CHAPTER XIX

A SUMMARY OF COMITIAL HISTORY

Originating in the simple gathering (contio) of the primitive folk, the

general assembly of Roman citizens came, under sacerdotal influence,

to be grouped in curiae with a view to adding order and solemnity to

the meetings. Thus the Romans created the comitia curiata. Not only the

curiae, but also the later centuries, classes, and tribes, originally

existed independently of the assembly for various administrative purposes

and were brought into connection with that institution as convenient

systems of organization. At first ceremonial, the comitia curiata came

to be used for voting on resolutions. Gradually reducing this earliest

organized gathering to a formality, the Romans successively introduced

the centuriate and the tribal comitia. Excepting for brief, transitional

periods the assembly, whatever its form, admitted all citizens who

possessed the right of suffrage. Its power was at first slight vague, and

chiefly receptive. Though in the regal period the people occasionally

approved or rejected judicial sentences, administrative plans, and even

proposals for changes in existing customs submitted to them by the

king of his own free will, the only function which at that time they

definitely acquired was the election of their chief magistrate.

From the founding of the republic to the decemviral legislation (509-450)

the magistrates and senate exercised almost absolute control over the

administration. At the very beginning the comitia centuriata—a newly

established timocratic institution—assumed the right to enact laws, which

for a long time were substantially limited to matters directly affecting

the constitution; and the alleged Valerian centuriate statute made of

this body a supreme court to which any citizen condemned on a capital

charge was granted the privilege of appeal. In practice, however, the law

benefited those only of high rank who were accused of political crimes.

Meantime a new, more democratic assembly under the presidency of tribunes

of the plebs, meeting by tribes after 471, usurped an extensive though

ill-defined power of fining and capitally condemning offenders against

the sanctity of plebeian officials. But this function, resting upon an

act of the plebs only and enforced by threats of violence, was almost

nullified by patrician opposition. It was doubtless in this period that

voting by heads arose in the comitia centuriata, whence it was adopted by

the other assemblies.

The Twelve Tables (451-450) confirmed the comitia centuriata in the

rights it had previously assumed; and if not expressly, at least

by implication they granted legislative and judicial power to the

tribunician assembly of tribes. A Valerian-Horatian statute of 449

provided that resolutions approved by the senate and carried by the

latter assembly should have the force of law, just as from the beginning

the senatorial sanction (patrum auctoritas) was essential to the validity

of curiate and centuriate resolutions and elections. At the same time

in conformity with a law of the Twelve Tables an arrangement was made

by which the tribunes should bring their finable actions before the

tribes and those of a capital nature before the centuries. Soon afterward

the patrician magistrates began to use the tribes for the election of

inferior officials and occasionally for the ratification of laws.

During the century following the decemviral legislation (450-358) the

almost absolute administrative power of the senate and magistrates

remained but slightly affected by the comitia. The appointment of a

dictator or the establishment of a special judicial commission placed the

citizens at the mercy of the government. Although the comitia centuriata

acquired the right to ratify or reject declarations of offensive war

(427) and though the tribunes succeeded in enacting a few important

plebiscites, like the Canuleian and the Licinian-Sextian, the people made

little progress toward the free exercise of legislative and judicial

functions. With the enactment of a lex de ambitu in 358 the tribes

began to legislate concerning magistrates, with reference not only to

candidacy and qualifications but soon also to powers and functions and

to the creation of new offices. They passed laws on finance and religion

and on the qualification and appointment of senators; they assumed

the function of ratifying or rejecting proposals for peace (321) and

of admitting aliens to citizenship. The tribes and the centuries began

regularly to exercise appellate jurisdiction. About the same time the

people acquired the function of appointing special judicial commissions,

and subjected the dictator to the law of appeal. In an effort to throw

off the control exercised by the nobility the Publilian statute of 339

excluded patricians from the tribunician assembly of tribes (a regulation

afterward silently abandoned), and in 287 that of Hortensius rendered the

approval of the senate and of the patrician portion of it unessential

to the validity of the plebiscite. Meanwhile in administrative and in

constitutional legislation the comitia tributa made great gains at the

expense of the senate and magistrates and of the centuriate assembly.

The period extending from 358 to 287 was accordingly the first great

age of comitial legislative and judicial activity. The strong popular

tendency then manifested might have created a real democracy, had it

not been for (1) the cleverness of the nobles in gaining control of the

plebeian tribunate and in using religion as a check on comitial freedom.

(2) the rapid expansion of the Roman power, which drew the public mind

away from internal politics, and which rendered the assembly not only

an inadequate representative of the citizens but also incompetent for

the functions devolving upon it. Many years passed, however, before this

incompetency became serious. Though henceforth the comitia were in theory

sovereign, they remained limited by a want of initiative both in the act

of assembling and in the offering of resolutions, by the lack of free

deliberation, by the tribunician veto, and by the oblative auspices.

After the enactment of the Hortensian statute the comitia tributa enjoyed

almost exclusive possession of the legislative function. The larger share

fell to the tribunician assembly, which excelled in aggressiveness, and

which admitted as much freedom of debate as was consistent with the

spirit of the constitution—hence it was preferably termed concilium.

Notwithstanding these relative advantages of the tribal assembly the

adverse conditions above mentioned led to an era of comitial stagnation

(287-232), at the close of which the tribunate of C. Flaminius brought

a new outburst of activity (232-201). The assemblies now recovered all

they had lost in the preceding age and made fresh gains. Noteworthy

are the sumptuary, monetary, private, and family statutes, and the

recognition of the right of the people to grant dispensations from

existing laws. In the opinion of Polybius the constitution was in this

time at its best. The nobles admitted the theory of popular sovereignty,

as they could well afford to do in view of their thorough control of

all governmental institutions. In the era of the completed plutocracy

(201-134) they regularly resorted to the comitia in matters of little

political importance or in those in which they felt certain of the

results. Under these conditions fewer laws were enacted for the benefit

of the masses. The policy of the nobles was to repress individual freedom

by subjecting both magistrates and assemblies to the plutocratic machine.

Even the comitial judicia were subordinated to this end; and toward the

close of the period the people in establishing permanent courts began

through legislation to surrender their judicial power to the senatorial

class, while the senate, on the other hand, resumed the function of

dispensing from the laws and of appointing special courts. In these ways

the nobility was making great inroads on popular liberty.

In the beginning of the revolutionary period (134-30) the tribal

assembly, liberated for a time from servitude to the plutocracy, became

under the presidency of reforming tribunes the ruling power at Rome. Its

activity not only embraced the whole field of administration but was

directed by the Gracchi to the creation of a new political constitution

and to the regeneration of society. But its variable composition

precluded consistency of action. Though at times, as when controlled

by the rural element of the citizen body, it could be induced to adopt

liberal, statesmanlike measures such as the agrarian and colonial laws

of the Gracchi, the usual dominance of the ignorant and unprincipled

poor of the metropolis inclined it to a short-sighted, selfish course

of conduct—rendering it a powerful weapon in the hands either of the

demagogue or of the plutocratic senate, equally effective for resisting

genuine reforms and for destroying the institutions of the republic.

As with the progress of the revolution the conservative checks began

to weaken and disappear, the comitia became more and more subject

to violence and coercion. The comitial prosecutions of this period

partook of the same revolutionary character. From the time of Sulla the

assemblies were overshadowed by the military power. Under his dictation

they surrendered to the senatorial courts nearly all that remained of

their judicial function, and they seriously crippled their legislative

power in favor of a reaction to the pre-Hortensian constitution. After

a brief interval of bondage to the senate (81-70) they recovered their

legislative freedom, only to subserve for the future the alliance now

formed between the tribunes of the plebs and the great proconsuls. From

the accession of Julius Cæesar to the dictatorship (49) their power

rapidly declined. They yielded to him a large share of their legislative

and even of their elective function. After a brief period of pretended

liberty following the assassination of the dictator, they lapsed with the

fall of the republic into utter insignificance.

The comitia had filled a large place in the history of the state. They

were the chief factor of constitutional progress and of beneficent

legislation. Their development and decline involved the prosperity and

the ruin of the republic. For the world they have a higher value. The

tribal assembly, supporting the plebeian tribunate, was the storm centre

of long, heroic struggles for human rights. The fact that it championed

this cause, that it met with some success in the conflict, that a

Gracchus deemed it worthy to undertake the social regeneration of the

world, has given the institution a universal and a permanent interest.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

From this list are excluded the titles of all works which, treating

of other than Roman institutions, are referred to in this volume for

comparative purposes, and of all sources which are accessible in

well-known, standard editions.

Abbott, F. F. A History and Description of Roman Political

Institutions. Boston, 1901.

⸺ The Constitutional Argument in the Fourth Catilinarian

Oration. _Classical Journal_, ii (1907). 123-5.

_Abhdl. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin._ = _Philologische

und historische Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der

Wissenschaften zu Berlin._

_Abhdl. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ = _Abhandlungen der königlich

bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften._ Munich.

_Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ = _Abhandlungen der

philologisch-historische Classe der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig._

Ackermann, H. Die räumlichen Schranken der tribunizischen

Gewalt. Program. Rostock, 1891.

Aelius Donatus. Commentum Terenti, ed. P. Wessner. 2 vols.

Leipzig, 1902, 1905.

Ahren, E. A. J. Die drei Volkstribunen Ti. Gracchus, M. Drusus,

und P. Sulpicius. Leipzig, 1836.

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

_Archiv f. lat. Lexicog._ = _Archiv für lateinische

Lexicographie und Grammatik ... als Ergänzung zu dem Thesaurus

linguae Latinae_, ed. E. von Wölfflin. Leipzig.

Arndts, D. Die lex Maenia de dote vom Jahre der Stadt Rom 568.

_Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte_, vii (1868). 1-44.

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

118-30.

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

Vienna, 1875.

Arnold, W. T. The Roman System of Provincial Administration.

New ed. Oxford, 1906.

Auct. Inc. de Diff. = Auctor Incertus (Cornelius Fronte?), (in)

Grammatici Latini, ed. Keil, vii. 519-32.

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

Babelon, E. Description historique et chronologique des

monnaies de la république Romaine. 2 vols. Paris, 1885, 1886.

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

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

Bardt, C. Die Priester der vier grossen Collegien aus

römisch-republikanischer Zeit. Program. Berlin, 1871.

⸺ Zur lex Caecilia Didia und noch einmal: Senatssitzungstage

der späteren Republik. _Hermes_, ix (1875). 305-18.

_Beiträge zur alten Geschichte._ Leipzig. Beginning with vol. v

the periodical is termed _Klio_, with _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._

as a sub-title.

Beloch, J. Campanien: Topographie, Geschichte, und Leben der

Umgebung Neapels im Altertum. Berlin, 1879.

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

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

⸺ Die Bewölkerung Italiens im Altertum. _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._

iii (1903). 471-90.

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

1866, 1873.

⸺ De la révolution économique et monétaire qui eut lieu à Rome

au milieu du IIIe siècle avant l’ère Chrétienne, etc. Paris,

1885.

_Berl. phil. Wochenschr._ = _Berliner philologische

Wochenschrift._

_Berliner Studien_ = _Berliner Studien für classische

Philologie und Archaeologie._

Bernhöft, F. Staat und Recht der römischen Königszeit im

Verhältniss zu verwandten Rechten. Stuttgart, 1882.

Berns, C. De comitiorum tributorum et conciliorum plebis

discrimine. Inaugural dissertation. Wetzlar, 1875.

_Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ or _Verhdl. d. sächs.

Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ = _Berichte über die Verhandlungen der

königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu

Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Classe._

Bertolini, C. I celeres ed il tribunus celerum; contributo alla

storia della constituzione dell’ antica Roma. Rome, 1888.

Billeter, G. _Gesch. d. Zinsfuss._ = Geschichte des Zinsfusses

in griechisch-römischen Altertum bis auf Justinien. Leipzig,

1898.

Blasel, J. Die Motiven der Gesetzgebung des C. Sempronius

Gracchus. Trieste, 1878.

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

352-78.

Bloch, G. Recherches sur quelques gentes patriciennes, (in)

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

Rome, 241-76. 1882.

⸺ Orig. d. sén. = Les origines du sénat Romain; recherches sur

la formation et la dissolution du sénat patricien. Paris, 1883.

⸺ La réforme démocratique à Rome au IIIe siècle av. J. C.

_Revue historique_, xxxii (1886). 1-32, 241-89.

⸺ Observations sur le procès des Scipions. _Revue des études

anciennes_, viii (1906). 93-110, 191-228, 287-322.

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

Republik. Leipzig, 1900.

