f.

[2717] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 30. 2; cf. the deposition of Octavius, p. 367.

[2718] Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 15. 44; Livy, ep. xcix; Eutrop. vi. 12.

[2719] Plut. _Pomp._ 26; Dio Cass, xxxvi. 37. 1; Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 19. 57 f.

[2720] Sall. _Hist._ v. 13; cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 256.

[2721] Cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 76. Another comitial act on foreign affairs was the plebiscite of unknown authorship providing for a commission of ten to aid Lucullus in settling the affairs of Asia; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 43. 2.

[2722] Ascon, p. 64 ff.; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 42. 1-3.

[2723] Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 3.

[2724] Cic. _Mur._ 23. 47.

[2725] Ascon. 65 f. The Cn. Manlius mentioned by Ascon. 45 f. is probably to be identified with this Manilius; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 19, n. 9.

[2726] XXXVI. 42. 3.

[2727] Ascon. 66, or more simply the “lex de imperio Cn. Pompeii”; Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ Inscr.

[2728] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 42.4; Plut. _Pomp._ 30; _Lucull._ 35; App. _Mithr._ 97; Livy, ep. c; Vell. ii. 33. 1; Eutrop. vi. 12.

[2729] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 219; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 586 f.

[2730] Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 17. 51 ff.; 20. 59 ff.; Plut. _Pomp._ 30.

[2731] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 43. 2, and especially Cicero’s oration _De imperio Pompeii ad quirites_. Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 131 f., severely criticises Dio Cassius for his treatment of Cicero’s motives.

[2732] P. 354.

[2733] P. 370.

[2734] P. 397; Cic. _Off._ iii. 11. 47; _Brut._ 16. 63; _Balb._ 21. 48; 23. 52; 24. 54; _Arch._ 5. 10; _Leg. Agr._ i. 4. 13; Ascon. 67; Schol. Bob. 296, 354; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 9. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 229; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 140.

[2735] Gell. i. 12. 11 f.; Suet. _Aug._ 31; Lange, ibid. ii. 675 f.; iii. 229; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 439.

[2736] P. 391.

[2737] P. 416. On the lex Atia, see Dio Cass. xxxvii. 37. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 243. This act had no effect on the supreme pontificate, which had remained elective (p. 416 above) and which was conferred on Caesar soon after (Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 155 f.) the enactment of the Atian law; Dio Cass. ibid.; Suet. _Caes._ 13; Vell. ii. 43. 3. The same Atius, together with T. Ampius Balbus, a colleague, proposed and carried a plebiscite for granting to Pompey the privilege of wearing the triumphal ornaments in the Circensian games and the toga praetexta and laurel (or golden?) crown at the theatres; Vell. ii. 40. 4; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 21. 3 f.

[2738] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ iii. 2. 4.

[2739] Ibid. i. 2. 4; ii. 5. 13.

[2740] Ibid. ii. 7. 16-8; 8. 21.

[2741] Ibid. ii. 13. 34; 24. 64.

[2742] Ibid. ii. 9. 24.

[2743] Ibid. i. 5. 15; ii. 13. 33; 27. 72.

[2744] From (1) an extensive sale of houses, lands, and other property belonging to the state (ibid. i. 1. 3; 3. 10; ii. 14. 35; 15. 38). (2) vectigalia (i. 4. 10; ii. 21. 56), and (3) other public moneys (i. 4. 12 f.; ii. 22. 59).

[2745] Ibid. ii. 25. 66.

[2746] Ibid. i. 5. 16 f.; ii. 13. 34; 20. 55; 24. 63; 25. 66; 26. 68; 27. 74 f.

[2747] These are the second and third _Orations on the Agrarian Law_, the first having been delivered in the senate. On the purpose of the rogation, see Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 223 ff.; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 143; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 231-3.

[2748] P. 431.

[2749] Cic. _Mur._ 32. 67.

[2750] Cic. _Vat._ 15. 37; p. 359 above.

[2751] _CIL._ i². p. 156.

[2752] Cic. _Mur._ 2. 3; 3. 5; 23. 47; 32. 67; Schol. Bob. 269, 309, 324, 362.

[2753] Cic. _Mur._ 23. 47.

[2754] Cic. _Vat._ 15. 37; _Sest._ 64. 133 (cf. _Har. Resp._ 26. 56); Schol. Bob. 309.

[2755] Cic. _Mur._ 23. 47; 41. 89; _Planc._ 34. 83; Schol. Bob. 269, 362; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 29. 1.

[2756] Cic. _Mur._ 23. 47. On the law in general, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 245; Hartmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1801.

[2757] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 9. 24, proves that no such law existed at the beginning of 63, and in 62 its existence is assumed by the Caecilian rogation for dispensing Pompey from its provisions; Schol. Bob. 302.

In 61 M. Aufidius Lurco, tribune of the plebs, attempted a curious modification of the statute concerning corruption at elections, proposing that promises of money to the tribes should not be binding, but that a candidate who actually paid should be liable for life to a payment—apparently annual—of three thousand sesterces to the tribe. His measure failed to become a law; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 12 f.; 18. 3; Hartmann, ibid. i. 1802.

[2758] Cic. _Fam._ xi. 1. 2; _Att._ ii. 18. 3.

[2759] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 8. 18.

[2760] Cic. _Fam._ xii. 21.

[2761] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ i. 3. 8; 17. 45; _Flacc._ 34. 86.

[2762] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 8. 18.

[2763] Cic. _Flacc._ 34. 86; _Fam._ xii. 21; _Att._ ii. 18. 3; xv. ii. 4; Suet. _Tib._ 31; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 244.

Several unpassed bills of the year 63 are mentioned. (1) The rogation of L. Caecilius, tribune of the plebs, for lightening the penalty upon P. Autronius Paetus and P. Cornelius Sulla, who had been condemned for ambitus; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 25. 3; Cic. _Sull._ 22 f.; cf. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 3. 8; 4. 10.—(2) A proposal to restore to the children of those whom Sulla had proscribed the right to become candidates for offices; Dio Cass. ibid.; Plut. _Cic._ 12; Cic. _Att._ ii. 1. 3.—(3) A proposal for the cancellation of debts and (4) another for the allotment of lands in Italy. All these measures were quashed by Cicero; Dio Cass. ibid. § 3 f.

[2764] Suet. _Caes._ 28. 3; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 17.

[2765] Schol. Bob. 310. These same magistrates established a penalty for violations of the lex Caecilia Didia (Cic. _Phil._ v. 3. 8), whether by the law above mentioned or a separate enactment cannot be determined.

[2766] Val. Max ii. 8. 1. In 62 falls the unpassed bill of Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos, tribune of the plebs (cf. p. 437, n. 1), directing Pompey to come to the defence of Italy against Catiline; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 43; Schol. Bob. 302. In the following year (61) the consuls, M. Pupius Piso and M. Valerius Messala, proposed a resolution for the appointment of a special commission to try Clodius on charge of having intruded in a religious festival exclusively for women; Cic. _Att._ i. 13. 3; _Mil._ 5. 13; 22. 59; 27. 73; Ascon. 53; Suet. _Caes._ 6; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 46. The bill provided that the jurors should not be drawn by lot in the usual way but appointed by the praetor; Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 1. It was withdrawn in favor of the plebiscite de religione for the same purpose but more favorable to the accused, presented by Q. Fufius Calenus, and accepted by the tribes; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 2; _Parad._ iv. 2. 31; Plut. _Caes._ 10; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 198 f.

[2767] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 3; Cic. _Att._ ii. 16. I; _Q. Fr._ i. 1. 11. 33; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 274. These taxes were made unnecessary by Pompey’s acquisitions in the East.

[2768] Cic. _Att._ i. 18. 6; 19. 4; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 50; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 31.

[2769] P. 162.

[2770] P. 386.

[2771] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 1. 4. On the later inclusion of this territory, see p. 440 below.

[2772] Suet. _Caes._ 20.

[2773] Cic. _Fam._ xiii. 4. 2.

[2774] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 1. 4 f.; Cic. _Dom._ 9. 23.

[2775] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 1. 3; App. _B. C._ ii. 10. 35; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 31; _Pomp._ 47; _Cic._ 26.

[2776] App. _B. C._ iii. 2. 5; 7. 24.

[2777] Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 10; Cic. _Att._ ii. 6. 2; 7. 3; ix. 2 a. 1; Vell. ii. 45. 2; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 1. 6 f.; Suet. _Aug._ 4.

[2778] Dio Cass. ibid.

[2779] _CIL._ vi. 3826 (Elogium of M. Valerius Messala, consul in 61); Cic. _Att._ ii. 7. 4; _Prov. Cons._ 17. 41.

[2780] _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 628, n. 4.

[2781] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 2.

[2782] Ibid. 3 f.; Plut. _Caes._ 14; App. _B. C._ ii. 10.

[2783] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 6. 1.

[2784] P. 116.

[2785] The assembly met in the Forum, and was therefore tribal; Suet. _Caes._ 20; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 6. 2; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 32.

[2786] Cic. _Att._ ii. 18. 2: “Ut ex legibus Iuliis” seems to be official language. The explanation of Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ i. 114 f., which identifies one of the Julian laws with the lex Mamilia, Roscia, etc., is not satisfactory, though accepted by Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 182. A plurality is also mentioned by Livy, ep. ciii; Schol. Bob. 302; Plut. _Pomp._ 47 f.; _Caes._ 14; App. _B. C._ ii. 10-2.

[2787] _Att._ ii. 18. 2.

[2788] _Att._ ii. 3. 3 (Dec. 60); 6. 2; 7. 3.

[2789] _Att._ ii. 16. 1.

[2790] XXXVIII. 1. 4; 7. 3.

[2791] _Cat. Min._ 31, 33.

[2792] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 279-88, maintains that there were two agrarian laws; cf. Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 287-91. The opposite view is held by Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ i. 114 f.; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 182.

[2793] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 7. 3; _Cat. Min._ 33; Suet. _Caes._ 20; Vell. ii. 44. 4. Whereas Cicero was of the opinion that this district could provide not more than five thousand with lots of ten iugera, Suetonius and Velleius state that twenty thousand were settled in it. Some Campanian land remained undivided in 51; Cic. _Fam._ viii. 10. 4. Many settlements under the Julian law are mentioned in the _liber coloniarum_, in Gromat. 210, 220, 231, 235, 239, 259, 260.

It was in accord with Caesar’s policy of colonization and of the extension of the franchise that P. Vatinius, tribune of the plebs in this year, carried a law for sending five thousand new settlers to Comum, a Latin colony in northern Italy. Some of the new residents he honored with the citizenship; Strabo v. 16; Suet. _Caes._ 28; App. _B. C._ ii. 26. 98; Plut. _Caes._ 29; Cic. _Att._ v. 11. 2; _Fam._ xiii. 35. 1. The franchise was afterward withdrawn by a decree of the senate; Suet. and Plut. ibid.

[2794] Dio Cassius, xxxviii. 7. 1 f. (cf. Schol. Bob. 302; App. _B. C._ ii. 12. 42), is probably wrong in saying that death was the penalty for refusal to swear. Cicero (_Sest._ 28. 61) and Plutarch (_Cat. Min._ 32) speak simply of heavy penalties.

[2795] Cic. _Att._ ii. 18. 2. The provision regarding the oath was not introduced till it was found that the senate opposed.

Supplementary to these Julian laws is the lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia, three articles of which are contained in Gromat. 263-6; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 96-8; Girard, _Textes_, 69 f. Other references to a lex Mamilia are Gromat. 11. 5; 12. 12; 37. 24; 144. 19; 169. 7; Cic. _Leg._ i. 21. 55. The last proves it to have been passed before 51. The seeming citation of the third article as an agrarian law of Gaius Caesar by _Dig._ xlvii. 21. 3, may indicate merely a borrowing of this article from the earlier law of Caesar, just as article 2 is substantially repeated in _Lex Col. Genet._ 104. Mommsen, in _Röm. Feldmess._ ii. 221-6; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 628, n. 4, considers it the work of a second sub-committee (Vviri) of the vigintiviri provided for by the agrarian law, enacted to furnish rules for the administration of the latter. Lange (_Röm. Alt._ ii. 690; iii. 288) and more decidedly Willems (_Sén. Rom._ i. 498, n. 5) prefer to regard it as a tribunician law and to assign it to 55.

[2796] Cf. Polyb. vi. 17. 5; p. 345 above.

[2797] Suet. _Caes._ 20; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 7. 4; App. _B. C._ ii. 13. 48; Cic. _Att._ ii. 16. 2; Schol. Bob. 259, 261.

[2798] Cic. _Fam._ viii. 8. 3.

[2799] Pompey in his second consulship, 55, attempted in vain to displace it by a still severer measure; p. 448.

[2800] Cic. _Att._ v. 10. 2; 16. 3.

[2801] Cic. _Pis._ 16. 37; 21. 49 f.; 37. 90; _Dom._ 9. 23; _Prov. Cons._ 4. 7.

[2802] Cic. _Pis._ 37. 90.

[2803] Cic. _Att._ vi. 7. 2; _Fam._ ii. 17. 2, 4; v. 20. 2, 7; _Pis._ 25. 61; cf. Plut. _Cat. Min._ 38; Dio Cass. xxxix. 23. 3.

[2804] _Dig._ xlviii. 11.

[2805] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 8 f.; 11. 30.

[2806] Suet. _Caes._ 43; _Otho_, 2; Tac. _Hist._ i. 77; Paul. _Sent._ v. 28.

[2807] _Vat._ 12. 29. See further on the law, _Sest._ 64. 135; Schol. Bob. 310, 321; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 195-7; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 292; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 709; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 427, 483, 485.

[2808] Ci. _Vat._ ii. 27; _Planc._ 15. 36; Schol. Bob. 235, 321, 323. “It is indifferently described as a method of challenging alternate benches (consilia) and alternate iudices”; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 451. It seems to have permitted the rejection not simply of individual jurors as heretofore, but of an entire panel; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 197.

[2809] Dio Cass, xxxviii. 8. 1; Schol. Bob. 235.

[2810] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 10. 136; Joseph. _Ant. Iud._ xiv. 34 f.

[2811] Cic. _Att._ ii. 16. 2.

[2812] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 107. 6; Suet. _Caes._ 54; Dio Cass, xxxix. 12. 1; Cic. _Rab. Post._ 3. 6.

[2813] Dio Cass, xxxviii. 7. 5; App. _B. C._ ii. 13. 46; Plut. _Lucull._ 42; _Pomp._ 48; Vell. ii. 44. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 289; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 194. Several other laws on foreign affairs, having especial reference to treaties, were proposed and carried by P. Vatinius, tribune of the plebs in this year, acting probably as Caesar’s instrument; Cic. _Vat._ 12. 29; _Fam._ i. 9. 7; _Att._ ii. 9. 1.

[2814] P. 163.

[2815] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 8. 5; Suet. _Caes._ 22; Cic. _Sest._ 64. 135; _Vat._ 15. 35 f.; _Prov. Cons._ 15. 36; Caes. _B. G._ ii. 35. 2; iii. 7. 1; v. 1. 5.

[2816] Caes. _B. G._ i. 10.

[2817] Caes. _B. G._ i. 21.

[2818] Suet. _Caes._ 22; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 8. 5; Plut. _Caes._ 14; _Pomp._ 48; _Crass._ 14; _Cat. Min._ 33. The resolutions of people and senate are combined by App. _B. C._ ii. 13. 49; Vell. ii. 44. 5; Zon. x. 6; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 198 f.

[2819] Cf. Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 290.

[2820] Drumann-Gröbe, ibid.

[2821] On the consulship of Caesar see further Long, _Rom. Rep._ III. ch. xix; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 278-96; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 550-3; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 177 ff.; the histories of Mommsen, Peter, Ferrero, etc., and the various biographies of Caesar.

[2822] Cic. _Sest._ 25. 55; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 1; Ascon. 9; Schol. Bob. 300 ff.

[2823] Six and a third asses to the modius; p. 372. The frumentarian law of Appuleius Saturninus for lowering the price to five-sixths of an _as_ had been annulled (p. 395 f.), and the law in force in 82, whether the Sempronian or the Octavian, was repealed by Sulla (p. 422). Lepidus, consul in 78, carried a law for the distribution of five modii of grain to the citizen, at what price and at what interval is not stated (p. 423, n. 8). There was also a lex frumentaria of the consuls of 73, C. Cassius Varus and M. Terentius Varro (Cic. _Verr._ iii. 70. 163; v. 21. 52; cf. Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48. 19). It must have restored, or maintained, the Sempronian price, which according to the sources was displaced by the Clodian provision for free grain. Probably by an article of this law, rather than by a new enactment, Sex. Clodius, a dependent of the tribune, was given charge of the distribution; Cic. _Dom._ 10. 25. See further Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1346 f.

[2824] Cic. _Sest._ 25. 55.

[2825] Cic. ibid.; _Red. in Sen._ 13. 33; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 1 f.; Plut. _Cic._ 30.

[2826] Cic. _Pis._ 4. 9; _Sest._ 25. 55; Ascon. 9, 67; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 2; Liebenam, _Röm. Vereinswes._ 21; Waltzing, _Corp. prof._ i. 92.

[2827] Cf. Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 300.

[2828] P. 117.

[2829] Cic. _Sest._ 15. 33; p. 471.

[2830] Ascon. 9: Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13. 2; Schol. Bob. 300; cf. Cic. _Pis._ 4. 9; _Sest._ 25. 55.

[2831] Suet. _Dom._ 9. 3: Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 308.

[2832] Vell. ii. 45. 1; Livy, ep. ciii; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 14. 4; Plut. _Cic._ 30; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 208 f.

[2833] P. 371.

[2834] We hear many echoes of this theory in the speeches of Cicero which refer to the Catilinarian conspiracy; cf. _Cat._ ii. 2. 3; 8. 17; iv. 5. 10 (admitted by C. Caesar); 7. 15; 10. 22.

[2835] This act accorded with earlier usage; p. 249, 267, 395. On the original rogation of Clodius concerning the exile of Cicero and its amendment, see Gurlitt, in _Philol._ N. F. xiii (1900). 578-83; Sternkopf, ibid. 272-304; xv (1902). 42-70. See also Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 970, n. 2, 978, n. 1.

The remaining Clodian laws may pass with briefer mention: (1) A plebiscite which converted the kingdom of Cyprus into a province, confiscated the property of the reigning king, and commissioned Cato to bring the treasury of the latter to Rome; Livy, ep. civ; Cic. _Dom._ 8. 20; _Sest._ 26. 57; 27. 59; Schol. Bob. 301 f.; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 30. 5; App. _B. C._ ii. 85 f.—(2) The plebiscite de inuriis publicis, the terms of which are not known; Cic. _Dom._ 30. 81.—(3) The plebiscite which transferred the title of king and the priesthood of the Great Mother at Pessinus from Deiotarus to his son-in-law Brogitarus; Cic. _Sest._ 26. 56; _Har. Resp._ 13. 28 f.; 27. 59; _Dom._ 50. 129; _Q. Fr._ ii. 7. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 308; Niese, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 2401-4.—(4) The plebiscite de provinciis and (5) de permutatione provinciarum, which assigned to the outgoing consuls of the year provinces according to their desires; Cic. _Sest._ 25. 55; _Dom._ 9. 23 f.; 26. 70; _Prov. Cons._ 2. 3; Plut. _Cic._ 30; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 81. 4. There were, too, several unpassed rogations. In general on Clodius and his legislation, see Lange, ibid. 296 ff.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ III. ch. xxi; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 202 ff.; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 82-8; White, _Cicero, Clodius, and Milo_, 16 ff.

[2836] Cic. _Dom._ 33. 90; _Pis._ 15. 35 f.; _Red. in Sen._ 11. 27; p. 127 above. Among the tribunician rogations for the purpose, preceding the enactment of the centuriate law, were the Ninnia (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 30. 4; Cic. _Sest._ 31. 68), the Messia (Cic. _Red. in Sen._ 8. 21), that of eight tribunes (Cic. _Sest._ 33. 72; Pis. 15. 35; _Fam._ i. 9. 16), and the Fabricia (Cic. _Red. in Sen._ 8. 22; _Mil._ 14. 38). The last was proposed early in 57; the others near the end of 58.

[2837] Cic. _Att._ iv. 1. 7; Livy, ep. civ; Dio Cass. xxxix. 9. 2 f.; Plut. _Pomp._ 49; App. _B. C._ ii. 18. 67.

In 56 a rogation of C. Porcius Cato, tribune of the plebs, for abrogating the proconsular imperium of P. Cornelius Lentulus failed to become a law (Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 3. 1; _Fam._ 1. 5 a. 2); also the rogation of his colleague L. Caninius for commissioning Pompey with pretorian power for the purpose of restoring Ptolemy, the exiled king of Egypt, to his throne; Dio Cass. xxxix. 12 ff.; Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 2. 3; Plut. _Pomp._ 49.

[2838] An interregnum was forced in order to secure a more favorable chairman for the elections than were the consuls of 56.

[2839] Plut. _Caes._ 21; _Pomp._ 51; _Crass._ 14; _Cat. Min._ 41; App. _B. C._ ii. 17. 62 f. The postponement of the comitia was effected by C. Porcius Cato (Dio Cass. xxxix. 27. 3; Livy, ep. cv; Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 4. 6) and a colleague in the tribunate (Cic. _Att._ iv. 15. 4).

[2840] Cic. _Att._ iv. 9. 1; Dio Cass. xxxix. 33. 1 f.; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 43; _Crass._ 15; _Pomp._ 52; App. _B. C._ ii. 18. 65; Livy, ep. cv; Vell. ii. 46. 1 f.; p. 442 above.

[2841] Dio Cass. xxxix. 34 f.; Plut. and Livy, ibid.

[2842] Dio Cass. xxxix. 33. 3 f.

[2843] Dio Cass. xxxix. 37. 1.

[2844] Cic. _Planc._ 15. 36; 16. 40; 17. 41.

[2845] Ibid. 15. 36 ff.; Schol. Bob. 253 f., 261.

[2846] Cic. _Planc._ 16. 40; Schol. Bob. 262; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 340 f.

[2847] Cic. _Att._ x. 4. 8; xiii. 49. 1; App. _B. C._ ii. 23. 87; Dio Cass. xl. 52. 3; 55. 2; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 48; _Pomp._ 55.

