COMITIAL LEGISLATION FROM SULLA TO THE END OF THE REPUBLIC, 82 TO ABOUT 30
I. _The Cornelian Reaction_
82-70
In November, 82, after destroying his political enemies by war and
proscription, Sulla was ready to begin the work of restoring the
aristocratic constitution. As both consuls, Cn. Papirius Carbo and C.
Marius the younger,[2553] were dead, and as Sulla desired above all
things to give his legislation a constitutional basis, he advised the
senate to appoint an interrex. The choice fell on L. Valerius Flaccus,
princeps senatus, a moderate in politics. Thereupon Sulla withdrew
from Rome, leaving the civil authorities free in appearance to act at
their discretion. In reality he had determined to retain control of
affairs; and accordingly he wrote to Valerius advising the appointment
of a dictator, not for a fixed time but till the general unrest should
be quieted. He suggested himself as a suitable person for the place.
Valerius obediently proposed and carried a law through the comitia
centuriata, (1) which made Sulla dictator rei publicae constituendae for
an indefinite time with absolute power over the lives and property of the
citizens,[2554] (2) which legalized all his past acts, both as consul and
as proconsul,[2555] including his arrangements in Asia as well as his
proscriptions and confiscations.[2556] He returned to the city, appointed
Valerius his magister equitum,[2557] and took to himself twenty-four
lictors in addition to a less formal guard of servants and friends.[2558]
Without delay he began the promulgation of laws, which undoubtedly he had
long been planning. They are here grouped according to subject, with an
occasional reference to their chronological relation.
First he applied himself to curbing the power of the tribunate, an
institution in which centred the strength of the democracy. A statute for
that purpose he must have felt compelled to draw up and pass before the
next tribunician election. Instead of renewing his earlier law, however,
for absolutely depriving the tribunes of initiative in legislation,[2559]
he enacted simply that the previous consent of the senate should be
necessary to bills brought by them before the tribes.[2560] By another
article of this law he limited the right of tribunes to address the
people in contiones.[2561] The range of their intercession was also
greatly limited.[2562] Their function of bringing prosecutions before
the people underwent restriction not only through the laws affecting the
quaestiones but also by special enactment;[2563] for had they retained
their unlimited right to prosecute, they could at once have regained
all their other power.[2564] Little was left them but their original
auxilii latio adversus imperium.[2565] Finally the office was made
unattractive to the ambitious by the provision that those who held it
were thereby disqualified for other magistracies.[2566] By these measures
the most vital and powerful institution in the state was reduced to a
shadow without substance.[2567] The return to conditions preceding the
Hortensian legislation, in some respects even the Decemviral legislation,
was, as Fröhlich[2568] remarks, a backward step such as finds few
parallels in history.
About a year[2569] after limiting the power of the tribunes Sulla
proceeded to regulate the other offices through his lex de magistratibus,
81. This statute, making use of the principle contained in the lex
Villia annalis,[2570] prescribed (1) that no one could be consul before
he had been praetor or praetor before he had been quaestor,[2571] (2)
that a space of two years should intervene between the holding of
consecutive offices.[2572] (3) The minimal age of the quaestor it fixed
at thirty-seven.[2573] The fortieth year was therefore the age for the
praetorship and the forty-third for the office of consul. The aedileship,
while bringing the holder a positive advantage for his future career, was
never an essential step to a higher place. But in case this office was
taken, the biennial interval had to be observed.[2574] The quaestorship
Sulla made the sole avenue to the senate, so as to dispense with the
revision of the list by the censors.[2575] The statute of 151, forbidding
reëlection to the consulship,[2576] he repealed, and substituted for
it the article of the Genucian plebiscite of 442[2577] which fixed an
interval of ten years between the expiration of any office and reëlection
to the same.[2578] He increased the number of quaestors, at this time
certainly more than eight,[2579] to twenty, with the object not only of
supplying an administrative need but also of creating the required number
of senators.[2580] It was necessary also to raise the number of praetors
from six to eight in order to provide presidents for the new quaestiones
perpetuae.[2581]
The reforms above mentioned, together with the doubling of the number
of senators to be considered below, naturally led to the enlargement of
the chief sacerdotal colleges. The augurs and pontiffs were increased
from nine to fifteen and the decemviri sacris faciundis were made
quindecemviri.[2582] Another measure, which seems to have been an article
of the same act, repealed the Domitian lex de sacerdotiis,[2583] and thus
restored to these colleges, and at the same time to the epulones, their
right of filling vacancies by coöptation,[2584] leaving to the people the
function only of electing the head of the pontifical college from among
the members.[2585] As the object of the first article was evidently to
provide places for some of the new magistrates and senators,[2586] the
coöptation doubtless immediately followed the enactment of the law.
In increasing the number of praetors to eight[2587] Sulla provided that
during their year of office they were to remain in the city and devote
their whole time to the administration of justice. After the expiration
of their term they were to take upon themselves as propraetors the
command of provinces. In like manner the consuls were to remain in
Italy during their term, in the ordinary course of events to give their
entire attention to the affairs of peace; only after they had retired
from office were they expected as proconsuls to govern provinces. In
brief, Sulla by law established an absolute distinction between the civil
magistrate and the military promagistrate.[2588] The lex de provinciis
ordinandis[2589] recognized the right of the senate to determine which
provinces should be consular and which pretorian in the way provided for
by the Sempronian law on this subject.[2590] The Cornelian statute did
not, however, any more than the Sempronian, forbid the assignment of a
province to a promagistrate by popular vote; and it recognized the right
of the senate to create promagistracies.[2591] But it established the
rule (1) that the two consuls should receive for a year of promagisterial
imperium the provinces declared to be consular; and that they should
either agree as to which each should take or cast lots for them;[2592]
(2) that the senate should annually assign the eight retiring praetors
to the remaining provinces, also for a year of promagistracy.[2593] The
same law directed that the promagistrate, who had received the imperium
in legal form, should retain it till his return to the city and the
celebration of his triumph,[2594] provided he merited one. To avoid
conflicts between retiring and incoming governors it ordained that the
former should leave the province within thirty days after the latter had
entered it.[2595] The law further contained the definite regulation of
the supplies and honors granted the legati by the provincials.[2596] The
tendency of Sulla’s legislation thus far considered was to weaken the
civil functionaries (1) by restricting the tribunician initiative. (2)
by increasing the number of quaestors and praetors. (3) by depriving the
higher civil magistrates of the military imperium. The last-mentioned
loss was in some measure an advantage to the senate but in a far higher
degree to the promagistrates, who from this time began to overshadow the
republic.
The power taken from the tribunes necessarily went to the senate, to
restore to it the full control of legislation which it had possessed
before the enactment of the Hortensian statute. Under the reformed
constitution it was to be supreme. As it had dwindled during the recent
civil war and proscription,[2597] and as the performance of jury service,
which Sulla was restoring to its members, required a large number of men,
he added three hundred, mostly from the equestrian rank, but including
some centurions and other insignificant persons who were likely to do his
bidding.[2598] Appian[2599] states that these new senators were elected
by the tribes, possibly meaning the tribal comitia.[2600] But as that
process of selection would have required an enormous length of time, it
is far more probable that each tribe had the privilege of choosing a
definite number, perhaps nine, after the precedent of the lex Plautia
iudiciaria.[2601] This addition would raise the number to about four
hundred and fifty. As the normal membership from Sulla to Caesar was
about six hundred,[2602] we may assume either that, independently of
the extraordinary adlectio by the tribes, he made the usual censorial
enrolment of the recently retired magistrates, or that he left it to time
to fill up the senate to the desired number by the annual admission of
retired quaestors.[2603] Henceforth it was to be recruited automatically
by this process, without any action on the part of the censors,
who were thus deprived of the only important function remaining to
them.[2604] Closely connected with the increase in membership is the lex
iudiciaria,[2605] which restored the quaestiones to the senators.[2606]
It was enacted near the end of 81, but prior to the increase in the
number of quaestors.[2607] Before this act the courts had remained under
the control of the knights in spite of the lex Plautia of 89, which seems
not to have continued long in force.[2608]
In the reorganization of the criminal courts (year 81) Sulla passed
criminal laws, in which he regulated the procedure of the existing
courts and created new quaestiones perpetuae.[2609] His reform increased
the number to seven, four of which were concerned almost wholly with
maladministration of office: (1) quaestio repetundarum, extortion,[2610]
(2) quaestio ambitus, bribery in elections,[2611] (3) quaestio peculatus,
misappropriation of public funds[2612] and sacrilege,[2613] (4)
quaestio maiestatis, injury to the majesty of the Roman name, of which
a private person as well as a magistrate might be guilty.[2614] The
three following were concerned with common crimes: (5) quaestio inter
sicarios et veneficos, assassination, poisoning, and arson,[2615] (6)
quaestio de falsis, counterfeiting and falsification of testaments and
other forgery,[2616] (7) quaestio iniuriarum, acute personal violence,
housebreaking, and probably defamation of character.[2617] These laws
concerning quaestiones contained provisions for granting the accused the
privilege of deciding whether the vote should be oral or by ballot,[2618]
and they directed that the order of voting should be determined by
lot.[2619] The first of these two articles aimed to make the jurors
individually responsible, and the second to prevent influential men from
prejudicing the case by giving their opinions first.[2620]
While the praetor urbanus and praetor peregrinus still busied themselves
with civil jurisdiction, the six other praetors presided over these
courts; but as the number was insufficient, past aediles were appointed
to preside as iudices quaestionis. This arrangement was especially
necessary for the quaestio inter sicarios, overburdened as it was with a
variety of crimes.