Blume, F., Lachmann, K., and Rudorff, A. F. [Röm. Feldmess.]

Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, ii. Berlin, 1852. Vol.

i is the Gromatici Veteres, ed. K. Lachmann.

Böckh, A. Metrologische Untersuchungen. Berlin, 1838.

Bormann, E. Die älteste Gliederung Roms, (in) Eranos

Vindobonensis, 345-58. Vienna, 1893.

Botsford, G. W. On the Distinction between Comitia and

Concilium. _Transactions of the American Philological

Association_, xxxv (1904). 21-32.

⸺ Social Composition of the Primitive Roman Populus. _Political

Science Quarterly_, xxi (1906). 498-526.

⸺ Some Problems connected with the Roman Gens. ibid, xxii

(1907). 663-92.

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

Bouché-Leclerq, A. Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité,

iv. 134-285. Paris, 1882.

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

ibid. i. 580-5.

Borgeaud, C. Histoire du plébiscite: le plébiscite dans

antiquité. Geneva and Paris, 1887.

Brassloff, S. Beiträge zur Erläuterung der lex Acilia

repetundarum. _Wiener Studien_, xxvi (1904). 106-17.

Breda. Die Centurienverfassung des Servius Tullius. Bromberg,

1848.

Bröcker, L. O. Untersuchungen über die Glaubwürdigkeit der

altrömischen Verfassungsgeschichte. Hamburg, 1858.

⸺ Untersuchungen über die Glaubwürdigkeit der altrömischen

Geschichte. Basel, 1868.

Bruncke, H. Beiträge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des römischen

Heerwesens. _Philol._ xl (1881). 357-77.

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

1893.

⸺ Geschichte und Quellen des römischen Rechts, (in)

Holtzendorff, F. von, and Kohler, J. Encyklopädie der

Rechtswissenschaft in systematischer Bearbeitung, i. 70 ff. 6th

ed. (1st ed. of Kohler’s revision). 2 vols. Leipzig and Berlin,

1904.

Bücheler, F. Umbrica. Bonn, 1883.

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

Büdinger, M. Cicero und der Patriciat, eine staatsrechtliche

Untersuchung. _Denkschr. d. kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss._ xxi

(1881). 211-74.

⸺ Der Patriciat und das Fehderecht in den letzten Jahrzehnten

der römischen Republik, ibid, xxxvi (1888). 81-125.

Bürger, C. P., Jr. Sechzig Jahre aus der älteren Geschichte

Roms, 418-358. Historisch-kritische Forschungen. Amsterdam,

1891.

⸺ Neue Forschungen zur älteren Geschichte Roms, i, ii.

Amsterdam, 1894, 1895.

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

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

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

1896.

Cantalupi. La magistratura di Silla durante la guerra civile.

Rome, 1899.

Carter, J. B. Roma Quadrata and the Septimontium. _Am. Journ.

of Archaeol._ xii (1908). 172-83.

Casagrandi, V. Le minores gentes ed i patres minorum gentium,

etc. Torino, 1892. Unscientific.

Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius. Opera omnia, (in) Patrologiae

cursus completus, lxix, ed. Migne. Paris, 1865.

Charis. = Charisius, F. S. Ars grammatica (or Instit. Gram.),

(in) Grammatici Latini, i, ed. Keil. Leipzig, 1857.

Christ, W. Sprachliche Verwandtschaft der Gräko-Italiker.

_Sitzb. d. k. bayer Akad._ 1906. 151-246.

Christensen, H. Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung der Patres.

_Hermes_, ix (1875). 196-216.

CIL. = Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, ed. Mommsen and others.

Berlin. The first edition is cited, unless otherwise indicated.

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

London, 1868.

Clason, O. Kritische Erörterungen über die römischen Staat.

Rostock, 1871.

⸺ Zur Frage über die reformierte Centurienverfassung.

_Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur_, lxv (1872). 221-37.

Conway, R. S. I due strati di populazione Indo-Europea del

Lazio e dell’ Italia antica. _Rivista di storia antica_, vii

(1903). 422-4.

Corp. Gloss. Lat. = Corpus glossariorum Latinorum. 7 vols. Ed.

G. Loewe, G. Goetz, and others. Leipzig, 1876-1903.

Corssen, W. [Ausspr.]. Ueber Aussprache Vokalismus und Betonung

der lateinischen Sprache. 2d ed. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1868, 1870.

⸺ [Beitr. z. ital. Sprachk.] Beiträge zur italischen

Sprachkunde. Leipzig, 1876.

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

Cuq, E. Les juges plébéiens de la colonie de Narbonne, (in)

Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, 297-311. Paris, 1881.

⸺ Les institutions juridiques des Romains. 2d ed. 2 vols.

Paris, 1891, 1902.

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

Daremberg et Saglio, [Dict.]. Dictionnaire des antiquités

Grecques et Romaines, i-iii (A-M). Paris, 1873-1904.

Deecke, W. Die Falisker: eine geschichtlich-sprachliche

Untersuchung. Strassburg, 1888.

Delbrück, H. Die römische Manipulartaktik. _Hist. Zeitschr._ N.

F. xv (1884). 239-64.

Delbrück, [Gesch. d. Kriegsk.] Geschichte der Kriegskunst im

Rahmen der politischen Geschichte, i: das Altertum. Berlin,

1900.

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

_Denkschr. d. kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss._ = _Denkschriften

der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Philosophisch-historische Classe._ Vienna.

De Sanctis, G. Storia dei Romani: la conquista del primato in

Italia. 2 vols. Milan, Turin, etc., 1907.

Diodorus Siculus. Bibliotheca historica, bks. i-xviii, ed.

Vogel. Leipzig. The remaining bks. and frags. ed. C. Müller.

Didot. Paris, 1842, 1844.

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

Romaine. Paris, 1898.

Drumann-Gröbe, Gesch. Roms = Drumann, W., Geschichte Roms in

seinem Uebergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen

Verfassung, ed. P. Gröbe, i-iii, iv. 1. Berlin, 1899-1908.

Dupond, A. De la constitution et des magistratures Romaines

sous la république. Paris, 1877.

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

New York, 1906.

Eigenbrodt, A. De magistratuum Romanorum iure intercedendi.

Inaugural dissertation. Leipzig, 1875.

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

Exup. = Julius Exsuperantius. Opusculum de Marii, Lepidi ac

Sertorii bellis civilibus, (in) Sallust, Omnia opera, 507-15.

Paris, 1821. This work is also referred to as Jul. Exuper.

Ferrero, G. Greatness and Decline of Rome. Translated into

English by Zimmern and others. 5 vols. New York, 1907-1909.

Suggestive but untrustworthy.

Festg. f. F. Dahn = Festgabe für Felix Dahn zu seinem

fünfzigjährigen Doktorjubiläum gewidmet. Breslau, 1905.

Forcellini, A. Totius Latinitatis lexicon, ed. V. De-Vit. 6

vols. Prati, 1858-1875.

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

1865.

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

⸺ Notes on Gaius Gracchus. _English Historical Review_, xx

(1905). 209-27.

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

278-80.

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

1899.

Freeman, E. A. Lucius Cornelius Sulla, (in) Historical Essays,

ii. 271-306. London, 1873.

Fröhlich, F. Beiträge zur Kriegsführung und Kriegskunst der

Römer zur Zeit der Republik. Berlin, 1886.

Fröhlich (no initial given). P. Clodius Pulcher, (in)

Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encycl. iv. 82-8. L. Cornelius Sulla Felix,

ibid. iv. 1522-66.

Frontin. Contr. = Frontinus, Julius. De controversiis, (in)

Grom. Vet. 9-26, ed. Lachmann. Berlin, 1848.

Fronto, M. Cornelius. Epistulae, ed. S. A. Naber. Leipzig,

1867. [Ver = Ad Verum.]

Fustel de Coulanges. The Ancient City. Translated from the

French. Boston and New York, 1889.

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

London, 1890, 1891.

Garofalo, F. P. I fasti dei tribuni della plebe della

repubblica Romana. Catania, 1889.

⸺ L’origine e l’elezione dei tribuni e degli edili della plebe,

etc. Catania, 1890. Not altogether accurate.

⸺ Sul plebiscitum Atinium. Catania, 1896.

⸺ Lex Cincia de donis et muneribus. _Bulletino dell’istituto di

diritto Romano_, xv (1903). 310-12.

Genz, H. [Centurienverf.]. Die servianische

Centurienverfassung. Sorau, 1874.

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

⸺ Die Centuriatcomitien nach der Reform. Freienwald, 1882.

Gerathewohl, H. [Reiter und Rittercent.] Die Reiter und die

Rittercenturien zur Zeit der römischen Republik. Munich, 1886.

Gilbert, O. Geschichte und Topographie der Stadt Rom im

Altertum. 3 parts. Leipzig, 1883-1890.

Girard, P. F. [Hist. d. org. jud.] Histoire de l’organisation

judiciaire des Romains, i. Paris, 1901.

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

Goguet, R. [Cent.] Droit Romain des centuries. Thesis. Paris,

1890. Of little value.

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

Galba. Paris, 1854.

Göttling, K. W. Geschichte der römischen Staatsverfassung.

Halle, 1840.

Gramm. Lat. = Grammatici Latini, ed. H. G. T. Keil. 7 vols.

Leipzig, 1855-1880.

Gran. Licin. = Granius Licinianus. Annalium quae supersunt, ed.

Pertz. Berlin, 1857.

Greenidge, A. H. J. The Lex Sempronia and the Banishment of

Cicero. _Classical Review_, vii (1893). 347 f.

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

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

⸺ A History of Rome during the Later Republic and the Early

Principate, i. New York, 1903.

Greenidge, A. H. J. The Authenticity of the Twelve Tables.

_English Historical Review_, xx (1905). 1-21.

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

Oxford, 1903.

Grenfell, B. P., and Hunt, A. S. Oxyrhynchus Papiri, iv.

90-116. London, 1904. For the newly discovered epitome of Livy,

including text and commentary. See also Kornemann.

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

Grotefend, C. L. Imperium Romanum tributim descriptum.

Hannover, 1863.

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

Guiraud, P. De la réforme des comices centuriates au IIIe

siècle av. J.-C. _Revue historique_, xvii (1881). 1-24.

Gurlitt, L. Lex Clodia de exilio Ciceronis. _Philol._ N. F.

xiii (1900). 578-83.

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

191-4.

Hackel, H. Die Hypothesen über die sogenannte lex Iulia

municipalis. _Wiener Studien_ (1902). 552-62.

Haeberlin, E. J. Del più antico sistema monetario presso

i Romani, v. _Rivista italiana di numismatica_, xix

(1906). 611-46. Translation of an article in the _Berliner

Münzblätter_, 1905, 1906.

Hagge. Einige Bemerkungen über die lex Servilia repetundarum.

Glückstadt, 1845.

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

little worth.

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

Hegewisch, D. H. Geschichte der gracchischen Unruhen in der

römischen Republik. Hamburg, 1801.

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

⸺ (An illustration of Adrogatio.) _Comptes rendus de l’acad.

des inscriptions et belles-lettres_, xxi (1893). 350-3.

⸺ Contribution à l’histoire de l’equitatus Romain. ibid. 1904.

ii. 190-201.

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

⸺ Sur les attributs des saliens. _Mémoires de l’acad. des

inscriptions et belles-lettres_, xxvii² (1905). 205-76.

⸺ Zur Geschichte des römischen Equitatus A. Die Equites als

berittene Hopliten. _Abhdl. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ xxiii

(1905). 267-317.

⸺ Die Castores als Schutzgötter des römischen Equitatus.

_Hermes_, xl (1905). 101-15.

Hennebert, A. Histoire de la lutte entre les patriciens et les

plébéiens à Rome. Gand, 1845.

Hennes. Das dritte valerisch-horatische Gesetz und seine

Wiederholungen. Program. Bonn, 1880.

Henze. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (Maior), (in)

Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 1462-70.

_Hermes_ = _Hermes: Zeitschrift für classische Philologie._

Berlin.

Herzog, E. Lex sacrata und das Sacrosanctum. _Jahrb. f. cl.

Philol._ xxii (1876). 139-50.

⸺ Die Charakter der Tributcomitien im fünften und sechsten

Jahrhundert der Stadt und die Reform der Centuriatcomitien.

_Philol._ xxiv (1876). 312-29.

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

⸺ [Röm. Staatsverf.] Geschichte und System der römischen

Staatsverfassung. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1884, 1887.

Hesky, R. Anmerkungen zur lex Acilia repetundarum. _Wiener

Studien_, xxv (1903). 272-87.