[2848] Paul. _Sent._ v. 24; _Dig._ xlviii. 9; cf. i. 2. 2. 2. 32, which is inexact; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 667.

[2849] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 6. 13. As the equites did not participate in the government of Italy and the provinces, they had not been rendered liable to the earlier leges repetundarum, although it was possible to bring

## action against them for corrupt jury service; cf. p. 378, n. 3.

[2850] Dio Cass. xxxix. 37.

[2851] Cic. _Pis._ 39. 94; _Phil._ i. 8. 20; Ascon. 16; Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._ ii. 3. 2 f.; cf. 7. 11 f.; 12. 1; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 448.

[2852] Cic. _Mil._ 5. 13; 6. 15; 26. 70; 29. 79; Ascon. 31 ff., 37, 40, 53; Schol. Bob. 276; Schol. Gronov. 443; Gell. x. 20.

[2853] Cic. _Att._ vii. 1. 4; 3. 4; viii. 3. 3; _Fam._ vi. 6. 5; xvi. 12. 3; _Phil._ ii. 10. 24; Suet. _Caes._ 26; Caes. _B. C._ i. 32; Dio Cass. xl. 51. 2.

[2854] Dio Cass. xl. 56. 1; Suet. _Caes._ 28. 3.

[2855] Dio Cass. xl. 46. 2.

[2856] Ibid, and 56. 1; cf. 30. 1.

[2857] P. 381.

[2858] Hirschfeld, in _Klio_, iv (1904). 76-87; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 720 ff.

[2859] It suffices to mention (1) the unpassed bill of C. Lucilius Hirrus and M. Coelius Vinicianus, 53 (in rivalry with a tribunician rogation for the establishment of tribuni militum consulari potestate), to name Pompey dictator; Cic. _Fam._ viii. 4. 3; _Q. Fr._ iii. 8. 4; Plut. _Pomp._ 54.—(2) The repeal of the Clodian plebiscite of 58 concerning the censorial stigma (p. 445) by a law of Q. Caecilius Metellus, colleague of Pompey in 52; Dio Cass. xl. 57. 1.—(3) The unpassed bill of the famous P. Clodius, praetor in 52, concerning the suffrage of the libertini—somewhat similar to the Manilian law of 67 (p. 433); Ascon. 52; Schol. Bob. 346.—(4) Possibly a lex Scribonia de usucapione servitutum was the work of C. Scribonius Curio, tribune in 50, though more probably it belongs to an earlier date; p. 424, n. 4.—(5) An unpassed alimentary rogation of the same Scribonius for ordering the aediles to control the weights and measures of the markets in a way to give justice to the poor; Cic. _Fam._ viii. 6. 5; App. _B. C._ ii. 27. 102.—(6) Another unpassed Scribonian bill for limiting the travelling expenses of senators; Cic. _Att._ vi. 1. 25.—(7) An unpassed Scribonian bill concerning the Campanian land; Cic. _Fam._ viii. 10. 4.—(8) An unpassed Scribonian rogatio viaria, like the agrarian rogation of Servilius Rullus (p. 435); Cic. _Fam._ viii. 6. 5.—(9) An unpassed Scribonian bill for confiscating the realm of King Juba; Caes. _B. C._ ii. 25; Dio Cass. xli. 41. 3. One or two other unpassed bills of the same tribune are still less important.

[2860] Dio Cass. xli. 36. 1 f.; Caes. _B. C._ ii. 21; App. _B. C._ ii. 48. 196; Plut. _Caes._ 37.

[2861] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 2; App. _B. C._ ii. 48. 196 f.; Plut. _Caes._ 37.

[2862] Here seems to belong the plebiscite of A. Hirtius concerning the

## partisans of Pompey (Cic. _Phil._ xiii. 16. 32; _CIL._ i. p. 627 f.;

Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 592), though Mommsen (_CIL._ l. c.) assigns it to 46.

[2863] Dio. Cass. xlii. 20.

[2864] Ibid. 21. That his appointment was for an indefinite time, not for a year as Dio Cassius, ibid. 20, states, is proved by _CIL._ i.² p. 28, 41. He held the office till news of the victory at Thapsus reached Rome.

[2865] Dio Cass. xlii. 20.

[2866] Dio Cass. xliii. 14; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 48 f.

[2867] Dio Cassius, xliii. 42-6, describes them at great length, whereas Suetonius, _Caes._ 76, is content with a brief enumeration.

[2868] Dio Cass. xliii. 44; _CIL._ ix. 2563; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 767, n. 1.

[2869] The right to the consulship was granted according to Dio Cassius, xliii. 45. 1 (προεχειρίσαντο), by a vote of the people. In general it is impossible to determine which senatus consulta for conferring these and future honors were ratified by the comitia. The perpetual dictatorship was assumed February, 44; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 739.

[2870] Dio Cass. xliv. 5. 3.

[2871] Ibid. 7. 3; Suet. _Caes._ 52. 3. Two laws of the consul M. Antonius were also enacted in his honor, the first changing the name of the month Quinctilis to Julius (Macrob. _Sat._ i. 12. 34), the second dedicating to Caesar the fifth day of the Roman games (Cic. _Phil._ ii. 43. 110).

[2872] Cf. Bondurant, _Dec. Jun. Brut._ 40.

[2873] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 1; Cic. _Att._ vii. 11. 1.

[2874] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 1; Suet. _Caes._ 42; Dio Cass. xli. 37 f.; App. _B. C._ ii. 48. 198; Plut. _Caes._ 37. Possibly the lex Iulia de bonorum cessione (Gaius iii. 78; Theod. Cod. iv. 20; Justin. Cod. vii. 71. 4) may be identical with this law.

[2875] Dio Cass. xli. 38. 1 f.; Cic. _Att._ ix. 9. 4.

[2876] Agitation leading to this measure found expression in a rogation of M. Caelius Rufus, praetor in 48, for the payment of debts in six years without interest (Caes. _B. C._ iii. 20) and somewhat later in a rogation for an extensive, perhaps complete, abolition of debts (Caes. _B. C._ iii. 21; Livy, ep. cxi; Vell. ii. 68. 1 f.; Dio Cass. xlii. 22-5); in a rogation of P. Cornelius Dolabella, tribune of the plebs in 47, for the complete abolition of debts (Livy, ep. cxiii; Plut. _Ant._ 9; Dio Cass. xlii. 29. 32); and in rogations by these two officials respectively for the remission of rents (treated by the sources in connection with their bills on insolvency).

[2877] Suet. _Caes._ 38; Dio Cass. xlii. 51. 1.

[2878] On the similar measure of Octavianus, see p. 459. See also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 694; iii. 435.

[2879] This measure seems to have been brought about by no law but merely through his censorial power; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 448; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 557.

[2880] A Julian colonial law is mentioned by _Lex Col. Genet._ 97. The veterans were settled in Italy probably under the agrarian law of 59; Suet. _Caes._ 81. 1. The known colonies founded under the dictatorial law are included in Kornemann’s list, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 524 ff.; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 604-6. His most famous colonies were Carthage (App. _Lib._ 136; Dio Cass. xliii. 50. 3 f.; Plut. _Caes._ 57; Strabo xvii. 3. 5) and Corinth (Dio Cass. ibid. § 4; Plut. ibid.; Strabo viii. 6. 3; xvii. 3. 15; Paus. ii. 1. 2; 3. 1). The colonia Genetiva Iulia Urbanorum in Spain was founded in 44 after the death of Caesar, but iussu C. Caesaris dict. imp. et lege Antonia senat(us)que c(onsulto) pl(ebi)que (scito)—by a consular law of Antonius for the founding of the colony, supplemented by a plebiscite of unknown authorship.

The inscription known as the lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae (_CIL._ ii. supplb. 5439; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 123-40; Girard, _Textes_, 87-103) is a part of the lex data (§ 67), or charter, granted the colony by its founder. It was called Urbanorum because it was made up of proletarians from Rome; cf. Kornemann, ibid. 527.

[2881] Suet. _Caes._ 42. At the same time measures were taken to prevent those residents of Italy who were liable to military service from absenting themselves unduly from the country. To give employment to the poor, the owners of herds were ordered to make up one-third of their shepherds from freemen; ibid.

[2882] Dio Cass. xli. 18. 2; xliv. 47. 4; Plut. _Caes._ 37; Suet. _Caes._ 41; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 416.

[2883] Caes. _B. C._ iii. 1; cf. Suet. _Caes._ 41.

[2884] Cic. _Phil._ xii. 4. 10; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 24; Dio Cass. xli. 36. 3; cf. xxxvii. 9. 3-5. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 134; 159, n. 1; Krüger-Brissaud, _Sourc. d. droit Rom._ 97, for the authorship of the law.

The so-called lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina (_CIL._ i. 205 = xi. 1146; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 98-102; Girard, _Textes_, 70-76) seems to be a lex data, probably of 49 [Mommsen, in _Wiener Studien_, xxiv (1902). 238 f.; _Ephem. Ep._ ix. 1903. p. 4]. As the lex Rubria cited in § 20 is not this document but an earlier plebiscite, the name of the author has not been determined. It regulated the administration of justice in Cisalpina, which remained a province till 42. The fragment of a law found at Ateste (Bruns, ibid. 102 f.; Girard, _Textes_, (76-8) is of the same nature and belongs to the same period, though probably not to the Rubrian law itself, as Mommsen (_Hermes_, xvi. 24-41) once assumed.

[2885] Dio Cass. xli. 24. 1; cf. Livy, ep. cx. The monarchical quality of his rule shows itself in his bestowal of the citizenship on individuals at his own pleasure; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 134.

In 44 the lex Iulia de Siculis, published by Antonius after the death of Caesar, gave the full citizenship to the Sicilians, who had received the Latinitas from Caesar. This law, Antonius asserted, had been carried through the comitia by the dictator, whereas Cicero, _Att._ xiv. 12. 1, states positively that no mention was even made of such a proposition in the dictator’s lifetime.

[2886] Dio Cass. xlii. 51. 4; Suet. _Caes._ 41; wrongly Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2. 32. The two additional aediles (cereales) were not instituted till 44; Dio Cass. xliii. 51. 3.

[2887] Dio Cass. xlii. 51. 3; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 437; p. 416 above. The addition of one to the fifteen members of the great sacerdotal colleges (Dio Cass. ibid.; cf. Cic. _Fam._ xiii. 68. 2) refers to his right to commend candidates for supernumerary membership (Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2317), and hence does not imply a comitial act.

[2888] Cic. _Phil._ vii. 6. 16.

[2889] Suet. _Caes._ 41; cf. Dio Cass. xliii. 51. 3. The pretext was the impending Parthian war. In 46 he had been given the right to name all the magistrates but had rejected it; Dio Cass. xliii. 14. 5; 45. 1; 47. 1; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 612, n. 3.

[2890] Livy, ep. cxvi; Dio Cass. xliv. 10. 1-3; xlvi. 49. 2. In the following year a tribune was similarly deposed by a plebiscite of P. Titius, a colleague (Dio Cass. xlvi. 49. 1); and in 43, before the establishment of the triumvirate, the city praetor was deprived of his office by his colleagues, probably through a comitial act; App. _B. C._ iii. 95. 394 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 630, n. 4.

[2891] P. 427.

[2892] Suet. _Caes._ 41; Dio Cass. xliii. 25. 1. Cicero, _Phil._ i. 8. 19, intimates, without positively stating, that this was a centuriate law; p. 236 above.

[2893] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 455; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 558.

[2894] We are informed that he increased the penalties for crimes, and enacted that a person condemned to exile should forfeit half his estate, and the murderer of a relative the whole; Suet. _Caes._ 42; cf. Dio Cass. xliv. 49. 3.

[2895] Cic. _Phil._ i. 9. 23.

[2896] The Julian laws on these subjects in the _Digesta_, xlviii. 4 (de maiestate), 6 f. (de vi) prove by their contents to belong to Augustus; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 560. 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 455. The leges Iuliae which abolished what remained of the legis actiones (Gaius iv. 30) are also supposed to belong to Augustus; Poste, _Gaius_, 474.

[2897] Cic. _Att._ xiii. 7.

[2898] Cic. _Fam._ ix. 15. 5; 26. 3; Suet. _Caes._ 43.

[2899] Cic. _Att._ xii. 35; 36. 1.

[2900] Cic. _Att._ xiii. 7; Suet. _Caes._ 43; Dio Cass. xliii. 25. 2; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 559; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 450. The officials failed to enforce it effectively; Suet. ibid.

[2901] P. 164.

[2902] Dio Cass. xliii. 25; Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 9; iii. 15. 38; v. 3. 7; viii. 9. 28. The lex Iulia et Titia, which gave provincial governors the right to name tutors (Gaius i. 185, 195; Ulp. xi. 18; frag. d. Sin. 20; _Inst._ i. 20) may be a part of the lex de provinciis (Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 840 f.), or a supplement to it. The expression may refer either to one law or to two related laws. The Julian lex de liberis legationibus, limiting their duration (Cic. _Att._ xv. 11. 4), also belongs to 46.

[2903] _CIL._ i. 206; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 104-13; Dessau, ii. 6085; Girard, _Textes_, 78-87. The extant fragment, originally known as the Table of Heraclea (Lucania) from the place where it was found, is inscribed on a bronze tablet now in the National Museum at Naples. As it disqualified for office any who had taken part in the proscriptions (§ 121), it must have followed the downfall of the Cornelian régime in 70, and the mention of the month Quinctilis (§ 98) proves that it preceded the renaming of that month in 43. A reference to one of its provisions (§§ 94, 104) by Cicero, _Fam._ vi. 18. 1 (Jan., 45) as of a law freshly passed, proves it to be no later than January, 45; cf. Savigny, _Verm. Schr._ iii (1850). 279-412; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 438; Girard, _Textes_, 78. It must have been passed, therefore, before Caesar set out for Spain, about November, 46; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 569.

[2904] For the various hypotheses, see Hackel, in _Wiener Studien_, xxiv (1902). 552-62.

[2905] Kalb, in _Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ 1906. 37. The identification of this law with the lex Iulia municipalis cited in an inscription found at Padua (_CIL._ v. 2864) and with the lex municipalis of the _Digesta_ (1. 9. 3; _Cod._ vii. 9. 1), proposed by Savigny, ibid., is not certain; Girard, _Textes_, 78.

[2906] _Lex Iul. Mun._ 1-19.

[2907] _Lex Iul. Mun._ 20-82.

[2908] Ibid. 83-142.

[2909] Ibid. 143-59.

[2910] Ibid. 160-4.

[2911] Savigny, _Verm. Schr._ iii. 329, was of the opinion that the inclusion of articles 1 and 2 with articles 3-5 formed a lex satura (p. 396) having no other motive than convenience. Hackel, _Wien. Stud._ xxiv. 560, supposes that Caesar had intended to bring the provisions of this measure before the comitia as two separate laws, but in his haste to be off for Spain, combined them in one. At all events the interpretation given above is true of the result if not of the intention.

[2912] Many of his regulations were effected through edicts. Such were probably the imposition of duties on goods imported into Italy—an abolition of the law of 60 (Suet. _Caes._ 43; cf. p. 438), the leasing of the emery mines in Crete (_Dig._ xxxix. 4. 15), and the suppression of the collegia which had been organized under the Clodian law of 58; Suet. _Caes._ 42; Joseph. _Ant. Iud._ xiv. 10. 8. 213 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 435; Liebenam, _Röm. Vereinswes._ 27.

[2913] Cic. _Phil._ v. 4. 10; App. _B. C._ iii. 5. 16; 22. 81; Dio Cass. xliv. 53. 2; xlv. 23. After the Antonian laws had been annulled by the senate, February, 43, on the ground that they had been passed with violence and contrary to the auspices (Cic. _Phil._ vi. 2. 3; Dio Cass. xlv. 27), the acts of Caesar are confirmed anew by a centuriate law of C. Vibius Pansa, consul in that year; Cic. _Phil._ x. 8. 17; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 526. The policy of using the departed Caesar as a means of self-aggrandizement readily lent itself to Octavianus, at whose instigation Q. Pedius, his colleague in the consulship in 43, caused a comitial act to be passed for the establishment of a special court to try the murderers of the dictator. The act specified the punishment to be inflicted on the guilty and offered rewards to informers; Vell. ii. 69. 5; Suet. _Ner._ 3; _Galb._ 3; Dio Cass. xlvi. 48 f.; App. _B. C._ iii. 95; Aug. _Mon. Ancyr._ i. 10; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 199.

The lex Rufrena in honor of Caesar (_CIL._ i. 626) probably belongs to 42; Lange, ibid. 556; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 89, n. 3. In te same year falls the lex of the triumvirs which changed the birthday of Caesar from July 12 to 5 (Fowler, _Rom. Fest._ 174) and compelled all to celebrate it; Dio Cass. xlvii. 18. 5.

[2914] Cic. _Phil._ v. 4. 10; _Lex Col. Genet._ 104.

[2915] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 499. After this law had been annulled by a senatus consultum (p. 457, n. 7), the settlements made by Antonius were confirmed by a centuriate law of C. Vibius Pansa, consul in 43; Cic. _Phil._ xiii. 15. 31.

[2916] Dio Cass. xlv. 9. 1.

[2917] Cicero, _Phil._ v. 3. 7, says all Italy; 7. 20; vi. 5. 13.

[2918] Ibid. v. 7. 21; vi. 5. 14; viii. 9. 26; xii. 9. 23.

[2919] Ibid. v. 7. 21; vii. 6. 17.

[2920] Ibid. ii. 38. 99; v. 12. 33; _Alt._ xv. 19. 2.

[2921] Cic. _Phil._ v. 3; vi. 5. 14; xi. 6. 13.

[2922] Dio Cass. xliv. 53. 7; cf. Livy, ep. cxvii; Vell. ii. 63. 1; cf. p. 341, 391. No comitial act is suggested, and it may have been one of the false laws of Caesar. Ferrero’s theory (_Rome_, iii. 38) has nothing in its favor.

[2923] P. 455.

[2924] Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 19; v. 5 f.; viii. 9. 27; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 449 f. This law with his others was annulled in the following year by the senate; Cic. xiii. 3. 5; p. 457, n. 7.

[2925] Cic. _Phil._ i. 9. 21 f.

[2926] Ibid.

[2927] Cic. _Phil._ v. 4. 10; p. 457, n. 7. The lex Antonia on the dictatorship was doubtless renewed by a lex Vibia; Cic. l. c.

[2928] Dio Cass. xlvi. 55. 3.

[2929] Aug. _Mon. Ancyr._ i. 8; App. _B. C._ iv. 7. 27; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 84, 89.

[2930] Dio Cass, xlvii. 15. 4 (ἐψηφίσαντο ordinarily implies a comitial vote); cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 680. The grant of lictors to the Vestals in 42 may also have been effected by a comitial act; Dio Cass. xlvii. 19. 4. In the same year a consular lex of L. Munatius Plancus ordered the erasure of the names of L. Julius Caesar and Sergius from the list of the proscribed; App. _B. C._ iv. 37. 158; 45. 193.

[2931] Dio Cass. xlviii. 9. 5. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 565, assumes a vote of the comitia.

[2932] Dio Cass. xlviii. 33. 5; Gaius ii. 227; _Dig._ 35. 2. Closely related is the lex Glitia of unknown date, mentioned by Gaius only (_Dig._ v. 2. 4), which aimed to prevent a parent from ill-humoredly wronging a child in his testament. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 662, regards the word Glitia as a copyist’s error for Falcidia.

[2933] Dio Cass. xlvii. 13. 3.

[2934] Dio Cass. xlix. 38. 1.

[2935] Aug. _Mon. Ancyr._ ii. 1; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 25; Dio Cass. lii. 42. 5; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 130.

[2936] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 4; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 649; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 427.

[2937] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 5. 13; Dion. Hal. x. 57. 5; Livy iii. 34. 1; Dio Cass. xlii. 32. 2 f. A bronze tablet was sometimes used for a mere rogation; Cic. _Mil._ 32. 87; Suet. _Caes._ 28. For leges promulgatae, see Livy iii. 9. 5; iv. 1. 1; 48. 1, 9; vi. 35. 4; 39. 1; x. 6. 6; xliii. 16. 6. On the requirement of the trinum nundinum, see p. 397. The proposer was called rogator or lator (Livy iv. 48. 10); his supporters adscriptores; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 9. 22. The names of the latter, provided they were magistrates, were often published with the bill for the sake of influence; Cic. _Pis._ 15. 35; _Red. in Sen._ 2. 4; 9. 22; _Sest._ 33. 72; _Fam._ i. 9. 16.

[2938] Cic. _Att._ i. 19. 4; _Inv._ ii. 45. 130 f.; Ascon. 57; Livy iii. 34. 4 ff.

[2939] Cic. _Sull._ 22. 62.

[2940] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 9. 22.

[2941] Frontinus, _De aquis urbis Romae_, ch. 129; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 115; Girard, _Textes_, 103-5; _Lex Agr._ 1 (_CIL._ i. 200).

[2942] The Italics supply lacunae. See also Cic. _Phil._ i. 10. 26; Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 272 (Keil).

[2943] Or the several names of a group of rogatores (cf. Livy iv. 1. 2; Cic. _Sest._ 33. 7. 2), as in the _Lex de Termessibus_ (p. 425) and the lex Mamilia Roscia, etc. (p. 441, n. 1); see also Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 315, n. 2.

[2944] Cf. Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 272.

[2945] He was either taken by lot or appointed by the presiding magistrate; Cic. _Planc._ 14. 35.

[2946] As in the _Lex de Termess._ 1.

[2947] Ex h(ace) l(ege) plebive scito; _Lex Lat. Bant._ (3). 15; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 55; Girard, _Textes_, 31; _Lex Agr._ 2 (_CIL._ i. 200).

[2948] Sometimes K. (kaput) or K. L. (kaput legis) followed by a number is used, or the title may be preceded by R. (rubrica); Egbert, _Lat. Inscr._ 349; Cagnat, _Épigr. Lat._ 266.