As these courts were vested with the function of trying without appeal
all crimes, including those formerly brought before the comitia, the
result was that the people were practically, though not constitutionally,
deprived of their judicial power. The tendency of the Cornelian
legislation in this as in other respects was oligarchic.
Among the statutes passed in the winter or early spring of 81 we must
place the lex de proscriptione,[2621] which added certain regulations
to those of the Valerian law for the creation of the Cornelian
dictatorship,[2622] and which Sulla considered essential to the execution
of his policy and the maintenance of its results. The Cornelian
statute concerning proscription forbade the giving of relief or aid
to a proscribed person;[2623] it legalized the previous slayings and
confiscations of property,[2624] and provided also that the estates not
only of the proscribed but also of enemies who had fallen in battle
should be sold for the benefit of the treasury.[2625] It excepted from
the sale ten thousand of the youngest and strongest slaves, who were
given their freedom; and it debarred from the ius honorum the sons,
grandsons, and other descendants of the proscribed,[2626] with a view to
keeping from them the means of vengeance; and lastly, it fixed the date
for closing the proscriptions at June 1, 81.[2627]
During the winter of 82-81 Sulla gave his attention not only to
law-making but also to the sale of confiscated property and to
the regulation of Italy. The latter work was carried out by the
administrative power of the dictator through the destruction of the
fortifications of rebellious communities, their punishment by fines and
extraordinary taxes, and the confiscation of some of their lands, to
be assigned to his discharged veterans.[2628] The Cornelian agrarian
laws,[2629] which brought about these confiscations and assignments,
seem to have been not acts of the comitia but dictatorial orders.[2630]
They must have been issued from time to time as occasion demanded,
probably through the entire year 81.[2631] The legions were kept together
till after the triumph (January 27, 28 of the year 81)[2632] and then
disbanded, to be led off gradually to their lands. Some of the municipia
to which soldiers were assigned, most obstinately Volaterrae and Nola,
resisted their admission by force of arms. To punish these rebels Sulla
carried through the comitia centuriata his lex de civitate Volaterranis
adimenda,[2633] which disfranchised not only Volaterrae but also other
rebellious municipia.[2634] Those who by this act were deprived of the
citizenship received the so-called Latin rights of Ariminum.[2635]
Among the regulations for the improvement of the finances, which he
found in bad condition,[2636] was his abolition of the distributions
of grain.[2637] Whether it was effected by a lex frumentaria or a
dictatorial order cannot be determined.[2638] The levy of taxes on
Italian and transmarine communities[2639] could be brought about by
senatus consulta,[2640] as the people had nothing to do with such
matters. Credit had been shattered by the law of L. Valerius Flaccus
concerning debts, 86,[2641] which Sulla repealed by one of his own on the
same subject, 81.[2642]
In connection with the Circensian games which he celebrated in the
autumn of 81, and which in honor of Victoria were thereafter repeated
annually from October 26 to November 1,[2643] Sulla must have passed
a lex de ludis Victoriae instituendis.[2644] Lastly came the sumptuary
law, through which he attempted to regulate the manners and morals of
the citizens.[2645] It was the restoration, in a revised form, of the
lex Licinia of 104,[2646] which had been repealed by M. Duronius in
97.[2647] The Cornelian statute permitted the expenditure of no more than
three hundred sesterces for meals on the calends, nones, ides, ludi, and
certain other holidays, and only thirty for ordinary meals; and it fixed
the prices of various luxuries.[2648] Another article of the same statute
limited funeral expenses.[2649] The author’s object seems to have been to
restore the morals and manners as well as the constitution and laws of
the good old time before they were corrupted by the demagogues.
Sulla’s legislation was substantially complete on January 1, 80, when
he entered upon his second consulship with Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius
as colleague.[2650] Retiring into private life early in 79, he left
the constitution to its fate. No better comment on its value could be
offered than the history of its decline and overthrow in a single decade.
Opposition began to manifest itself from the time of his abdication;
and he was hardly in his grave when M. Aemilius Lepidus, consul in 78,
promulgated bills for the abolition of some of the Cornelian statutes;
but the opposition of his colleague, Q. Lutatius Catulus, and of the
senate prevented their ratification.[2651] The right of retired tribunes
to sue for other offices,[2652] however, was restored by a statute of
the consul C. Aurelius Cotta, 75.[2653]
Before coming to the restoration of the tribunician power it is necessary
to mention the statutes passed under the Cornelian constitution. To
78 or 77 probably belongs the lex Plautia de vi, generally regarded
as tribunician, which established a quaestio perpetua for the trial
of persons charged with violence. It also forbade the acquisition by
long use of things stolen or violently seized.[2654] As no censors were
elected, an order of the people of unknown authorship in 75, pursuant
to a senatus consultum, empowered the consuls of the year to farm the
vectigalia.[2655] The approaching end of the Cornelian régime was
foreboded in the Plautian law for the recall of Cinna and other exiled
democrats, if indeed this measure belongs to 73,[2656] and certainly in
the consular law of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, 72, which directed
the consuls of the year to collect the money remitted by Sulla to the
purchasers of confiscated estates.[2657] A popular tendency may be
discovered as well in the final settlement of the question of conflict
between sessions of the senate and of the comitia by the lex Pupia, which
seems to have been a statute of M. Pupius Piso Calpurnianus, praetor
in 71.[2658] It forbade the magistrates to convoke the senate on those
comitial days on which an assembly actually met,[2659] the prohibition
applying to that part only of the day which preceded the dismissal of the
comitia.[2660] It was probably this year which saw the enactment of the
lex Antonia de Termessibus—a plebiscite proposed de senatus sententia
by C. Antonius, tribune of the plebs, and several of his colleagues,
for granting to Termessus Major in Pisidia the rights of a free state
in friendship and alliance with Rome, and for regulating on that basis
the relations which were to exist between the inhabitants and the
Romans.[2661]
The struggle for the rehabilitation of the tribunes began in 78, when
those officials applied to the consuls for legislation on the subject.
Even Aemilius Lepidus[2662] declined, as he could see no advantage in
the unhampered tribunate.[2663] Though generally in these early years
of the Cornelian régime the tribunes were mere puppets of the senate,
one of them in 76, L. Sicinius, dared in a contio to plead for the full
restoration of their office.[2664] In the following year Q. Opimius,
another tribune, continued the struggle, with such success that he
secured the passage of the Aurelian law above mentioned.[2665] This
measure narrowly escaped annulment, and Opimius after retiring from
office was exorbitantly fined on the ground that he had interceded in
violation of a Cornelian law.[2666] In the year of the condemnation of
Opimius, 74, L. Quinctius, who had risen to the tribunate from the lowest
social class, strove energetically for the same object,[2667] though he
could effect no more than the maintenance of the Aurelian law. Toward
the close of his term, however, he opened battle against the senatorial
courts, which had fallen into disfavor because of their corruption.[2668]
In 73 the contest was resumed by Licinius Macer the annalist, then
tribune of the plebs, who demanded in vain the full restoration of the
tribunician power.[2669] In his efforts he had the support of C. Julius
Caesar.[2670] The struggle died down as the danger from Spartacus rose;
but at the close of the servile war it was a tribune of the plebs, M.
