CHAPTER I

THE POPULUS AND ITS EARLIEST POLITICAL DIVISIONS

I. _The Populus_

The derivation of populus, “people,” “folk,” is unknown. Attempts have been made to connect it with populari, “to devastate,” so as to give it primarily a military signification—perhaps simply “the army.”[1] In the opinion of others it is akin to plēnus, plēbes, πλῆθος, πολύς, πίμπλημι,[2] in which case it would signify “multitude,” “mass,” with the idea of collective strength, which might readily pass into “army” as a secondary meaning.[3] Fundamentally personal, it included all those individuals, not only the grown men but their families as well, who collectively made up the state, whether Roman or foreign, monarchical or republican.[4] Only in a transferred sense did it apply to territory.[5] The ancient definition, “an association based on the common acceptance of the same body of laws and on the general participation in public benefits,”[6] is doubtless too abstract for the beginnings of Rome. Citizenship—membership in the populus—with all that it involved is elaborately defined by the Roman jurists;[7] but for the earlier period it will serve the purpose of the present study to mention that the three characteristic public functions of the citizen were military service,

## participation in worship, and attendance at the assembly.[8] In a

narrower sense populus signifies “the people,” “masses,” in contrast with the magistrates or with the senate, as in the well known phrase, senatus populusque Romanus.

II. _The Three Primitive Tribes_

The Romans believed that the three tribes which composed the primitive populus were created by one act in close relation with the founding of the city.[9] For some unknown reason they were led to connect the myth of Titus Tatius, the eponymous hero of the Tities,[10] with the Quirinal,[11] and with the Sabines,[12] who were generally supposed to have occupied that hill.[13] Consequently some of their historians felt compelled to defer their account of the institution of the tribes till they had told of the union of the Sabines with the Romans, which at the same time gave them an opportunity to derive the names of the curiae from those of the Sabine women. Varro,[14] however, who protests against this derivation, refers the organization of the people in the three tribes to an earlier date, connecting it immediately with the founding of Rome. Though he affirmed that one tribe was named after Romulus, another after Titus Tatius, and the third, less positively, after an Etruscan Lucumo, Caeles Vibenna, who came to the aid of Romulus against Titus Tatius,[15] neither he nor any other ancient writer identified the Tities with the Sabines, whose quarter in the city was really unknown,[16] or the Luceres with an Etruscan settlement under Caeles whether in the Vicus Tuscus[17] or on the Caelian hill.[18] Since the Romans knew the tribe in no other relation than as a part of the state, they could not have thought of their city as consisting originally of a single tribe, to which a second and afterward a third were added, or that any one of these three tribes had ever been an independent community. These views are modern;[19] there is no trace of them in the ancient writers.[20] Even if it could be proved that they took this point of view, the question at issue would not thereby be settled; for no genuine tradition regarding the origin of the primitive tribes came down to the earliest annalists; the only possible knowledge they possessed on this point was deduced from the names of the tribes and from surviving institutions presumably connected with them in the period of their existence.[21] Under these circumstances modern speculations as to their independent character and diverse nationality seem absurd. The proper method of solving the problem is to test and to supplement the scant sources by a comparative study of the institution.

The low political vitality of the three primitive Roman tribes, as of the corresponding Greek phylae,[22] when we first meet with them in history, points to the artificiality of these groups—a condition indicated further both by their number and by their occurrence in other Italian states.[23] Far from being confined to Rome, the tripartite division of the community belonged to many Greek and to most Italian peoples,[24] and has entered largely into the organization of communities and nations the world over.[25] A derivation of tribus, Umbrian trifu, accepted by many scholars, connects it with the number three.[26] The wide use of this conventional number, and more particularly the regular recurrence of the same three Dorian tribes in many Dorian cities—as of the same four Ionic tribes in many Ionic cities[27]—and of the same three Latin (or Etruscan?) tribes in several old Latin cities, could not result from chance combinations in all these places, but point unmistakably to the systematic imitation of a common pattern. That pattern must be ultimately sought in the pre-urban populus, ἔθνος, folk. If we assume that before the rise of city-states the Ionian folk was organized in four tribes (phylae) and the Dorian and Latin folks in three tribes, we shall have a condition such as will satisfactorily explain the tribal organization of the city-states which grew up within the areas occupied by these three folks respectively. The thirty votes of the Latins may be best explained by assuming a division of their populus into three tribes, subdivided each into ten groups corresponding to the Roman curiae. Whereas in Umbria the decay of the pre-urban populus allowed its tribes to become independent,[28] in Latium a development in that direction was prevented by the rise of city-states, which completely overshadowed the preëxisting organization.