Heydenreich, E. Livius und die römische Plebs, (in) Sammlung

gemeinverständlicher wissenschaftlicher Vorträge, xvii (1882).

581-628.

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

Hirschfeld, O. Der Endtermin der gallischen Statthalterschaft

Caesars. _Klio_, iv (1904). 76-87.

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

1879.

Hoffmeister, K. Die wirtschaftliche Entwickelung Roms. Vienna,

1899.

Holzapfel, L. Il numero dei senatori Romani durante il periodo

dei re. _Rivista di storia antica_, ii. 2 (1897). 52-64.

⸺ Die drei ältesten römischen Tribus. _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i

(1901). 228-55.

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

⸺ Ursprünge der römischen Verfassung durch Vergleichungen

erläutert. Bonn, 1835.

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

⸺ The Roman Forum. Translated from the 2d German edition by J.

B. Carter. 2d English ed. Rome, 1909.

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

202-15.

Humbert, G. Accensus, (in) Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. 16

ff. Aedilis. ibid. 95-100. Ager publicus. ibid. 133-8. Census.

ibid. 1003-17. Classis. ibid. 1224 f. Comitia. ibid. 1374-1401.

Concilium. ibid. 1432 f. Contio. ibid. 1484 f. Frumentariae

leges. ibid. ii. 1346-8.

Huschke, Ph. E. [Verf. d. Serv.] Die Verfassung des

Königs Servius Tullius als Grundlage zu einer römischen

Verfassungsgeschichte. Heidelberg, 1838.

⸺ Die lex Sempronia iudiciaria und ihr Verhältniss zur lex

Acilia repetundarum. _Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch._ v (1866).

46-84.

Hyg. Cond. Agr. = Hyginus. De condicionibus agrorum, (in)

Grom. Vet. ed. K. Lachmann, 113-24. [Lim. Const.] De limitibus

constituendis ibid. 166-208.

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

190-3.

⸺ Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der römischen

Verfassungsgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main, 1847. This study is

translated into English by Haywood under the title, Researches

into the History of the Roman Constitution. London, 1853.

⸺ Ueber die Entstehung und die ältesten Befugnisse des

römischen Tribunats. _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 161-79.

⸺ Die Entstehung der servianischen Verfassung, (in) Symbola

philologorum Bonnensium, 629-44. 1864-1867.

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

⸺ Die Entwickelung der Tributcomitien. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F.

xxviii (1873). 353-79.

⸺ Early Rome. New York, 1890.

Inc. Auct. = Incertus Auctor. Magistratuum et sacerdotiorum P.

R. expositiones ineditae, ed. Ph. E. Huschke. Vratislavia, 1829.

Ined. Vat. See Arnim, H. von.

Isid. Etym. = Isidorus Hispalensis. Etymologiae, (in) Opera

omnia, iii, ed. Migne. Paris, 1878.

Isler, M. Ueber das poetelische Gesetz de ambitu. _Rhein. Mus._

xxviii (1873). 473-7.

_Jahrb. f. Philol._ = _Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und

Paedagogik._ Second title: _Jahrbücher für classische

Philologie._ Leipzig.

_Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ = _Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte

der classischen Altertumswissenschaft._ Leipzig.

John, C. Entstehungsgeschichte der catilinarischen

Verschwörung, _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ Supplb. viii (1875,

1876). 701-819.

Jordan, H. Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum. 2 vols.

Berlin, 1878-1907. I. iii (1907) is edited by C. Hülsen.

⸺ Die Könige im alten Italien. Berlin, 1887.

Jul. Exuper. See Exup.

Julius Victor, C. Ars Rhetorica, (in) Orelli-Baiter, Ciceronis

Opera, V. 195-269. Turici, 1833.

Kalb, W. Jahresbericht über römischen Juristen für 1901-1905.

_Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ cxxxiv (1906). 1-48.

Kappeyne van de Coppello, J. [Comitien] Drei Abhandlungen zum

römischen Staats- und Privatrecht, i: Betrachtungen über die

Comitien. 2d ed. Berlin, 1891.

Karlowa, O. Der römische Civilprocess zur Zeit der

Legisactionen. Berlin, 1872.

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

Keil, J. Zur lex Cornelia de viginti quaestoribus. _Wiener

Studien_, xxiv (1902). 548-51.

Klebs, E. Die Stimmenzahl und die Abstimmungsordnung der

reformierten servianischen Verfassung. _Zeitschr. d.

Savignyst._ xii (1891). 181-244.

Klebs, L. Aimilius Paullus, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. i.

576-80. M. Aemilius Scaurus. ibid. 584-8. Appuleius. ibid. ii.

261-9.

Kleineidam, F. Beiträge zur Kentniss der lex Poetelia, (in)

Festg. f. F. Dahn, ii. 1-30. Breslau, 1905.

_Klio._ See _Beiträge zur alten Geschichte_.

Kniep. Societas publicanorum. Jena, 1896.

Köhm, J. Altlateinische Forschungen. Leipzig, 1905.

Kornemann, E. Die cäsarische Kolonie Karthago und die

Einführung römischer Gemeindeordnung in Africa. _Philol._ N. F.

xiv (1901). 402-26.

⸺ Zur Geschichte der Gracchenzeit. Reprinted from _Beitr. z.

alt. Gesch._ Beiheft i. 1903.

⸺ Die neue Livius-Epitome aus Oxyrhynchus. _Beitr. z. alt.

Gesch._ Beiheft ii. 1904.

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

⸺ Collegium, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 380-480.

Coloniae. ibid. 511-88. Concilium. ibid. 801 ff.

Krüger, P., and Mommsen, Th. Anecdoton Livianum. _Hermes_, iv

(1870). 371-6.

Krüger-Brissaud, Sourc. d. Droit Rom. = Krüger, P. Histoire des

sources du droit Romain. Trad. de l’Allemand par M. Brissaud.

Paris, 1894.

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

Vienna, 1882.

⸺ Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum. Leipzig, 1889.

⸺ Aedilis, (in) Real-Encycl. i. 448-64. Aerarius. ibid.

674-6. Aes equestre. ibid. 682-4. Ager. ibid. 780-93. As. ii.

1499-1513. Census. ibid. iii. 1914-24.

Kübler, B. Calata comitia, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl.

iii. 1330-4. Capite censi. ibid. 1521-3. Centuria. ibid.

1952-62. Classis. ibid. 2630-2. Consul. ibid. iv. 1112-38.

Equites Romani. ibid. vi. 272-312.

Kübler, B., and Hülsen, C. Curia, (in) Pauly-Wissowa,

Real-Encycl. iv. 1815-26.

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

Lambert, E. L’histoire traditionelle des XII Tables et les

critères d’authenticité des traditions en usage dans l’école de

Mommsen, (in) Mélanges Ch. Appleton, 503-626. Lyons and Paris,

1903.

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

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

1897.

⸺ New Tales of Old Rome. Boston, 1901.

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

1876, 1879.

⸺ Kleine Schriften. 2 vols. Göttingen, 1887.

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

1494-1516.

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

32-41.

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

⸺ Alt-arisches Ius Gentium. Jena, 1889.

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

Lengle, J. Untersuchungen über die sullanische Verfassung.

Freiburg im Breisgau, 1899.

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

⸺ Colonies Romains, ibid. i. 1303-21.

Leonhard, R. Adoptio, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. i.

398-400. Adrogatio. ibid. 419-21.

Le Tellier, M. [Organ. cent.] L’organisation centuriale et les

comices par centuries. Thesis. Paris, 1896.

Liebenam, W. Zur Geschichte und Organisation des römischen

Vereinswesens. Leipzig, 1890.

⸺ Comitia, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. iv. 679-715.

Curiata lex. ibid. iv. 1826-30. Fabri, (in) Ruggiero, Diz. Ep.

iii. 4-18.

Lieboldt, K. Die Ansichten über die Entstehung und das Wesen

der gentes patriciae in Rom aus der Zeit der Humanisten bis auf

unsere Tage, i, ii. Meerane, 1890.

Liers, H. [Kriegsw. d. Alt.] Das Kriegswesen der Alten mit

besonderer Berücksichtigung der Strategie. Breslau, 1895.

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

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

1864-1874.

Madvig, J. N. [Röm. Staat.] Die Verfassung und Verwaltung des

römischen Staates. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1881, 1882.

Marchi, A. de. Il culto privato di Roma antica. 2 vols. Milan,

1896, 1903. Uncritical, but to some extent useful.

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

⸺ [Röm. Staatsv.] Römische Staatsverwaltung. 3 vols. 2d ed.

revised by Dessau and others. Leipzig, 1881, 1885.

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

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

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

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

Rome.

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

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

1877-1887.

Meyer, E. Untersuchungen über Diodor’s römische Geschichte.

_Rhein. Mus._ xxxvii (1882). 610-27.

⸺ [Gesch. d. Alt.] Geschichte des Altertums, ii, v. Stuttgart,

1893 (and Berlin), 1902.

⸺ [Gesch. d. Gracch.] Untersuchungen zur Geschichte

der Gracchen, (in) Festschriften ... der vereinigten

Friedrichs-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1894. Philos. Fak.

79-109.

⸺ Der Ursprung des Tribunats und die Gemeinde der vier Tribus.

_Hermes_, xxx (1895). 1-24.

⸺ Die angebliche Centurienreform Sullas. _Hermes_, xxxiii

(1898). 652-4.

⸺ Plebs, (in) Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaft, vi.

98-106. 2d ed. Jena, 1901.

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

juridique. Paris, 1885.

Milani, L. A. Studi e materiali di archaeologia e numismatica.

3 vols. Florence, 1899-1905.

Mispoulet, J. B. Les institutions politiques des Romains. 2

vols. Paris, 1882, 1883.

⸺ Études d’institutions Romaines. Paris, 1887.

Mommsen, Th. [Röm. Tribus.] Die römischen Tribus in

administrativer Beziehung. Altona, 1834.

⸺ De apparitoribus magistratuum Romanorum. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F.

vi (1846). 1-57.

⸺ Ueber das thorische Ackergesetz. _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d.

Wiss._ i (1849). 89-101.

⸺ Ueber die lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia, (in)

Röm. Feldmess. ii. 221-6. Berlin, 1852.

⸺ Die Stadtrechte der lateinischen Gemeinden Salpensa und

Malaca in der Provinz Baetica. _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d.

Wiss._ ii. (1857). 361-507.

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

565-73.

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

⸺ Zwei Sepulcralreden aus der Zeit Augusts und Hadrians.

_Abhdl. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin._ 1863, 455-89.

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

⸺ Lex coloniae Iuliae Genetivae Urbanorum sive Ursonis data

a.u.c. DCCX. Additamentum ad corporis volumen ii. _Ephem. Ep._

ii (1875). 105-51.

⸺ Ein zweites Bruchstück des rubrischen Gesetzes vom Jahre 705

Roms. _Hermes_, xvi (1881). 24-41.

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

⸺ Abriss des römischen Staatsrechts. Leipzig, 1893.

⸺ Römisches Strafrecht. Leipzig, 1899.

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

York, 1900.

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

Mommsen-Blacas = Mommsen, Histoire de la monnaie Romaine.

Translated from the German by Le Duc de Blacas. 4 vols. Paris,

1865-1875.

Mommsen, Th. and others. Zum ältesten Strafrecht der

Kulturvölker. Leipzig, 1905.

Morlot, E. [Comices élect.] Les comices électoraux sous la

république Romaine. Thesis. Paris, 1884.

Moye, M. Les élections politiques sous la république Romaine.

Thesis. Bordeaux, 1896.

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

plebis. Basel, 1906.

Muirhead, J. Historical Introduction to the Private Law of

Rome. Edinburgh, 1886.

Müller, A. Die Strafjustiz im römischen Heere. _N. Jahrb. f.

kl. Altertum_, xvii (1906). 550-77.

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

Altertumswissenschaft. Nördlingen.

Müller, J. J. Studien zur römischen Verfassungsgeschichte.

_Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 96-136.

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

W. Deecke. Stuttgart, 1877.

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

Münzer, F. M. Claudius Marcellus, (in) Pauly-Wissowa,

Real-Encycl. iii. 2738-55. Appius Claudius Pulcher. ibid. 2848

f. L. Cornelius Cinna. ibid. iv. 1282-7. L. Cornelius Scipio

Asiagenus. ibid. iv. 1471-83. T. Didius. ibid. v. 407-10. Cn.

Domitius Ahenobarbus. ibid. v. 1324-7.

Nettleship, H. Contributions to Latin Lexicography. Oxford,

1889.

_N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt._ = _Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische

Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur, und für

Pädagogik._ Leipzig.