Lollius Palicanus, a man of low birth, who in a contio held outside the
walls in order that Pompey, a proconsul, might attend, persuaded the
latter to commit himself publicly to a definite promise to bring about
a repeal of the lex Cornelia de tribunicia potestate.[2671] Inveighing
against the corruption of the senatorial courts,[2672] Pompey in the same
speech intimated an intention to propose a bill on this subject as well.
Shortly after entering upon the office of consul in 70, or at all events
before the elections of the year,[2673] Pompey promulgated his rogation
for the restoration of the tribunician power. The senate yielded in
spite of its dislike for the measure,[2674] and Licinius Crassus, his
colleague,[2675] added his name to the proposal.[2676] The people gladly
accepted it. Those articles of the Cornelian statute which remained
untouched by the Aurelian law of 75 were thereby repealed, and every
restriction on the tribunes removed.[2677] By destroying the chief
support of the Cornelian constitution this measure paved the way to
its overthrow. Notwithstanding the popular clamor for a reform of the
courts,[2678] Pompey hesitated to propose a law for that purpose, as he
hoped rather to purify the senatorial order through a severe censorial
revision so as to make a judiciary law unnecessary. The reform, however,
was taken in hand by L. Aurelius Cotta, praetor in the same year,
youngest brother of the consul of 75.[2679] The rogation was promulgated
while the trial of Verres was in progress and while the people were
excited by lack of confidence in the senatorial jurors.[2680] The
first project seems to have been the retransfer of the courts to the
equites;[2681] but when the senators saw that they were destined to lose
in the contest, they were able to save something by compromise. It was
agreed that there should be three decuries of jurors, composed in equal
numbers of senators, knights, and tribuni aerarii respectively.[2682]
The last-named decury was included because the Plautian judiciary law
of 89 had opened the courts to common citizens in addition to senators
and knights,[2683] and it was now thought that no less liberality
should be shown. The Aurelian statute provided accordingly that the
urban praetor[2684] should make up the annual album iudicum of an equal
number of men from each of the three classes.[2685] The good feature of
the law is obvious. As experience had proved the equestrian courts, as
well as the senatorial, to be partisan and corrupt, it was hoped that a
combination of the two with an equal proportion of the most responsible
and respectable common citizens would be just and impartial. If these
expectations were not realized, it was the fault of the Romans, not of
their law.
II. _Democracy in Alliance with Caesarism_
70-49
The first tribunician law under the restored constitution may have been
the sumptuary statute of C. Antius Restio, which Lange[2686] assigns to
the year 70. It limited the amount to be expended on festive meals; it
designated some delicacies as allowable and others as forbidden; and it
regulated the participation of candidates and of magistrates in dinners
away from home, doubtless with a view to curtailing ambitus practiced by
such means.[2687] Far however from being a partisan measure, this statute
seems to have been suggested by the censors of the year, to reënforce
their function of supervising the morals of the citizens.
Three years passed before the tribunes of the plebs were ready to make
independent use of their recovered power. The reason is to be found in
the harmony—concordia ordinum[2688]—reëstablished between senators and
knights, when representatives of the two classes found themselves sitting
together on the jury benches. Although the object of the combination was
idealized by contemporaries, it was in fact a governing “trust,” which in
practice operated for the maintenance of plutocracy and for the ruthless
exploitation of the provincials.[2689] The nobles were willing to concede
something to the equites to make permanent the alliance with this
powerful order.[2690] L. Roscius Otho, tribune of the plebs in 67, as
spokesman of the optimates[2691] “railroaded”[2692] through the assembly
a statute which ordered that there should be reserved in the theatre for
those in possession of the equestrian census[2693] fourteen rows of seats
just back of the orchestra, in which sat the senators.[2694] It was more
than a restoration of the concession made to the knights in 146, which
evidently Sulla had withdrawn.[2695]
There were in this year (67), however, two popular tribunes, A. Gabinius
and C. Cornelius, both of whom proposed and carried laws in the interest
of the people. Early in the year Gabinius persuaded the tribes to adopt
a statute which ordered the senate to sit daily during February to
consider embassies.[2696] It was in this month that delegations from
other states generally came. Often to obtain a hearing they had to bribe
the senators and magistrates.[2697] For that month the Gabinian law
reversed the Pupian[2698] by making senatorial sessions compulsory and
forbidding the concurrence of comitia.[2699] The object was to limit the
stay of foreign embassies at Rome not only for their own convenience
but also for lessening both the need and the opportunity for bribery.
Closely related was the purpose of his statute which forbade lending
money to provincials at Rome.[2700] Representatives of subject and
allied states, finding it necessary to bribe more extensively than their
resources in hand allowed, were tempted to borrow of the capitalists at
exorbitant interest. Private individuals from the provinces must often
have similarly borrowed to the ruin of their fortunes. The double aim
of the statute, accordingly, was to help the provincials and to check
bribery. How it passed against senatorial opposition is unknown. A
supplementary measure on the same subject was proposed to the senate by
C. Cornelius, a colleague of Gabinius, for prohibiting the lending of
money to the legati of other states, the idea being identical with that
of the two Gabinian laws. The good intention of Cornelius is vouched for
by the well-known uprightness[2701] of his character, which contrasts
with the reputed vileness of Gabinius. But the senate rejected the
proposal on the ground that it had already made sufficient provision
for checking the abuse. Although Cornelius thereupon complained in a
contio that the provinces were being exhausted by usury, he does not
seem to have urged his measure further.[2702] He promulgated, however,
against the interests of the senate a rogation for ordering that no one
should receive a dispensation from a law excepting through a vote of the
comitia. This right had been acquired by the people in the period between
the Publilian and the Hortensian legislation (339-287).[2703] It had
come to be regarded as inseparable from the sovereignty of the people
to such an extent that all senatus consulta for dispensing from the
laws contained a provision for bringing the matter before the comitia.
Gradually the custom of referring to the people ceased, and at last
the provision to that effect was dropped from senatorial decrees. The
result was that often a few senators, meeting in the Curia, voted away to
acquaintances and relatives the valuable privilege of exemption from a
law. The optimates induced a tribune of the plebs, P. Servilius Globulus,
to intercede against the bill while it was being read to the assembly
prior to the vote. When the dissenting tribune forbade the crier to
proceed with the reading, Cornelius himself read it.[2704] A disturbance
in the assembly, started by the interference of Piso the consul, caused
Cornelius to dismiss the concilium. Afterward he so compromised with the
optimates as to secure the passage of a law that no dispensations should
be granted by the senate unless two hundred members were present, and
that when a resolution of the kind was brought down from the senate to
the people, no one should intercede against the act.[2705] The victory
was with the senate; it gained a legal right to a function which it had
usurped, provision being merely made against abuse. But it exercised
this function by the sufferance of the tribunes, any one of whom could
insist on bringing the dispensing resolution before the people, in which
case his colleagues were forbidden to intercede.[2706]
Another proposal of this tribune was the rogatio de ambitu, which
threatened with severe penalties not only the candidates but also their
agents, the divisores, whose duty was to distribute the corruption fund
among the tribes.[2707] The senate, declaring the penalties so harsh
that neither accuser nor jurors could be found to enforce it, put the
bill in the hands of the two consuls, C. Calpurnius Piso and M’. Acilius
Glabrio.[2708] Here was a comical situation; both consuls were liable to
the existing law on the subject; but for the sake of appearances they
had to revise the bill and present it to the comitia in the Forum.[2709]
The lex Acilia Calpurnia, enacted in this way,[2710] inflicted on those
found guilty of the crime a heavy fine, and forever disqualified them
from holding office or sitting in the senate.[2711] Cornelius proposed
other measures, all of which were vetoed by colleagues excepting his
lex concerning the edict of the praetor, described as follows by Dio
Cassius:[2712] “All the praetors themselves compiled and published the
principles according to which they intended to try cases; for all the
decrees regarding contracts had not yet been laid down. Now since they
were not in the habit of doing this once for all and did not observe
the rules as written, but often made changes in them and incidentally
a number of clauses naturally appeared in some one’s favor or to some
one’s hurt, he moved that they should at the very start announce the
principles they would use and not swerve from them at all.” The object
was to make the administration of the law more just and regular, and to
cut off an opportunity for favoritism.[2713]
By far the most important measure of the year was the Gabinian law
for the appointment of an especial commander against the pirates. The
proposition was that from the consulares should be chosen a general
for putting down the pirates; that his province should be the entire
Mediterranean and a strip of its coasts extending fifty miles inland,
including Italy and the islands; that the command should continue three
years; that the holder of this imperium should have the right to fifteen
legati and 200 ships, and the privilege of enlisting soldiers and oarsmen
over all his province; that he should have credit with the aerarium at
Rome and the publicans in the provinces for 6000 talents.[2714] The name
of Pompey did not appear in the bill, but no one doubted who was to be
the man. The optimates were all opposed, though in 74 they had given
Antonius such a command,[2715] which now served Gabinius as a precedent.