The Italian city-state grew not from a tribe or a combination of tribes, but from the pagus,[29] “canton,” a district of the pre-urban populus with definite consecrated boundaries,[30] usually centering in an oppidum—a place of defence and refuge.[31] In the beginning the latter enjoyed no superior right over the territory in which it was situated.[32] A pagus became a populus at the point of time when it asserted its political independence of the folk. The new state organized itself in tribes and curiae after the pattern of the folk. In the main this arrangement was artificial, yet it must have taken some account of existing ties of blood.[33] At the same time the oppidum became an urbs[34]—a city, the seat of government of the new populus. Thus arose the city-state. In the case of Rome several oppida with parts of their respective pagi[35] were merged in one urbs—that known as the city of the four regions.[36] Urbs and ager excluded each other, just as the oppidani contrasted with the pagani;[37] but both were included in the populus.

Most ancient writers represent the three tribes as primarily local,[38] and the members as landowners from the founding of the city.[39] Although their view may be a mere inference from the character of the so-called Servian tribes, the continuity of name from the earlier to the later institution points to some degree of similarity between them. It can be easily understood, too, how in time the personal feature might have so overcome the local as to make the old tribes appear to be based on birth in contrast with the territorial aspect of the new.[40]

It was probably on the institution of the later tribes that the earlier were dissolved. They left their names to the three double centuries of patrician knights.[41] Their number appears also as a factor in the number of curiae, of senators, and of members of the great sacerdotal colleges. Other survivals may be found in the name “tribunus,” in the tribuni militum, the tribuni celerum,[42] the ludus Troiae,[43] and less certainly in the Sodales Titii.[44]

III. _The Curiae_

The curia as well as the tribe was a common Italian institution. We know that it belonged to the Etruscans,[45] the Latins,[46] and several other peoples of Italy.[47] There were ten curiae to the tribe, making thirty in all.[48] The association was composed, not of gentes as many have imagined, but of families.[49] For the performance of its social and religious functions it had a house of assembly, also called curia,[50] in which the members—curiales—gathered for religious festivals. The place of meeting was a part of an edifice belonging to the collective curiae. In historical time there were two such buildings—the Curiae Veteres[51] on the northeast slope of the Palatine near the Arch of Constantine, containing seven curial meeting-places, and the Novae Curiae[52] near the Compitum Fabricium, containing the others. Their deities were Juno[53] and Tellus;[54] and their chief festivals were the Fornacalia and the Fordicidia.[55] As the worship was public, the expense was paid by the state.[56] At the head of the curia stood the curio—who in historical time was merely a priest[57]—assisted in his religious functions by his wife and children,[58] by a lictor[59] and a flamen.[60] The fact that the curio had these officials proves that he was originally a magistrate.[61] One of the curiones the people elected curio maximus to exercise general supervision over the worship and festivals of the association.[62]

Another function of the curiae was political. The grown male members, meeting in the comitium, constituted the earliest assembly organized in voting divisions—the comitia curiata—in which each curia cast a single vote.[63] Religious and political functions the curia continued to exercise far down into historical time; and for that reason they have never been doubted by the moderns. For the primitive period Dionysius[64] ascribes to them military functions as well. His idea is that the three original tribes furnished military divisions each under a tribune, and the curiae as subdivisions of the tribe furnished companies, commanded each by a curio chosen for his valor.[65] Doubtless the writer fairly describes the military system which Rome employed before the introduction of the phalanx,[66] and which corresponds closely with the system prevalent among the early Greeks,[67] Germans,[68] and other European peoples.[69] The military organization was everywhere a parallel of the civil. The Roman army, however, was by no means identical with the curiate assembly, for many belonged to the tribes and the curiae who for various reasons were exempt from military service.[70]