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

⸺ [Gesch. Roms.] Geschichte Roms während des Verfalles der

Republik. 2 vols. Breslau, 1881, 1884.

Neumann, K. J. Die Grundherrschaft der römischen Republik,

Die Bauernbefreiung und die Entstehung der servianischen

Verfassung. Strassburg, 1900.

Niccolini, G. La questione dei processi degli Scipioni.

_Rivista di storia antica_, iii (1898). Fasc. 4. 28-75.

Niebuhr, B. G. Römische Geschichte. 3 vols. 4th ed. Berlin,

1833-1843. Also the English translation by Hare and Thirlwall.

Philadelphia, 1844.

⸺ Lectures on the History of Rome, edited and translated from

the German by L. Schmitz. 3 vols. 3d ed. London, 1853.

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

Niese, B. Das sogenannte licinisch-sextische Ackergesetz.

_Hermes_, xxiii (1888). 410-23.

⸺ [Röm. Gesch.] Grundriss der römische Geschichte nebst

Quellenkunde. 3d ed. Munich, 1906.

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

Nipperdey, K. Die leges annales der römischen Republik. _Abhdl.

sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ v (1870). 1-88.

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

Nissen, H. Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der

vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius. Berlin, 1863.

⸺ Das Templum. Berlin, 1869.

⸺ Der Ausbruch des Bürgerkrieges 49 vor Chr. _Hist. Zeitschr._

xliv (1880). 409-45; xlvi. 48-105.

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

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

Berlin, 1847.

⸺ Das Verhältniss von Heer und Staat in der römischen Republik.

_Hist. Zeitschr._ vii (1862). 133-58.

⸺ [Röm. Rep.] Geschichte der römischen Republik. 2 vols. Ed. by

G. Thouret. Leipzig, 1884, 1885.

Nonius Marcellus. Compendiosa doctrina. Emend. et adn. L.

Müller. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1888.

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

1901.

Obseq. = Iulii Obsequentis ab anno urbis conditae DV

prodigiorum liber, (in) Weissenborn’s Livy, vol. xii. 193-209.

2d ed. Berlin, 1881.

Olcott, G. N. Thesaurus linguae Latinae epigraphicae, i. Rome,

1904-1908.

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

Republic. Toronto, 1907.

Orelli and Baiter, Index legum Romanorum quarum apud Ciceronem

eiusque scholiastas item apud Livium, Velleium Paterculum, A.

Gellium nominatim mentio fit, (in their) Ciceronis Opera, viii.

3.

Oxyrhynchus Papiri. See Grenfell and Hunt; also Kornemann.

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

⸺ [Leg. of Rom. Hist.] Ancient Legends of Roman History.

Translated from the Italian. New York, 1905.

⸺ Ancient Italy. Translated from the Italian by C. D. Curtis.

Chicago and London, 1908.

⸺ L’elezione del pontefice massimo Romano per mezzo delle XVII

tribù. Naples, 1908.

⸺ A proposito dell’attendibilità dei fasti dell’antica

repubblica Romana. _Rendiconti della reale accademia dei

Lincei_, xxvii (1908). 33-68.

Pantaleoni, D. Della auctoritas patrum nell’antica Roma sotto

le sue diverse forme. Torino, 1884.

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

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

⸺ Di un studio recente sul processo degli Scipioni. _Riv. di

stor. ant._ iv (1899). 268-71.

Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. = Pauly, Real-Encyclopädie der

classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New ed. by G. Wissowa,

i-vi. 1. Stuttgart, 1894-1907.

Pelham, H. The Roman Curiae. (Eng.) _Journ. of Philol._ ix

(1880). 266-79.

Pellegrini, G. Fregi arcaici Etruschi in terracotta, etc. (in)

Milani, Studi e materiali, i. 87-118.

Pellegrino, D. Andeutungen über den ursprünglichen

Religionsunterschied der römischen Patricier und Plebeier.

Leipzig, 1842.

Peter, C. Die Epochen der Verfassungsgeschichte der römischen

Republik, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Centuriatcomitien

und der mit diesen vorgegangenen Veränderungen. Leipzig, 1841.

⸺ Studien zur römischen Geschichte mit besonderer Beziehung auf

Th. Mommsen. Naumburg, 1861. A new enlarged ed. Halle, 1863.

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

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

Leipzig, 1870, 1906.

_Philol._ = _Philologus: Zeitschrift für das classische

Altertum._ Leipzig.

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

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

Boston, 1904.

Plüss, H. T. [Centurienverf.] Die Entwickelung der

Centurienverfassung in den beiden letzten Jahrhunderten der

römischen Republik. Leipzig, 1870.

Podestà. Il tribunato della plebe in Roma dalla secessione

della plebe sul monte Sacro all’approvazione della legge di

Publilio Volerone. Parma, 1895.

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

⸺ Zur Geschichte der Gracchen. _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. d.

Wiss._ 1907. 443-93.

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

New York.

Poste, E. Gaii institutionum iuris civilis commentarii quatuor.

Or, Elements of Roman Law by Gaius. With translation and

commentary. Oxford, 1871.

Pott, A. F. [Etym. Forsch.] Etymologische Forschungen auf dem

Gebiete der indo-germanischen Sprachen. 2d ed. 5 vols. Detmold,

1859-1873. This work includes the author’s Wurzel-Wörterbuch

der indo-germanischen Sprachen.

Priscianus. [Inst. Gram.] Institutionum grammaticarum libri

xvii, ed. M. Hertz, (in) Gram. Lat. ii, ed. Keil. Leipzig, 1855.

Probus, Valerius. De litteris singularibus fragmentum, ed.

Mommsen, (in) Gram. Lat. iv, ed. Keil. Leipzig, 1864.

Pseudacr. Schol. Cruq. ad Hor. = Pseudacronis Scholia in

Horatium vetustiora. Ed. O. Keller. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1902, 1904.

Pseudo-Sall. Declam. in Cat. = Porcii Latronis Declamatio

contra L. Sergium Catilinam, (in) C. Crispi Salustii quae

extant, i. 260-87. Ed. C. H. Frotscher. Leipzig, 1825.

Ptaschnik, J. Die Wahl der Volkstribunen vor der Rogation des

Volero Publilius. _Oesterreich. Gymn._ xiv (1863). 627-38.

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

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

497-525.

⸺ Stimmrecht der Patricier in den Tributcomitien. ibid, xxxii

(1881). 81-102.

Regling, K. Zum älteren römischen und italischen Münzen.

_Klio_, vi (1906). 489-524.

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

am Main.

Richter, O. Die Topographie der Stadt Rom. 2d ed. Munich, 1901.

(In) Müller, I. Hdb. d. kl. Altwiss. iii. 3.

Ritschl, F. W. Opuscula philologica. Or, Kleine philologische

Schriften. 5 vols. Leipzig, 1866-1879.

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

affini._ Messina.

Roby, J. H. Roman Private Law in the Times of Cicero and of the

Antonines. 2 vols. Cambridge (England), 1902.

Röm. Feldmess. See Blume, F., etc.

Roscher, W. H. Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und

römischen Mythologie, i-iii. Leipzig, 1884-1902.

Rothstein, M. Suffragium, (in) Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds

sechsigstem Geburtstage, 30-3. Berlin, 1903.

Rubino, J. [Röm. Verf.] Ueber den Entwickelungsgang der

römischen Verfassung his zum Höhepunkt der Republik. Cassel,

1839.

⸺ Ueber das Verhältniss der sex Suffragia zur römischen

Ritterschaft. _Zeitschr. f. die Altwiss._ iv (1846). 212-39.

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

1857, 1859.

⸺ Ad legem Aciliam de pecuniis repetundis, etc. _Abhdl. d.

Akad. d. Wiss._ 1861. 411-553.

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

1895-1906.

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

Heidelberg, 1887.

Sall. Hist. = C. Sallusti Crispi, Historiarum reliquiae, ed. B.

Maurenbrecher, ii: fragmenta. Leipzig, 1893.

Sall. or Pseud. Sall. Rep. Ord. = Incerti auctoris epistulae

duae ad C. Caesarem de republica ordinanda, (in) C. Crispi

Sallusti quae extant, i. Ed. C. H. Frotscher. Leipzig, 1825.

Samwer-Bahrfeldt, Röm. Münzw. = Samwer, K. Geschichte des

älteren römischen Münzwesens bis circa 200 vor Christi. Ed. M.

Bahrfeldt. Vienna, 1883.

Sanders, H. A. The Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy. _Trans. of the

Am. Philol. Assoc._ xxxvi (1905). 5-31.

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

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

1883.

⸺ [Röm. Alt.] Römische Kriegsaltertümer, (in) Müller, Hdb. d.

kl. Altwiss. iv. 707-44. Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer, ibid.

483-704. Nördlingen, 1887.

Schlossman, S. Tributum, tribuere, tribus. _Archiv f. Lat.

Lexicog._ xiv (1905). 25-40.

Schmidt, J. Die Einsetzung der römischen Volkstribunen.

_Hermes_, xxi (1886). 460-6.

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

Leipzig, 1884.

⸺ Der Briefwechsel des M. Tullius Cicero von seinem Prokonsulat

in Cilicien bis zu Cäsars Ermordung. Leipzig, 1893.

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

reliquiae. Leipzig, 1866.

Schott, P. O. Die römische Geschichte im Licht der neuesten

Forschungen. _Videnskabs-Selskabets Skriften. Hist. Filos.

Klasse_, ii. 1906.

Schrader, O. [Reallex.] Reallexikon der indogermanischen

Altertumskunde. Strassburg, 1901.

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

Jena, 1906, 1907.

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

Frauenfeld, 1891.

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

1815.

Schulze, W. [Gesch. lat. Eigennam.] Zur Geschichte lateinischer

Eigennamen. _Abhdl. d. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Gött._ N. F. v.

Berlin, 1904.

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

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

Sic. Flacc. = Siculus Flaccus. De condicionibus agrorum, (in)

Grom. Vet. 134-65. Ed. Lachmann. Berlin, 1848.

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

_Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ = _Sitzungsberichte der

königlich bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München._

_Sitzb. d. Berl. Akad. d. Wiss._ = _Sitzungsberichte der

königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._

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

Smith, W. and others. [Dict.] A Dictionary of Greek and Roman

Antiquities. 3d ed. 2 vols. London, 1890, 1891.

Sol., Solin. = Solinus, C. Julius, Polyhistor; ex editione

Claudii Salmasii, accurante M. A. Goezio. Leipzig, 1777.

Soltau, W. [Altröm. Volksversamml.] Ueber Entstehung und

Zusammensetzung der altrömischen Volksversammlungen. Berlin,

1880.

⸺ Die ursprüngliche Bedeutung und Competenz der aediles plebis,

(in) Historische Untersuchungen A. Schaefer ... gewidmet,

98-147. Bonn, 1882.

Soltau, W. Gültigkeit der Plebiscite. _Berliner Studien_, ii

(1885). 1-176.

⸺ Die Echtheit des licinischen Ackergesetz von 367 vor Chr.

_Hermes_, xxx (1895). 624-9.

⸺ Cicero de Re Publica und die servianische Centurienordnung.

_Jahrb. f. Philol._ xli (1895). 410-4.

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

Staaf, E. De origine gentium patriciarum commentatio academica.

Upsala, 1896.

Stella Maranca, F. Il tribunato della plebe dalla lex Hortensia

alla lex Cornelia. Lanciano, 1901.

Strachan-Davidson, J. L. The Growth of Plebeian Privilege at

Rome. _Eng. Hist. Rev._ i (1886). 209-17.

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

⸺ Cicero. New York and London, 1894.

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

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

quaestiones. Upsala, 1897.

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

Terpstra, D. Quaestiones literariae de populo, de senatu, de

rege, de interregibus, antiquissimis rei publicae Romanae

temporibus. Rotterdam, 1842.

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

Tophoff, De lege Valeria Horatia, Publilia, Hortensia.

Paderborn, 1852.

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

2022-34.

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

1873.

Usener, H. Italische Volksjustiz. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. lvi

(1901). 1-28.

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

Mainly provincial.

Valeton, I. M. J. De modis auspicandi Romanorum. _Mnemos._ N.

S. xvii (1889). 275-323, 418-52; xviii. 208-64, 406-56.

⸺ De iure obnuntiandi comitiis et conciliis. ibid. xix (1891).

75-113, 229-70.

Vaniček, A. [Etym. Wörterb. d. lat. Spr.] Etymologisches

Wörterbuch der lateinischen Sprache. Leipzig, 1874.

⸺ [Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb.] Griechisch-lateinisches

etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leipzig, 1877.