The senate was compelled by threats of the people to yield, but used its
influence on the colleagues of Gabinius to have them oppose the measure.
Two of them, L. Roscius Otho, author of the lex theatralis,[2716] and
L. Trebellius, attempted to prevent comitial action. The tribes began
to vote the deposition of Trebellius; but before the eighteenth was
called he desisted.[2717] Thereafter both remained silent, and the law
was passed. Pompey was then elected to the command by the tribes.[2718]
They enacted further that he should have two quaestors, twenty-four
legati pro praetore, 500 ships, 120,000 men, and 5000 cavalry. On one
point only the senate refused its sanction; it would not permit Gabinius
to be a legatus.[2719] An article of the statute gave as a province to
the outgoing consul, M’. Acilius Glabrio, Bithynia and Pontus with the
conduct of the war against Mithridates.[2720] The Gabinian law led to
far-reaching consequences. It established temporarily, not precisely a
monarchy, but a dyarchy, as the Roman world was thereby divided between
the senate and a general with almost absolute power. The arrangement was
a prototype of the Augustan system. At the outset the act seemed to be
justified by the results, for immediately after its adoption the price of
grain fell from the famine height to which the piratical control of the
seas had forced it.[2721]
An addition to this vast power was made in the following year by the
Manilian law. The author, C. Manilius, after entering upon his tribunate
on December 10, 67, promulgated a rogation for giving libertini the right
to vote in the tribes of their patrons.[2722] It was said by some, though
probably without ground, that the real author was Cornelius.[2723] While
in general the optimates disliked the measure, some favored it in the
hope that they would gain political influence through the votes of their
freedmen.[2724] In spite of the fact that constitutionally the comitia
could not be held on a festive day, Manilius convoked the assembly on
the last day of the year, which was the Compitalia, toward evening,
gathering to the assembly a few men who he knew favored the proposal. On
the following day the senate heard of the enactment and at once declared
it invalid.[2725] The behavior of Manilius exposed him to certain
prosecution unless he could win powerful support. This is the motive
ascribed to him by Dio Cassius[2726] for his famous law which conferred
extraordinary power on Pompey for the conduct of the war against
Mithridates.[2727] It gave the Roman general, in addition to his existing
command, the provinces of Asia, Bithynia, and Cilicia with the right to
declare war and make treaties at his discretion.[2728] The province thus
granted him included nearly all the eastern domain of Rome which had not
already been conferred by the Gabinian law. No discussion of this measure
in the senate is mentioned, though it is difficult to understand how such
action could be avoided.[2729] The only optimates who opposed the bill in
contiones were Q. Lutatius Catulus and Q. Hortensius, who had been the
chief opponents of the Gabinian law. Their objection was the monarchical
position in which these measures were placing Pompey.[2730] Its leading
supporters were Caesar and Cicero.[2731] It was so enthusiastically
favored by the knights and the populace that its adoption was from the
beginning a foregone conclusion.
In 65 the conservatives found themselves strong enough to put through
the assembly the plebiscite of C. Papius for expelling the peregrini
from Rome, and for punishing those who had usurped the rights of the
citizens. The object was to prevent Latin-speaking foreigners, especially
the Transpadane Gauls, from packing the assemblies with a view to passing
measures for the further extension of the franchise. The Papian law was
modelled after the Claudian of 177,[2732] the Junian of 126,[2733] and in
some respects after the Licinian-Mucian of 95.[2734] Probably to the same
Papius belongs the lex Papia de Vestalium lectione, which limited the
power of choice exercised by the supreme pontiff.[2735]
After the unusual comitial activity of 67-66 there was almost a pause
in legislation till the year of Cicero’s consulship, 63. To that date
belongs the plebiscite of T. Atius Labienus, which restored the form of
election of sacerdotes introduced by Domitius in 103[2736] and abolished
by Sulla.[2737]
A remarkable effort at agrarian legislation was made at the beginning
of the year by P. Servilius Rullus, tribune of the plebs. In December,
64, shortly after entering office, he promulgated a bill, comprising
more than forty articles,[2738] with the intention of having it
voted on in January.[2739] The administration of the law was to
be in the hands of ten men elected by seventeen tribes after the
manner of the comitia pontificis maximi,[2740] to hold office five
years.[2741] Candidates should be required to present themselves in
person[2742] (so as to exclude Pompey). This commission was to have the
irresponsible[2743] management of large resources[2744] for the purchase
of land in Italy,[2745] on which they were to plant colonies at their
discretion.[2746] The object of the rogation seems to have been the
creation of an oligarchy of ten who with their vast powers and revenues
should control Rome and counterbalance the military prestige of Pompey.
Caesar and Crassus were probably behind the scheme. Should it by any
chance succeed, they would be the dominant members of the board. Its
faulty structure and revolutionary demands, however, made failure almost
certain from the outset. At all events Cicero, driven into the ranks
of the optimates by the necessity of opposing it,—so Caesar may have
reasoned,—would thus be eliminated from the leadership of the democratic
party, while the populace, with appetite whetted for an agrarian law,
would be ready for the saner measure which Caesar was himself intending
to propose as soon as an opportunity offered. But Cicero out-manoeuvred
his adversaries. It was as a friend of the people and an ally of the
tribunes that he opposed the bill in two contiones,[2747] after which
a threat of intercession on the part of a colleague induced Rullus to
withdraw it.
In Cicero’s judgment there was pressing need of a new lex de ambitu
to cover the loopholes left by the Acilian-Calpurnian statute of
67.[2748] Early in the year he passed through the senate a decree which
so interpreted that enactment as to make it apply to the hiring of
sectatores, the granting of free seats to the tribes at gladiatorial
shows, and the entertainment of the public at dinners.[2749] Later
in the summer, after the elections of the year had been announced,
a dispensation from the Aelian-Fufian law[2750] enabled him and C.
Antonius, his colleague,[2751] to propose and carry a new statute
concerning bribery at elections.[2752] It increased the penalty on the
divisores,[2753] and forbade any one within the two years preceding the
announcement of a candidacy to give gladiatorial shows excepting in
fulfilment of a testament.[2754] The penalty for the convicted candidate
was ten years’ exile.[2755] The part of the law which had to do with the
jurors included a provision for fining those who absented themselves
from the trial even on the ground of illness.[2756] A measure certainly
passed in this year, and probably forming an article of the Tullian lex
de ambitu, forbade candidacies in absentia.[2757] Amid the troubles
connected with the Catilinarian conspiracy Cicero found time for an
attempt to relieve the provincials of one of the most flagrant abuses
inflicted on them by the senatorial oligarchy. To increase the dignity
and lessen the expense of a member while travelling even on private
business through the provinces, the senate was accustomed to have the
office of public legatus conferred on him by a magistrate, which honor
at the same time implied the right to be absent from sessions of the
senate.[2758] In this capacity a senator represented the state,[2759]
and could have lictors assigned him by the provincial governors.[2760]
Abuses of this privilege were to the provincials an especially vexatious
form of oppression.[2761] Cicero’s first rogation on the subject proposed
to abolish the free legation, but when a tribune in the service of the
illiberals interceded, the measure before enactment was so weakened as
to limit the privilege of any one person to a single year,[2762] and
hence did little to remedy the mischief.[2763] There was in fact no hope
for the provincials either from the avaricious plutocrats or the hungry
proletarians.