[2949] _Dig._ xlviii. 19. 41; Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 2 f. The substance of the sanctio comprising the extant fragment of the _Lex Lat. Bant._ is given on p. 379. On the lex sacrata, see p. 264 f.

[2950] Macrob. _Somn. Scip._ ii. 17. 13. A lex minusquam perfecta prescribes a penalty but allows the violating act to stand. The lex Furia testamentaria (p. 352), for instance, declares that the beneficiary of a legacy above the legal limit must pay fourfold, but does not rescind the legacy itself; Ulp. _Reg._ 1. A lex perfecta not only prescribes a penalty but nullifies a contravening act. These distinctions apply only to the civil law. Cf. Ulp. l. c.; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 428; Poste, _Gaius_, 566. Other terms connected with the enactment, repeal, and alteration of laws are explained by Ulp. _Reg._ 3: “Lex est rogatur, id est fertur, aut abrogatur, id est prior lex tollitur, aut derogatur, id est pars primae legis tollitur, aut subrogatur, id est adiicitur aliquid primae legi, aut obrogatur, id est mutatur aliquid ex prima lege.” The classification of laws as curiate, centuriate, and tribal according to the form of the comitia, and as consular, tribunician, etc. according to the office of the lator does not need explanation.

[2951] _Dig._ xiii. 2. 1; Gromat. 265.

[2952] Cf. _Frag. Atest._ in Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 101; Girard, _Textes_, 78; _Lex Acil. rep._ 78 (_CIL._ i. 198).

[2953] “Si quid ius non est rogarier, eius ea lege nihilum rogatur”; Cic. _Caec._ 33. 95; _Dom._ 40. 106; _Lex Tudert._ (_CIL._ i. 1409) 10 f. A far more detailed formula is given by Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 3.

[2954] “Si quid sacri sancti est, quod non iure sit rogatum, eius hac lege nihil rogatur”; Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 273.

[2955] P. 233 f.

[2956] _Lex de imp. Vesp._ in _CIL._ vi. 930; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 193 f.; Girard, _Textes_, 106: “Si quis huiusce legis ergo adversus leges rogationes plebisve scita senatusve consulta fecit fecerit, sive, quod eum ex lege rogatione plebisve scito senatusve consulto facere oportebit, non fecerit huius legis ergo, id ei ne fraudi esto, neve quit ob eam rem populo dare debeto, neve cui de ea re actio neve iudicatio esto, neve quis de ea re apud se agi sinito.” Although this document may have been a senatus consultum, it has the form of a law and is so called by itself; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 876-9. All such formulae were indicated by the series of initial letters of the component words; Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 272 f.

[2957] Fest. 314. 29: “Neve per saturam abrogato aut derogato”; _Lex Tudert._ 9; Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 3.

[2958] This is true of the Lex Lat. Bant. (p. 380), the Appuleian laws (p. 395), and the Julian agrarian law of 59 (p. 440).

[2959] As by forbidding tribunician intercession; _Lex Mal._ 58; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30.

[2960] Cic. _Att._ iii. 23. 2.

[2961] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 652.

[2962] Livy iii. 57. 10; Cic. _Phil._ i. 10. 26; Tac. _Hist._ iv. 40; Suet. _Vesp._ 8; Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 622. In earlier time wooden tables were used for laws as well as for rogations; Dion. Hal. iii. 36. 4; iv. 43. 1.

[2963] P. 438. Plebis cita and the senatus consulta pertaining thereto were originally kept by the aediles of the plebs in the temple of Ceres; p. 278 f.

[2964] “Unde de piano recte legi possit”; Probus, in _Gramm. Lat._ iv. 273, for example, the Forum; Dion. Hal. x. 57. 7. Plebiscites and senatus consulta of international importance could be found in the temple of Faith on the Capitoline hill; Suet. _Vesp._ 8; Obseq. 68. For other places, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 652 f.

[2965] Under the aedile for judicial business only; p. 325.

[2966] P. 276.

[2967] Cf. p. 304.

[2968] For judicial business only; p. 292.

[2969] P. 327.

[2970] P. 141. For instance, the dictator; p. 416, n. 1.

[2971] Livy xxv. 3. 14; xxxiii. 25. 7; xxxiv. 1. 4; 53. 2; xliii. 16. 9; xlv. 36. 1; App. _B. C._ i. 15. 64; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 17; _C. Gracch._ 13; _Aemil._ 31; Ascon. 77.

[2972] Dion. Hal. vii. 17. 2; ix. 41. 4; x. 9. 3; Livy viii. 14. 12; Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 9. For legislation in the Forum, see _Lex Quinct. de Aq._ praescriptio.

[2973] Varro, _R. R._ iii. 2. 5; Cic. _Planc._ 9. 16; _Att._ i. 1. 1; iv. 3. 4; _Fam._ vii. 30. 1.

[2974] Livy iii. 54. 15; xxvii. 21. 1; cf. Richter, _Top. v. Rom_, 48, 212; Platner, _Top. and Mon. of Anc. Rome_, 343.

[2975] Livy iii. 20. 7.

[2976] P. 297. Meetings distant from the city were soon afterward forbidden by law.

[2977] Vocare tribus in (or ad) suffragium (Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49; Livy iii. 71. 3; iv. 5. 2; vi. 38. 3; x. 9. 1; xxv. 3. 15), citare tribus ad suffragium ineundum (Livy vi. 35. 7), or mittere tribus in suffragium (Livy iii. 64. 5).

[2978] Livy xxv. 3. 16; _Lex Mal._ 53; Fest. 127. 1. These sources prove, against Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 483, that the right to vote in a tribe drawn thus by lot was not restricted to those who were virtually citizens awaiting enrolment. It is probable that, at least in early time, not even residence was a requirement; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 232, n. 2, 396 f., 643 f.

[2979] In the opinion of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 397, n. 4, 411, n. 7; _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ ii (1857). 426, n. 107, the principium had nothing to do with the order of voting. His argument is based chiefly on the fact that according to the _Lex Mal._ 55—a constitution evidently based in large part on that of Rome—the curiae voted simultaneously. Reference to the preliminary vote of a single Roman tribe, however, is made by Plut. _Aemil._ 31; App. _B. C._ i. 12. 52. Furthermore it is difficult to understand why so great importance should attach to the principium on Mommsen’s supposition that it had merely to do with the order of announcement after the simultaneous vote of all the tribes. His view is accepted by Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 684, but rejected by Lange, _Kl. Schr._ ii. 477 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ 1184, and ignored by most other writers, including Liebenam, inconsistently; ibid. 706.

[2980] “Sitellam deferre.” It was filled with water, the lots were thrown in, and the drawing was effected by pouring out the water, which caused the pieces to fall one by one. The process was supervised by the custodes; cf. Ascon. 70; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 9. 22.

[2981] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. i; App. _B. C._ iii. 30. 117.

[2982] Serv. _in Bucol._ i. 33; Ovid, _Fast._ i. 53; Cic. _Mil._ 15. 41.

[2983] The marble building, known as the Saepta Julia, begun in 54 by Julius Caesar (Cic. _Att._ iv. 16. 14), was finished by Agrippa in 27 B.C. A plan is given by Platner, _Top. and Mon. of Anc. Rome_, 365, who describes it at length; cf. Richter, _Top. v. Rom_, 230 ff.

[2984] Cic. _Sest._ 51. 109; p. 129 above.

[2985] The act could take place during the deliberation, the placing of the urn, the sortition, and the separation of the people in their voting groups; Ascon. 70; (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 12. 21; Cic. _N. D._ i. 38. 106. It was most convenient, however, for the tribune to interpose his veto by forbidding the reading of the bill; Ascon. 57 f. (p. 430 above); App. _B. C._ i. 12.

[2986] P. 115.

[2987] Livy ix. 46. 2; Gell. vii (vi). 9. 2.

[2988] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 9; 64. 6.

[2989] This is true of the comitia centuriata (Cic. _Div._ ii. 35. 75; _N. D._ ii. 4. 10), and doubtless applies as well to other forms of assembly; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 403, n. 4. The rogator must have kept a tally of the votes in rogations in some such way as in elections, in which for each vote he placed a mark (punctum) after the name of the candidate in whose favor it was given; Mommsen, ibid. 404.

[2990] P. 359, 390.

[2991] U. R. and presumably A.; Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 5; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 402, n. 2. There were corresponding abbreviations for trials; Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 692; cf. p. 178 f. above.

[2992] Plut. _Cat. Min._ 46; Suet. _Caes._ 80. These names might also be abbreviated; Cic. _Dom._ 43. 112.

[2993] Sisenna, Frag. 118 (Peter, _Reliq._ i. 293); (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 12. 21; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 11. The voting within the curiae was also by heads; Livy i. 43. 10; Dion. Hal. iv. 20. 2.

[2994] Cic. _Red. in Sen._ 11. 28; _Pis._ 15. 36; _Lex Mal._ 55 (Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 149; Girard, _Textes_, 112). As they also counted the votes, they were termed diribitores. In the last century of the republic they were drawn from the album iudicum (Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 2. 31), and hence included some of the most influential men in the state; cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 10; 15. 33 f.

[2995] Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49; _Pis._ 5. 11; 15. 36; Varro, _R. R._ iii. 5. 18.

[2996] Cic. _Planc._ 14. 35. The order of announcement of the curial votes was likewise determined by lot; _Lex Mal._ 57. Livy, ix. 38. 15, refers to the sortition for the principium.

[2997] Varro, in Gell. x. 1. 6; Cic. _Pis._ 1. 2; _Mur._ 17. 35; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3; _Caes._ 5; Suet. _Vesp._ 2. In the case of censors alone no declaration was made unless two were elected; Livy ix. 34. 25.

[2998] _Lex Mal._ 57; Cic. _Mur._ 1. 1; Gell. xii. 8. 6. In like manner in the comitia curiata a majority of the curiae decided; Dion. Hal. ii. 14. 3.

[2999] As in the vote to depose Trebellius from the tribunate in 67 (p. 432); cf. the deposition of Octavius in 133; p. 367. The voting as well as the announcement might be interrupted by an evil omen (p. 109, 111, 248), in which case the assembly had to be adjourned. Sometimes the president arbitrarily adjourned the meeting; Livy xlv. 36. 1-6, 10; Plut. _Aemil._ 31.

[3000] _Twelve Tables_ i. 9: “Solis occasus suprema tempestas esto”; Documents in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 87, 92; _Declam. in Cat._ 19; cf. Livy x. 22. 7 f.

[3001] For the presidency of the tribunus celerum, see Livy i. 59. 7; cf. Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 1377. It is denied by Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 682.

[3002] Livy ix. 38. 15; p. 112 above.

[3003] P. 195 f.

[3004] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25; 17. 31.

[3005] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 28.

[3006] P. 155.

[3007] P. 154.

[3008] Livy v. 52. 15; Dio Cass. xli. 43.

[3009] Varro, _L. L._ v. 155; Livy, ibid.; cf. Fest. ep. 38.

[3010] P. 154.

[3011] Gell. xv. 27. 2.

[3012] Dion. Hal. ii. 8. 4; p. 31 above; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 386.

[3013] On the procedure, see Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 682-4.

[3014] P. 103, 140, 203, 244, 245. The censors convoked it for the census and the lustrum only; p. 204.

[3015] He could not hold these comitia for elections; Livy xxii. 33. 9.

[3016] See references in the next to the last note above.

[3017] Livy v. 52. 15; Gell. xv. 27. 5; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 11.

[3018] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88, 91; cf. Verg. _Georg._ ii. 539.

[3019] P. 203, n. 2.

[3020] P. 150.

[3021] Livy xxvi. 22. 11; Juv. vi. 529; Serv. _in Bucol._ i. 33.

[3022] 70 of the first class—1 prerogative + 18 equestrian.

[3023] Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 5; (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 21; Fest. 334. 16.

[3024] P. 359, 390, 467.

[3025] P. 211, 226 f.

[3026] Cic. _Fam._ vii. 30.

[3027] In the comitia centuriata in addition to the prerogative there had to be at least four, and possibly seven, successive votings before a majority could be reached. In the tribal assembly there was but one in addition to the principium. After the comitia curiata had come to be represented by thirty lictors the votes could be taken in a few minutes.

[3028] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 29: “Comitiales dicti quod tum ut coiret populus constitutum est ad suffragium ferendum nisi si quae feriae conceptae essent, propter quas non liceret, (ut) Compitalia et Latinae”; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 14: “Comitiales sunt, quibus cum populo agi licet, et fastis quidem lege agi potest, cum populo non potest, comitialibus utrumque potest”; Verrius Flaccus, in _Fast. Praen._ ad Ian. 3 (_CIL._ i². p. 231); Ovid, _Fast._ i. 53; Fest. ep. 38.

[3029] For the various local Italian calendars with Mommsen’s comment, see _CIL._ i². p. 203 ff. Especially useful is the Diei notarum laterculus, ibid. p. 290 ff.

[3030] On the distinction between dies fasti and dies nefasti, see Varro, _L. L._ vi. 29 f., 53; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 14; _Fast. Praen._ ad Ian. 2; Ovid, _Fast._ i. 47; Fest. ep. 93; Gaius iv. 29.

[3031] March 24 and May 24; p. 159, n. 8.

[3032] June 15. For the meaning of this expression and the one given just above, see Varro, _L. L._ vi. 31 f.; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 727; vi. 225; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i². p. 289. These three days were called fissi; Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 37.

[3033] Dies endotorcisi or intercisi; Varro, _L. L._ vi. 31; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 3; Ovid, _Fast._ i. 49; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i². p. 290.

[3034] Cf. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 30; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 14. In a wider sense comitial days were fasti. Naturally judicial business could be transacted on those comitial days on which the assembly did not actually meet, or after its adjournment if time remained; p. 315. A Clodian law of 58 permitted comitial legislation on all dies fasti; p. 445.

[3035] Mommsen, in _CIL._ i². p. 296; 109 according to Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 368 f.

[3036] Mommsen, ibid. Wissowa, ibid., reckons 192 comitial days, which would give 43 non-comitial fasti. The following were the dies comitiales according to Mommsen:

Jan. 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 16-28, 31—in all xix. Feb. 18-20, 22, 25, 28—vi. Mar. 3-6, 9-12, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28-31—xvii. Apr. 3, 4, 24, 27-30—vii. May, 3-6, 10, 12, 14, 17-20, 25-31—xviii. June, 4, 16-28, 30—xvi. July, 10-14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 26-31—xv. Aug. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 31—xv. Sept. 4, 7-11, 16-22, 24-28, 30—xix. Oct. 3-6, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20-31—xxi. Nov. 3, 4, 7-12, 15-28, 30—xxiii. Dec. 4, 7-10, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24-28, 31 —xv.

[3037] Wissowa, ibid. 378.

[3038] Varro, in Macrob, _Sat._ i. 16. 19; _L. L._ vi. 29.

[3039] Varro, _R. R._ ii. praef. 1; Serv. _in Georg._ i. 275.

[3040] That judicial business was done on those nundinae which were not marked N(efasti) is clearly proved by the Twelve Tables, iii. 1-6 (Girard, _Textes_, p. 13), in Gell. xx. i. 45 ff.; cf. especially § 47: “Trinis nundinis continuis ad praetorem in comitium producebantur, quantaeque pecuniae iudicati essent, praedicabatur.”

[3041] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3: Ἐν δὲ ταύταις (ἀγοραῖς) συνιόντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν εἰς τὴν πόλιν οἱ δημοτικοί τὰς τ’ ἀμείψεις ἐποιοῦντο τῶν ὠνίων κὰι τὰς δίκας παρ’ ἀλλήλων ἐλάμβανον, τά τε κοινά, ὅσων ἦσαν κύριοι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους καὶ ὅσα ἡ βουλὴ ἐπιτρέψειεν αὐτοῖς, ψῆφον ἀναλαμβάνοντες ἐπεκύρουν; Rutilius, in Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 34: “Romanos instituisse nundinas, ut octo quidem diebus in agris rustici opus facerent, nono autem die intermisso rure ad mercatum legesque accipiendas Romam venirent.” The words of Dionysius and Rutilius apply to all voting assemblies, not simply to those of the plebs.

[3042] Gran. Licinian. in Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 30 (quoted p. 315, n. 2).

[3043] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 518 f.

INDEX

Abbreviations: c. = consular, d. = dictatorial, p. = pretorian, t. = tribunician. The numbers in parentheses are dates B.C.

Abacti, 391.

Abjuration of social rank, 156, 162, 163, 165.

Abrogation, of imperium, 324, n. 1, 342, 360, 390, 404; of tribunician power, 366, 367 f., 432, 455; of pretorian power, 455, n. 3.

Accensi velati, 66, 80 f., 207, 208, 228.

Accensus, summons comitia centuriata, 469.

Accerani, receive citizenship, 304.

Acclamation, 152, 202, 276.

Acculeia (curia), 11, n. 7.

Accusation, fourth, 260.

Acilius Glabrio, M’., trial of (189), 319.

Adlectio of senators, 166, 418.

Adoptions, 160, 166; testamentary, 161.

Adrogatio, 156, 160 f.; of Clodius, 30, 443; formula of, 161; for transitio ad plebem, 162, 443.

Adscriptivi, 80, n. 5.

Adsidui, 61.

Aediles, election of, 127; presidency of contio, 141; of comitia, 292, 465; jurisdiction of before Hortensius, 290-2; after Hortensius, 325-7; limited by standing courts, 326 f.

Aediles cereales, 454, n. 5.

Aediles, curule, and lex curiata, 189; instituted, 234, 291; presidency of comitia, 292, 465; jurisdiction before Hortensius, 291 f.; after Hortensius, 325-7.

Aediles, plebeian, instituted, 262; election of, 262, 272; bailiffs of tribunes, 264, n. 5; sacrosancti, n. 7, 274; Valerian-Horatian law on, 274, 278 f.; relation to tribunes, 290; jurisdiction, before Hortensius, 195, 290-2; after Hortensius, 325-7; presidency of comitia, 292, 465.

Aemilius Lepidus, M., his imperium abrogated (136), 360, 367.

Aemilius Lepidus, M., consul (78), 423, 425.

Aemilius Paulus, L., trial of (218), 318.

Aemilius Scaurus, M., trial of, for neglect of duty (103), 323; for maiestas (91), 257, n. 5.

Aerarii, 60, 62, 64, 65, 212, 318.

Aerarium, 62.

Aes equestre et hordearium, 93 f.

Aetates, in comitia centuriata, 222.

Africa, organized under lex Livia, 349; agrarian conditions of, 387.

Ager, privatus, ownership of, 48 f.; registration in tribes, 50, 54, 60 f., 64; publicus, agitation for assignment of, 270, 272, 295, 310 f., 360, 373 f., 435 f.; laws for assignment of, see Legislation, agrarian.

Ager compascuus, 365.

Ager, effatus, etc., 108.

Agrarian laws, see Legislation, agrarian.

Alba Longa, three tribes in, 4, n. 3.

Alban Mount, triumphs on, 293, 335, n. 2, 350.

Aliens, treatment of, 38; under jurisdiction of senate, 254; of people, 255; expulsions of, 273, 354, 370, 397, 434; enrolment in colonies, 353; see Italians, Latins.

Allies, unfair treatment of, 352; under lex Iulia repetundarum, 442; see Italians, Latins.

Ambitus, laws on, 295, 296 f., 348 f., 419, 431, 436 f., 448, 454, 474.

Aniensis iuniorum, 217, 227, n. 2.

Annius Luscus, T., prosecution of (133), 322.

Annius Milo, T., prosecution of, 327.

Anquisitio, 259.

Antias, Valerius, on Scipionic trial, 319, n. 7.

Antiquo, 467.

Antonius, L., tribune (45-44), 455.

Antonius, M., misuses oblativa, 113; tribune (49), 453 f.; consul (44), 454, n. 4, 457-9.

Apparitores, 416, n. 1.

Appeal, to comitia curiata, 182, 239; to centuriata, 239 ff., 259, 287; to tributa, 259, 266, 268, 286 f., 292, 317, 325, 327; limited by first milestone, 241; from military imperium, 251 f.; from tribunes in capital cases, 268; when most used, 328; right offered as reward, 378.

Appian, on new tribes (90), 57 f.; reëlection of tribunes, 369; liability of jurors for bribery, 378, n. 8; lex Boria (?), 385; lex Livia iudiciaria, 398; lex Cornelia Pompeia (88), 407; election of senators, 418.

Appuleius Decianus, C., tribune (98), 323 f.

Appuleius Saturninus, L., weakens veto, 117; interdicts Metellus, 257, n. 5; murdered, 258 f., 396; tribune (103, 100), 393-6.

Ἀρχαιρεσία, 406, n. 6.

Archives, for senatus consulta, 278 f.; for statutes, 437 f., 465.

Ardea, disputes with Aricia, 294.

Ardeates, concilium of, 122.

Aricia, disputes with Ardea, 294.

Army, relation of to folk, 2, 35; pre-Servian, 10 f., 35; Servian, 58 ff., 66 ff., 72-6; originally self-supporting, 61 f.; not identical with comitia centuriata, 68; Graeco-Italic, 69-71; primitive Roman, 69, n. 4; like Athenian, 76; post-Servian, 76-80; supernumeraries in, 80-2; early republican, 83 f.; political importance of, 202.

Arpinates, receive suffrage, 352.

Arrogation, see Adrogatio.

As, sextantarian, 67, n. 4, 87, 213; declines in value, 86 f.; of ounce weight (uncial), 90, n. 4, 336; semiuncial, 91, 403.

Assembly, German, 33, 153, n. 3, 168, 169, 170, 172; Homeric Greek, 33, 153, n. 3, 168, 169, 170 f.; European, 152, 168-73; Athenian, 153, 168; Alamannic, 153; Irish, 153, n. 3, 172; Slavic, 168, 172 f.; Lacedaemonian, 168; Celtic, 168, 170; Etruscan, 169; Italian, 171; Frankish, 172.

Assembly, Roman, affected by omens, 109; plebeian tribal, termed comitia, 120, 126-30; three organized forms of, 138; origin of, 152; limited by senate in early republic, 273, 284; development of voting in, 275 f.; laws on, 307; packing of, 405; see Comitia, Concilium, Contio.

Asylum, in theory of patrician state, 36 f.; connection with tribunate, 265.