Vassis, Sp. Leges Valeriae de provocatione. _Athena_, xvii

(1905). 160-5.

_Verhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ = _Berichte über die

Verhandlungen der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der

Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Classe._

Referred to also as _Ber. sächs._ etc.

Victor, C. Julius, Ars rhetorica, (in) Orelli-Baiter, Ciceronis

Opera, v. 1. 195-268.

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

Weimar, 1865.

⸺ Ueber das römische System der Wege im alten Italien. _Ber.

sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xxiv (1872). 29-90.

⸺ Leges regiae. _Abhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ vii

(1879). 555-826.

⸺ XII Tafeln. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1883.

⸺ Die lex Fabia de plagiariis. _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d.

Wiss._ xxxvii (1885). 319-345.

⸺ Ueber die staatsrechtliche possessio und den ager compascuus.

_Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ x (1888). 221-272.

⸺ Ueber die lex Cornelia sumptuaria. _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d.

Wiss._ xlii (1890). 244-79.

⸺ Römische Rechtsgeschichte. 3 vols. Leipzig and Berlin,

1892-1902.

Volquardsen, C. A. Die drei ältesten römischen Tribus. _Rhein.

Mus._ N. F. xxxiii (1878). 557-64.

Wachsmuth, W. Die ältere Geschichte des römischen Staates.

Halle, 1819.

Walde, A. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg,

1906.

Wallinder. De statu plebeiorum Romanorum ante primam in montem

Sacrum secessionem quaestiones. Upsala, 1860.

Waltzing, J. P. Étude historique sur les corporations

professionelles chez les Romains. 4 vols. Louvain, 1895-1900.

Warren, M. The Stele Inscription in the Roman Forum. _Am.

Journ. of Philol._ xxviii (1907). 249-72.

Weber, M. Die römische Agrargeschichte in ihrer Bedeutung für

das Staats- und Privatrecht. Stuttgart, 1891.

Wex, C. Ueber die leges annales der Römer. _Rhein. Mus._ iii

(1845). 276-88.

_Wiener Studien. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie.

Supplement der Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien._

Vienna.

Wigger, J. Verteidigung der Nieburschen Ansicht über den

Ursprung der römischen Plebs, etc. Warburg, 1885.

Willems, P. [Sén. Rom.] Le sénat de la république Romaine, etc.

2 vols. 2d ed. Louvain, 1885.

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

Wilmanns, W. Ueber die Gerichtshöfe während des Bestehens der

lex Cornelia iudiciaria. _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xix (1864). 528-41.

Wissowa, G. Religion und Kultus der Römer, (in) Müller, Hdb. d.

kl. Altwiss. v. 4. Munich, 1902.

⸺ Augures, (in) Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encycl. ii. 2313-44.

Auspicium. ibid. 2580-7.

_Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien._ Vienna.

_Zeitschr. f. gesch. Rechtswiss._ = _Zeitschrift für

geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft._ Berlin.

_Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ = _Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung

für Rechtsgeschichte. Römische Abteilung._ Weimar.

Zöller, Latium und Rom. Leipzig, 1878.

Zumpt, C. T. De legibus iudiciisque repetundarum. _Abhdl. d.

Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin._ 1845. 1-70, 475-515.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 168 and n. 1. Schrader, _Reallex._ 920

f., accepts this explanation as most probable, and connecting it with

Skt. cakrá-, interprets it as referring to a wheel formation of the army.

But Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 1085 f., connects populari

with spol-iu-m.

[2] Curtius, _Griech. Etym._ 260, English, 344; Corssen, _Ausspr._ i.

368, 422; Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb. d. lat. Spr._ 90; _Griech.-lat. etym.

Wörterb._ 506; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 480 f.; cf. Schrader, ibid.;

Genz, _Patr. Rom._, 51 f.

[3] This interpretation would explain magister populi and populari.

Plebs, on the other hand, denoted the multitude as distinguished from the

leaders; hence it differed from populus, notwithstanding Herzog, _Röm.

Staatsverf._ i. 98, n. 2.

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

[5] Livy xxi. 34. 1.

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

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

[8] “Arma sumere, sacris adesse, concilium inire”; Tac. _Germ._ 6. 6; 13.

1. On the Indo-European relation of the army to the folk, see Schrader,

_Reallex._ 349 f. For Rome, Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 3 f.

[9] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 2; Plut. _Rom._ 14, 20;

Ovid, _Fast._ iii. 131; Dio Cass. Frag. 5. 8; Varro, _L. L._ v. 55;

Colum. v. 1. 9.

[10] As Romulus was the eponymous hero of the Ramnes (or of all the

Romans?) and Lucerus (Fest. ep. 119) of the Luceres.

[11] The original seat of the hero at Rome was on the Capitoline near

the site of the later temple of Juno Moneta; Plut. _Rom._ 20. It was

closely connected, therefore, with the auguraculum on the spot; Varro,

_L. L._ v. 47; Cic. _Off._ iii. 16. 66; Fest. ep. 16. Perhaps his name

has some etymological relation with titiare, “to chirp as a sparrow”;

Varro, _L. L._ v. 85 (titiis avibus); Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 277

and n. 3; Forcellini, _Lex._ s. v. The Sodales Titii, who attended to his

worship (cf. Dion. Hal. ii. 52. 5; Tac. _Ann._ i. 54; _Hist._ ii. 95)

were accustomed to take a certain kind of auspices from birds; Varro,

ibid. His tomb was in a place called Lauretum on the Aventine (Pais,

ibid. 279), confused probably with Laurentum, where he is said to have

been killed. All these circumstances indicate that Titus Tatius was an

indigenous Roman, or at most a Latin hero, and that his connection with

the Sabines is an ill-founded, relatively late idea. The primary origin

of the word Titienses is Etruscan; Schulze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 218.

[12] Possibly because the rites of the Titian sodales seemed to be Sabine

(cf. Tac. _Ann._ i. 54); but even if they were, this circumstance would

not make the Titian tribe Sabine.

[13] Varro, however, placed them on the Aventine. A Sabine settlement on

the Quirinal has not been proved; cf. Lécrivain, in Daremberg et Saglio,

_Dict._ ii. 1514.

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

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

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

[17] Serv. ibid.

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

[19] Proposed by Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 311 ff., English, i. 153

ff. In his opinion the three tribes were of different nationalities.

His view, with or without the theory of national syncretism, has been

accepted by many scholars, including Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 480

ff., 497-514; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 82 ff.; Peter, _Gesch. Roms._ i.

60; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 97 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 23

f. (with some reserve); Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 621; Ihering, _Geist

des röm. Rechts_, i. 309, 313; Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 89 ff.; Bernhöft,

_Röm. Königsz._ 79; Puchta, _Curs. d. Inst._ i. 73; Soltau, _Röm.

Volksversamml._ 46 f.; Kubitschek, _Rom. trib. or._ 4; Mommsen, _Röm.

Staatsr._ iii. 96 f.; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 7; Schrader, _Reallex._

801; Nissen, _Templum_, 145 f.; _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 496.

[20] Against the view that the three tribes were once independent

communities are Volquardsen, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxiii. 542 ff.; Meyer,

_Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 510; Lécrivain, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii.

1514 a; Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 241, 249 ff.; Platner,

_Top. and Mon. of Anc. Rome_, 33. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 114, thinks

they probably had reference only to the army. The double nature of many

Roman institutions—a phenomenon on which scholars chiefly rely for their

theory of a once existent two-tribe state—may better be explained by the

union of the Sabines with the Romans after the institution of the three

tribes; as this relatively later date would at the same time explain the

six-fold character of various institutions. That the union took place at

the beginning of the fifth century B.C. is believed by Pais, _Storia di

Roma_, I. i. 277. Or the stated increase in the number of members of the

vestals, augurs, pontiffs, and more particularly of senators, may be due

to an ancient theory, dimly hinted at in the sources, of an admission

of the second and third tribes successively to representation in these

bodies; cf. Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 320 f., English, i. 157; Bloch,

_Orig. d. sén._ 32 ff.

[21] Bormann, in _Eran. Vind._ 345-58, following a hint offered by Niese,

_Röm. Gesch._ (1st ed. 1886) 585, has gone so far as to deny their

existence, setting them down as an invention of Varro; but Holzapfel, in

_Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 230 ff., proves that Cicero and other sources

did not draw from Varro their information regarding the tribes. Against

Bormann, see also Pais, ibid. I. i. 279, n. 1.

[22] That the primitive Roman tribes were in character substantially

identical with the primitive Greek phylae cannot be doubted. Apparently

the four Ionic phylae in Attica offered no resistance to dissolution at

the hands of Cleisthenes; cf. Hdt. v. 66; Arist. _Ath. Pol._ 21. (For

the best treatment of the Greek phylae, see Szanto, E., _Ausgewählte

Abhandlungen_, 216-88, who maintains that the institution was

artificial.) In like manner the three Roman tribes disappeared, leaving

but scant traces; p. 7.

[23] Mantua, till late an Etruscan city, had three tribes; Serv. _in

Aen._ x. 202. In this connection it is significant that Volnius, an

Etruscan poet, declared the primitive tribal names to be Etruscan;

Varro, _L. L._ v. 55. The information suggests the possibility that some

Etruscan cities had these same tribes; cf. Fest. 285. 25; _CIL._ ix.

4204 (locality unknown). In fact these names can be ultimately traced

to Etruscan gentilicia; Schulze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 218, 581. The triplet

champions of Alba point to a division of this community into three

tribes; Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 386; Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 502.

The story that T. Tatius was killed at Lavinium indicates the existence

of a tomb of the hero in that place—a clear sign of a tribe of Tities

there; Livy i. 14. 2; Dion. Hal. ii. 52; cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 152. A

trace of Ramnes is found at Ardea; Serv. _in Aen._ ix. 358. There were

Ramnennii in Ostia (_CIL._ xiv. 1542) and Ramnii in Capua; ibid. x. 3772;

Schulze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 218. The existence of a tribe of Luceres in

Ardea is vouched for by Lucerus, its eponymous hero, king of that city;

Fest. ep. 119; Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 279. The word in various

forms occurs in certain Etruscan towns; Schulze, ibid. 182. These facts

make it probable that some at least of the Latin as well as Etruscan

cities had the same three tribes.

[24] The Etruscans had twelve cities in each of their three districts;

Strabo v. 4. 3; Livy v. 33. Each city had three consecrated gates and

three temples to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva; Serv. _in Aen._ i. 422. The

Umbrians had three hundred cities in the Po valley, destroyed by the

Etruscans; Pliny, _N. H._ iii. 14. 113. The Bruttians were organized in

a confederation of twelve cities; Livy xxv. 1. 2. The Iapygians were

divided into three branches (Polyb. iii. 88. 4), each of which comprised

twelve smaller groups; Bloch, _Orig. d. sén._ 9 f.; Holzapfel, in _Beitr.

z. alt. Gesch._ i. 245 ff., 252 f. The tripartite division also existed

in many pagi which continued to historical time; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v.

83.

[25] These facts are too well known to need illustration; cf. Nissen,

_Templum_, 144; Bloch, _Orig. d. sén._ 1 ff.

[26] Varro, _L. L._ v. 55. Tribus = tri-bu-s: bu- is related to φυ- “to

grow,” Skt. bhū-; tribus, corresponding to φυ-λή, would then signify

“three-branch;” Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 163; Pott, _Etym. Forsch._ i. 111,

217; ii. 441; Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb. d. lat. Spr._ 69; _Griech.-lat.

etym. Wörterb._ 636; Bloch, ibid. 9. Schlossman, in _Archiv f. lat.

Lexicog._ xiv (1905). 25-40, connecting tribus with tres, interprets it

not as a third but as an indefinite part, cf. entzweien with the meaning

to divide in several parts. Schrader, _Reallex._ 801, is doubtful as to

the etymology; cf. Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 636. The connection of

the word with tres is denied by Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 96; Nissen,

_Ital. Landesk._ ii. 8, n. 5. Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad._ 1906.

204, prefers to connect it with Celt *trebo- (Old Irish treb), “house,”

Goth. thaúrp, “village.” Oscan trebo- also means “house.”

[27] The existence of four Ionic tribes in all Ionic cities cannot be

maintained; cf. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, in _Sitzb. d. Berl. Akad._ 1906.

71.

[28] The tribus Sapinia was the territory of the Sapinian community (Livy

xxxi. 2. 6; xxxiii. 37. 1), just as the trifu Tarinate was the territory

of the community (tuta, tota, Osc. touto; _Tab. Bant._ 2) Tadinum; _Tab.