The legislation of the years between the consulships of Cicero and
Caesar, 63-59, involved no important principle. To prevent the
introduction of forged statutes in the archives,[2764] a law of D.
Junius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena, consuls in 62, forbade the filing
of a statute in the aerarian archives excepting in the presence of
witnesses.[2765] In this year M. Porcius Cato and L. Marcius, tribunes
of the plebs, carried a law which threatened with punishment commanders
who reported falsely to the senate the number of the enemy killed and
of citizens lost, and required them within ten days after returning to
the city to give their oath before the urban quaestors that they had
transmitted correct reports.[2766] For the year 60 must be mentioned the
pretorian law of Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos, which abolished vectigalia
in Italy,[2767] and the tribunician rogation of L. Flavius for granting
lands to Pompey’s veterans. The latter failed through the disapproval
of the senate.[2768] Far more interesting because of the procedure,
though otherwise of little consequence, was the tribunician rogation of
Herennius of the same year for transferring P. Clodius to the plebeian
rank. The subject has been considered in an earlier chapter.[2769]
The year of Caesar’s consulship was one of unusual legislative activity.
Resuming the agrarian policy of the Gracchi, which had been undone by
the statute of 111,[2770] he promulgated early in the year a bill for
the distribution of lands, which exempted the Campanian[2771] and
Stellatine[2772] territory as well as that of Volaterrae, which Sulla
had confiscated without ejecting the inhabitants.[2773] As little other
public land remained in Italy, the bill ordered that money accruing
from the sale of booty taken by Pompey, and from the new revenues of
the territory he had won for Rome, be used for the purchase of lands
from those who were willing to sell at the values assessed in the last
census.[2774] The beneficiaries were the needy citizens and the veterans
of Pompey.[2775] The lots assigned were to remain inalienable twenty
years.[2776] The work of distribution was to be in the hands of a board
of twenty—vigintiviri[2777]—which should not include the author of
the law.[2778] A sub-committee of this large board must have been the
Vviri agris dandis adsignandis iudicandis,[2779] who in the opinion
of Mommsen[2780] possessed the sole judicial power connected with the
work of distribution. As the senate studiously delayed action on the
measure, though unable to offer any criticism,[2781] Caesar without its
sanction presented the bill to the people.[2782] Bibulus, his colleague,
backed by three tribunes of the plebs, not only protested against
the bill,[2783] but resorted to sky-watching and the proclamation of
festivals to prevent its adoption.[2784] Disregarding this opposition,
Caesar with the support of Pompey and Crassus offered his rogation to the
tribes,[2785] who accepted it with great enthusiasm. For the remainder of
his term he ignored the senate in all his legislation. As to his other
agrarian provisions, it is difficult to determine whether they were
attached to this rogation before its enactment or formed a new bill.
In favor of the second alternative it is to be noticed in the first
place that Cicero and others mention Julian agrarian laws,[2786] and
that Cicero’s expression “Campanian lex”[2787] could describe a measure
relating to the Campanian territory but not the whole group of agrarian
provisions of that year. Moreover although Cicero was acquainted with
the Julian rogation from the beginning of the year,[2788] he did not
at Formiae hear of the inclusion of the Campanian territory till near
the end of April.[2789] It might be assumed that after the senate and
Bibulus showed opposition Caesar modified the original rogation before
putting it to vote, but no mention is made of an alteration. Finally Dio
Cassius[2790] and Plutarch[2791] speak distinctly of an earlier and a
later law.[2792] On the whole it seems probable therefore that toward the
end of April Caesar promulgated a second agrarian bill which provided
for the distribution of the Campanian and Stellatine lands among needy
citizens, preferably those who had three or more children.[2793] The
complete execution of the law would dispose of all public lands in Italy
from which a revenue might be derived. An article required not only
senators within a specified time to swear that they would support the
measures[2794] but also candidates for office for the following year to
give their oath in contio that they would not propose any modification or
repeal of them.[2795]
This statute was full of significance both in content and in the manner
of enactment: it set at defiance the senate and the auspices; it deprived
the state of important revenues, increasing correspondingly the financial
burden on the provinces; it brought relief to many proletarians, while
encouraging militarism through a provision for Pompey’s veterans.
Ostensibly democratic, it cemented and announced to the world the
triumvirate of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey—a combination of democratic,
plutocratic, and military bossism, which proved more dangerous to
political liberty than had been the dictatorship of Sulla. The last
great agrarian law of the republic contained in itself a prophecy of the
monarchy which its author was soon to establish.
Because of the losses suffered in Asia in the recent war with
Mithridates, Caesar carried a law, also early in the year, for a
remission of a third of the sum due to the treasury from the publicans
of that province. As the senate had failed to pass a measure of relief
for the contractors of revenue,[2796] the concession from Caesar and the
people served to alienate the feelings of the knights from the optimates
and to attach them to the ambitious consul.[2797] Next to the agrarian
statute, however, the lex de pecuniis repetundis was the most important
piece of legislation of his consulship. Comprising at least a hundred
and one articles,[2798] including much material from earlier laws on
extortion, it dealt minutely with all the particulars of the offence,
procedure, and punishment so exhaustively as to render further comitial
legislation on the subject unnecessary.[2799] It aimed to protect
alike citizens, provincials, and allies from every form of misrule and
oppression by the home and promagisterial authorities. It regulated
strictly the supplies due from the provincials to the promagistrate and
his officium, including shelter and sustenance for man and beast.[2800]
Under this law the governor was forbidden without an order from Rome
to conduct diplomatic business with foreign states, to wage war, or to
cross the boundary of his province,[2801] or to demand of the cities
crown gold for a triumph not decreed by the senate.[2802] On retiring
from his command he was to leave copies of his administrative accounts in
two cities of his province and an exact duplicate in the aerarium.[2803]
It provided further for the punishment of corrupt accusers, jurors, and
witnesses in cases under the law.[2804] A man convicted of the crime
was fined and compelled to restore extorted property; and in case his
estate did not suffice to cover the loss, an investigation could be made
as to who had shared his gains.[2805] He was also to be expelled from
the senate and banished.[2806] The severity of the law is commended by
Cicero.[2807] Caesar’s legislation concerning extortion was reënforced
(i) by the judiciary law of P. Vatinius, tribune of the plebs, of the
same year, which granted to both accuser and accused greater freedom in
the rejection of jurors than had been allowed by the corresponding law
of Sulla, the terms of which however are not definitely known;[2808]
(2) by a statute of Q. Fufius Calenus, praetor in 59, which required the
three decuries to deposit their votes in three separate urns, the object
being to establish class responsibility.[2809] The remaining comitial
acts of Caesar were merely administrative. As a favor to Pompey, who in
his eastern campaign had received support from Ptolemy Auletes, king of
Egypt,[2810] Caesar in the beginning of his consulship[2811] carried a
resolution for acknowledging the latter as an ally and friend of the
Roman people.[2812] Later in the year, to repay Pompey for his support
of the agrarian statute, Caesar secured against the will of the senate
the enactment of a law for confirming his ally’s arrangements in the
East.[2813] Lastly may be mentioned the lex curiata for the arrogation
of P. Clodius Pulcher proposed by Caesar in the capacity of pontifex
maximus, a measure considered in an earlier chapter.[2814] Clodius wished
to qualify himself for the tribunate of the plebs, and his design was
aided by Caesar in the expectation that he would occupy the attention of
Cicero, the only strong opponent of the triumviri. Caesar’s immediate
future was provided for by a plebiscite of his friend Vatinius, which
granted him Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum as a province for five years
beginning March 1, 59.[2815] He was to have three legions[2816] and to
name his own legati, who were to enjoy propretorian rank.[2817] The
senate, which had looked unwillingly upon these proceedings, now added
Comata and a fourth legion, partly because of the conviction that in the
face of an imminent war with the Helvetians no one would be willing to
take that province without Cisalpina as a support, and partly through
fear lest the popular party might gain the additional credit of bestowing
it.[2818] In one respect the position was far better than that held by
Pompey in the East: while winning prestige in a popular conquest[2819]
and attaching to himself a powerful army, Caesar would be near enough to
Rome to control the political situation.[2820] Intellectual brilliancy
would serve in place of experience. In fact, in addition to maintaining
the position of democratic boss of Rome, the outlook seemed to him
favorable for wresting from his fellow-triumvir the sceptre of the
military monarch.[2821]
P. Clodius Pulcher, tribune of the plebs in 58, seems to have worked
partly as an agent of Caesar for the more complete organization of
democracy, and partly from motives of personal hatred for Cicero.