Ateste, law found at, 454, n. 3.

Atilius Calatinus, M., trial of, 247.

Atinius Labeo, C., tribune (131), 264, n. 8.

Atius Labienus, T., tribune (63), 435; prosecutes Rabirius, 258.

Attus Navius, 101, n. 3, 105, n. 3.

Auctoritas, see Patrum auctoritas.

Auguraculum, 109, n. 7.

Augural districts, 108.

Auguria, 106.

Augurs, 105-8; number and character, 105 f.; functions, 106-8; have nuntiatio, 111 f.; attend comitia, 107, 112 ff.; election of, 120, 391, 435; in contiones, 146, n. 1; increased to fifteen, 416.

Auspices, 100-18; of Sodales Titii, 2, n. 6; private, 100-3; nuptial, 100, n. 4; public, 100, 101, 103-18; impetrativa, 103-11; assemblies requiring, 110 f.; oblativa, 111-8; spectio, 112 ff.; under Aelian and Fufian laws, 116 f., 279 f., 358 f.; misuse of, 117 f.; essential to magistratus iustus, 187, n. 7; borrowing of, 244, 245, 280, 315; violated by consul, 248; of first tribunician election, 263, n. 1; support nobility, 330 f.

Auspicium, 100, 102 f.; deputed, 104, 244, 245, 280, 315; lex for, 179; see Auspices.

Auxilium, tribunician, 253, 263, 414.

Aventine hill, 2, n. 6; outside the Servian tribes, 59; so-called lex Icilia for assignment of, 238, 265, n. 1, 272 f.

Bacchanalians, 254, n. 3.

Ballot, 467; laws on, 359, 369, 371, 389 f.; use of in quaestiones, 420; in all comitia, 469; boxes, 389, 467.

Belot, on ratings, 91-3.

Berns, on comitia and concilium, 126.

Bibulus, spectio of, 114, n. 9, 116, n. 1, 439.

Bill, see Rogatio.

Birds, auspices from, 108.

Bird-seer, 105, n. 1.

βουλή, 407.

Bribery, in trials, 378, 442; of magistrates, 429 f.; electoral, see Ambitus.

Caecilius Metellus, L., tribune (213), 318.

Caecilius Metellus, Q., censor (131), 264, n. 8.

Caecilius Metellus, Q., consul (60), 163.

Caecilius Metellus, Q., consul (57), 115.

Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, Q., prosecution of (100), 257, n. 5.

Caedes, see Murder.

Caeles Vibenna, 3.

Caelestia (auspicia), impetrativa, 108; oblativa, 112; de caelo servare, 114; of Bibulus, 439.

Caelian hill, 3.

Caerite franchise, 38, n. 1.

Caerites, 62.

Caesetius Flavius, L., tribune (44), 324, 455.

Calabra, curia, 154, 468.

Calare, 153 f.

Calatores, 154.

Calendar, 470-2; pontifical control of, 358.

Calumniator, Calumny, 400.

Camillus, see Furius Camillus.

Campanian land, vectigalia of, 337, 351, n. 5, 365 f., 373; under lex Iulia, 439, 440.

Campanians, punished for revolt, 254, 340; senatus consultum on, 353.

Campus Martius, meeting place of centuries, 108, 203, 469; of tribes, 465; president’s platform in, 109; elections in, 115, 194, n. 2; inauguration in, 156; execution in, 258.

Candidacy, in absentia, 436 f., 449; see Ambitus.

Cannae, effect of disaster at, 343.

Capital punishment, under kings, 182, 239 f.; voted by centuries, 240 ff., 286 f.; in early republic by curiae and tribes, 266-9; abolished by lex Porcia, 250 f.; avoided by exile, 344; see Appeal.

Capite censi, 89, 394.

Capitoline hill, 2; beyond Servian tribes, 59; auspication on, 109, 154; comitia tributa on, 465; curiata on, 468.

Capua, plan to colonize, 373, 382, n. 9; lex Iunia on, 410.

Carpenters, in comitia centuriata, 206.

Carthage, colonization of, 383, 385.

Cassius, Sp., 238, 244, 310.

Catiline, 437.

Cato the Elder, see Porcius, M., the Elder.

Cato the Younger, 111, 126.

Cattle, standard of value, 269, 287.

Caudium, effect of defeat at, 302 f.

Cavalry, see Equites.

Celeres, 73.

Censi, 90, n. 5.

Censoriae Tabulae, 67, 85, 204.

Censors, make up tribes, 60; relation to aerarii, 60, 62, 64 f.; instituted, 79, 234, 237; auspices of, 103; auspicate lustral comitia, 111; preside over contio, 141; inspect arms, 204; election of, 229; centuriate sanction, 237; laws on, 237, 300, 307; grant citizenship, 283, 304; prosecution of, 318; reëlection forbidden, 332; limited by comitia, 337; supervise morals, 332, 337, 428; tribunes interfere with, 351, n. 5; assign seats to senators, 356 f.; let out taxes of Asia, 380; stigma of, 445, 450, n. 2.

Census, connection of with tribes, 50, 54, 59; money valuation in, 65; instituted, 53, 68, n. 7, 76; Greek, 71; post-Servian, 77; object of, 204; after reform, 216; under lex municipalis, 457.

Centuria procum (patricium), 67, n. 3, 75, n. 1; of the tardy, 208, 226.

Centuriate organization, Fabius on, 52 f., 67; Livy and Dionysius on, 66, 68; Servian, 72-6; post-Servian, 76-80, 201 ff.; see Comitia centuriata.

Centuries, 66 ff.; number of, in classes, 66, 76 f.; in the classis, 73, 76; in post-Servian phalanx, 76 f.; in fifth rating, 77; supernumerary, 80-82, 205-9, 224; of juniors, 82 f., 205; of seniors, 205; after reform, 216 ff.; increased, 219 ff.; see Comitia centuriata.

Centurions, in comitia centuriata, 211; in jury service, 458.

Ceres, connection of with plebeian organization, 264, n. 7; forfeiture of estates to, 267, 274; senatus consulta in temple of, 278 f., 465, n. 2.; Priestesses of granted citizenship, 353.

Chalkidae, an Attic gens, 28.

Chariot, in war, 69, 74.

Χειροτονία, 406, n. 6.

Chicken auspices, 107, 118, n. 2.

Cicero, on early Roman history, 26; account of centuriate system, 67, 205, n. 5, 215, n. 2, 221 f.; criticises Antony’s obnuntiation, 111, n. 4; attitude toward auspices, 118, n. 2; usage relative to comitia and concilium, 126-31; distinction between whole and part, 130, 466; on curiate law, 184 f.; on capital trials, 267, 268, n. 6; curule aedile, 327; on frumentations, 401, n. 5; supports Manilian rogation, 434; consul (63), 435-7; commends lex Iulia repetundarum, 442.

Cinna, see Cornelius Cinna.

Circus, Flaminius, 465.

Cistae (ballot boxes), 389, 467.

Citizenship, early idea of, 2; liberality of Rome in granting, 38, 43 f.; of other states, 44, n. 1; granted by king, 24, 181, 304; by censors, 283, 304; by tribes, 304 f., 352; by founder of colony, 353, 395; to priestesses of Ceres, 353; to Latins and Italians, 401 f.; less freely, 353 f.; as reward, 393, n. 2; value enhanced, 354; usurpations of, 354, 397; optimo iure, 355; sine suffragio, 62, 63, 64, 304, n. 4, 305, 352.

City, relation of to country, 55 f.

City-state, origin of, 6.

Cives sine suffragio, 44, 62, 63, 64, 352.

Classes, 66 ff.; relative size of, 83; the five and their ratings, 84-91; Smith on origin, 85, n. 3; soldiers recruited from, 86, 394; number of centuries in, after reform, 216 f.; parts of tribes, 219 f.; social, 16 ff.; Athenian, 71; in theatre, 356 f.

Classici, 72, n. 2, 76, 85, 90, 216, n. 1.

Classicum, 469.

Classis, original meaning of, 72, n. 1; and infra classem, 72; like zeugitae, 76; array in battle, 79; changed meaning, 84 f.; rating of, 87; fifth, 88 f.; first, 89 f.; procincta, 203; number of centuries in fifth, 208; see Classes.

Claudia, trial of, for perduellio (246), 326.

Claudia (tribus), 56.

Claudius, augur, fined, 328.

Claudius, historian, on Claudine treaty, 302.

Claudius, App., decemvir, trial of, 246.

Claudius, App., consul (179), 192, n. 3.

Claudius, C., censor (169), trial of, 253.

Claudius, M., trial of, 246.

Claudius Caecus, App., 307; prosecution of, 247; alters tribes, 64; appraisements, 65, 86; influences censorship, 331.

Claudius Marcellus, C., consul (50), attitude of toward auspices, 118, n. 2.

Claudius Marcellus, M., consul (215), and curiate law, 197; lex for abrogating imperium of, 342.

Claudius Pulcher, App., consul (54), 194, n. 2; author of work on augury, 118, n. 2; view of curiate law, 193.

Claudius Pulcher, P., consul (249), trial of, 248, 317.

Clients, ancient view as to origin of, 22; rights, 22 f.; Niebuhr on, 27; Meyer on, 55; in Claudian tribe, 56; in populus, tribes, and curiae, 24, 262, n. 2, 271; vote in comitia curiata, 25, 32, 271; in assemblies, 120, 276; Mommsen on, 34; in war, 22, 78, n. 6.

Clodius Pulcher, P., tribune (58), 127, 444-6; transitio ad plebem, 162 f., 443; prosecutes Milo, 195.

Clustumina (tribus), 56.

Coinage, earliest copper, 86 f.; Flaminian law on, 336; Clodian, 392; Papirian, 403.

Coins, plated, 336, 398, n. 6.

Collegia, laws on, Clodia, 445; Licinia, 447 f.; Caesar’s edict, 457, n. 6.

Collegium (College), of accensi velati, 80, 207; of fabri, 206, 226; of tubicines and cornicines, 206 f.; tribunician, 269; of sacerdotes, 391 f.; connection of latter with tribes, 7; political character, 106, n. 6, 10, 113; enlarged by Sulla, 416; supernumeraries in, 454, n. 6; see Augurs, Epulones, etc.

Collina (tribus), 50.

Colonia Genetiva Iulia, 453, n. 4.

Colonies, founded by senate, 284; triumviri for conducting, 307, 311, 350; laws for founding, 350; founder’s right to enroll aliens, 353; Sempronian, 372, 382 f.; regulations of in Thorian law, 386; epoch in history of, 394; founded by Caesar, 453.

Comitia, relation of to augural districts, 108; effect of celestial omens on, 109; attended by augurs, 112 ff.; meet at sunrise, 115; distinguished from concilium, 119-38; defined by Laelius, 119; Livy’s usage relative to, 119-25; sacerdotal usage, 125 f.; Sallust’s, 126; Cicero’s, 126-30; literary and juristic, 131; true distinctions, 131-8; uses classified, 132-4; developed, 135-7; meaning of, 135; relation to concilium and contio, 138; not summoned by promagistrate, 141; formed from contio, 150; connotes organization, 154; iusta, 187, n. 7; in camp, 194; right to establish special courts, 254, 390; judicial procedure in, 259 f.; limited by senate and magistrates, 273, 284, 344 f.; development of voting in, 275 f.; gain power, 315 f.; permit triumphs, 334; regulate festivals, 340 f.; influence of Flaminius on, 343; part of in government, 344; lack initiative, 345 f.; most active under C. Gracchus, 384; worn out, 405; under senatorial control, 406-8; yield judicial function to courts, 420 f.; decline, 450-61; limited by Sulla and Caesar, 413 f., 420 f., 452, 454 f., 457, 477; presidency of, 465, 468, 469; length of sessions, 470; composition of, 473; summary of history, 473-7.

Comitia calata, 152-67; auspicated, 104; wills made in, 139, n. 5, 157-9; also termed contio, 140, n. 1; definition of, 153 f.; place of meeting, 154; religious objects, 154-6; centuriata, 154, n. 4, 156; voting in, 156 f.; adrogatio in, 160 f.; testamentary adoptions in, 161; transitio ad plebem in, 162 f.; grant of patriciate in, 164-6.

Comitia centuriata, principle of, 12 f.; convoked by horn-blower, 31; advance beyond curiata, 33, 473; ascribed to Servius, 66 ff., 201; described in Censoriae Tabulae, 67; non-existent under kings, 68, 201; developed from army, 68 f., 202 ff.; distinguished from army, 83, 203, 205 ff.; relation to augural districts, 108; place of meeting, 108, 143, 203, 469; auspicated, 104, 110; attended by augurs, 114; enact privilegia, 127 f.; recall Cicero, 128; lustral, 141, 204 f.; no deliberation in, 143; voting in, 157, 211, 469 f.; declare war, 177, 230-2, 283, 295; curiate sanction, 184, 229; pass lex de censoria potestate, 185, 237; confer imperium, 188; elect praetor in Spain, 192; organization of, 201-28; early republican, 201-11; presidency of, 203, 236, 469; supernumeraries in, 205-9; sex suffragia in, 209; new equestrian centuries in, 209 f.; table of centuries, 210; reform of, 211-28; essentials of, 212; date, 212 f.; gradual, 214 f.; five classes after, 216; tribes, 216 f.; Niebuhr on, 217-9; Huschke, 219; Pantagathus, 220; Mommsen, 221-4; Lange, 224 f.; Klebs, 225; voting after, 225, 227, 469 f.; supernumeraries, 226; functions, 229-61; elective, 229 f.; legislative, 230-9; Twelve Tables on, 233 f.; freed from patrum auctoritas, 235; yield to tribes, 239; judicial, 239-61; appeal to, 239-42, 268; tribunician cases before, 245-53; limited by special courts, 253-7; try Rabirius, 258 f.; procedure, 259 f.; pass lex de Aventino, 272; institute Decemvirate, 273; divide jurisdiction with tribes, 286 f.; lose regulation of magistracy, 305.

Comitia curiata, 10, 168-200; not identical with army, 11; voting in by genera hominum, 12; include clients and plebeians, 24 f., 32; convoked by lictor, 31; lack initiative, 33, 173; auspicated, 110, 112; pass lex de imperio, 112; attended by augurs, 113; origin, 152 f., 168-73, 473; limited rights of, 173 ff.; subject to patrum auctoritas, 174 f.; on war and peace, 174-7; legislation in, 177-82; jurisdiction of, 182, 339; elections, 182 ff., 196, 473; lex de imperio, 184-96; become formality, 196-8; early republican, 232; presidency of, 262; composition of, 262, 271; place of meeting, 468.

Comitia sacerdotum, 120, 129, 341, 391, 458.

Comitia tributa, principle of, 12 f.; alleged trial of Coriolanus, 56, n. 4; auspication of, 104, 110; attended by augurs, 114; Livy’s use of term, 120; Sallust’s, 126; Cicero’s, 126-9; incompetent to pass privilegia, 128; of whole people, 129 f.; curiate sanction, 184; confer imperium, 188; under pretorian presidency, 193; ratify Cornelian laws, 236; gain at expense of centuries, 239; legalize voluntary exile, 249, 256, 257, n. 5, 267, 446; procedure in, 259 f., 465-8; origin of, 262, 270-2, 473 f.; pre-decemviral jurisdiction, 267-9, 273; patricians in, 271, 275-7; elective, 272; no legislation before Decemvirate, 272-4; conditioned legislative power granted to, 274-9; advantages over centuriata, 280; from 449 to 287 B.C., 283-316; jurisdiction after Hortensius, 317-29; tribunician, 317-25; aedilician, 325-7; pontifical, 327 f.; era of repose in legislation, 330-3; Flaminian, 333-46; Plutocratic, 346-62; from Gracchi to Sulla, 363-411; subjected to senate by Sulla, 413 f.; from Sulla to Octavianus, 412-61; preferred by Caesar, 452; decline of, 450 ff.

Comitial days, 470-2; vitiated by spectio, 115; by proclamation of holidays, 116; senatorial sessions forbidden on, 424; lex Gabinia on, 429; lex Clodia on, 445.

Comitiatus maximus, 241, 268.

Comitium, meeting-place of curiae, 10, 468; of tribes, 465; auspication in, 109.

Commentarii Servi Tullii, 67.

Commission, special, see Quaestio extraordinaria.

Commissioners, see Duumviri, Triumviri, etc.

Compitum Fabricium, 9.

Concilium, distinguished from comitia, 119-38; defined by Laelius, 119; Livy’s use of term, 119-25; Mommsen on, 121-4; Caesar’s usage, 125 f.; Sallust’s, 126; Cicero’s, 130 f.; literary and juristic, 131; true distinction, 131-8; uses classified, 132-4; developed, 135-7; relation to comitia and contio, 138; of nobles, 124, 125; populi, 120-6; plebis at Capua, 125.

Concordia ordinum, 428.

Consobrini, intermarriage of, 340.

Conspiracy, special court for trial of, 254, 310; judicial, 378; lex Furia on, 396, n. 2.

Constitution, equilibrium of Roman, 343-6, 361 f.

Consuls, auspices of, 103; obnuntiate, 114; watch sky, 115; proclaim holidays, 116; call to concilium, 121; to contio, 142; election of, 189, 229; intermediate between senate and comitia centuriata, 235; laws on, 237, 296, 299, 307; given absolute authority, 273; depend on people, 345; minimal age of, 415; presidency of assemblies, 465, 468, 469.

Consulta, see Senatus consulta.

Contio, 139-51; interrupted by storm, 109; auspicated, 110 f., 122, 144 sacerdotal use of word, 125 f., 139 f.; relation to comitia and concilium, 138; derivation of, 139; composition, 140; presidency, 140 f.; tribunician, 142, 144; witnessing, 142; preliminary to comitia, 143; opening of, 144 f.; speaking in, 145 f.; women in, 146 f.; change to comitia, 150, 465, 469; earliest form of assembly, 152, 156, 473; part of in elections, 183; military, 202, 230; judicial, 259 f., 320; plebeian, 263, 269, 273, 425 f., 430; for opposing Manilian law, 434; oath in, 441.

Conubium, connected with auspices, 101; between near kin, 339 f.; freedmen lack, 354.

Conventio, 139, 140, n. 1; see Contio.

Conway, on social classes, 38, n. 2.

Coöptation, of patricians, 164, n. 1, 166; of sacerdotes, 416.

Cornelian constitution, 423-8.

Cornelius, C., tribune (67), 429 f.

Cornelius Cinna, L., consul (87), 409; assigns new citizens to tribes, 58, 409; measures of vetoed by tribunes, 257, n. 5.

Cornelius Dolabella, L., naval duumvir (180), fined by pontiff, 328.

Cornelius Merula, L., prosecution of (87), 257, n. 5.

Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, P., punishes soldiers, 251 f.; dispensed from laws, 360; modifies Sempronian agrarian law, 367.

Cornelius Scipio Africanus, P., trial of (185), 319 f.; favors senators at theatre, 356 f.

Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus, L., trial of (185), 255, 319 f.

Cornelius Sulla Felix, L., treatment of new citizens, 58; use of assemblies, 236; increases quaestiones, 257 f., 324; reactionary, 403, 414; consular legislation of (88), 405-8; dictatorial (82-81), 412-23; limits comitia, 413 f., 420 f., 477.

Cornicines, 81, n. 2-4, 206; see Musicians.

Corpus, Augustale, Iulianum, etc., 220.

Cotta, L., opinion of on Cicero’s interdict, 128.

Crier, see Praeco.

Crimes, treatment of, by Sulla, 258, 419-21; early legislation on, 357; standing courts on, 358; Julian laws on, 455.

Crucifixion, punishment for perduellio, 258.

Curatores, of tribes, 220, n. 4; viarum, 424, n. 6.

Curia Calabra, 154, 468.

Curiae, 8-11; social composition of, 24, 32, 271; new citizens admitted to, 44; relation of to land, 48; see Comitia calata, curiata.

Curiales, 9.

Curio, 9; maximus, 10, 120, 341, 391.

Cursus honorum, 347, 415.

Custodes tabellarum, 389, 466, n. 4, 467.

Cyrene, tribes of, 7, n. 1.

Damnum, lex Aquilia on, 332 f.

Debts, legislation on, 296, 298, 310, 312, 313, 351 f., 408, 409 f., 437, n. 7, 452.

De caelo servare, 114 ff.

Decemviri agris adsignandis, under Servilian rogation, 186, 187, 259, 435; under Livian law, 398, 400.

Decemviri legibus scribundis, presidency of contio, 141; election of, 229; without appeal, 240; instituted, 273.

Decemviri sacris faciundis, 296, 308; election of, 391; increased to quindecemviri, 416.

Decianus, see Appuleius Decianus.

Decius, censor (304), 64.

Decius, tribune (120), 256.

Decuriae (decades), of soldiers, 11 f.; (decuries) of jurors, 427, 458.

Decurions, 12.

Decurionate, municipal, 457.

Demagogism, encouraged by frumentations, 373.

Democracy, incipient, 308; rise of prevented, 346.

Δῆμος, 17, 407 f.

Δημοτικοί, 17.

Denarius, value of, 87, n. 4, 336.

Detestatio sacrorum, 156, 161, 162, n. 7, 163.

Di penates, prosecution for neglecting, 323; oath by, 380.

Dice, prohibited, 337.

Dictator, auspices of, 103, 112; passes lex curiata, 112, 189, 191; presidency of contio, 140; of comitia, 465, 468, 469; temporary monarch, 182; optima lege, 187; instituted, 233; preferred tribes for legislation, 236, 416, n. 1, 452; abolition of office, 237, 459; subjection to appeal, 241 f.; presides over special court, 254; appointed at command of senate, 273, 284; rei publicae constituendae, 412.

Dies, comitiales, 470-2; nefasti, 470 f.; endotorcisi, intercisi, 470, n. 9; fasti, 471.

Diodorus, on plebeian tribunate, 272, n. 2; admission of plebs to consulship, 293; Sempronian law on military service, 382.

Dionysius, on early Roman history, 25, n. 3, 26 f.; Servian tribes, 50, 53; centuriate system, 66, n. 1, 67, 201, n. 3; first tribal meeting, 262, n. 2; patricians in tribal assembly, 275.