Iguv._ vi. b. 54; cf. iii. 24; Buck, _Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian_, 278

f., 298; Bücheler, _Umbrica_, see index, s. Tref, Trefiper; Kornemann, in

_Klio_, v. 87.

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

[30] Livy i. 55. 3 f.; _CIL._ ix. 1618, 5565; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._

ii. 8 ff.; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 80.

[31] Dion. Hal. iv. 15; Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 9-15. Doubtless

oppidum applied primarily to the enclosing wall, thence to the space

enclosed; Caes. _B. G._ v. 21; Varro, _L. L._ v. 153. From the beginning

it must have been the chief or central settlement of the pagus, though

the organization was not urban but territorial-tribal; cf. Pöhlmann,

_Anfänge Roms_, 40 ff.

[32] Livy ix. 41. 6; x. 18. 8; _CIL._ i. 199; Isid. _Etym._ xv. 2. 11:

“Vici et castella et pagi sunt quae nulla dignitate civitatis ornantur,

sed vulgari hominum conventu incoluntur et propter parvitatem sui

maioribus civitatibus attribuuntur;” Fest. ep. 72; Nissen, ibid. 11.

[33] Thus the three tribes of Cyrene were made up each of a nationality

or group of nationalities (Hdt. iv. 161), and the ten tribes of Thurii

were named after the nationalities of which they were respectively

composed; Diod. xii. 11. 3.

[34] The Romans founded their colonies according to Etruscan rites,

and they believed their city to have been established in the same way;

Varro, _L. L._ v. 143; Cato, in Serv. _in Aen._ v. 755; Fest. 237.

18; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 88. The word Roma is now declared to be

Etruscan; Schultze, _Lat. Eigennam._ 579 ff.; Schmidt, Karl Fr. W., in

_Berl. Philol. Woch._ 1906. 1656.

[35] Richter, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, 30 ff., still believes that the

earliest settlement was on the Palatine. His view is controverted by

Degering, H., in _Berl. Philol. Woch._ xxiii (1903). 1645 f., who prefers

the Quirinal; cf. also Carter, J. B., in _Am. Journ. of Archaeol._ xii

(1908). 172-83.

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

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

[38] Cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 55; Verrius Flaccus, in Gell. xviii. 7. 5. The

idea of Isidorus, _Etym._ ix. 6. 7, is of course absurd.

[39] This subject will be considered in connection with the Servian

tribes; p. 48 f.

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

[41] P. 74.

[42] Like the Attic phylobasileis they continued through historical time

to perform sacerdotal functions; Dion. Hal. ii. 64. 3; _Fast. Praen. Mar.

19_, in _CIL._ i². p. 234: “(Sali) faciunt in comitio saltu (adstantibus

po)ntificibus et trib. celer;” Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i.

242.

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

243.

[44] P. 2, n. 6.

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

[46] There were curiae in Lanuvium, an old Latin town; _CIL._ xiv. 2120.

Juno Curis, Cur(r)itis, Quiritis, goddess of the curiae, was worshipped

in Tibur (Serv. _in Aen._ i. 17), and in Falerii (Tertul. _Apol._ 24;

_CIL._ xi. 3100, 3125, 3126; cf. Holzapfel, _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._

i. 247; Roscher, _Lex. d. griech. u. röm. Myth._ II. i. 596 f.). A

connection between Cūris and cūria is not clear; Deecke, _Falisker_, 86.

[47] Aristotle, _Politics_, 1329, b 8, considers Italus, king of the

Oenotrians, to have been author of the mess-associations (συσσίτια),

adding that the institution was derived from the country of the Opici and

the Chaonians. With the Opici he includes Latins as well as Ausonians;

Dion. Hal. i. 72. 3. On the relation of these peoples to one another,

see especially Pais, _Anc. Italy_, ch. i. Greek writers identify the

curia with the phratry (Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 3 f.; Dio Cass. Frag. 4.

8), the ἑταιρεία, and the syssition (Dion. Hal. ii. 23. 3; Dio Cass.

ibid.). Although the institutions designated by these four names show

considerable variety of form and function, they are similar in general

character and may have a common origin; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 514.

The myth which names the curiae after the Sabine women suggests that some

of the curial names, and perhaps the curiae themselves, might be found

among the Sabines. On Rapta and Titia however see p. 11, n. 7.

[48] Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 2; Dio Cass. Frag. 5. 8; Plut. _Rom._ 20; Fest.

174. 8; ep. 49; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ ii. 12; Serv. _in Aen._ viii.

638; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2.

Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 47 f., entertains the peculiar idea that

the curiae, invented to counteract the independent tendencies of the

tribes, were not divisions of the tribes, the members of each curia being

drawn from all three tribes. His view is contradicted by the sources and

he admits that he cannot prove it.

St. Augustine, _Enarr. in Psalm._ 121. 7 (iv. 2. 1624 ed. Migne),

and still later Paulus, the epitomator of Festus, 54, suppose that

there were thirty-five curiae. Notwithstanding Hoffmann, _Patr. u.

pleb. Cur._ 44 ff., the opinion of these late writers doubtless arose

from an identification of the curiae with the tribes; cf. Kübler, in

Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1818.

[49] P. 11 f.

[50] The word is derived from *co-viria, “a dwelling together,” “an

assembly,” by Pott, _Etym. Forsch._ ii. 373 f. (cf. Vaniček, _Etym.

Wörterb. d. lat. Spr._ 160; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 161), who is

followed by Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 496, n. 8, 610, n. 4; Herzog,

_Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 96. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 5, 90 and notes,

gives the word the meaning “an association of citizens,” deriving it

from quiris (cf. _Abriss_, 11), which he connects with κῦρος, κῦριος, as

did Lange in 1853 (_Kleine Schriften_, i. 147). Afterward—_Röm. Alt._ i.

(1876) 91—Lange expressed some doubt as to this connection. But the fact

that curia applies to the house not only of the curiales, but also of the

senate and of the Salii, as well as to various other buildings, seems

to indicate that the meaning “house” is primary for the Latin language

if not ultimately original. Corssen, who accepts this meaning, derives

cu- from sku-, “to cover,” “to protect” (_Ausspr._ i. 353 f.; Vaniček,

_Griech.-lat. etym. Wörterb._ 1116), cf. Old High Germ. hū-t, hū-s,

Eng. “house.” Although Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 90, n. 2, protests

against this explanation, it is accepted by Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii.

511, Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 52, and others. Far less probable

is a connection with cura, curare, assumed by most ancient writers; cf.

Varro, _L. L._ v. 155; vi. 46; _Vit. pop. rom._ in Non. Marc. 57; Fest.

ep. 49; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2; Dio Cass. Frag. 5. 8; Isid.

_Etym._ xv. 2. 28. These sources have misled Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 32, into

fruitless speculation on the functions of the curia.

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

[52] Fest. 174. 6; Jordan, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, I. i. 165 f.; iii. 43

f.; Gilbert, _Gesch. u. Top. d. Stadt Rom_, i. 102 f.; 195 ff.; Richter,

_Top. d. Stadt Rom_, 33, 340; Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of Ancient

Rome_, map opp. 58; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 99.

[53] P. 8, n. 5; Dion. Hal. ii. 50. 3; Fest. 254. 25; ep. 64; cf.

Roscher, _Lex._ II. i. 596.

[54] Worshipped in the Fordicidia; Ovid, _Fast._ iv. 634; Lyd. _De Mens._

iv. 49; Wissowa, _Rel. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 159.

[55] On the curial worship, see Varro, _L. L._ vi. 13; Fest. 254. 25;

317. 12; Dion. Hal. ii. 23. 1-3; 50. 3; 65. 4; Ovid, _Fast._ ii. 527

ff.; iv. 629 ff.; Plut. _Q. R._ 89; cf. Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, 71-2,

302-6. On the stultorum feriae, see Wissowa, ibid. 142; Fowler, ibid. 304

ff.

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

[57] Varro, _L. L._ v. 83; vi. 46; Dion. Hal. 64. 1; 65. 4; Fest. ep. 49,

62; Lyd. _De Mag._ i. 9.

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

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

12. 31.

[60] Fest. ep. 64: “Curiales flamines curiarum sacerdotes.” For the

flamen of the Curia Iovis of Simitthus, see _CIL._ viii. 14683; cf. 2596

and 11008. The statement of Festus, 154. 26, that there were but fifteen

flamines must be modified. But there may have been fewer than thirty

curial flamines; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 390. Of the two curial

officials mentioned by Dionysius, ii. 21. 2, therefore, one was the curio

and the other a lictor (Mommsen, ibid. 309, n. 5; Genz, _Patr. Rom._, 47)

or a flamen (Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i. 242).

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

[62] Livy iii. 7. 7; xxvii. 8. 1; Fest. ep. 126. This official was

probably instituted after the curiones had become mere priests; Genz,

ibid. 48.

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

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

[65] Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 52, 65, following J. J. Müller, in

_Philol._ xxxiv (1874), 96-136, refuses to credit a military character

to the curiae because it is mentioned by no other writer and because we

can find no trace of it in historical time. His reasoning is not cogent.

The curia may have lost its earlier military function, as did the phratry

(_Il._ ii. 362 f.).

[66] That the antiquarians had some evidence as to the military character

of the curiae is suggested by Fest. ep. 54: “Centuriata comitia item

curiata dicebantur, quia populus Romanus per cetenas turmas divisus erat.”

[67] _Il._ ii. 362 f.

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

[69] Schrader, _Reallex._ 349 f.

[70] All adult male citizens had a right to attend this assembly, all

who were physically qualified and of military age were liable to service

when called to it; but probably on no occasion were those present in the

assembly identical with the military levy of the year; cf. p. 203.

[71] P. 7.

[72] II. 7. 4. The curiales must have been neighbors in order to use a

common drying oven; n. 8 below.

[73] Fest. 174. 12. The first is evidently named after the Forum, the

second after the Velia; cf. Plut. _Rom._ 20, who states that many were

named after places. Of the other five Velitia (Fest. ibid.), Titia (ibid.

ep. 366), Faucia (Livy ix. 38. 15), and Acculeia (Varro, _L. L._ vi. 23)

have gentile endings. We should not imagine these four to be named after

gentes, which were of later origin; Botsford, in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxi.

(1907). 685 ff. It would be safer to assume that they, like gentilicia,

are derived from the names of persons real or imaginary. Rapta (Fest.

174. 12) and Titia possibly suggested to the ancients the derivation of

the curial names from those of the captive Sabine women; cf. p. 8, n. 6.

[74] Dion. Hal. iv. 12. 2. This statement is confirmed by the nature of

the Fornacalia, the chief festival of the curiae; it was celebrated in

connection with the drying of the far in ovens; Pliny _N. H._ xviii. 2.

8; Fest. ep. 83, 93. Evidently the members of a curia were those who had

a common drying oven; Wissowa, _Rel. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 142.

[75] Διῄρηνται δὲ καὶ εἰς δεκάδας αἰ φράτραι, πρὸς αὑτοῦ, καὶ ἡγεμὼν

ἐκὰστην ἐκόσμει δεκάδα, δεκουρίων κατὰ τὴν ἐπιχώριον, γλῶτταν

προσαγομευόμενος.

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

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

[78] There is no need of assuming, with Bloch, _Origines du sénat

Romain_, 102-5, that the decuriae mentioned by Dionysius are “purely

imaginary.”

[79] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 334 f.; Eng. 163; cf. also Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._

i. 612 f. The antiquated view is still held by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._

i. 96, and by Lécrivain, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1504. Though

Ihne, _History of Rome_, i. 113, n. 3, believes that the curiae were

composed of gentes, he is doubtful as to the number.

[80] “Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, curiata comitia esse;

cum ex censu et aetate, centuriata; cum ex regionibus et locis, tributa.”

[81] Mommsen, too, supposes that genera here means gentes but is used so

as to include also the plebeian stirpes; nevertheless he knows that the

voting in the curiate assembly was by heads rather than by gentes; _Röm.

Staatsr._ iii. 9, n. 2; 90, n. 5.

[82] Livy i. 43. 10: “Viritim suffragium ... omnibus datum est” (i.e. in

the curiate assembly). This statement of the lack of relation between the

gens and the curia is repeated from _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxi. 511 f.

[83] It is in the main a reproduction of my article on the subject in

_Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxi (1906). 498-526.

[84] P. 25 ff.

[85] _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; 12. 23: “Senatus, qui constabat ex optimatibus,

quibus ipse rex tantum tribuisset, ut eos patres vellet nominari

patriciosque eorum liberos.”

[86] In the expression “omnibus patriciis, omnibus antiquissimis

civibus,” Cicero (_Caec._ 35. 101) intends no more than to include the

patricians among the oldest citizens, whom he is contrasting with the

newly-admitted municipes. Only the most superficial examination of the

passage (cf. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 7) could make “omnibus patriciis”

equivalent to “omnibus antiquissimis civibus.”