He first proposed a frumentarian plebiscite, which provided for the
absolutely free distribution of grain monthly among the citizens resident
in Rome.[2822] In vain the optimates complained that the abolition of the
existing price, which was that prescribed by the Sempronian law,[2823]
would rob the treasury of nearly a fifth of its income.[2824] Accepted
by the tribes, the law proved a most effective means of maintaining a
numerous mob of proletarians ever present and willing to vote for the
measures of their political patrons, the leaders of the democracy.
A closely related plebiscite permitted the free organization of
clubs (collegia),[2825] which a senatus consultum of 64 had strictly
limited,[2826] but which now became an active part of the democratic
organization.[2827] His legislation, however, was not utterly devoid of
statesmanship. A third act, by repealing those articles of the Aelian and
Fufian statutes which applied obnuntiations to law-making assemblies,
deprived the nobility of their most effective means of controlling
legislation.[2828] An article of the same statute declared all dies fasti
available for legislation.[2829] This measure went far toward abolishing
a usage which had made religion a mockery and public life a farce. To
limit the arbitrary power of the censors, Clodius enacted through a
plebiscite that these magistrates should place their stigma upon those
only whom they had jointly condemned after having heard sufficient
testimony.[2830] Another comitial act prohibited the secretaries of the
quaestors from engaging in business in the provinces.[2831] The last
three statutes mentioned were useful reforms. His most famous measure was
the law which prescribed the penalty of interdict from fire and water
for any one who had put to death a Roman citizen without trial.[2832]
Strengthening the Sempronian law of appeal,[2833] it forced the party
issue as to the question whether that act could apply to persons accused
of having attempted to overthrow the state. The optimates contended that
such persons were no longer citizens but enemies and hence outside the
pale of law[2834]—a principle which the populares held to be destructive
of liberty. From a democratic point of view the Clodian law was just
and necessary; but unfortunately Cicero, who in putting to death the
associates of Catiline had simply acted for the senate, was to be made
the scapegoat. Fearing condemnation under the law, Cicero voluntarily
retired into exile, whereupon a new plebiscite declared the interdict
to be legally in operation.[2835] In the following year he was recalled
with great enthusiasm by a resolution of the comitia centuriata proposed
by the consuls P. Cornelius Lentulus and Q. Caecilius Metellus.[2836]
The same magistrates were authors of a law for conferring upon Pompey
the care of the grain supply, which he was to administer five years with
unlimited proconsular imperium.[2837] In spite of such efforts to prop
up his power in order to counterpoise that of Caesar, the latter through
the prestige of his brilliant victories in Gaul and the liberal use of
money in the capital far outshone his fellow-triumviri. The only hope
for their ambition was to be found in the good will and favor of the
great proconsul. As the result of the conference held by the triumviri
at Luca, 56, Pompey and Crassus were elected to a second consulship for
55 through the votes of Caesar’s soldiers, who were given a furlough to
attend the comitia held purposely late in the year.[2838] As proconsuls
Pompey and Crassus were to be given advantageous commands, and Caesar
was to receive as his reward a prolongation of his governorship.[2839]
Subservient tribunes were found to propose the desired measures, and
it had long been an easy matter to obtain a majority in favor of any
conceivable bill. C. Trebonius drew up a law for granting Syria to
Crassus and the two Spains to Pompey for a period of five years, with a
dispensation for both from that article of the lex Iulia repetundarum
which forbade promagistrates of their own free will to declare war.[2840]
The intercessions of tribunes and all other opposition were violently
overborne, and the rogation was readily accepted by the people.[2841]
Thereupon the two consuls secured the passage of an act for extending
Caesar’s command.[2842]
Notwithstanding the fact that these consuls had been elected with the
help of the clubs organized under the Clodian law of 58, they must have
felt such associations to be a menace to themselves as well as to the
public peace. Crassus accordingly carried through the assembly a lex de
sodaliciis, which increased the penalty for ambitus committed through
the agency of clubs.[2843] It also ordered that the jury in such cases
be made up by the accuser from any four tribes he should choose, however
unfavorable they might be to the accused,[2844] who had merely the
right to reject one of the four tribal decuries thus presented,[2845]
in so far as the court itself did not grant him the further privilege
of rejecting individuals.[2846] It is difficult to understand how
impartial justice could be administered under such a law. But no further
legislation concerning ambitus was attempted till 52, when Pompey in
his third consulship carried a statute which increased the penalty for
the offence and made the procedure more strict.[2847] The attention of
Pompey in his second consulship was directed rather to other classes of
crimes. First he had a statute adopted concerning parricide (the murder
of a near relative or patron), which hitherto had been provided for
by the Cornelian lex de sicariis et veneficis.[2848] His project for
displacing the lex Iulia repetundarum by a statute which should make
the non-senatorial class specifically responsible failed to become a
law.[2849] A sumptuary rogation for restricting personal expenditure
he voluntarily withdrew on the advice of Hortensius, who persuaded him
that luxury and delicacy of life were but the fitting adornments of
empire.[2850] His lex iudiciaria ordered the urban praetor to begin the
selection of jurors from the wealthiest of each of the three classes, and
thence to descend gradually to the poorer members, the object being to
make the composition of the courts as aristocratic as the terms of the
Aurelian statute of 70 would allow.[2851] The lex de vi of his third
consulship, 52, was merely for the appointment of a special commission to
try those who were accused of having murdered Clodius, burned the Curia,
and besieged the house of the interrex M. Aemilius Lepidus. It determined
the composition of the court and the penalty to be inflicted.[2852]
Of his statute de iure magistratuum, passed in the latter year, that
article only is known which reiterated the law of 63 for prohibiting
candidacies in absentia. But as a plebiscite had been passed earlier in
the year to dispense Caesar from the law of 63,[2853] and as Pompey did
not dare antagonize him by abolishing the plebiscite here mentioned, he
secured the adoption of an additional law for excepting such candidates
as had been or should be dispensed by comitial action.[2854] But Caesar’s
prospect of passing immediately from his Gallic command to a second
consulship was more effectually blocked by Pompey’s lex de provinciis,
which, embodying a senatus consultum of the previous year,[2855]
ordered that five years should intervene between the expiration of a
magistracy and the beginning of the corresponding promagistracy.[2856]
The general purpose was to dampen the ardor of the ambitious, who sought
praetorships and consulships merely as a stepping-stone to lucrative and
influential commands in the provinces. Its immediate effect, however,
was to precipitate the conflict between Caesar and Pompey which brought
the republic to ruin. The relation of the law to this event requires
explanation. In the Pompeian-Licinian act of 55 for prolonging Caesar’s
command measures were taken that the senate should not discuss the
question of succession to him before March 1, 50. According to the
Sempronian law,[2857] therefore, the senate could assign his provinces
to no consuls earlier than those of 49; hence Caesar would continue in
command during that year while suing for the consulship for 48. But by
the Pompeian law of 52 the Sempronian was abolished, and the senate was
given an opportunity to appoint a successor to him on or after March 1,
50.[2858]
From the close of the second consulship of Pompey to the beginning of
Caesar’s dictatorship there was no important legislation.[2859]
III. _The Decline of the Republican Comitia_
FROM 49 TO ABOUT 30
With the dictatorship of Caesar begins the last stage in the life of the