Diribitio, 467.

Diribitores, 467, n. 10.

Dispensations from law, 307 f., 343, 360, 366, 368 f., 449; senate versus people on, 430 f.; from lex curiata, 186, 190, 195, 199.

Divination, forms of, 108 f.; see Auspices.

Divisores, 431.

Domitius Ahenobarbus, Cn., tribune (103), 323.

Draco, law of on phratry, 28.

Duoviri, see Duumviri.

Duumviri navales, instituted (311), 306 f.

Duumviri perduellioni iudicandae, 243 f.; give way to tribunes, 248; for trial of Rabirius, 258.

Duumviri sacris faciundis, 296.

Dyarchy, established by Gabinian law (67), 433.

Edicts, pretorian, 431 f.; of Caesar, 457, n. 6.

Effatus ager, 108.

Egeria, 177.

Election, annulment of on religious ground, 107; prevented by oblativa, 111, 113; of king, 182-4; and curiate law, 184-200; by centuries, 229 f., 331; of plebeian officials, 262 f.; by tribes, 271 f., 285 f., 331; ballot in, 359; theory of popular control, 360; see Ambitus, Magistrates.

Elicius, 100, n. 6.

Emancipation, in German assembly, 153; in transitio ad plebem, 163.

Ennius, granted citizenship, 353.

Epidius Marullus, C., tribune (44), 324, 455.

Epilepsy (morbus comitialis), 112.

Epulones, instituted, 347; election of, 391; increased to seven, 416, n. 3.

Equites, relation of to tribes, 7; originally self-supporting, 62; in centuriate system, 66, 209 f.; before Servius, 73 f.; in Servian army, 75 f.; in 214 B.C., 92; census of, 92, 96 f.; post-Servian, 93-7; funds for, 93 f.; opened to plebeians, 94; equo privato, 94 f.; equo publico, 95 f., 209; in comitia centuriata, 209 f.; prerogative, 211; after reform, 212, 215, 220, 224, 226 f.; given seats at theatre, 357, 428; liable to law against bribery, 378; made superior to senators, 381; desert C. Gracchus, 384; associate with senators in courts, 402, 427 f., 455.

Esquilina (tribus), 50, 220.

Eupyridae, Attic gens, 28.

Exercitus urbanus, 203.

Exile, voluntary, legalized by comitia tributa, 249, 256, 257, n. 5, 267, 446.

Extortion, see Repetundae.

Fabius, Q., trial of (389), 246, 288.

Fabius Buteo, censor (241), 213.

Fabius Gurges, Q., consul (292), resolution on imperium of, 289, 306.

Fabius Maximus, Q., consul (215), and curiate law, 197.

Fabius Maximus Servilianus, Q., trial of, for murder, 257, n. 5.

Fabius Pictor, sources of for early Rome, 26; on Servian tribes, 51, 52-4; centuriate system, 67, 85.

Fabius Pictor, Q., praetor (189), trial of, 327 f.

Fabius Rullianus, Q., alters tribes, 64.

Fabri (mechanics, sappers, workmen), 66, 67, n. 3, 68, 81; assigned to classes, 205 f.; after reform, 226.

Family law, changes in, 339 f., 352.

Fasti, read in comitia calata, 154 f.; dies, 471 f.; Clodian law on, 445.

Faucia (curia), 11, n. 7; ill-omened, 112.

Ferentarii, 80, n. 5.

Festivals, regulated by law, 340 f.

Fetialis, 176, 265.

Finance, legislation on, 297 f., 310 f., 335-7, 351 f., 392, 403, 422, 438.

Fines, appealed to tribes, 259, 269, 286 f., 292, 317 ff., 344.

Flamen, curial, 10; Dialis, 203, n. 7.

Flaminian, era, 333-46; Circus, 465; Meadow, 465.

Flaminius, C., and curiate law, 191; monetary law of, 191 f., 336; censor, 213; era of, 333-46; agrarian law, 334 f.; supports Claudian law, 335; influences legislation, 337 f., 343; assigns libertini to city tribes, 355; energizes comitia, 343, 475.

Flavius, M., trial of, 291.

Fordicidia, 9.

Foreign affairs, administered by senate, 273; then fell partly to comitia tributa, 303; laws on, 349 f.

Forgery, 420.

Foriensis (curia), 11.

Formiani, Fundani, etc., receive suffrage, 352.

Formulae, legal, 464.

Fornacalia, 9, 11, n. 8.

Forum, assembly in, 267, 327, 431, 439, n. 15, 465.

Fowler, W. W., on lex Scantinia, 357, n. 13; reëlection of tribune, 369, n. 4; Sempronian lex iudiciaria, 374, n. 7.

Freedmen, see Libertini.

Fregellae, revolt of, 255.

Fröhlich, on Sulpicius, 405, n. 2; Cornelian-Pompeian law, 406, n. 6; lex Cornelia de tribunicia potestate, 414.

Frumentations, 372 f., 395, 398, 401; abolished by Sulla, 422; restored by Lepidus, 423, n. 8; further legislation on, 424, n. 5, 444 f.; curtailed by Caesar, 453; under lex municipalis, 456.

Fulvius, Cn., praetor (212), trial of, 249 f.

Fundus populus factus, 401, n. 8.

Furius, L., past consul, trial of, 268.

Furius, P., tribune (98), 257, n. 5, 323.

Furius Camillus, M., and equestrian fund, 94; dictator, 202; trial of, 244 f., 288, 290.

Furtum (theft), 339, n. 5; prosecution for, 321; under lex Hostilia, 337, n. 5; Plautia, 424; see Peculatus.

Gabinius, A., tribune (67), 429 f., 432 f.

Gabinius, Q., tribune (139), 359.

Gabinus ager, 108.

Gades, receives citizenship, 454.

Galeria iuniorum, 217.

Genera, identified with gentes, 12.

Gens, meaning family, lineage, 30 f., 102.

Gentes, 11-13; unconnected with curiate system, 13; social composition of, 28-31; defined by Scaevola, 28, n. 7; maiores et minores, 35 f.; origin of patrician, 37, n. 4; relatively late, 48, n. 2; common land of, 49; relation to rural tribes, 35, 50, 55, n. 1; in war, 78, n. 6.

Gentiles, Gentilitas, 28, n. 7, 29, 30.

Gifts, leges Publicia and Cincia on, 338 f.

Governors, provincial, of the Spains, 346 f.; under Porcian laws, 349; Sempronian, 374, 381 f.; Acilian, 376 f.; Julian, 442, 456.

Gracchi, see Sempronius.

Grain, see Frumentations.

Greenidge, on social classes, 38, n. 2.

Guilds, see Collegia.

Hackel, on lex Iulia municipalis, 457, n. 5.

Heredium, 49.

Herennius, tribune (60), 162, 438.

Hernicans, receive civitas sine suffragio, 305.

Herzog, on curiate law, 183, n. 5; Sulpicius, 405, n. 2.

Ἑταιρεία, 8, n. 6.

Holidays, non-comitial, 116.

Horatius, trial of for perduellio, 121.

Hornblowers, in centuriate system, 66.

Horsemen, see Equites.

Hortensius, Q., dictator (287), 313.

Hosticus ager, 108.

Hostilius Tubulus, L., trial of (141), 255, n. 1.

Huschke, on Servian tribes, 51; ratings, 86; reformed comitia centuriata, 219.

Ihne, on trial of Opimius, 256 f.; popular interference with censors, 351, n. 5; policy of Marius, 389; Sulpicius, 405, n. 2.

Imperium, true (iustum), 102 f., 187, n. 7; confirmed by curiate law, 188; granted by comitia, 188, n. 2; by senate, 191, 284; transition of without curiate law, 196 f.; promagisterial, 305; abrogated, 324, n. 1, 342, 360, 367, 390, 404, 409; limited by Porcian laws, 349; regulated by Sulla, 417.

Impetrativa, impetrita (auspicia), 100, 103-11; relation of to oblativa, 112.

Inaugurare sacerdotes, 106.

Inaugurations, in comitia calata, 155 f.

Incertus ager, 108.

Incest, prosecution for, 326.

Index legis, 462.

Ingenuus, 20 f., 36; son of libertinus becomes, 355.

Instauraticius dies, creation of by law, 308 f.

Intercession, see Veto.

Interdict, decreed by tribes, 249, 256, 257, n. 5, 267, 446.

Interregnum, 183.

Interrex, appointment of, 102; auspices, 103; presidency of contio, 140; right of public speech, 145, n. 4; nominates king, 183; lacks curiate sanction, 191; presides over curiae and centuries, 236, 412, 468, 469.

Italians, benefit by Sempronian agrarian law, 364; revolt of, 397, 401; receive citizenship, 401 f.; dissatisfied, 403; equalized with Romans, 409.

Iubere, in legislation, 179.

Iudices (jurors), originally from senate, 345, 358, 374; from knights under leges Sempronia and Acilia, 374 f.; qualifications of under lex Cornelia, 419; Aurelia, 427; Licinia and Pompeia, 448; Antonia, 458; punished for bribery, 442.

Ius agendi cum populo, 465.

Ius gentium, violation of, 246.

Ius pontificum, 181.

Ius sententiae dicendae, 391.

Iussus populi, 180, n. 7.

Iustitium, 401; defined, 404, n. 6.

Iustum auspicium, imperium, 102 f.

Janiculum, garrison and flag on, 203, n. 2, 258, 469; secession to, 313.

Judicial process, in contio, 142, 143; in comitia, 259 f.; choice as to assembly, 287; ballot in, 359.

Jugurtha, 390.

Julius Caesar, C., usage as to comitia and concilium, 125; creates patricians, 164, 456; uses centuriate and tribal assemblies, 236; threatened with prosecution, 324; supports Licinius Macer, 426; Manilian rogation, 434; consul (59), 438-44; affected by Pompeian laws, 449; dictator (49-44), 451-7; adds 10 days to year, 471.

Julius Caesar, C., consul (64), usage as to contio, 125 f.

Julius Caesar Octavianus, creates patricians, 164, 460; triumvir, 459 f.

Juniors, in centuriate system, 66, 68, 81 ff.; number of, 84, 205; after reform, 216.

Junius, L., consul (249), trial of, 248.

Junius Silanus, M., prosecution of (103), 323.

Juno, Curis, 8, n. 5, 9; Moneta, 2, n. 6.

Junonia, colonization of, 383, 385.

Jupiter, auspices of, 100, 103; victim to, 264, 274; feast of, 347; oath by, 380.

Jurisdiction, of king, 182; comitia centuriata, 239-61, 315; tributa, 264-9, 280, 286-92, 317-29.

Jurors, see Iudices.

Juventus Thalna, M., tribal lex de bello indicendo of, 231.

Kalumniator, 400.

Kaput legis, 463, n. 6.

Κήρυκες, 153, n. 3.

King, auspices of, 103; presidency of contio, 140; of comitia calata, 154; curiata, 173 ff.; right to address people, 145, 173; as legislator, 177 f.; irresponsible, 180; powers of, 181; jurisdiction, 182; election, 182-4, 189 f.; declares war, 175 f., 181, 230.

Klebs, on reformed comitia centuriata, 223, 225.

Knights, see Equites.

Kornemann, on lex Scantinia, 357, n. 13.

Laelius Felix, defines comitia and concilium, 119; not in accord with Livy, 119-25; view of rejected, 131; error explained, 137.

Laelius Sapiens, C., prosecution of, 322; agrarian rogation of, 360 f.

Laetorius Mergus, L. or M., trial of, 247.

Land, see Ager.

Lange, on obnuntiatio, 117; early legislation, 181, n. 9; transitio imperii, 183, n. 5, 197, n. 4; comitia centuriata, 201, n. 4; reform of, 224 f.; validity of plebiscite, 278, n. 2; right of dedication, 309; lex Appuleia de maiestate, 394, n. 5; lex Antia, 428; principium, 466, n. 3.

Lanuvium, curiae in, 8, n. 5.

Latins, rights of, 63; benefit by Sempronian agrarian law, 364; proposal to grant citizenship to, 383; receive citizenship, 401 f.; limited suffrage, 466, n. 2.

Lator legis, 462, n. 2.

Laurentum, 2, n. 6, 3, n. 1.

Lauretum, 2, n. 6.

Lavinium, Tities in, 4, n. 3.

Law, divine, 177; human, 178; sovereignty of, 308; see Legislation, Lex.

Legion, instituted, 68, 84; early republican, 75 ff.

Leges, composition and preservation of, 462-5; imperfectae, etc., 463; centuriate, consular, etc., n. 8; provisions to secure validity of, 464; annulment by senate, 107.

Legislation, regal, 177-82, 230; centuriate, 230-9; tribal, pre-decemviral, 269-74; pre-Hortensian, 292-316; from Hortensius to Gracchi, 330-362; from Gracchi to Sulla, 303-411; late republican, 412-61; freed from obnuntiatio, 117, 445; process of, 178 f., 465-70; provided for by Twelve Tables, 233 f., 307, 368, 464, 474; senatorial, 273; transferred to tribes, 316; to centuries, 406-8; ballot in, 369; fields of: administrative, 238, 306 f.; agrarian, 238, 265, n. 4, 272, 334, 363-7, 373 f., 385-7, 392, 395, 400, 403, 435 f., 438-41, 458; colonial, 311, 350, 382 f., 393 ff., 457 f.; financial, 310 f., 335-7, 351 f., 392, 403, 422, 438; frumentarian, 372 f., 395, 401, 423, n. 8, 444; judiciary, 358, 374-6, 402 f., 419, 424, 427 f., 442, 448, 455 f., 458 f.; religious, 238, 295, n. 6, 308 f., 340, 358 f., 391 f., 435; sumptuary, 337 f., 356, 388, n. 9, 423, 428, 448, 455 f.

Legum dictio, 110, 179, n. 7.

Lengle, on lex Cornelia Pompeia (88), 407, n. 2.

Lentus, L., consul (156), trial of, 255, n. 1.

Lex, meaning of word, 179; data and rogata, 180.

Lex alearia, (before 204), 337.

⸺ auspical, 110.

⸺ centuriata de potestate, 185.

⸺ Coloniae Genetivae, 453, n. 4.

⸺ curiata de imperio, 31, 32, 112, 180, n. 7; formula of, 183, 188; sanctioning, 184; Messala on, 185 f.; dispensations from, 186, 190, 195, 199; subject to veto, 187; confirms imperium, 188; functions performed without, 191; lack of in 49 B.C., 192, 194 f.; one annually, 195; becomes formality, 196 f.; revived by optimates, 198; strengthened by Sulla, 199; de potestate, 190.

⸺ lenonia, 338, n. 5.

Leges regiae, 181.

Lex sacrata, so-called Icilian, 233, 272 f.; on tribunes, 264; meaning of, 264 f.; mitigation of, 266; renewed by Valerius and Horatius, 274; list of leges s., 265, n. 1; on centuriate trials, 268, n. 6.

⸺ satura, 396, 399.

⸺ de bello indicendo, 231.

⸺ de imperio, for triumphs, 334 f.; Vespasiani, 464, n. 5; see Lex curiata.

⸺ on driving nail, 238.

⸺ found at Ateste, 454, n. 3.

⸺ granting citizenship to priestesses of Ceres, 353.

⸺ creating dictatorship (501), 233.

⸺ instituting tribuni militum consulari potestate (445), 234, 294.

⸺ creating censors (443?), 234.

⸺ appointing prefect of market (440), 295, 305, n. 5.

⸺ on presenting crown to Jupiter (437), 295, n. 6.

⸺ on garments of candidates (432), 295.

⸺ increasing quaestors (421), 234.

⸺ creating special murder court (414), 253, 295.

⸺ as to residence on Capitoline hill (384), 295.

⸺ creating praetorship (367), 234.

⸺ creating curule aedileship (367), 234.

⸺ for election of 6 military tribunes (362), 234.

⸺ prohibiting comitia away from city (357), 297.

⸺ preparing for war (356), 297, n. 5.

⸺ granting triumph (356), 297, n. 5.

⸺ on interest and debts (347), 298.

⸺ granting citizenship to Privernates (329), 304 f.

⸺ creating promagistracy (t. 327), 305.

⸺ sending prefects to Capua (318), 306.

⸺ on dedication of temples, etc. (304), 309.

⸺ dispensing Q. Fabius from law (t. 298), 308.

⸺ creating triumviri coloniis deducendis (296), 311.

⸺ prolonging imperium (t. 295), 305.

⸺ granting Etruria to Fabius (295), 305 f.

⸺ on imperium of consul Q. Fabius (292), 289, 306.

⸺ creating special court (270), 254.

⸺ doubling number of quaestors (267), 332.

⸺ forbidding reëlection to censorship (265), 332.

⸺ instituting second praetor (242), 332.

⸺ granting privilege of riding (241), 332.

⸺ instituting 2 praetors (227), 341 f.

⸺ granting triumph (t. 223), 334.

⸺ on intermarriage of kin (241-219), 339 f.

⸺ on Sacred Spring (t. 217), 340.

⸺ dispensing consulars from law (t. 217), 343.

⸺ granting citizenship to Campanian knights (215), 340.

⸺ for election of pontifex maximus (before 212), 341; for election of chief curio (before 209), 341.

⸺ creating 3 administrative boards (t. 212), 337.

⸺ on Campanian vectigalia (210), 337.

⸺ granting citizenship (t. 210), 353, n. 7.

⸺ for election of 24 military tribunes (207), 342.

⸺ dispensing C. Servilius from law (t. 203), 343, n. 2.

⸺ permitting oath by proxy (t. 200), 343, n. 2.

⸺ on qualification of plebeian tribunes and aediles (Flaminian era), 342 f.

⸺ increasing praetors to 6 (198), 346.

⸺ on triumphs (after 180), 350.

⸺ forbidding reëlection of consul (151), 348; dispensation from, 360; repealed by Sulla, 415.

Leges, dispensing Scipio Aemilianus from laws (t. 148, 135), 360.

Lex, assigning seats to equites at theatre (t. 146?), 357.

⸺ abrogating proconsular imperium (136), 360.

⸺ granting Asia as province (t. 131), 381, n. 5.

⸺ on qualifications of senators (t. about 129), 369 f.

⸺ permitting reëlection of tribune (t. before 123), 369, 371.

⸺ agraria, amending Sempronian law (t. not after 118), 385.

⸺ founding Narbo Martius, 386, n. 1.

Leges, repealing Sempronian law on military service (about 115), 388 f.

Lex, on dedication of Capitoline temple (78), 341, n. 1.

⸺ on vectigalia (75), 424.

⸺ appointing decemviri for regulating Asia (t. 67), 433.

⸺ dispensing Caesar from law (t. 52), 449.

⸺ granting citizenship to Gades (49), 454.

Leges, recalling certain exiles (p. and t. 49), 454.

Lex, granting Caesar triumph over Juba (48), 335, n. 2.

Leges, conferring powers on Caesar (48-45), 451 f.

Lex, for founding Colonia Genetiva (t. 44), 453, n. 4.

Lex (?), for building temple to Isis (43), 459.

Lex, honoring triumviri (43), 459.

⸺ on birthday of Caesar (42), 457, n. 7.

⸺ granting lictors to Vestals (42), 459, n. 5.

Leges, honoring Octavia, Octavianus, and Livia (t. 35), 459 f.

Leges whose authors are given:

Lex Acilia de intercalatione (c. 191), 358.

⸺ Acilia repetundarum (t. 122), 375-8.

⸺ Acilia Calpurnia de ambitu (c. 67), 431; amended by Cicero, 436.

⸺ Acilia Minucia, on peace with Carthage (t. 201), 344, n. 7.

⸺ Acilia Rubria, on worship of Jupiter (t. 122), 384, n. 4.

⸺ Aebutia, on legis actio, 339, n. 5.

Leges Aebutia et Licinia, on qualifications of candidates (t. after 194), 347 f.

Lex Aelia, colonial (t. 194), 350.

Leges Aelia et Fufia (t. about 150), 116 f., 358 f.; amended by lex Clodia, 116 f., 445; and curiate law, 198; relation to tribunician comitia, 280.

Lex Aemilia, on censorship (d. 443), 237.

⸺ Aemilia de libertinorum suffragiis (c. 115), 388; Sumptuaria, n. 9.

⸺ Aemilia frumentaria (c. 78), 423, n. 1, 444, n. 6.

⸺ Aemilia, for naming Caesar dictator (p. 49), 450.

⸺ Antia sumptuaria (t. 70?), 428.

⸺ Antistia, on punishment of Satricans (t. 319), 310; serves as precedent, 340.

⸺ Antonia de Termessibus (t. 71), 425.

⸺ Antonia, on children of proscribed (t. 49), 453 f.; colonial (c. 44), 237, 453, n. 4, 457 f.; iudiciaria, 458; establishing appeal from quaestiones, 458 f.; abolishing dictatorship, 237, 459; a l. sacrata, 265, n. 1; leges honoring Caesar, 452 n. 4; lex confirming acts of Caesar, 457.

⸺ Antonia, on elections (t. 45), 454 f.; agraria (t. 44), 458.

⸺ Antonia Tullia de ambitu (c. 63), 436 f.

⸺ Appuleia agraria (t. 100), 395; colonial (t. 103, 100), 393 ff.; frumentaria (t. 100), 395, 444, n. 6; de maiestate, 394, 400; de sponsu (103, 100?), 298, n. 1, 394, n. 5; interdicting Metellus (t. 100), 257, n. 5, 395 f.

⸺ Aquilia de damno (t. 287?), 332 f.

⸺ Aternia Tarpeia de multae dictione (c. 454), 233, 269.

⸺ Atia, on election of sacerdotes (t. 63), 416, n. 6, 435.

⸺ Atia Ampia, honoring Pompey (t. 63), 435, n. 2.

⸺ Atilia, appointing special court (t. 210), 254, 340.

⸺ Atilia, on appointing tutors (242-186), 340.

⸺ Atilia Furia, for surrendering Mancinus (c. 136), 350.

⸺ Atilia Marcia, for electing 16 military tribunes (t. 311), 306.

⸺ Atinia, on stolen property (214?), 339, n. 5.

⸺ Atinia, for founding colonies (t. 197), 350.