[87] I. 8. 7.

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

[89] Livy iv. 4. 7: “Nobilitatem istam vestram quam plerique oriundi ex

Albanis et Sabinis non genere nec sanguine sed per coöptationem in patres

habetis, aut ab regibus lecti aut post reges exactos iussu populi.”

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

nobilitas sit.”

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

hundred original senators from the patricians.

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

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

339. 11.

[94] There is no inconsistency, however, in the fact that some noble

gentes claimed descent from Aeneas or from deities (cf. Seeley, _Livy_,

57) or from Alban or Sabine ancestors (cf. Livy i. 30. 2; iv. 4. 7; Dion.

Hal. ii. 46. 3; iii. 29. 7); they were nobles in their original homes

before the founding of Rome, but became patricians by an act only of the

Roman government.

Although after the creation of the first hundred patres, the ancients

do not distinctly state that each newly-made senator was the founder of

a new patrician family, they do represent the enlargement of the senate

and of the patriciate as going hand in hand; in this way they continue to

make the patriciate depend upon membership in the senate; cf. Livy i. 30.

2; 35. 6; Dion. Hal. ii. 47. 1; iii. 67. 1; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 75.

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

[96] _Cat._ 6. 6; cf. Isid. _Etym._ ix. 6. 10: “Nam sicut patres suos,

ita illi rem publicam habebant” (or “alebant”).

[97] I. 8. 7.

[98] 339. 11.

[99] 247.

[100] ii. 8. 1.

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

[102] From the root pa, to protect, preserve, conservare; Pott,

_Wurzel-Wörterb. d. Indog. Spr._ (2d ed.), 221; Corssen, _Ausspr._ i.

424; Schrader, _Sprachvergl. u. Urgesch._ 538; Lécrivain, in Daremberg et

Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1507.

[103] _Dig._ 1. 16. 195. 2: “Pater familias appellatur qui in domo

dominium habet.” In like manner patronus is protector of clients, pater

patriae protector of his country; Pott, ibid. 227.

[104] Ulpian, in _Dig._, ibid.: “Pater autem familias recte hoc nomine

appellatur, quamvis filium non habeat; non enim solam personam eius, sed

et ius demonstramus: denique et pupillum patrem familias appellamus.”

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

[106] Rubino, _Röm. Verfassung und Geschichte_, 186; Mommsen, _Röm.

Forsch._ i. 228, n. 16.

[107] In the same way reges is made to include the whole family of the

rex; Livy i. 39. 2. For other illustrations of the same principle, see

Rubino, ibid. 188, n. 1.

[108] The Twelve Tables seem to apply it to all patricians, not to

senators alone: Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 37. 63: “Conubia ... ut ne plebei cum

patribus essent;” Livy iv. 4. 5: “Ne conubium patribus cum plebe esset.”

These passages, however, do not afford absolute proof; for Gaius, bk. vi

_ad legem Duodecim Tabularum_ (_Dig._ 1. 16. 238: “Plebs est ceteri cives

sine senatoribus”), probably commenting on the very law quoted by Cicero

and Livy, seems to understand patres as senators; cf. the prohibition

of intermarriage between senators and their agnatic descendants on the

one hand and freed persons on the other; _Dig._ xxii. 2. 44; Roby, _Rom.

Priv. Law_, i. 130; Vassis, in _Athena_, xii. 57 f. In some instances,

however, as in the expression “a patribus transire ad plebem” (Vell. ii.

45. 1) patres is certainly equivalent to patricii.

[109] Cf. gentilicius from gentilis; tribunicius from tribunus, Pott,

ibid. 227. Patricius is an adjective signifying paternal, ancestral,

belonging to parents or progenitors; Corssen, ibid. i. 53.

[110] In his work on the Comitia, quoted by Fest. 241. 21: “Patricios eos

appellari solitos qui nunc ingenui vocentur.”

[111] X. 8. 10: “En umquam fando audistis patricios primo esse factos non

de caelo demissos, sed qui patrem ciere possent, id est nihil ultra quam

ingenuos...?”

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

[113] Plut. _Q. R._ 58: Those who were first constituted senators by

Romulus were called patres and patricii as being men of good birth, who

could show their pedigree. In its adjectival and adverbial uses ingenuus

connotes not the quality of free birth, but respectability, nobility.

The original meaning is “born within,” hence indigenous, native; cf.

Forcellini, _Totius Latinitatis Lexicon_, s. v. In this sense it could

not apply to the patricians, who generally claimed a foreign origin.

But native is superior to alien; doubtless in this secondary meaning of

excellence it attached to the nobility, the close relation of the word to

gens (family, lineage) attracting it in that direction. Afterward it was

so democratized as to include all the freeborn. With this meaning we find

it as early as Plautus, _Mil._ 784, 961. According to Dionysius, ii. 8.

3, the identification of patricii with ingenui in its sense of freeborn

was accepted not by the most trustworthy historians, but by certain

malicious slanderers: “Some say they were called patricians because they

alone could cite their fathers, the rest being fugitives and unable to

cite free fathers.”

[114] P. 30.

[115] The word is probably derived from the same root as populus;

Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 368; cf. p. 1, n. 3 above.

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

[117] ii. 9. 2.

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

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

[120] Cf. the citations in Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 71, n. 1.

Dionysius, ii. 63. 3, distinguished the two classes as early as the

interregnum which followed Romulus.

[121] Dion. Hal. v. 40. 3; vi. 47. 1; vii. 19. 2; x. 43. As late as 134

Scipio called his clients to follow him to the Numantine war; Appian,

_Iber._ 84.

[122] Livy iii. 58. 1.

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

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

[125] Dion. Hal. ii. 10. 3 (it was not lawful for either patron or client

to vote against the other). Marius, a client of Herennius, was elected to

the praetorship; Plut. _Mar._ 5. A law declared that election to a curule

office (according to Plutarch, or as Marius asserted to any office) freed

a man and his family from clientage. Evidently this law was passed in

or after 367 B.C. Mucius, a client of Ti. Gracchus, was elected to the

plebeian tribunate; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 13. Cn. Flavius, who was the son

of a freedman and probably therefore a client, was elected curule aedile

for 304; Livy ix. 46. 1; Val. Max. ii. 5. 2.

[126] Gaius 1. 3: “Plebs autem a populo eo distat, quod populi

appellatione universi cives significantur connumeratis etiam patriciis;

plebis autem appellatione sine patriciis ceteri cives significantur.”

Evidently Pomponius held the same view; _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 1-6; cf. Capito,

in Gell. x. 20. 5; Fest. 233. 29; 330. 19; Isid. _Etym._ ix. 6. 5 f.;

Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 4, n. 2.

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

ix. 6. 6.

[128] Illustrations of this common use are Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 8. 14; 12.

23; Livy ii. 54. 3; iv. 51. 3; x. 13. 9; xxv. 2. 9; 3. 13; 3. 16; xxx.

27. 3; xxxiv. 54. 4; xxxvii. 58. 1; xliii. 8. 9. The Greeks always regard

populus as the equivalent of δῆμος; cf. Plut. _Rom._ 13. Not only does

the tribune in addressing the plebs call them populus Romanus (Sall.

_Iug._ 31), but the consuls also apply the term to the same class (Livy

xxv. 4. 4); and a statement of Cicero (_Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 17), which has

the appearance of a legal definition, makes the people of the thirty-five

tribes under a tribune the universus populus Romanus.

[129] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 172.

[130] Cic. _Fam._ x. 35; _Verr._ v. 14. 36; _Mur._ 1. 1; Livy xxix.

27. 2: Tac. _Ann._ 1. 8; Macrob. _Sat._ 1. 17. 28; cf. Mommsen, _Röm.

Forsch._ i. 169, n. 4.

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

(address).

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

Volksversamml._ 84.

[133] For the division of the populus into tribes and curiae, see Cic.

_Rep._ ii. 8. 14; Livy i. 13. 6; Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 2; App. _B. C._ iii.

94. The author of _Vir. Ill._ 2. 12, in supposing that the plebs alone

were assigned to the tribes is certainly wrong; but his mistake is

pardonable in view of the general agreement among our sources that the

populus, πλῆθος, contained in the curiae were mainly plebeian.

[134] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 7. 13; 8. 14; 18. 33; Livy i. 13. 4; 13. 6; 28. 7;

30. 1; 33. 1-5; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 2 f.; 47. 1; 50. 4 f.; 55. 6; iii. 29.

7; 30. 3; 31. 3; 37. 4; 48. 2; iv. 22. 3.

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

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

60. 3; 62. 3; iv. 12. 3; 20. 2.

[137] Cf. _Lectures on the History of Rome_, i. 80, 83: “I beg you to

mark this well ... that even ingenious and learned men like Livy and

Dionysius did not comprehend the ancient institutions and yet have

preserved a number of expressions from their predecessors from which we,

with much labor and difficulty, may elicit the truth.”

[138] The school of Mommsen, which still clings to Niebuhr’s theory of an

exclusively patrician populus, has abandoned the attempt to support it by

a reconstruction of lost sources.

[139] The late regal period may have left a few documents which, if used

by the annalists, might have thrown light on the condition of that time.

It has not yet been determined whether the inscription recently found

in the Roman Forum belongs to the late regal or to the early republican

period.

[140] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 69, grants to the ancients far more

knowledge of their own history, but claims a “wider horizon.”

[141] Niebuhr treats Dionysius with great respect; cf. _Lectures_, i.

liv: “The longer and more carefully the work is examined, the more must

true criticism acknowledge that it is deserving of all respect, and the

more it will be found a storehouse of most solid information.” Schwegler,

_Röm. Gesch._ i. 621 f., and 626 f., assumes that Dionysius is alone

responsible for the view that the plebeians were in the primitive tribes

and the curiae. A glance at the citations given above, p. 24 f., will

show, however, that Cicero and Livy shared this view.

[142] Cf. Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. 1. 82. The usual opinion (cf.

Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 8 f.) is that the sources of Dionysius are

later and less trustworthy than those of Livy, but Pais asserts that on

the whole the two authors drew from the same sources.

[143] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 339, Eng. 165.

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

[145] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 332, Eng. 158.

[146] In ibid. i. 330, Eng. 162, he excludes the “freed clients” from the

gens; in 339, Eng. 165, he states that the nobles alone _had_ the gens,

the clients belonged to it in a dependent capacity.

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

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

the same idea.

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

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

[151] This is illustrated, for instance, by a law quoted by Philochorus,

in Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ i. 399. 94: Τοὺς δὲ φράτορας ἐπάναγκες

δέχεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ὀργεῶνας καὶ τοὺς ὁμογάλακτας, οὺς γεννῆτας καλοῦμεν

(“The members of the phratry must receive the orgeones as well as the

homogalaktes, whom we call gennetae”). This fact is now too well known to

need further proof; cf. Gilbert, _Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta

and Athens_, 148 f.; Thumser, _Griechische Staatsaltertümer_, 324 f.

[152] P. 11.

[153] _Top._ 6. 29: “Gentiles sunt inter se, qui eodem nomine sunt. Non

est satis. Qui ab ingenuis oriundi sunt. Ne id quidem satis est. Quorum

maiorum nemo servitutem servivit. Abest etiam nunc. Qui capite non sunt

deminuti. Hoc fortasse satis est. Nihil enim video Scaevolam pontificem

ad hanc definitionem addidisse;” cf. Cincius, in Fest. ep. 94.

As the word itself indicates, gentiles are members of a gens, and no

other members are known to the sources. If it were true, as Mommsen,

_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 66, supposes, that there were dependent members not

termed gentiles, a name would have been given this dependent relation, or

the jurists would have defined it, or some ancient writer would at least

have mentioned it. The attempt of Kübler, _Wochenschr. f. kl. Philol._

xxv (1908). 541 f., to prove, on the authority of Cicero, _Tim._ 11. 41,

that clients were termed quasi gentiles is simply absurd. The passage

does not even hint at clientage; and the quasi gentiles of the immortal

gods, according to this passage, were related to the gods by birth, as

the word gignatis proves. From this point of view men might be called the

children of the gods; but because the divine element in both men and gods

comes alike from the Creator, it is possible to place them more nearly on

a level with one another—in a relation like that of gentiles. Kübler’s

other remarks on the gens, 539-43, are equally unconvincing.

[154] Cic. _Brut._ 16. 32; Livy iv. 16. 3; Suet. _Aug._ 2. Whether these

two gentes had ever been patrician does not affect the question at issue.