republican comitia. For them it was from the beginning of his supremacy
essentially a time of decline. Although Caesar continued to submit his
plans to the assemblies for legalization, he rapidly concentrated in
his own person powers and functions hitherto exercised by the people;
and the triumviri, his successors, after a sham-republican interregnum,
constituted in law as well as in fact a three-headed despot. Mention
will first be made of the comitial acts which conferred powers and
honors on Caesar during his life. In 49 when news of his success in
Spain reached Rome, M. Aemilius Lepidus, a partisan who was then urban
praetor, persuaded the tribes to adopt a resolution empowering the author
to name Caesar dictator.[2860] Entering upon this office after his
return to Rome, about the end of November, Caesar used it to secure the
ratification of laws—to be considered hereafter—and to hold the electoral
comitia. After eleven days he resigned. At this election he was chosen
consul with P. Servilius Vatia as colleague.[2861] About the middle of
October, 48, when the senate and people heard of the death of Pompey,
they conferred on him by law (1) absolute judicial authority over the
partisans of Pompey,[2862] (2) the right to make peace and war at his
own pleasure, the pretext being the development of opposition to him
in Africa, (3) the right to be candidate for the consulship five years
in succession,[2863] (4) the dictatorship for an indefinite period, to
which he was appointed by his colleague in the consulship,[2864] (5)
the tribunician authority for life, with the privilege of sitting with
the tribunes, (6) the right to preside at the election of all patrician
magistrates, for which reason the comitia were postponed till his return
to the city, (7) the right to assign the pretorian provinces according to
his own judgment, (8) the right to triumph over Juba, king of Mauretania,
though at that time he did not know there was to be a war with that
state.[2865] Near the end of April, 46, when news came of the victory
at Thapsus, the Romans granted him (1) the censoria potestas with the
title of praefectus morum for three years, (2) the annual dictatorship
for ten years, (3) the right to nominate candidates for both ordinary and
extraordinary offices. These powers were doubtless conferred by comitial
action. At the same time great honors were heaped upon him, probably
through senatus consulta.[2866] Again in April, 45, after the battle
of Munda honors were showered on him in still greater profusion.[2867]
Politically the most important were the lifelong, hereditary title of
imperator, which he bore as a second cognomen,[2868] the sole right to
command soldiers and to manage the public funds, the privilege of being
consul ten years in succession (which he did not use), the prefecture
of morals and the dictatorship for life, and finally deification under
the title of the “Invincible God.”[2869] In fact for the remainder of
his life there was no cessation in the bestowal of divine and human
honors. Among those of his last year were the tribunician sanctity[2870]
and the right to have as many wives as he pleased—the latter granted by
a plebiscite of C. Helvius Cinna.[2871] The theocratic monarchy which
the Romans were erecting for him on the ruins of the republic left no
independence to the senate or the assemblies. The functions of the latter
were especially abridged by the large power of nominating and appointing
officials possessed by the monarch.[2872] His important legislative
plans, however, he brought before the people, preferably in their tribal
comitia.
In December, 49, after returning from Spain, Caesar sought to relieve
somewhat the distress of debtors and at the same time to quiet the
general fear that he might decree a cancellation of all debts.[2873]
This object he accomplished through a law, (1) that interest already
paid should be deducted from the principal, (2) that the property of the
debtor should be taken in payment of the balance—not at the low values
then existing, but on the basis of ante-bellum prices, (3) that no one
should hoard more than fifteen thousand denarii in cash.[2874] The third
article was a renewal of an old law.[2875] Another statute,[2876] 47,
released from a year’s rent tenants of houses in Rome which brought the
owner more than 2000 sesterces or of houses outside the city which earned
more than 500.[2877] These houses were private property, and the law was
therefore a partial abolition of private debts.[2878] Such prosperity
came that in another year, 46, Caesar found it possible to cut down the
number who received free grain from 320,000 to 150,000.[2879] He provided
for the surplus population as well as for his veterans by colonies in
Gaul, Spain, Africa, Macedonia, Greece, and Asia.[2880] Eighty thousand
citizens found homes in these provincial settlements.[2881]
Among Caesar’s most admirable traits was his liberality in restoring to
their civil rights those who were under disfranchisement and in granting
the citizenship to aliens. At his suggestion M. Antonius, tribune of the
plebs in 49, secured the enactment of a plebiscite for restoring the ius
honorum to the children of those whom Sulla had proscribed.[2882] Near
the end of the same year, also at his request, the praetors and tribunes
brought before the people and carried proposals for the recall of certain
persons who had been exiled, unjustly as he believed, under the Pompeian
law on ambitus.[2883] It was further at his suggestion that L. Roscius,
probably praetor, enacted a comitial law for granting the citizenship to
the Transpadani who at this time possessed simply the ius Latii.[2884]
Another law of unknown authorship confirmed the grant of the franchise
already made on his own responsibility to the people of Gades.[2885]
Among his administrative improvements was the increase in the number of
praetors from eight to ten[2886] in 47, for which a comitial statute may
be assumed.[2887] The people surrendered to him a large part of their
electoral right through the plebiscite of L. Antonius,[2888] December,
45, which granted him the privilege of nominating and presenting to
the comitia a half of the candidates below the consulship.[2889] The
degradation into which the ordinary magistracies had been brought by the
supremacy of Caesar is indicated by the deposition of two tribunes of
the plebs, C. Epidius Marullus and L. Caesetius Flavus, because of their
opposition to monarchy, 44, through a plebiscite of their colleague, C.
Helvius Cinna.[2890]
To the year 46 belongs Caesar’s legislation on judicial matters. First
disqualifying the tribuni aerarii for jury service,[2891] he ordered
through the comitia that the courts be composed exclusively of the
senators and knights.[2892] The man who had been carried to supreme
power on the shoulders of the common people now spurned even the most
respectable of their number from association with himself in the
administration.[2893] It is known that he enacted laws on individual
crimes.[2894] A lex de vi and a lex de maiestate are mentioned,[2895]
but it is not known in what they differed from those of earlier or later
date.[2896] His sumptuary statute of the same year[2897] restricted the
expense of the table,[2898] sepulchral monuments, dwellings,[2899]
furniture, clothing, jewels, and other luxuries, covering the ground
in great detail.[2900] A Cassian plebiscite empowered him to recruit
the patrician rank[2901]—a means of creating a nobility devoted to
himself, while supplying a religious need. A law proposed by himself (de
provinciis) limited proconsuls to two years of command and propraetors
to one,[2902] that in future they might not acquire such strength as to
overthrow the civil authority, after the pattern set by the author of
the regulation. It was by a vote of the people, too, that the famous
lex Iulia municipalis was adopted, probably in the autumn of 46.[2903]
Although there has been much controversy regarding the nature of the
document,[2904] it is most probably a general municipal statute. Far
from exhaustive, it had to be supplemented by special laws for the
several cities.[2905] The extant fragment, which seems to begin with the
second table, regulates (1) applications of citizens resident at Rome
for free grain,[2906] (2) the aedilician supervision of the streets,
buildings, and games of the capital,[2907] (3) the qualifications for
the magistracies and the decurionate in the municipia,[2908] (4) the
introduction of the Roman census in the municipia,[2909] and (5) of
individual Roman statutes in those municipia which enjoyed the laws of
Rome.[2910] The inclusion of the capital with the cities of Roman rights