⸺ Atinia, on right of tribunes to senatorship (t. 122-102), 391.

⸺ Atinia Marcia, on treaty with Macedon (t. 196), 349.

⸺ Aufidia, on importing wild beasts (t. 170), 356.

⸺ Aurelia, amending Cornelian law on tribunate (c. 75), 423 f.; de iudiciis privatis, 424.

⸺ Aurelia iudiciaria (p. 70), 427, 448.

⸺ Baebia, colonial (t. 194), 350.

⸺ Baebia, on praetors (c. 181), 346.

⸺ Bantina, Latin, 370, n. 3, 379 f.

⸺ Boria (?) agraria (t. 118), 385.

⸺ Caecilia, appointing special court (154), 255.

⸺ Caecilia, abolishing vectigalia (p. 60), 438; repealed by Caesar, 457, n. 6.

⸺ Caecilia, repealing lex Clodia on censorial stigma (c. 52), 450, n. 2.

⸺ Caecilia Cornelia, recalling Cicero (c. 57), 114, n. 7, 143, 446; on cura annonae, 446.

⸺ Caecilia Didia, on rogations (c. 98), 396 f.; amended, 438, n. 2.

⸺ Caelia tabellaria (t. 107), 253, 390.

⸺ Calidia, recalling Metellus (t. 98), 396, n. 1.

⸺ Calpurnia, for recovery of property, 339, n. 5.

⸺ Calpurnia repetundarum (t. 149), 358.

⸺ Calpurnia, recalling Popillius (t. 120), 388.

⸺ Calpurnia, granting citizenship (t. 89), 57, n. 5, 58, 402.

⸺ Calpurnia Acilia de ambitu (c. 67), 431.

⸺ Canuleia, on conubium (t. 445), 294.

⸺ Carvilia, legalizing voluntary exile (t. 212), 249.

⸺ Cassia tabellaria (t. 137), 253, 359.

⸺ Cassia, on qualifications of senators (t. 104), 390 f.

⸺ Cassia, for creating patricians (t. 45), 164, 456.

⸺ Cassia Terentia frumentaria (c. 73), 424, n. 5, 444, n. 6.

⸺ Cincia, on gifts (t. 204), 339.

⸺ Claudia, on senatorial qualifications and contracts (t. 219), 335, 370.

⸺ Claudia, for expulsion of Latins (c. 177), 354.

⸺ Clodia, monetary (104?), 392.

⸺ Clodia, frumentaria (t. 58), 444 f.; de collegiis, 445; amended, 447 f., 457, n. 6; on secretaries of quaestors, 445; on censorial stigma, 445; repealed, 450, n. 2; amending Aelian and Fufian laws, 116 f., 445; de provocatione, 445 f.; interdicting Cicero, 115, n. 1, 127, 446; leges on minor subjects, 446, n. 1.

⸺ Cornelia, on gambling, 337, n. 6.

⸺ Cornelia (?), outlawing Marius and others (88), 405.

⸺ Cornelia, repealing Cornelian-Pompeian laws (Cinna, c. 87), 409.

⸺ Cornelia (?), recalling exiles (c. or t. 87), 409.

⸺ Cornelia, de tribunicia potestate (d. 82), 236 f., 413 f., 418; repealed, 423 f., 426 f.; violated by Opimius, 425 f.; de maiestate (81), 415-7; on praetors, 416; on quaestors, 415 f.; de sacerdotibus, 416 f.; de provinciis ordinandis, 417 f.; iudiciaria, 419; de adulteriis et pudicitia, alleged, 420, n. 6, 423, n. 6; de proscriptione, 421; de civitate Volaterranis adimenda, 236, 422; on debts, 422; de sponsu (?), 422, n. 13; instituting ludi Victoriae, 422 f.; sumptuaria, 423; leges, criminal, 419-21; on quaestio inter sicarios, 378; amended, 448; agrariae (82, 81), 421 f.; lex on return of Pompey (80), 335, n. 2.

⸺ Cornelia, on collecting certain moneys (Lentulus, c. 72), 424.

⸺ Cornelia, on edicts of praetors (t. 67), 431 f.; on dispensations, 430 f.

⸺ Cornelia Baebia de ambitu (c. 181), 348.

⸺ Cornelia Caecilia, recalling Cicero (c. 57), 446; de cura annonae, 446.

⸺ Cornelia Fulvia de ambitu (c. 159), 348.

⸺ Cornelia Gellia, on granting citizenship (c. 72), 424, n. 6.

⸺ Cornelia Pompeia, on assemblies (c. 88), 277, n. 4, 406-8; on rogations, 406, 407; colonial, 408; unciaria, 408.

⸺ Crepereia, on legis actio, 339, n. 5.

⸺ Decia, on duumviri navales (t. 311), 306.

⸺ Didia cibaria (p. or t. 143), 356.

⸺ Domitia, on election of sacerdotes (t. 103), 391 f.; repealed by Sulla, 416; renewed, 435.

⸺ Duillia, on appeal (t. 449), 241, 292.

⸺ Duillia Menenia, on interest (t. 357), 297.

⸺ Duronia, sumptuaria (t. before 97), 388, n. 9, 423.

⸺ Fabia de plagiariis (c. 209 or 183?), 357.

⸺ Fabia de numero sectatorum (t. 66), 431, n. 6.

⸺ Falcidia testamentaria (t. 40), 459.

⸺ Fannia cibaria (c. 161), 356.

⸺ Flaminia, agraria (t. 232), 334; monetary (c. 217), 336.

⸺ Flavia, on punishing Tusculans (t. 323), 310.

⸺ Fufia de religione (t. 61), 438, n. 3.

⸺ Fufia, on voting in quaestiones (p. 59), 443.

Leges Fufia et Aelia (t. about 150), 116 f., 198, 280, 358, 445.

⸺ Furia de sponsu, 298, n. 1.

Lex Furia testamentaria (203-170?), 352, n. 5, 463, n. 8.

⸺ Furia (?), instituting prefects for Capua (318), 306, n. 6.

⸺ Furia, on conspiracy (t. 99), 396, n. 2.

⸺ Furia Atilia, surrendering Mancinus (c. 136), 350.

⸺ Furia Quinctia, arbitrating between Ardea and Aricia (c. 446), 294 f.

⸺ Gabinia tabellaria (t. 139), 359.

⸺ Gabina, on secret meetings (t. 186 or 139?), 357.

⸺ Gabinia, on loans to provincials (t. 67), 429; on sessions of senate, 429; granting imperium to Pompey, 432 f.

⸺ Genucia (t. 342), 298 f.; article of on consulship, 238; on reëlections, often violated, 307 f.; dispensations from, 307 f., 343; renewed by Sulla, 415.

⸺ Glitia testamentaria, 459, n. 7.

⸺ Graccana, 383, n. 1.

⸺ Helvia, abrogating tribunicia potestas (t. 44), 455; on wives of Caesar, 452.

⸺ Hirtia, on partisans of Pompey (t. 48?), 451, n. 2.

⸺ Horatia, honoring Gaia Taracia, 146, n. 7.

⸺ Hortensia (d. 287), 234, 312-6; epoch-making in social history, 16; effect on comitia centuriata, 137; for relief of debtors, 235; on plebi scita, 236, 269, 330, 475; on tribunician jurisdiction, 247 f., 270; on veto, 270.

⸺ Hostilia, on prosecutions for theft, 377, n. 5.

⸺ Icilia agraria, so called (456), 238; sacrata, 265, n. 1, 272 f.

⸺ Icilia, granting amnesty to seceders (t. 449), 292; granting triumph, 293.

⸺ Iulia, granting citizenship (c. 90), 57, n. 7, 10, 401 f.

⸺ Iulia, on dedication of Capitoline temple (p. 62), 341, n. 1; agraria (c. 59), 145, n. 3, 148, 438-41; relieving publicans, 441; repetundarum, 441 f.; dispensation from, 447; attempt to amend, 448; confirming acts of Pompey, 443; on Ptolemy, 443; curiata, arrogating Clodius (pont. max.), 443; on debts (d. 49), 452; de bonorum cessione (?), 452, n. 7; on rents (47), 452 f.; creating 2 praetors, 454; iudiciaria (46), 455; de maiestate, 455; de vi, 455; sumptuaria, 455 f.; de provinciis, 456; municipalis, 456 f.; colonial (45), 453; de Siculis, alleged (44), 454, n. 4.

⸺ Iulia, on rents (Octavianus, 41), 459; on conubium of libertini (18), 354, n. 8.

⸺ Iulia Papiria de multarum aestimatione (c. 430), 234, 287.

⸺ Iunia repetundarum (t. 126), 370, 376, 379; for expelling aliens, 370.

⸺ Iunia, on military pay (c. 109), 392.

⸺ Iunia, colonial (t. 83), 410.

⸺ Iunia Licinia, on filing statutes (c. 62), 437 f.

⸺ Licinia, on games (p. 208), 341, n. 2.

⸺ Licinia, instituting epulones (t. 196), 347.

⸺ Licinia sumptuaria (p. or t. before 97), 388, n. 9, 423.

⸺ Licinia de sodaliciis (c. 55), 447 f.

Leges Licinia et Aebutia, on qualifications of candidates (t. after 194), 347 f.

Lex Licinia Cassia, on appointment of tribuni militum (c. 171), 342, n. 2.

⸺ Licinia Iunia, on filing statutes (c. 62), 437 f.

⸺ Licinia Mucia, on aliens (c. 95), 397.

⸺ Licinia Pompeia de tribunicia potestate (c. 70), 426 f.; prolonging Caesar’s command (55), 447.

Leges Licinia Sextia (t. 368, 367), 120, 295 f.; article of on consulship, 237 f.; relieving debtors, 238; on pasturage, 291; violations of, 291, 311, 325, 363; limiting occupation of land, 291, 310; amended, 334, n. 1, 363, n. 4.

Lex Licinnia de actione communi dividundo, 339, n. 5.

⸺ Livia, on organization of Africa (t. 146), 349.

⸺ Livia, colonial (t. 122), 383 f., 397; on Latins, 252, 383.

⸺ Livia agraria, frumentaria, etc. (t. 91), 397-400.

⸺ Lucretia, on Campanian vectigalia (t. 172), 351, n. 5.

⸺ Maenia, on ludi Romani (c. 338), 308 f.

⸺ Maenia, on patrum auctoritas (t. 287?), 230, 331.

⸺ Maenia, on dowries (188?), 352.

⸺ Maenia Sextia de multae dictione (c. 452), 233.

⸺ Maevia, on Asiatic affairs (about 189), 349. n. 5.

⸺ Mamilia, on arbitri (c. 239?), 332, n. 9.

⸺ Mamilia, appointing special court (t. 109), 390.

⸺ Mamilia, Roscia, etc. (t. 55?), 441, n. 1.

⸺ Manilia, on libertini (t. 67), 433; granting imperium to Pompey (66), 433 f.

⸺ Manlia, on manumission of slaves (c. 357), 202, 297.

⸺ Manlia, granting Numidia as province (t. 107), 381, n. 5.

⸺ Marcia, on usurers (c. 352?), 298, n. 1.

⸺ Marcia, appointing special court (t. 172), 255, n. 1.

⸺ Marcia Atinia, on treaty with Macedon (t. 196), 349.

⸺ Marcia Porcia, on triumphs (t. 62), 438.

⸺ Maria, on pontes (t. 119), 389.

⸺ Memmia de incestu (t. 111), 377, n. 5, 390, n. 4.

⸺ Metilia, on master of horse (t. 217), 342; on fulling cloth, 338.

⸺ Minicia, on children of mixed parentage, 354, n. 2.

⸺ Minucia, instituting triumviri mensarii (t. 216), 336 f.

⸺ Minucia, repealing Rubrian colonial law (t. 121), 385.

⸺ Mucia, appointing special court (t. 141), 255, n. 1.

⸺ Munatia, pardoning certain persons (c. 42), 459. n. 5.

⸺ Norbana, appointing special court (t. 104), 390.

⸺ Octavia frumentaria (about 90), 401.

⸺ Ogulnia, on sacerdotes (t. 300), 102, 166, n. 7, 307, 309.

⸺ Oppia, on luxury of women (t. 215), 338; repealed, 356.

⸺ Orchia cibaria (t. 181), 356.

⸺ Ovinia, on senators (t. 339-312), 164, 307, 335.

⸺ Papia de Vestalium lectione (t. 65?), 156, n. 7, 434; expelling aliens, 434.

⸺ Papiria, on viatores of aediles, 290, n. 4.

⸺ Papiria, granting citizenship (p. 332), 304.

⸺ Papiria, on dedications (t. after 304), 309.

⸺ Papiria, on triumviri capitales (t. after 242), 332.

⸺ Papiria tabellaria (t. 131), 369, 371.

⸺ Papiria, monetary (t. 89), 91, 403.

⸺ Pedia, appointing special court (c. 43), 457, n. 7.

⸺ Peducaea, appointing special court (t. 113), 390.

⸺ Pesolania, on injury done by dogs, 332, n. 9.

⸺ Petillia, appointing special court (t. 185), 255, n. 1, 319, n. 7.

⸺ Pinaria, on appointment of judge, 339, n. 5.

⸺ Pinaria annalis (p. 182?), 347, n. 3.

⸺ Pinaria Furia de intercalatione (c. 472), 238.

⸺ Plaetoria, on urban praetor (after 227), 342, n. 1.

⸺ Plaetoria, on cura of young men (before 192), 340.

⸺ Plaetoria, appointing duumviri aedi dedicandae (151?), 347, n. 2.

⸺ Plautia iudiciaria (t. 89), 401, n. 3, 402 f., 427; probably repealed, 409, n. 1; agraria, 403.

⸺ Plautia de vi (t. 78-77), 424.

⸺ Plautia, recalling exiles (t. 73?), 424.

⸺ Plautia Papiria, granting citizenship (t. 89), 57, n. 10, 353, n. 9, 402.

⸺ Poetelia de ambitu (t. 358), 296 f.

⸺ Poetelia, on slavery for debt (c. or d. 326 or 313), 310.

⸺ Pompeia, granting citizenship (c. 89), 402.

⸺ Pompeia iudiciaria (c. 55), 448; de parricidio, 448; de ambitu (52), 448, 454; de provinciis, 449; de iure magistratuum, 449; excepting certain persons from law, 449.

⸺ Pompeia Licinia de tribunicia potestate (c. 70), 426 f.; prolonging Caesar’s command (55), 447, 449.

⸺ Poplicia, granting burial place, 342, n. 8.

Leges Porciae de provocatione (198-184?), 250-3, 256, 349.

Lex Porcia de sumptu provinciali (c. 195), 349; on provincial governors (177?), 349.

⸺ Porcia, on interest (c. 118?), 392.

⸺ Porcia Marcia, on triumphs (t. 62), 438.

⸺ Publicia, on gambling, 337, n. 6.

⸺ Publicia, on gifts at saturnalia (t. 209), 338; rogatio for abrogating proconsular imperium, 342.

⸺ Publilia de sponsu, 298, n. 1.

⸺ Publilia, so-called (471), 196, 233, 270-2; does not exclude patricians, 262, n. 2, 271; confused with L. Publilia Philonis, 300.

⸺ Publilia (d. 339), 299-302; article of on patrum auctoritas, 235; on plebiscita, 236; on consuls, 237; excludes patricians, 262, n. 2, 276 f.; relation to Valerian-Horatian laws, 300.

⸺ Pupia, on sessions of senate (p. 71), 424 f.; amended, 429.

⸺ Quinctia de aquaeductibus (c. 9), 462.

⸺ Quinctia Furia, arbitrating between Ardea and Aricia (c. 446), 294 f.

⸺ Remmia de calumniatoribus (91?), 400.

⸺ Roscia theatralis (t. 67), 357, n. 2, 428 f.

⸺ Roscia, granting citizenship to Transpadani (p. 49), 454.

⸺ Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina, so-called, 454, n. 3.

⸺ Rubria, for founding Junonia (t. 123), 383.

⸺ Rufrena, honoring Caesar (42), 457, n. 7.

⸺ Rutilia, on military tribunes (169), 349, n. 1.

⸺ Saenia, for creating patricians (c. 30), 164, n. 6, 460.

⸺ Saufeia agraria (t. 91), 400.

⸺ Scribonia de usucapione servitutum (c. 76 or t. 50), 424, n. 4, 450, n. 2.

⸺ Scantinia, on violation of ingenui, 357.

⸺ Sempronia, for dedication of temple (c. 215), 341, n. 1.

⸺ Sempronia, on loans (t. 193), 351 f.

⸺ Sempronia de imperio (t. 167), 335, n. 2, 349, n. 1.

⸺ Sempronia agraria (t. 133), 363-7, 371; abrogating potestas of colleague, 366, 367 f., 391.

⸺ Sempronia de provocatione (t. 123), 355 f., 371; frumentaria, 372 f., 444; agraria, 372, 373 f.; on taxation of Asia, 380 f.; on consular provinces, 381; repealed, 449; on military service, 382, 389; colonial, 382 f.; viaria (?), 373; iudiciaria (122), 374-6; on murder and poisoning, 378.

⸺ Servilia repetundarum (t. 111?), 393.

⸺ Servilia, on qualifications of iudices (c. 106), 388.

⸺ Sestia or Sextia, instituting Decemvirate (c. 452), 233, 273.

⸺ Silia, on legis actio per condictionem, 339. n. 5.

⸺ Silia, on weights and measures (t. Flaminian era), 337 f.

⸺ Sulpicia, on various subjects (t. 88), 404 f.; article of on new citizens, 58; on transferring command to Marius, 381, n. 5.

⸺ Terentia, on sons of libertini (t. 189), 355.

⸺ Terentilia, 120.

⸺ Thoria agraria (t. 111), 386 f.

⸺ Titia, on gambling, 337, n. 6.

⸺ Titia, on questorian provinces (267?), 332. n. 3.

⸺ Titia agraria (t. 99), 396; criminal (99?), 396, n. 5.

⸺ Titia, abrogating potestas of colleague (t. 43), 455, n. 3.

⸺ Trebonia, on tribunician elections (t. 448 or 401), 285 f., 294.

⸺ Trebonia, granting provinces (t. 55), 447.

⸺ Tullia, on free legations (c. 63), 437.

⸺ Tullia Antonia de ambitu (c. 63), 436 f.; article of renewed, 449.

⸺ Valeria de provocatione (c. 509), 232 f., 240, 473 f.; a l. sacrata, 265, n. 1; granting building lot to proposer, 238, n. 3.

⸺ Valeria (d. 342), 234 f.; abolishing debts, 238, 298; a l. sacrata, 265, n. 1.

⸺ Valeria de provocatione (300), 233, 234, 242, 250; relation of to Porcian laws, 252 f.

⸺ Valeria, repealing Oppian law (t. 195), 356.

⸺ Valeria, granting suffragium (t. 188), 352.

⸺ Valeria, granting citizenship to priestesses of Ceres (p. 98), 353, n. 5.

⸺ Valeria, on debts (c. 86), 409 f.; repealed, 422.

⸺ Valeria, appointing Sulla dictator (interrex, 82), 236, 412, 421.

⸺ Valeria Horatia (c. 449), 234, 274-80, 474; de provocatione, 233, 241; a l. sacrata, 265, n. 1; violated by rogatio Servilia, 259; on oath of plebs, 264, n. 7; bearing on tribunician jurisdiction, 270, 280; on sanctity of plebeian officials, 274; on plebiscita, 274-8.

⸺ Valeria Marcia, instituting bank (c. 352), 297 f.

⸺ Varia de maiestate (t. 90), 400 f.

⸺ Vatinia iudiciaria (t. 59), 442; colonial, 440, n. 8; granting provinces to Caesar, 443 f.; leges on foreign affairs, 443, n. 6.

Leges Vibiae, confirming acts of Caesar (c. 43), 237, 457, n. 7, 458, n. 2; abolishing dictatorship, 459, n. 2.

Lex Villia annalis (t. 180), 347; renewed by Sulla, 415.

⸺ Visellia de curatoribus Viarum (before 71), 424, n. 6.

⸺ Voconia, on inheritance (t. 169), 72, n. 2, 85, 90, 352.

Levy, obstruction of, 272, 273, 279.

Liber and Libera, forfeiture of estates to, 274.

Libertini, class of clients, 22; enrolment in tribes, 58, 354; deterioration of status, 354 f.; lex Terentia on, 355; l. Sulpicia on, 404.

Licinius Crassus, M., consul (70), 426 f.; triumvir, 441; second consulship (50), 447 f.

Licinius Macer, tribune (73), 426.

Licinius Stolo, C., trial of (357), 291.

Lictors, curial, 10, 154, 468; curiate sanction, 189, n. 2; cast votes of curiae, 196, 198, 199; magisterial, 150; granted to Vestals, 459, n. 5.

Liticines, in comitia centuriata, 206, 226.

Lituus, 468.

Livius Drusus, M., tribune (122), 252, 383.

Livius Drusus, M., tribune (91), 397-400.

Livius Salinator, M., trial of (218), 317 f.

Livy, on early Roman history, 25, n. 3, 26; centuriate system, 66 f.; comitia and concilium, 119-25; patricians in tribal assembly, 275; agrees with Fabius Pictor, 293, n. 3.

Locupletes, 61.

Lucerenses, 74.

Luceres, 3, 74; in Ardea, 4, n. 3.

Lucerus, in Ardea, 4, n. 3.

Lucilius (Licinius?), hurled from Tarpeian Rock, 257, n. 5.

Lucretius, C., praetor (171), prosecution of, 321.

Ludi, Romani, 308; Victoriae, 422 f.

Lusitanians, rogation on, 349 f.

Lustrum, 204.

Lutatius Catulus, Q., prosecution of (87), 257, n. 5.

Lycurgus, 177.

Magic, prosecution for, 325.

Magistracy, bestowed by curiate law, 185 f.

Magistrates, patrician, 103, 263; higher and lower, 103, 141 f.; occupy templa, 109; take auspices, 110; have obnuntiatio, 111 f.; spectio, 113; preside over contio, 140 f.; comitia, 465, 468, 469; bound by laws, 180 f.; iusti, optimo iure, 186-8; and lex curiata, 189 ff.; higher, 229; act as accusers, 259; controlled by dictator, 273, 284; right to divide business, 306; to enrolment in senate, 307; exempt from prosecution, 318; under law of extortion, 377; regulated by Sulla, 413-8; by Pompey, 449; swear to uphold laws, 464; municipal, 457.