It is probable, too, that the curiae, as well as the tribes,[71] were territorial divisions. Not only have we the authority of Dionysius[72] that each curia occupied a district of the state, but also two of the seven known curial names—Foriensis and Veliensis[73]—are local. Though the two mentioned refer to places within the city, the country people were also included in the associations.[74]

* * * * *

Since Niebuhr the opinion has generally prevailed that the curia was composed of gentes. A passage which at first glance seems to have a bearing on the question is Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 4: “Romulus divided the curiae into decades, each commanded by a leader, who in the language of the country is called decurion.”[75] The word decurion proves, however, that in speaking of decades Dionysius is thinking of the military divisions called decuriae, each commanded by a decurion. In historical times the troop of cavalry—turma—was divided into three decuriae of ten each, as the word itself indicates. There were accordingly three decurions to the turma, and ten turmae ordinarily went with the legion.[76] From Varro[77] we learn that the three primitive tribes furnished turmae and decuriae of cavalry, the decuriae commanded by decurions. Dionysius accordingly refers to military companies—either to the well known decuriae of cavalry or to corresponding companies of footmen which probably existed before the adoption of the phalanx.[78] Had he meant gentes, he would have used the corresponding Greek word γένη. Niebuhr[79] inferred from this passage that each curia was divided into ten gentes, making three hundred gentes for the entire state; but a careful interpretation shows that no reference to the gentes is intended. We cannot infer therefore from this citation that the curia was divided into gentes.

The other passage relative to the question is Gellius xv. 27. 4,[80] in which Laelius Felix states that the voting in the comitia curiata was by genera hominum in contrast with the census et aetas of the centuriate assembly and with the regiones et loca of the comitia tributa. Niebuhr identifies genera with gentes.[81] It is clear, however, that in this passage Laelius is not concretely defining the voting units of the various assemblies, but is stating in a general way the principles underlying their organization into voting units. In the comitia centuriata the principle is wealth and age; census et aetas is not to be identified with centuria or with any other group of individuals in this assembly. In like manner regiones et loca expresses the principle of organization of the tribal assembly; or if used concretely, it must designate the tribes themselves, and not subdivisions of the tribes, for none existed. Correspondingly genera hominum signifies that the principle of organization of the curiate assembly is hereditary connection; but so far as the expression is applied concretely, it must denote the curiae themselves not subdivisions of these associations. The curia, a religious, social, and political group based on birth, might well be called genus hominum in contrast with the local tribe and with the century, composed artificially of men of similar wealth and age. It is well known, too, that voting within the curiae was not by gentes but by heads.[82] As no other passage from the sources, besides these two, has even the appearance of lending support to the proposition advanced by Niebuhr, and favored by others, that the curia was a group of gentes, we may conclude that this proposition is groundless. The result is that the gens had no connection with the comitial organization.