throughout the empire in one general law marks the first step in the
monarchical process of reducing Rome to the level of the municipia.[2911]
In comparison with the amount of reform work undertaken by Caesar the
legislative activity of the people was remarkably slight. The growth of
the monarchy wrought the decline of the comitia as well as of the senate;
and the assassination of the monarch brought equally to the republic and
to the assemblies but a short interval of pretended liberty.[2912] A
lex proposed by the consul M. Antonius confirmed the acts of Caesar and
established as law the plans which he left in writing at his death.[2913]
It was arbitrarily used by the consul for legalizing every whim of his
own. His colonial law, passed shortly after Caesar’s assassination,[2914]
seems to have been used by him for establishing in Italy a permanent
support for himself.[2915] The last known agrarian law of the republic
is that of his brother, L. Antonius, tribune of the plebs in the same
year, 44. It ordered the distribution of the Pomptine marshes—which
the author asserted were then ready for cultivation[2916]—and other
extensive tracts.[2917] The execution of the measure was in the hands of
septemviri,[2918] including the author[2919] and his two brothers.[2920]
It was annulled in the following year by the senate on the ground that it
had been violently passed.[2921]
Meantime the consul Antonius continued his legislation. An arbitrary
act restored to the pontifical college its ancient right to appoint its
chief in place of the long-used election by seventeen tribes.[2922]
Next to colonization, however, his chief legislative interest was in
the reform of the courts. He repealed the Julian statute concerning the
qualifications of jurors;[2923] and instead of restoring the eligibility
of the tribuni aerarii, he made up a third decury of retired centurions
and other veterans.[2924] His law for granting an appeal to the people
from the quaestiones de vi and de maiestate,[2925] had it remained in
force, would as Cicero asserts have abolished these courts and have given
free rein to mob violence, such as comitial trials for these crimes must
necessarily be under conditions as they then existed.[2926] Popularity
was the aim of this measure as well as of his lex which forever abolished
the dictatorship. Along with all his other laws they were annulled by the
senate in February 43.[2927]
The establishment of the triumviri rei publicae constituendae in 43
practically abolished the functions of the comitia, as these three
potentates usurped the right of filling all offices by appointment and of
managing affairs according to their pleasure without consulting either
the senate or the people.[2928] The power they had seized was legalized
for a period of five years by the plebiscite of P. Titius, November 43,
passed without regard to the trinundinum.[2929] The reference of business
to the people was thereafter a rare indulgence. It may have been through
a comitial act that the triumviri resolved upon building a temple to
Serapis and Isis in the first year of their rule.[2930] We are less
certain that the measure of Octavianus in 41 for a partial remission of
rents was offered to the people.[2931] To the year 40 belongs the lex
Falcidia, of P. Falcidius, tribune of the plebs, which permitted a man
to bequeath no more than three-fourths of his estate, leaving one-fourth
to his natural heirs.[2932] We need not be surprised to find that the
rulers gladly allowed the people to vote them honors. In their first
year they were awarded civic crowns by a comitial act, doubtless of the
tribes;[2933] and in 35 the honors bestowed upon Octavia and Livia
probably came through a plebiscite, as did certainly the triumph voted
to Octavianus.[2934] Last may be mentioned the law of L. Saenius, consul
in 30, supported by a senatus consultum, which empowered Octavianus to
create new patricians.[2935]
Schulze, C. F., _Volksversammlungen der Römer_, 124-39; Peter,
C., _Epochen der Verfassungsgeschichte der röm. Republik_,
165 ff.; _Gesch. Roms_, bk. VII. ch. v; bks. VIII-X; Ihne,
_Hist. of Rome_, bk. VII. chs. xxi-xxiii; Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ iii. 146-597; cf. ii, see index s. the various laws;
_Commentationes de legibus Antoniis a Cicerone Phil. v.
4. 10 commemoratis particula prior et posterior_, in _Kl.
Schr._ ii. 126-49; _Die lex Pupia_, etc., ibid. ii. 175-94;
_Die promulgatio trinum nundinum_, etc., ibid. ii. 214-70;
Long, G., _Decline of the Roman Republic_, 5 vols.; Herzog,
E., _Gesch. und System der röm. Staatsverf._ i. 509-65; ii.
1-130; Mommsen, _History of Rome_, bk. IV. ch. x; bk. V; _Röm.
Staatsr._ and _Röm. Strafr._ see indices s. the various laws,
courts, etc.; _Ein zweites Bruchstück des rubrischen Gesetzes
vom Jahre 705 Roms_, in _Hermes_, xvi (1881). 24-41; _Lex
coloniae Iuliae Genetivae Urbanorum_, etc., in _Ephem. Ep._ ii
(1875). 105-51; _Lex municipii Tarentini_, ibid. ix. (1903).
1-11; _Ueber die lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia_,
in _Röm. Feldmess._ ii. 221-6; Neumann, C., _Gesch. Roms_,
i. 602-23; ii. entire; Ferrero, G., _Greatness and Decline
of Rome_; Schiller, H., _Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit_,
I. bk. i; Lengle, _Sullanische Verfassung_; Sunden, J. M.,
_De tribunicia potestate a L. Sulla imminuta quaestiones_;
Freeman, E. A., _Lucius Cornelius Sulla_, in _Hist. Essays_,
ii. 271-306; Wilmanns, _Ueber die Gerichtshöfe während des
Bestehens der lex Cornelia iudiciaria_, in _Rhein. Mus._ N.
F. xix (1864). 528-41; Voigt, M., _Ueber die lex Cornelia
sumptuaria_, in _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xlii
(1890). 244-79; Nipperdey, K., _Die leges annales der röm.
Republik_, in _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ v. (1870).
1-88; Keil, J., _Zur lex Cornelia de viginti quaestoribus_, in
_Wiener Studien_, xxiv (1902). 548-51; Ritschl, F., _In leges
Viselliam Antoniam Corneliam observationes epigraphicae_,
in _Opuscula Philologica_, iv (1878). 427-45; Oman, C.,
_Seven Roman Statesmen_, v-ix; Strachan-Davidson, _Cicero_;
Forsyth, W., _Life of Marcus Tullius Cicero_, 2 vols.; White,
H., _Cicero, Clodius, and Milo_; Sternkopf, W., _Ueber die
“Verbesserung” des clodianischen Gesetzwurfes de exilio
Ciceronis_, in _Philol._ N. F. xiii (1900). 272-304; _Noch
einmal die correctio der lex Clodia de exilio_, ibid. xv.
42-70; Gurlitt, _Lex Clodia de exilio Ciceronis_, ibid.
xiii. 578-83; Greenidge, A. H. J., _The lex Sempronia and
the Banishment of Cicero_, in _Cl. Rev._ vii (1893). 347 f.;
Schmidt, O. E., _Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero von
seinem Prokonsulat in Cicilien bis zu Cäsars Ermordung_;
John, C., _Die Entstehungsgeschichte der catilinarischen
Verschwörung_, in _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. Supplb._ viii (1875,
1876). 701-819; Abbott, F. F., _The Constitutional Argument in
the Fourth Catilinarian Oration_, in _Cl. Journ._ ii (1907).
123-5; Napoleon III, _Jules César_, 2 vols.; Fowler, W.,
_Julius Caesar_; Nissen, H., _Der Ausbruch des Bürgerkrieges
49 vor Chr._, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ xliv (1880). 409-45; xlvi
(1881). 48-105; Hirschfeld, O., _Der Endtermin der gallischen
Staatshalterschaft Caesars_, in _Klio_, iv (1904). 76-87.
Wiegandt, L., _Studien zur staatsrechtlichen Stellung des
Diktators Cäsar: das Recht über Krieg und Frieden_; _Caesar und
die tribunizische Gewalt_; Hackel, H., _Die Hypothesen über
die lex Iulia municipalis_, in _Wiener Studien_, xxiv (1902).
552-62; Cuq, E., _Juges plébéiens de colonie de Narbonne_,
in _Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire_ (1881). 297-311;
Kornemann, _Die cäsarische Kolonie Karthago und die Einführung
röm. Gemeindeordnung in Africa_, in _Philol._ N. F. xiv
(1901). 402-26; Liebenam, W., _Gesch. und Organisation d. röm.
Vereinswesens_; Waltzing, J. P., _Corporations professionelles
chez les Romains_, i. 78 ff.; Babelon, E., _Monnaies de la
république Romaine_, i. 79-88; Dreyfus, R., _Lois agraires_,
pt. iii; Toutain, J., _Municipium_, in Daremberg et Saglio,
_Dict._ iii. 2022-34; Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 256 f.:
M’. Acilius Glabrio (Klebs); 554-6; M. Aemilius Lepidus (idem);
1800-3: Ambitus (Hartmann); ii. 191-4: Apparitores (Habel);
2482-4: C. Aurelius Cotta (Klebs); 2485-7: L. Aurelius Cotta
(idem); iii. 1376 f.: C. Calpurnius Piso (Münzer); iv. 82-8: P.
Clodius Pulcher (Fröhlich); 1252-5: C. Cornelius (Münzer); iv.
1287 f.: L. Cornelius Cinna—son of the famous democratic consul
(idem); 1380 f.: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (idem);
1522-66: L. Cornelius Sulla Felix (Fröhlich); 2401-4: Deiotarus
(Niese).