Maiestas, 257, n. 5; Cornelian court of, 258; Claudia tried for, 326, 394; under lex Varia, 400 f.; Cornelia, 419; Iulia, 455.

Majority rule, primitively unknown, 170, n. 7.

Mancinus, law for surrendering, 350.

Mancipatio, 48.

Manilia, trial of for violence (183), 326.

Manilius, C., tribune (67-66), 433 f.

Manlius, A., consul (178), threatened with prosecution, 231.

Manlius, past consul, trial of, 268.

Manlius, Cn., consul (357), holds comitia at Sutrium, 297.

Manlius, L., past dictator, trial of (362), 288.

Manlius Capitolinus, M., trial of, 123 f., 243.

Manlius Volso, Cn., 231.

Mantua, three tribes in, 4, n. 3.

Marcius, L., propraetor in Spain, 192.

Marcius Coriolanus, C., trial of (491), 267.

Mariana colonia, 394, n. 1, 396.

Marius, C., change in recruiting, 86, 394; tribune (119), 389; combines with Saturninus, 393-5; given command against Mithridates, 404.

Market days, see Nundinae.

Master of horse, presides over contio, 140.

Matienus, C., trial of for desertion, 252.

Matrons, fined for stuprum, 291 f., 326; trial of for poisoning, 253 f., 309.

Meadow, Flaminian, 465.

Mechanics, see Fabri.

Messala, on curiate law, 185 f.

Metellus, see Caecilius Metellus.

Meyer, E., on four city tribes, 54-6; origin of tribunate, 55, n. 1, 262, n. 1, 272, n. 2; Licinian-Sextian laws, 296, n. 4; chronology of Sempronian laws, 371, n. 2; Cornelian-Pompeian law on assemblies, 406.

Milo, tribune (57), 115 f.

Minervia, founding of, 384, n. 1.

Minos, 177.

Minucius, L., trial of, 246.

Minucius Augurinus, C., tribune (184), 320.

Mithridates, 403, 404, 433, 434.

Mommsen, Th., on patrician state, 33-6; gens, 35; gentile ownership of land, 48; urban tribes, 51 f., 54 f.; classis, 72, n. 1; concilium populi, 121-4; grant of patriciate, 166, n. 3; of citizenship, 181, n. 5; early legislation, n. 9; transitio imperii, 197, n. 4; exercise of comitia centuriata, 203, n. 4; proletarian century, 207, n. 12; reformed comitia centuriata, 221-4; validity of plebiscite, 277, n. 2; Licinian and Aebutian laws, 347, n. 8; qualification of iudices, 375, n. 4; Thorian law, 385, n. 5; lex Appuleia de maiestate, 394, n. 5; lex Plautia iudiciaria, 403; Sulpicius, 405, n. 2; principium, 466, n. 3.

Morals, laws on, 337 f.

Mucius Scaevola, P., tribune (141), 255, n. 1.

Mucius Scaevola, Q., formula of oath in arrogations, 160.

Mühl, on lex Appuleia de maiestate, 394, n. 5.

Municipia, lex Iulia on, 456 f.

Murder, trial of, 244, 246, n. 6; under questorian jurisdiction, 248; court for, 253, 255, n. 1, 257, n. 5, 295, 309, 358; under lex Sempronia, 378; Cornelia, 419 f.; of tribune alleged, 268.

Musicians, in centuriate system, 66, 68, 81, 206, 208, 226.

Naevius, M., tribune (185), 320.

Narbo Martius, founding of, 386, n. 1.

Nefas, Nefasti dies, 159, 470.

Neptunia, founding of, 382.

Niebuhr, on early Roman history, 25 ff.; patrician state, 27-32; gens and curia, 11-13, 31 f.; social composition of gens, 27; Attic tribal system, 28, 31 f.; Servian tribes, 51, 61, n. 3; reformed comitia centuriata, 217-9; unsoundness of his method, 45.

Niese, on origin of tribunate, 262, n. 1; Licinian-Sextian law, 296, n. 4.

Nigidius Figulus, P., on auspices, 101, n. 3.

Nobility, origin of, 39; develops into class, 40; among various peoples, 40-2; at Rome, 43; supported by tribunate, 312; plebeian, allies of patrician, 330.

Nobles, concilium of Etruscan, 124; of Gallic, 125; comitia of, 129; represented in council, 275; right to vote, 276; see Patricians.

Nola, loses citizenship, 422.

Νόμοι ἐπ’ ἀνδρί, 153.

Norbanus, C., trial of (95), 394, n. 4.

Novae Curiae, 9.

Numa, 177.

Numantines, 350.

Nundinae, comitia not held on, 139; made fasti by Hortensian law, 315, 471.

Nuntiatio, 111.

Oath, in contio, 142; in arrogations, 160; making tribunes sacred, 264, 274; lack of in comitial trials, 287; to support law, 380, 395, 440 f.

Oblativa (auspicia), 100; publica, 111-8; under Aelian and Fufian laws, 116 f., 358 f.; under lex Clodia, 116 f., 445.

Obnuntiatio, by whom served, 111, 114 f., 439; when served, 115; under Aelian and Fufian laws, 116 f., 358 f.; under lex Clodia, 116 f., 445; prevents election, 193; to what point allowable, 467.

Octavianus, see Julius Caesar Octavianus.

Octavius, tribune (133), 322; deposed, 366, 367 f., 371.

Opimius, L., trial of (120), 256; given absolute power, 387 f.

Opimius, Q., trial of, 414, n. 2; tribune (75), 425 f.

Oppidum, 6 f.

Oppius, Sp., decemvir, trial of, 246.

Optima lege, optimo iure, 186-8; cives, 355; private land, 386.

Optimates, prefer centuries, 237; undo Gracchan reforms, 385, 387; policy of as to special courts, 388; depend on religion, 391; moderate rule of, 396 f.

Ordines, in comitia centuriata, 222.

Ovation, comitial act on, 334 f.

Ovile, 469.

Paederastia, prosecution for (227), 325.

Pagus, relation of to Servian tribes, 51, 53 f.

Pais, on urban tribes, 52, 55, n. 1; origin of tribunate, 262, n. 1; connection of Ceres with plebs, 264, n. 7; Genucian and Publilian laws, 299, n. 2; election of pontiff, 341, n. 3.

Palatine (tribus), 50, 51, 52, n. 1, 220.

Palatine hill, 7, n. 3, 9.

Pantagathus, 220.

Papirius, L., trial of (326), 247.

Papirius Carbo, C., trial of (119), 257.

Parricidium, trial of, 244; under lex Pompeia, 448; Iulia, 455, n. 7.

Pater, meaning of, 19.

Pater patratus, 176.

Patrem ciere, 20.

Patres, meaning senators, 17 ff.; patricians, 19; in Mommsen’s theory, 34; maiorum et minorum gentium, 35 f.

Patrician magistrate, defined, 103.

Patricians, Patricii, origin of, 16 ff., 37, n. 1; Mommsen on, 34; not conquerors, 43; right to auspices, 101-3; and patrum auctoritas, 229, 235; in curiate assembly, 262, n. 2, 271; in tribal assembly, 271, 275-7; in plebeian tribunate, 285 f.; affected by Publilian law (339), 300 f.; creation of, 21, 164-6, 456, 460.

Patriciate, relation of to senate, 18; granted to plebeians, 21, 164-6, 456, 460; closing of, 165; acquired by adoption, 166.

Patricio-plebeian tribal assembly, 123, 128, 134; unnecessary term, 138.

Patricius, meaning of, 20 f.

Patrum auctoritas, 31, 174; and comitia curiata, 229, 235, 277; for curiate laws, 277; Publilian law on, 300; Hortensian law on, 313; Maenian law on, 331.

Pay, military, introduced, 61, n. 6, 94; by senate, 284, 295; how reckoned, 90, n. 4; since war with Hannibal, 382; laws on, 382, 388 f., 392.

Peculatus, trials for, 317 f., 319, 419.

Pecunia, 48.

Pellegrino, on asylum, 36.

Perduellio, 243 f., 248, 249, 253, 256, 257; Sulla transfers to quaestio maiestatis, 258; aedilician case of, 326; ballot in, 390; trials for: Horatius, 121; Claudius, 248, 317; Manlius, 288 f.; Postumius, 248 f., 318; Rabirius, 258 f.

Peregrinus ager, 108.

Petilii, Q., tribunes (185), 319.

Petronia (amnis), 108.

Phalanx, Greek, adopted by Rome, 61 f., 68, 71 f.; origin of, 69 ff.; organization and equipment, 72 f.; split in legions, 75; post-Servian changes, 76-80; changed to manipular legion, 84.

Phratry, 8, n. 6, 28, 69.

Phyle, 4, 6, 28.

Phylobasileis, 8, n. 1.

Picene district, 333; Flaminian law on, 334.

Plebeian assembly, termed comitia, 120, 126-30; question as to auspication, 122 f.

Plebeian magistrates, occupy templa, 109; do not auspicate assemblies, 110; preside over contio, 140 f.; comitia, 465, 469; see Aediles, Tribuni plebis.

Plebi scitum, issued by plebeian assembly, 120, n. 1; originally binding on plebs only, 263, 273; given conditioned validity, 274-9; Publilian law on, 300; made unconditionally valid, 313, 463; for individual plebi scita, see Lex.

Plebs, distinguished from populus, 1, n. 3; origin of, 16, 21; relation to clients, 22; belong to populus, 23 ff.; to tribes and curiae, 24; to gentes, 28-31; vote in comitia curiata, 25, 32; Mommsen on, 34-6; not the conquered, 43; in army, 75, n. 1; right to auspices, 101-3; assembly of termed comitia, 120; first secession of, 262; in contio, 263; community of, 264 f.; misunderstanding with government, 268; meaning of word in Valerian-Horatian law, 275-7; Publilian law on, 301 f.; condition of in third Samnite war, 311; leaders of ally with patricians, 330; in comitia under plebeian presidency, 465.

Pleminius, Q., trial of, 250.

Πλῆθος, 407 f.

Plutocracy, era of, 346-62, 476; discontent with, 371.

Poetelius Libo, C., consul (326), dictator (313), 310.

Poisoning, special court for trial of, 253, 254, n. 3.

Polybius, on Flaminian law, 334; on Roman constitution, 343-6, 361 f.

Pomerium, limits urban tribes, 52, 54; relation of to augury, 108; to comitia curiata, 194, 468; to comitia centuriata, 203, 469; to comitia tributa, 465.

Pompeius Magnus, Cn., use of oblativa, 111; and curiate law, 194 f.; consul (70), 426 f.; given special commands, 432-4; cura annonae, 446; second consulship (55), 447-50; third (52), 448.

Pompeius Strabo, Cn., trial of, 401, n. 3; consul (89), 402.

Pomptinus, praetor (63), 192 f.

Pontes, 469; Marian law on, 389.

Pontifex maximus, auspicium of, 104; elected by comitia, 120, 341, 391; presides over contio, 141; comitia calata, 153 ff.; comitia tributa, 153, n. 4, 263; over first tribunician elections, 263; and in 449 B.C., 285; jurisdiction of, 327 f., 390; chooses Vestals, 434.

Pontifex minor, in comitia calata, 155.

Pontifices, 102, 106, n. 10; have charge of arrogations, 160; of certain adoptions, 166; religious legislation of, 238 f.; opinion on Sacred Spring, 340; control calendar, 358; election of, 391; increased to fifteen, 416.

Popillius, M., trial of (172), 255, n. 1.

Popillius Laenas, C., trial of (107), 257, n. 5.

Popillius Laenas, P., presides over special court (132), 255; interdicted, 256; recalled, 388.

Popillius Laenas, P., tribune (86), 257, n. 5.

Population of Rome, in early republic, 83.

Populus, derivation of word, 1; definition, 1 f.; political divisions, 1-15; social composition of, 16-47; theory of a patrician, 27 ff.; concilium of, 120-5; sovereignty, 308, 316, 346, 368, 399; yields judicial function to courts, 420 f.; electoral function to Caesar, 454 f.

Porcius Cato, M., the Elder, on Servian tribes, 51, 53, 54; favors lex Voconia, 85, 90; lex Villia, 347; lex forbidding reëlections, 348; author of law of appeal, 250 f.; prosecutions of, 319, 321.

Porcius Laeca, P., praetor (195), 251.

Porcius Licinus, consul (184), 251.

Posteriores (equites), 73, n. 7, 74, 76.

Postliminium, 353.

Postumius, L., trial of, 289.

Postumius, M., trial of (423), 288.

Postumius Pyrgensis, M., trial of, 248 f., 318.

Potestas, tribunicia, destroyed by Sulla, 199; patria, political influence of, 342 f.; lex on, 185, 190.

Praeco (crier), summons contio, 144; invites to speak, 147, n. 5; reads bill, 430; declares result of vote, 468.

Praescriptio legis, 462.

Praetors, auspices of, 103; obnuntiate, 115; adoptions before, 160; election of, 189, 229; instituted, 234; grant auspices to tribune, 245 f., 280, 315; increased, 332, 341, 416, 454; urban, presides over election of boards, 337; lex Plaetoria on, 342, n. 1; fills album iudicum, 376, 377; minimal age of, 415; edicts of, 431 f.

Prefecture of market, created (440), 295, 305, n. 5.

Prerogative (praerogativa), 211, 463; equestrian abolished, 212, 215; after reform, 212, 224, 227; in elections, 389.

Presidency, of contio, 140 f.; of comitia, 465, 468, 469.

Principium, 463; in comitia curiata, 112; elections, 389; comitia tributa, 466 f.

Priores (equites), 73, n. 7, 74, 76.

Privernates, receive citizenship, 305.

Privilegia, enacted by centuries, 127 f., 241; violation of law on, 289 f.; dispensations are, 307 f.

Procedure, contional, 143 ff.; comitial, 465-70; in trials, 259 f.

Proceres, Proci, in centuriate system, 67, n. 3, 75, n. 1.

Proletarians, 68, 89, 207 f.; after reform, 226.

Promagistracy, instituted, 305.

Promagistrates, lack right to summon people, 141; and curiate law, 192 ff.; under lex repetundarum, 377; under lex Cornelia, 417; lex Pompeia, 449.

Propraetor, elected by army, 192, 202.

Provinces, assigned exceptionally by law, 305, 381, n. 5, 417, 432-4, 443 f., 447; Sempronian law on consular, 381 f.; Cornelian, 417; Julian, 456; protected by Gabinian, 429 f.; from extortion, see Repetundae.

Publicans, exactions of, 380 f.; law for relief of, 441.

Publicius Bibulus, C., tribune (209), 338.

Publilius Philo, consul and dictator (339), 235, 299-302; censor(322), 305.

Punctum, in counting votes, 467, n. 5.

Punic war, first, effect of on politics, 333.

Pupinian tribe, 59, n. 3.

Quaestio, preliminary inquiry, 259.

Quaestio extraordinaria (314), 242, n. 5; for trial of Pleminius (204), 250; affects centuriate jurisdiction, 253; appointed by senate and people, 253, 295, 309; by senate alone, 253 f., 255, 309; by people, 255, n. 1; for trial of conspiracy, 310; Satricans, 310; usurpers of citizenship, 354, 397; Vestals, 390; bribery, 390; vis, 448 f.; murderers of Caesar, 457, n. 7; composed of senators, 374 f.; under lex Sempronia, 371, 374-6; optimate policy as to, 388.

Quaestio perpetua, affects centuriate jurisdiction, 253; repetundarum, 257, 358; number increased by Sulla, 257 f., 324; inter sicarios, 258, 358; limits appeal, 328; composed of senators, 374, 419; Sempronian laws on, 374-6; of knights, 374 f.; of senators and knights, 402, 455; of three classes, 427, 458; under Latin lex Bantina, 379; Appuleia de maiestate, 394; Livia, 399; Varia, 401; Cornelia, 419-21; Licinia and Pompeia, 448; Iulia, 455; Antonia, 458; appeal granted from, 458 f.

Quaestors, auspicate comitia centuriata, 104; obnuntiate, 141; preside over contio, 140, 141; curiate sanction, 189, 195; increased, 234, 332, 415 f.; parricidii, 244 f.; relation of to tribunes, 248; elected by tribes, 294; minimal age of, 415.

Quando rex comitiavit fas, 159, n. 8, 470.

Quinctius, K., trial of (461), 267, 268, n. 6.

Quinctius, L., tribune (74), 426.

Quinctius, T., past consular tribune, trial of, 288.

Quinctius Trogus, T., trial of, 245.

Quindecemviri sacris faciundis, 416; see Decemviri.

Quinqueviri, for repairing defences, 337; agris adsignandis under lex Saufeia, 400; lex Iulia, 439.

Quirina (tribus), 214.

Quirinal hill, 2, 3, n. 1.

Rabirius, C., trial of, 243 f., 258 f.

Ramnenii, in Ostia, 4, n. 3.

Ramnenses, 74.

Ramnes, 2, n. 5, 74; in Ardea, 4, n. 3.

Ramnii, in Capua, 4, n. 3.

Rapta (curia), 8, n. 6, 11, n. 7.

Ratings, ascribed to Servius, 66; in sextantarian as, 67, n. 4; origin of, 79; array in battle, 79 f.; of five classes, 84-91; Belot on, 91-3.

Regiones, connection of with tribes, 51, n. 1, 4, 6, 53 f.

Religion, influences formation of nobility, 39 f.; right to legislate on, 308; laws on, see Legislation.

Remus, an augur, 105, n. 3.

Renuntiatio, 467.

Repetundae, court of, 257, 358, 370; under lex lunia, 370, 376, 379; lex Acilia, 375-8; Servilia, 393; Cornelia, 419; Iulia, 441 f.; defined, 377.

Revolution, period of, 363-460, 476 f.

Rex sacrorum, presides over contio, 141; comitia calata, 154; forbidden to address populus, 147; ceremonies of in comitium, 156, 159 f.; successor to king, 182; a shadow, 198.

Rhegium insurgent garrison of, 254.

Rogatio, meaning of, 178; composition and form of, 462 ff.

⸺ de imperio (t.) for triumph, 335.

⸺ colonizing Bolae (t. 415), 311, n. 1.

⸺ dispensing from law (298), 299, n. 3.

⸺ for abolition of debts (t. 287), 312.

Rogationes of Cicero’s consulship (63), 437, n. 7.

Rogatio, of 8 tribunes, recalling Cicero (58), 446, n. 2.

⸺ establishing consular tribunes (t. 53), 450, n. 2.

Rogationes Aemiliae, repealing Cornelian laws (c. 78), 423.

Rogatio Aufeia, on taxation of Asia (p. 123), 381, n. 4.

⸺ Aufidia de ambitu (t. 61), 437, n. 1.

⸺ Caecilia, lightening certain penalties (t. 63), 437, n. 7.

⸺ Caecilia, dispensing Pompey from law (t. 62), 437, n. 1.

Rogationes Caeliae, on debts and rents (p. 48), 452, n. 9.

Rogatio Caninia, granting imperium to Pompey (t. 56), 446, n. 3.

⸺ Cassia agraria (c. 486), 238, 265, n. 4.

⸺ Clodia de suffragiis libertinorum (p. 52), 450, n. 2.

⸺ Cornelia, renewing Sulpician lex (c. 87), 409.

⸺ Cornelia de ambitu (t. 67), 431.

Rogationes Corneliae (t. 47), 452, n. 9.

Rogatio Fabricia, recalling Cicero (t. 57), 446, n. 2.

⸺ Flavia, for punishing Tusculans, (323), 310.

⸺ Flavia agraria (t. 60), 438.

⸺ Fulvia, granting citizenship (c. 125), 370.

⸺ Herennia, transferring Clodius to plebs (t. 60), 162, 438.

⸺ Iunia, on usury (195?), 352, n. 2.

⸺ Laelia agraria (p. 145), 360 f., 363.

⸺ Licinia, on election of sacerdotes, 391.

⸺ Lucilia Coelia, for naming Pompey dictator (t. 53), 450, n. 2.

⸺ Maelia, confiscating property of Ahala (436), 289.

⸺ Marcia (123-122), referring to military tribunes, 382, n. 5.

⸺ Marcia agraria (t. 104), 392.

⸺ Messia, recalling Cicero (t. 58), 446, n. 2.

⸺ Ninnia, recalling Cicero (t. 58), 446, n. 2.

⸺ Papiria, permitting reëlection of tribunes (t. 131), 369.

⸺ Pinaria annalis (p. 182?), 347, n. 3.

⸺ Pompeia repetundarum (c. 55), 442, n. 2; sumptuaria, 448.

⸺ Porcia, abrogating imperium (t. 56), 446, n. 3.

⸺ Porcia Pompeia, recalling Metellus (t. 99), 396, n. 1.

⸺ Pupia Valeria, appointing special court (c. 61), 438, n. 3.

⸺ Rutilia, on censorial contracts (t. 169), 351, n. 5.

⸺ Scribonia, on Lusitanians (t. 149), 349.

Rogationes Scriboniae, on various subjects (t. 50), 450, n. 2.

Rogatio Semproniade provocatione (t. 133), 255, 368; iudiciaria, 368, 374; on military service, 368, 382.

⸺ Sempronia de abactis (t. 124), 371, 391; granting citizenship to Latins and Italians (123-122), 382, 383 f.; on voting in comitia centuriata (122), 384, n. 2.

⸺ Servilia agraria, 129, 183, n. 5, 186, 435 f.; violates right of appeal, 259; bearing of on election of sacerdotes, 416, n. 6.

Rogations, discussed in senate, 145; judicial, 259; no record of unpassed, 270; apocryphal agrarian, 270, 272, 295; restriction as to bringing, 359; lex Caecilia Didia on, 396 f.

Rogator legis, 462, n. 2, 463.

Rogatores, 211, 467, 469.

Roma, Etruscan origin of, 7, n. 2.

Romanus ager, 108.

Romilia (tribus), 214.