I. THE POPULUS; the beginnings of Rome: Schwegler, A., _Römische Geschichte_, I. bk. viii; Peter, C., _Geschichte Roms_, i. 17 ff.; Niese, B., _Grundriss der röm. Geschichte_, 16 ff., 28 ff.; Jordan, H., _Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum_, I. i. 153 ff; iii. 34; Gilbert, O., _Geschichte und Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum_, i, ii; Richter, _Topographie der Stadt Rom_, 30 ff. (see review by H. Degering, in _Berl. Philol. Woch._ 1903. 1645 f.); Platner, S. B., _Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome_, ch. iv; Schulze, W., _Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen_, 579-82; Pais, E., _Ancient Legends of Roman History_, ch. xii; Nissen, H., _Das Templum_, ch. v; _Italische Landeskunde_, ii. 488 ff.; Kornemann, E., _Polis und Urbs_, in _Klio_, v (1905). 72-92; Carter, J. B., _Roma Quadrata and the Septimontium_, in _Am. Journ. of Archaeol._ xii (1908). 172-83; Deecke, Wm., _Die Falisker_; Montelius, _Die frühesten zeiten Roms_, in _Correspbl. d. deutsch. Gesellsch. f. Anthr. Ethn. u. Urgesch._ xxxv (1904). 122; Pöhlmann, R., _Die Anfänge Roms_; Schrader, O., _Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte_, bk. IV. ch. xii; _Heer, König, Sippe, Stamm_ in _Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde_; Fustel de Coulanges, _Ancient City_, bk. iii; Leist, _Graeco-italische Rechtsgeschichte_, 103 ff.; _Alt-arisches Jus Civile_, i. 319-36; Meyer, E., _Geschichte des Altertums_, ii. 510 ff.; Mommsen, _History of Rome_, bk. I. chs. iii, iv; _Röm. Staatsrecht_, iii. 3 ff., 112-22; Marquardt, J., _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, i. 3 ff.; Lange, L., _Röm. Altertümer_, i. 55-284; _Das röm. Königtum_, in _Kleine Schriften_, i. 77-104; Herzog, E., _Geschichte und System der röm. Staatsverfassung_, i. 3-23, 969 ff.; Willems, P., _Droit public Romain_, 17 ff.; Karlowa, O., _Röm. Rechtsgeschichte_, i. 30 ff.; Greenidge, A. H. J., _Roman Public Life_, ch. i; Bernhöft, F., _Staat und Recht der röm. Königszeit_, 69 ff.; Genz, _Das patricische Röm_, 51 ff.; Morlot, E., _Les comices électoraux sous la république Romaine_, ch. i.

II. THE PRIMITIVE TRIBES: Niebuhr, B. G., _Röm. Geschichte_, i. 300-321; English, i. 149-58; Schwegler, ibid. I. bk. IX. ch. xiv. § 2; Niese, ibid. 30 f.; De Sanctis, G., _Storia dei Romani_, i. 249-55; Gilbert, ibid. ii. 329-79; Nissen, _Templum_, 144-6; _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 7-15, 496 ff.; Jordan, H., _Die Könige im alten Italien_, 35-7; controverted by W. Soltau, in _Woch. f. Kl. Philol._ xxv (1908). 220-3; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 95-100, 109-12; _Rom. Tribus_, 1 f.; Lange, _Rom. Alt._ i. 81-101; Herzog, ibid. i. 23 ff.; Madvig, J. N., _Röm. Staat_, i. 95-8; Mispoulet, J. B., _Les institutions politiques des Romains_, i. 3-6; Soltau, W., _Altröm. Volksversammlungen_, 46-51; Willems, P., _Le sénat de la république Romaine_, I. ch. i; Bloch, G., _Les origines du sénat Romain_, 1-16, 32-8; Bernhöft, ibid. 79 ff.; Genz, ibid. 89-106; Meyer, ibid.; _Der Ursprung des Tribunats und die Gemeinde der vier Tribus_, in _Hermes_, xxx (1895). 1-24; controverted by Sp. Vassis, in _Athena_, ix (1897). 470-2; Kubitschek, W., _De romanorum tribuum origine ac propagatione_ 1 ff.; Volquardsen, C. A., _Die drei ältesten röm. Tribus_, in _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xxxiii (1878). 538-64; Bormann, E., _die älteste Gliederung Roms_, in _Eranos Vindobonensis_, 345-58; Holzapfel, L., _Die drei ältesten röm. Tribus_, in _Beiträge zur alten Geschichte_, i (1902). 228-55; Bertolini, C. I., _I celeres ed il tribunus celerum_; Zimmermann, A., _Zu Titus_, etc., in _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. 1 (1895). 159 f.; Schlossmann, S., _Tributum, tribuere, tribus_, in _Archiv f. lat. Lexicog._ xiv (1906). 25-40; Schulze, W., _Zur Gesch. lateinischer Eigennamen_, see index, s. Ramnenses, etc.