Romulus, connection of with tribes, 2, n. 5, 3; with army, 69, n. 4; with equites, 74; an augur, 105, n. 3; as legislator, 177.

Roscius, Otho, L., tribune (67), 428 f., 432.

Rostra, a templum, 109.

Rubino, on testamentary comitia, 157 f.; lex curiata, 185; vote by 30 lictors, 196.

Rubrica legis, 463, n. 6.

Rupilius, consul (132), condemned, 256.

Sabines, alleged connection of with Tities, 2 f.

Sacer homo, 265.

Sacerdotes, 7; inauguration of, 106; comitia, for election of, 120, 129, 341, 391, 458; their part in instituting comitia, 153; in trials, 182; in election of king, 183; see Augurs, Epulones, etc.

Sacred Mount, lex sacrata passed on, 274.

Sacred Spring, lex on, 340.

Sacro sanctitas, 264; origin of, 265; religious and legal basis, 265 f.; protects plebeian assembly, 266; relation of to tribunician jurisdiction, 266 f., 273 f.; confirmed by lex Valeria Horatia, 274.

Saepta, 466.

Saeptum, 467.

Salii, 69, n. 1, 70, n. 5.

Sallust, on comitia and concilium, 126.

Sanctio, 463; of Latin lex Bantina, 379.

Sappers, see Fabri.

Satricans, special court for punishing, 310.

Saturnalia, gifts at, 338 f.

Saturninus, see Appuleius Saturninus.

Savigny, on lex Iulia municipalis, 457, n. 5.

Scaevola, on gens, 28, n. 7.

Scantinus Capitolinus, C., prosecution of, 325.

Schmidt, Joh., on origin of tribunate, 262, n. 1.

Schwegler, on patrician state, 32 f.

Scipios, trial of (185), 319 f.; see Cornelius.

Scolacium, founding of, 382.

Scutum, in centuriate system, 66, 78, n. 6.

Secession, first, 262; second, 277; to Janiculum, 313.

Sectatores, 436.

Seditions, tribunician, 279, 313; Varian law on, 401.

Sempronius Gracchus, C., legislation of, 255 f., 371-85; defeat for third tribunate, 384; energizes comitia, 384 f.

Sempronius Gracchus, Ti., censor (169), trial of, 253; tribune (184), 320 f.

Sempronius Gracchus, Ti., tribune (133), weakens veto, 117, 366, 476; prosecutes Annius Luscus, 322; legislation of, 363-6; deposes colleague, 366, 367 f.; new platform of, 368; defeated for second tribunate, 368 f.

Senate, represents primitive tribes, 3, n. 8, 7; relation of to patriciate, 177 ff.; annuls comitial acts, 106 f., 109, 113, 396, 399 f., 405, 433, 457, n. 7, 459; comitia in, 129, 130; wisdom in, 173; auctoritas of, 174; grants imperium, 188; and curiate law, 197-9; declares war, 230-2; admits plebeians, 235; appoints special courts, 253-5, 309 f., 368, 371, 388; passes consultum ultimum, 255 f., 273, 387 f.; grants citizenship, 304; prolongs imperium, 305; plants colonies, 310 f., 351; loses legal control of tribunician assembly, 313 f., 316; conciliates citizens, 337; depends on people, 345, 351; class of criminals, 374; controls tax contracts, 380; deposes consul, 409; regains control of assemblies, 406-8, 413 f.; admission to through quaestorship, 415, 418 f.; gains through Sulla, 418; law on sessions of, 424 f.; grants dispensations, 430 f.; limited by Caesar, 457; considers rogations, 462, 463.

Senators, privati, 102; mostly creditors, 312; given seats at theatre, 356 f.; monopolize quaestiones, 374; debarred from by Sempronian law, 375; under lex repetundarum, 377; chosen indirectly by people, 391; swear to uphold law, 395, 440, 464; associate with equites in courts, 402, 427 f., 455; elected by tribes, 418; qualifications of under lex Ovinia, 307; lex Claudia, 335; Sulpicia, 404; see Senate.

Senatus consultum, on treaties, 175, 303, 465, n. 3; declaring war, 230; appointing special court, 253; essential to legality of plebiscite, 277 f.; for settling Latium, 304; Hortensian law on, 313; for founding colonies, 351; on usurpation of citizenship, 354; on importation of wild beasts, 346; on finance, 422; on trial of provincials, 424, n. 6; amending lex Acilia Calpurnia, 436; de collegiis, 445; honoring Caesar, 451; ultimum, 192, n. 6, 255, 273, 371, 387 f.

Seniors, in centuriate system, 66, 68, 81 f.; number of, 84, 205; after reform, 216.

Septemviri agris adsignandis, under lex Antonia, 458.

Sergia (tribus), 58.

Sergius, M., quaestor, 245.

Service, public, exempts from prosecution, 377.

Servilius Ahala, C., trial of, 246; rogation on property of, 289 f.

Servilius Caepio, Q., imperium of abrogated, 390.

Servilius Glaucia, C., 393.

Servilius Rullus, P., tribune (64-63), 435.

Servius Tullius, distributes land, 49; institutes new tribes, 50 ff., 217; centuriate system, 66, 68; personality of, 68, n. 7; increases equites, 74; and equestrian fund, 93; reference to in lex Cornelia Pompeia, 406.

Sesterce, 87.

Sheep, standard of value, 269, 287.

Sibylline books, 284.

Sicilians, receive citizenship, 454, n. 4.

Sicinius, L., tribune (76), 425.

Signa ex tripudiis, 107.

Sisenna, on creation of new tribes, 57 f.

Slaves, manumission of, 297; grant of citizenship to, 353.

Smiths, in centuriate system, 206.

Social classes, ancient view of, 16-25, 44 f.; conventional view, 25-38; comparative-sociological, 38-47; universal, 38 f.; origin of in nature, 39; in army, 75 f.

Social war, 401.

Sodales Titii, 2, n. 6 f., 8.

Sodalicii, lex on, 447 f.

Soldiers, and appeal, 251-3; laws on service of, 382, 388 f., 392.

Solon, law of, on citizenship, 44, n. 1; connection with classes, 71.

Soltau, on comitia centuriata, 201; composition of tribunician assembly, 275, n. 5; Licinian-Sextian law, 296, n. 4; validity of plebiscite, 300, n. 6.

Sovereignty, belongs first to king and council, 171 f.; not popular, 173; popular develops, 303, 308, 316, 368, 399; of law, yielding to democracy, 308; not real, 346.

Speaking, public, prohibition of, 142, 147; on merits of candidates, 143; right of, 145 ff.; compulsion, 148; time limited, 149; sparingly granted, 173 f.

Spectio, 110; belongs to magistrates only, 113; when forbidden, 114; under Aelian and Fufian laws, 116.

Statutes, see Leges.

Stipendium, 63.

Storm, interrupts comitia, 248.

Stultorum feriae, 9, n. 6.

Stuprum, prosecutions for, 247, 291 f., 326, 327, n. 2.

Submovere, 150, n. 9.

Suburana (tribus), 50.

Sucusana (tribus), 220.

Suffragia sex, 75, n. 1, 113, 157, 209, 224, 227.

Suffragium, 157; bestowal of, 352; see Citizenship.

Sulla, see Cornelius Sulla.

Sulpicius Rufus, P., tribune (88), 403-5.

Sumptuary laws, 337 f., 356, 388, n. 9, 428, 455 f.

Supernumeraries, in centuriate system, 68, 80-2, 226.

Sutrium, tribal assembly at, 297, 465.

Συσσίτια, 8, n. 6.

Tabulae iuniorum, 82, n. 3.

Tarpeian Rock, hurling from, 257, n. 5, 264, n. 8.

Tarquinius Priscus (Elder), relation of to equites, 74, 93.

Tarquinius Superbus, relation of to centuriate system, 201, n. 3 f.

Taxes, in early Rome, 61-4.

Tellus, 9.

Temples, dedication of, 340 f., 347, n. 2.

Templum, 107 f., 144.

Terentius Varro Lucullus, M., trial of (66), 324.

Testaments, in comitia calata, 157-9; laws on, 352, 463, n. 8, 459.

Testimony, false, prosecution for, 246.

Theatres, regulation of, 356 f., 428 f.

Theft, see Furtum.

Θέμιστες, 177.

Thunder, effect of, on comitia, 109, 111.

Thurii, tribes of, 7, n. 1.

Titia (curia), 8, n. 6, 11, n. 7.

Titienses, Tities, 2, 74.

Titus Tatius, 2 f., 4, n. 3, 56, n. 3.

Tolosa, gold found at, 390.

Transitio ad plebem, 162 f., 403, 438, 443.

Transpadani, receive citizenship, 402, 454.

Trasimene, political effect of disaster at, 343.

Treaty, alleged between plebs and government, 265.

Treaty-making, originally with magistrates and senate, 174 f., 273, 283; with king, 181; ratification of acquired by tribes, 175, 283, 302 f., 344, 349.

Trebellius, L., tribune (67), 432.

Trebonius, L. and Cn., 285.

Tremellius, Cn., praetor (160), prosecution of, 322.

Tresviri (Triumviri) nocturni, trial of, 318.

Tresviri epulones, 347, 391, 416, n. 3.

Tribes, the three primitive, 2-8; and Greek phylae, 4, 28; military function of, 10, 69, 74; social composition, 24; admission of new citizens to, 44.

Tribes, the later, 48-65; with gentile names, 35, 50; the thirty-five, 48-65; urban, 50 ff., 355; rural, 50 ff.; character, 54; temporary increase in Social War, 57 f., 402; altered in 312, 304 B.C., 64 f.; made up by censors, 300, 355; relation of to centuries, 77, 212 f., 215, 217 ff.; citizens assigned to, 352 f., 401 f.; assembly of, see Comitia tributa.

Tribuni aerarii, 64, n. 3; in jury service, 427 f.; debarred from, 455.

Tribuni celerum, 7 f.; preside over contio, 141, n. 3; comitia curiata, 468; right of to address people, 145, n. 4.

Tribuni militum, 7; make levy, 77; Valerian law on, 235; hold court-martial, 251; elected by people, 234, 306, 342, 349, n. 1; rarely appointed, 342, n. 2.

Tribuni militum consulari potestate, 229, 234.

Tribuni plebis, auspicium of, 104; obnuntiate, 115; under Aelian and Fufian laws, 116 f., 358 f.; election of, 127, 128, 262, 272; preside over contio, 140; comitia, 263, 465, 469; lack power of summoning, 148; veto curiate law, 199; bring capital actions before centuries, 245-53; limited by Sulla, 258, 324, 413 f.; instituted, 262; object of, 263; have no power over patricians, 264, 268, 276; sacro sancti, 264-6, 274; early methods of, 269, 270, 272, 273, 279; pre-decemviral jurisdiction, 267-9; number increased, 272; controlled by dictatorship, 273; Valerian-Horatian law on, 274, 277 f., 279 f.; later jurisdiction, 280, 286-90, 317-25; agrarian agitation, 310 f.; right to summon senate, 314; to prosecute unconditionally, 315; limited by courts, 326 f.; reëlection of permitted, 369; restored after Sulla, 423-7.

Tribunus, related to tribe, 7.

Tributum, and tribes, 63 f.; disused, 89; impeded by tribunes, 279; in third Samnite war, 311.

Trientabula, 368.

Trifu, 5, 6.

Trinum nundinum, Trinundinum, 259 f.

Triumph, deliberated on in contio, 147; depends on curiate law, 190, 192 f.; decreed by senate, 273, 284, 293 f.; by people, 277, n. 4, 293, 334; comitial act necessary to, 334 f.; on Alban Mount, 293, 335, n. 2, 350; laws on, 350, 417, 422, 438, 451.

Triumvirate, so called first, 441; second, 459; see Triumviri.

Triumviri (tresviri) agris adsignandis, under Sempronian laws, 366, 367, 373, 375, 379, 386.

Triumviri capitales, 307, n. 1, 312, 332.

Triumviri coloniae deducendae, 288, 307, 350 f.

Triumviri mensarii, 336 f.

Triumviri rei publicae constituendae, 459.

Triumviri, for repairing temples, 337; for dedicating, 340.

Trumpeters (tubicines, liticines), in centuriate system, 66, 206; summon accused, 259.

Tuba, 468.

Tubicines, 81, n. 2, 206, 226; see Musicians.

Tullus Hostilius, permits appeal, 239.

Turma, 12.

Twelve Tables, law of on inheritance, 30; ratified by laws, 233; provide for legislation, 233 f., 307, 368, 464, 474; composition of, 239; guarantee right of appeal, 240; on privilegia, 241, 245, 268; forbid conubium, 294; criminal laws of, 357; grant jurisdiction to tribes, 474.

Urbs, 7.

Urn, for drawing lots, 466, n. 4.

Usurers, fined, 291, 312; violate law, 351; oppress provinces, 430.

Ut rogas, 467.

Valerius Flaccus, L., prosecution of (98), 324.

Valerius Publicola, P., consul (509), 232; existence of questioned, 240.

Valuation of property, change in from land to money, 65.

Varius, Q., tribune (91-90), prosecutes Aemilius, 257, n. 5.

Varro, on Servian tribes, 53 f.

Vatinius, tribune (59), 117, 442 f.

Vectigalia, law on Campanian, 337, 351, n. 5; order to farm, 424; in Italy, abolished, 438; reimposed, 457, n. 6.

Veliensis (curia), 11.

Velina (tribus), 334.

Velitia (curia), 11, n. 7.

Velleius, on admission of socii to tribes, 57 f.; colonization, 351; lex Livia iudiciaria, 398.

Vennonius, on Servian tribes, 53.

Verres, trial of, 427.

Vestals, trial of, 390; choice of, 434.

Veto (intercession), tribunician, weakened, 117; original lack of, 269, 279; established by Hortensian law, 270, 315; conservative, 330; against senate, 345; oath not to use, 380 f.; against certain consulta forbidden, 381 f.; overborne, 393 f., 430, 447; limited by Sulla, 414, 425 f.; to what point allowable, 466 f.; consular, 423, 439.

Veturius, C., condemned, 250, n. 8.

Viatores, 264, n. 5; of tribune, 150; originally lacking, 290; of aedile, n. 4.

Vicus Tuscus, 3.

Vigintiviri agris adsignandis, 439.

Vindicia, 246, n. 5.

Vis (violence), 326; under lex Plautia, 424; Pompeia, 448 f.; Iulia, 455.

Vitio creatum esse, etc., 107, n. 1.

Volaterrani, lose citizenship, 236, 422.

Volscians, expelled, 273.

Voting, origin of, 156 f., 275 f.; by heads, 157; formula for, 179; order of in comitia centuriata, 211, 469 f.; after reform, 217, 224, 227; by ballot, 359 f.; in quaestiones, 420; in comitia tributa, 466 f.

Voturia (tribus), 52, n. 1.

Voturia iuniorum, 217.

Vultures, auspices from, 108.

War, declarations of, belong originally to magistrates and senate, 175-7, 181, 230, 273; acquired by centuries, 177, 230, 302, 344; formula of, 176, 232.

Widows and orphans, tax on, 62, 93.

Women, debarred from assemblies, 146 f., 326, n. 1; luxury of restrained, 338, 356; right of inheritance restricted, 352.

Zaleucus, 177.

HANDBOOKS OF

Archæology and Antiquities

_Edited by_

PERCY GARDNER AND F. W. KELSEY

FOWLER

=The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic.= By W. WARDE FOWLER. $1.25 _net_

FROTHINGHAM

=The Monuments of Christian Rome.= From Constantine to the Renaissance. By ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Ph.D. $2.25 _net_

GARDNER, E. A.

=Greek Sculpture.= By ERNEST A. GARDNER. Two parts in one volume, with Appendix. $2.50 _net_

Appendix to the above, separately. $0.35 _net_

GARDNER, P.

=Grammar of Greek Art.= By PERCY GARDNER. $1.75 _net_

GREENIDGE

=A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History.= By A. H. J. GREENIDGE. With Map. $1.25 _net_

=Roman Public Life.= By A. H. J. GREENIDGE. $2.50 _net_

HILL

=Greek and Roman Coins.= By GEORGE F. HILL, of the Coins Department, British Museum. $2.25 _net_

LANCIANI

=The Destruction of Ancient Rome.= A sketch of the history of the monuments. By RODOLFO LANCIANI. $1.50 _net_

LOWRIE

=Monuments of the Early Church.= By W. LOWRIE. $1.25 _net_

MARQUAND

=Greek Architecture.= By ALLAN MARQUAND. $2.25 _net_

PUBLISHED BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Sixty-four and Sixty-six Fifth Avenue, New York

BOOKS ON ROMAN SOCIETY

By W. WARDE FOWLER

Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero

_Cloth, Illustrated, 8vo, $2.25 net_

A notable example of the kind of history that deals with men rather than with institutions and events is “Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero,” by the learned scholar and fascinating writer W. Warde Fowler. The book was originally intended as a companion to Professor Tucker’s “Life in Ancient Athens”; but it grew beyond the limits of that volume because of the wealth of material Mr. Fowler felt himself compelled to utilize. As the author points out in his preface, there is no book in the English language which supplies a picture of life and manners, of education, morals, and religion, in the intensely interesting period of the Roman Republic. The age of Cicero is one of the most important periods of Roman history, and the Ciceronian correspondence, of more than nine hundred contemporary letters, is the richest treasure-house of social life that has survived from any period of classical antiquity.

By SAMUEL DILL, M.A.

Hon. Litt.D., Dublin; Hon. LL.D., Edinburgh; Hon. Fellow and late Tutor C.C.C., Oxford; Professor of Greek in Queens College, Belfast.

Roman Society, from Nero to Marcus Aurelius

_Second edition, Cloth, 8vo, $2.50 net_

“The most important contribution yet made in English to our knowledge of the way in which all classes of Roman society, including the aristocracy, the plebeians, the freedmen and the slaves, ordinarily lived in the relatively happy age of the Antonines is presented in this admirable work, not one of whose fifteen chapters is devoid of illumination and fascination.... It should be distinctly understood that this work is the product of first-hand, not second-hand, erudition and investigation.... This book is what it purports to be, a social, not a political history.”—M. W. H. in _New York Sun_.

Roman Society, in the Last Century of the Western Empire

_Second edition, Cloth, 8vo, $1.75 net_

“We want to emphasize the point that this volume is not a mere raking over of dry bones, with nothing but an antiquarian interest for the reader of to-day. It is more vital to the student of modern social, religious, and political tendencies than a large share of the strictly modern sociological theses, studies, and dissertations now issuing in such profusion from the workshops of the doctor-making universities. And, aside from its inherent importance, its thoughts are so lucidly and attractively expressed that no intelligent reader, whether a Latinist or not, can fail to find it pleasant reading.”—_The Evening Post_, New York.

PUBLISHED BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Sixty-four and Sixty-six Fifth Avenue, New York

PROF. MARTIN L. D’OOGE’S

The Acropolis of Athens

_Cloth, Illustrated, 8vo, $4.00 net_

“This handsome book embodies the results of a number of years of study and of repeated visits to Athens, where in 1886-87 author was director of the American School of Classical Studies. While some of the older problems connected with the history of the Acropolis have been solved by the aid of the discoveries completed in 1889, others have been raised which await further light. A final satisfactory history of the Acropolis and its monuments may never be written, but this work gives a summary of the most important contributions to its history and states the results of the author’s study of the site and of the ruins upon it.”

His new book is published as a companion volume to Professor Seymour’s “Life in the Homeric Age,” which proved so popular. It is designed both for readers who have a general interest in Greek history and Greek art and for students and visitors at Athens who desire to use a handbook upon the spot. The history of the Acropolis is traced from the time of its earliest occupation down to the present, and the volume is handsomely illustrated.

_A COMPANION VOLUME_

PROF. THOMAS DAY SEYMOUR’S

Life in the Homeric Age

_Decorated cloth, gilt top, 8vo, illustrated, $4.00 net_

A study of the inhabitants of Greece and the Levant at the period of the Homeric Poems which furnishes a clear and fairly complete picture of the life which was familiar to them. “From the poet’s language,” the author says, “he has attempted to discover what was before the poet’s mind.... Homer’s picture of the life of his age is of particular interest to the modern reader since it is the earliest account extant of the culture from which our own is a true lineal descendant.”

“Absolutely free from speculation and controversy, the volume will surely prove valuable to every student of Greek life and literature. It has the further advantage of being the only work of its kind on the English book market to-day.”—_New York Tribune._

Life in Ancient Athens

The Social and Public Life of a Classical Athenian from Day to Day

By T. G. TUCKER, Litt.D.

_Cloth, illustrated, 8vo, $1.25 net; by mail $1.40_

“There’s nothing dusty, fusty, musty, about this book.... Evidences of a mastery of the subject abound everywhere.... When you get through the book you will believe that Athens is just around the corner, and you will know its people in nature and in habits better than you do the dwellers in the apartment house next door.”—_The Cleveland Leader._

PUBLISHED BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Sixty-four and Sixty-six Fifth Avenue, New York

STANDARD WORKS OF REFERENCE

ON

Archæology, Antiquities, Etc.

SCHREIBER

Atlas of Classical Antiquities. By TH. SCHREIBER. Edited by W. C. F. ANDERSON. Oblong quarto. =$6.50=

SEYFFERT

A Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. By Dr. OSCAR SEYFFERT. _Cloth, 8vo_, =$2.25=

SEYFFERT and REICH

A Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Abridged from Dr. OSCAR SEYFFERT’S larger Dictionary by Dr. Emil Reich.

_Cloth, 316 pages, 12mo_, =$1.00=

A FULLY ILLUSTRATED DESCRIPTIVE BOOK

Ave Roma Immortalis!

_By_ F. MARION CRAWFORD

In one volume, profusely illustrated

_Cloth, 8vo, $2.50 net_

“He is keenly appreciative of the wonderful picturesqueness, romance, impressiveness, and fascination of the historical events which he describes.”—_The Boston Herald._

“It is the most—oh, far and away the most—interesting book I ever read about Rome. It fascinated me.”—DR. WEIR MITCHELL.

Published by THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Sixty-four and Sixty-six Fifth Avenue, New York