III. THE CURIAE: POTT, A. F., _Etymologische Forschungen_, ii. 373 ff.; Corssen, W., _Ausspr._ index, s. Curia; Vaniček, A., _Etymologisches Wörterbuch der lat. Sprache_, 160; _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterbuch_, 1116; Niebuhr, ibid. i. 321-54; Schwegler, ibid. i. 610-12; Gilbert, ibid, index s. Curia; Richter, ibid. index s. Curia; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr_. iii. 89 ff.; Lange, ibid. i. 275-84, and index, s. Curia; Willems, P., _Sén. Rom._ ibid.; Bloch, G., _Orig. d. sén._ 290 ff.; Mispoulet, J. B., ibid. i. 7-9; Fustel de Coulanges, ibid. 154-7; Karlowa, ibid.; Genz, ibid. 32-50; Hoffmeister, K., _Die Wirtschaftliche Entwickelung Roms_, 5 f.; Soltau, ibid. 46-67; Müller, J. J., _Studien zur röm. Verfassungsgeschichte_, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1875). 96 ff.; Ihne, Wm., _History of Rome_, i. 113 f.; Newman, F. W., _Dr. Ihne on the Early Roman Constitution_, in _Classical Museum_, vi (1849). 15 ff.; Hoffmann, E., _Patricische und plebeiische Curien_; Kübler and Hülsen, _Curia_, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1815-26; Pelham, H., _The Roman Curiae_, in (English) _Journal of Philology_, ix (1880). 266-79.

IV. THE GENTES: Fustel de Coulanges, ibid. bk. ii; Leist, _Graeco-ital. Rechtsgesch._ 11 ff.; _Alt-arisches Ius Gentium_; _Alt-arisch. Jus Civ._ i. 461-76 (Irish Kin); Hirt, H., _Indogermanen_, ii. 409-56; Engels, F., _Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staats_, ch. v; Howard, G. E., _History of Matrimonial Institutions_, I. pt. i; Levison, W., _Die Beurkundung des Zivilstandes im Altertum_; Wildebrandt, M., _Die politische und sociale Bedeutung der attischen Geschlechter vor Solon_, in _Philologus_, Supplb. vii (1899). 135-227; Kovalevsky, M., _La gens et le clan_, in _Annales de l’institut international de sociologie_, vii (1900). 57-100; Ruggiero, E., _La gens in Roma avanti la formazione del comune_; Schwegler, ibid. i. 612-15; Lange, ibid. i. 211-59, and see index, s. v.; Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch_, i. 1-127; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 9-53, and see index s. v.; Mispoulet, ibid. i. 9-14; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. chs. i-iii; Müller, J. J., _Studien z. röm. Verfassungsgesch._ in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 96-104; Bloch, G., ibid. 102 ff.; _Recherches sur quelques gentes patriciennes_, in _Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’école Française de Rome_, 1882. 241-76; Soltau, ibid. 58-64, 652-5; Bernhöft, ibid.; Genz, ibid. 1-31; Bloch, L., _Die ständischen und sozialen Kämpfe in der röm. Republik_; Holzapfel, L., _Il numero dei senatori Romani durante il periodo dei rei_, in _Rivista di storia antica_, ii. 2 (1897). 52-64; Marquardt, J., _Privatleben der Römer_, 1-26, 353 f.; Deecke, ibid. 275 ff. (on Italian names); Michel, N. H., _Du droit de cité Romaine_; Köhm, J., _Altlateinische Forschungen_, 1-21; Lécrivain, C., _Gens_, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1504-16; Ruggiero, E., _Diz. ep._ iii (1906). 482-6; Casagrandi, V., _Le minores gentes ed i patres minorum gentium_; Staaf, E., _De origine gentium patriciarum_; Lieboldt, K., _Die Ansichten über die Entstehung und das Wesen der Gentes patriciae aus der Zeit der Humanisten bis auf unsere Tage_; Botsford, G. W., _Some Problems connected with the Roman Gens_, in _Political Science Quarterly_, xxii (1907). 663-92.

##