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

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

Calpurnia.

[157] Suet. _Ner._ 1.

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

[159] Fest. ep. 23.

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

[161] Unless Sp. Cassius, consul 502, 493, 486 B.C. and author of the

first agrarian rogation, is a myth; cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii.

94.

[162] Cf. Cic. _Orat._ i. 39. 176. The patrician and plebeian branches

are sometimes spoken of as distinct gentes; Suet. _Tib._ 1.

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

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

[165] Mommsen, ibid. 116.

[166] L. Poplilius Volscus, patrician; Livy v. 12. 10. Q. Publilius

Philo, plebeian; Livy viii. 15. 9.

[167] This patrician gens included an Aebutius who was tribune of the

plebs (Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 8. 21) and several other plebeians; Klebs, in

Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 442 f.

[168] Mommsen, ibid. 117 ff.

[169] V. 14. 4: “Comitiis auspicato quae fierent indignum dis visum

honores volgari discriminaque gentium confundi.”

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

quam deseruisti et quam poluisti.”

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

5; cf. ix. 2. 11.

[172] _L. L._ viii. 4: “Ut in hominibus quaedam sunt agnationes ac

gentilitates, sic in verbis.”

[173] In _Lib. Praen._ 3.

[174] It will suffice to quote Gaius iii. 17: “Si nullus agnatus sit,

eadem lex XII Tabularum gentiles ad hereditatem vocat”; cf. Cic. _Verr._

i. 45. 115: “Lege hereditas ad gentem Minuciam veniebat.” The Minucian

gens was plebeian. Its right to the inheritance in question rested on

this law of the Twelve Tables. For the gentile right of tutelage, see the

so-called Laudatio Turiae, 15, 22 (_CIL._ vi. 1527; Girard, _Textes_,

778).

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

maiorum explicat.”

[176] E.g. “Family will take a person everywhere”; C. D. Warner, quoted

by the _Standard Dictionary_, s. v.

[177] Mommsen’s theory of the gens—a development from Niebuhr’s—is

criticized in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii (1907). 668 f. The distinction

between patrician gentes and plebeian stirpes, on which he especially

relies, is there shown to be groundless.

[178] Gell. xv. 27. 2.

[179] II. 8. 4.

[180] _Sén. Rom._ ii. 34 f.

[181] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 233 f.; 247 f.; cf. Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 70. On the

patrum auctoritas, see p. 235 below.

[182] E.g. _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 359; iii. 168; Eng. ii. 147; iii. 73: “the

common council of the patres—the curies.”

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

vi. 89. 1; ix. 41.

[184] Livy xxvii. 8. 3.

[185] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 148.

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

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

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

[189] In the face of all evidence to the contrary two or three scholars

persist in maintaining essentially the opinion of Niebuhr that through

the republic the curiae continued patrician. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._

i. 98 f., 108, 1014, n. 2, imagines that from the beginning the clients

belonged to the curia in its administrative capacity, shared in its

sacra, attended its meetings, but did not vote. The plebs, however, were

not even passive members. His reasons do not deserve mention. Vassis,

Ῥωμαών Πολιτεία ἡ βασιλευομένη κα ἡ ἐλευθέρα (Athens, 1903), also

excludes the commons from the curiate assembly throughout its history.

The fancies of Hoffmann, _Patr. und pleb. Curien_, need not detain us.

[190] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 623 f.

[191] Cf. p. 152, 172.

[192] Cf. p. 170, 172.

[193] P. 173 ff., 345.

[194] P. 75, 96, 209.

[195] _Röm. Gesch._ i. 625, n. 3.

[196] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 140 f.

[197] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 269; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 92. Clason, _Krit.

Erört. über den röm. Staat_, 12, supposes they were admitted by the

Ogulnian law, in 300. Genz, _Patr. Rom_, 41, 62, places their admission

not earlier than the institution of the Servian tribes and not later than

the decemvirate, greatly preferring the latter date.

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

[199] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 54 f.

[200] Ibid. iii. 91.

[201] Ibid. iii. 63.

[202] Ibid. iii. 67 f.

[203] Ibid. i. 91, n. 1; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 261 f. Reference here

is only to the auspicia publica of the magistrates. It is established

below (p. 101 ff.) that from the beginning the plebeians had a right to

private auspices.

[204] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 77.

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

[206] _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 93.

[207] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 109.

[208] P. 69.

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

[210] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 13.

[211] _Rep._ ii. 20. 35: “Duplicavit illum pristinum patrum numerum et

antiquos patres maiorum gentium appellavit, quos priores sententiam

rogabat, a se adscitos minorum.” The connection shows that Cicero is

speaking of two classes of senators distinguished by the rank of the

gentes from which they respectively came.

[212] P. 28 f.

[213] P. 11 f.

[214] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 14.

[215] P. 17 f. and notes.

[216] P. 20 f.

[217] For the sources, see Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 459 f.; Stengel,

in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 1885.

[218] _Andeutungen über den urspr. Religionsunterschied der röm. Patr.

und Pleb._ 1 f.

[219] Cf. Livy xxxv. 51. 2; Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 761. Schwegler, ibid.

464-8, who insists on this fact, shows clearly that no historical value

attaches to the myth; see also Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 218, n. 1.

[220] Pais, ibid. 217 ff. Dionysius, i. 4. 2 f., expressly states that

this story is a Greek falsification.

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

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

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

[224] Dionysius, i. 85. 3, states that the colonists from Alba were

mostly plebeians, but that a considerable number of the highest nobility

accompanied them. It is a significant fact, however, that no patrician

family is known to have derived its origin from this earliest colony.

Those who claimed Alban and Trojan descent preferred to connect their

admission to citizenship with the Roman annexation of Alba Longa, e.g.

the Tullii, Servilii, Quinctii, Geganii, Curiatii, and Cloelii; Livy i.

30. 2. On the Alban and Sabine origin of most of the nobility, Livy iv.

4. 7. In so far as the local cognomina are indicative of origin (cf.

Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 11 ff.), they point to a diversity of foreign

connections. The Tarquinian gens, which in later time was thought of as

patrician, came from Etruria, ultimately from Greece. The Aemilii were

Greek (Plut. _Aem._ 1; Fest. ep. 23) or Sabine (Plut. _Num._ 8) or Oscan

(Fest. 130. 1).

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

[226] That Caere was the first community to receive the civitas sine

suffragio may justly be inferred from the expression “Caerite franchise,”

which designates this kind of limited citizenship (cf. p. 62). The

general fact stated in (6) is further confirmed by the law which granted

the right of extending the pomerium to those magistrates only who had

acquired new territory for Rome; Gell. xiii. 14. 3; Tacitus, _Ann._ xii.

23.

[227] Since the publication of the _Staatsrecht_, writers have made

slight modifications or extensions of the conventional theory. Greenidge,

in Poste, _Gaii Institutiones_, xix, suggests that the dual forms in

Roman law may have as their basis a racial distinction between the

patricians and the plebeians. A serious objection to this kind of

reasoning is that if we are on the lookout for dualities, trinities,

and the like, we shall find them in abundance everywhere. All sorts of

theories as to the racial connections of the two social classes have been

proposed. Zöller, _Latium und Rom_, 23 ff., supposes that the patricians

were Sabine and the plebeians Latin. Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, i.

257, holds that the plebeians were Ligurians, whereas Conway, in _Riv. di

Stor. ant._ vii (1903). 422-4, prefers to consider them Volscians. These

notions are equally worthless. Undoubtedly race is a potent factor in

history; but Gumplowicz, _Rassenkampf_ (1883), has killed the theory by

overwork.

Among the writers who have rejected the conventional view are Soltau,

_Altröm. Volksversamml._ (1880); Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ (1882);

Pelham, _Outlines of Roman History_ (1893; reprint of his article on

“Roman History,” in the _Encycl. Brit._); Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii

(1893); Holzapfel, in _Beitr. z. alt. Gesch._ i (1902). 254.

[228] Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._ ii. 80; Featherman, _Social History of

the Races of Mankind_, ii. 408; Hellwald, _Culturgeschichte_, i. 175;

Barth, _Philosophie der Geschichte_, i. 382. It would be practicable by

the citation of authorities to prove the existence of such distinctions

in nearly every community, present or past, whose social condition is

sufficiently known.

[229] Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 124; Tarde, _Laws of

Imitation_, 233 f.; Fairbanks, _Introduction to Sociology_, 158; Grave,

_L’individu et la société_, 23; Funck-Brentano, _Civilisation et ses

lois_, 71 f.; Caspari, _Urgeschichte der Menschheit_, i. 125 f.;

Hellwald, ibid. i. 175, 177; Ross, _Social Control_, 80.

[230] Giddings, ibid. 262; Ammon, _Gesellschaftsordnung_, 133 f.;

Cherbuliez, _Simples notions de l’ordre social à l’usage de tout le

monde_, 38 f.; Dechesne, _Conception du droit_, 36; Grave, ibid. 23

f.; Caspari, ibid. i. 133 f.; Harris, _Civilization considered as a

Science_, 211; Lepelletier de la Sarthe, _Système sociale_, i. 329;

Mismer, _Principes sociologiques_, 63 f.; Rossbach, _Geschichte der

Gesellschaft_, i. 13 f.; Schurtz, _Urgeschichte der Kultur_, 385;

Hittell, _Mankind in Ancient Times_, i. 228 f.; Maine, _Early History of

Institutions_, 130; Seebohm, _Tribal System in Wales_, 139; Post, A. H.,

_Anfänge des Staats- und Rechtslebens_, 150 f.

[231] Giddings, ibid. 262; cf. Arnd, _Die materiellen Grundlagen ...

der europäischen Kultur_, 444 f.; Frohschammer, _Organisation und

Kultur der mensch. Gesellschaft_, 84 f.; Bastian, _Rechtsverhältnisse

bei verschiedenen Völkern der Erde_, 20 f.; Spencer, _Principles of

Sociology_, ii. 333, 335.

[232] Frazer, _Early Hist. of the Kingship_; Spencer, ibid. ii. 338

f.; cf. for the Malays, Skeat and Blagden, _Pagan Races of the Malay

Peninsula_, 499.

[233] Cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 183; Spencer, ibid. ii. 334 f.; Seebohm,

_Tribal System in Wales_, 72.

[234] Aristotle, _Politics_, 1294, a 21; Giddings, _Principles of

Sociology_, 293 f.; Jenks, _History of Politics_, 30 f.; Grave,

_L’individu et la société_, 25; Combes de Lestrade, _Éléments de

sociologie_, 185; Schurtz, _Urgeschichte der Kultur_, 148, 385;

Featherman, _Social History of the Races of Mankind_, see index, s.

Classes; Hittell, _Mankind in Ancient Times_, i. 228; Maine, _Early

History of Institutions_, 134; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 60 f.; Farrand,

_Basis of American History_, 114, 201; Bluntschli, _Theory of the State_,

149.

[235] Grave, ibid. 30 f.; Combes de Lestrade, ibid. 184 f.;

Funck-Brentano, _Civilisation et ses lois_, 68 f.; Spencer, ibid. ii.

348 f.; Schurtz, ibid. 150 f.; Featherman, ibid. ii. 128, 197 f., 311;

Letourneau, _Sociology_, 480 f.; Bastian, _Rechtsverhältnisse_, 8 f.

[236] Cf. Schurtz, ibid. 148; Farrand, ibid. 114, 129, 141. For the

Malays, see Skeat and Blagden, ibid. 494 ff.

[237] Maine, ibid. 132.

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

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

[240] As in Wales; Seebohm, ibid. 139; cf. the Inca grandees, who

all claimed descent from the founder of the monarchy; Letourneau,

_Sociology_, 479.

[241] Tac. _Germ._ 13. 3: “Insignis nobilitas aut magna patrum merita

principis dignationem etiam adulescentulis adsignant.” It is clear that

the family of a youth who receives an office or dignity because of the

merits of his ancestors is coming near to nobility.

[242] A certain man of illegitimate birth, hence of inferior social

standing, through martial skill and daring becomes a leader of warriors,

acquires wealth, marries the daughter of a notable, “waxes dread and

honorable” among his countrymen, who elect him to a high military

command by the side of their hereditary chief; the taint of his birth is

forgotten; Od., xiv. 199; cf. Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 123.

[243] Livy viii. 39. 12; x. 38. 7: “Nobilissimum quemque genere

factisque,” with reference to the Samnites; some were nobles by birth,

others by prowess; cf. 46. 4: “Nobiles aliquot captivi clari suis

patrumque factis ducti;” some of these captives were noble through their

own prowess, others through that of their ancestors. The Samnite nobility

was in the formative stage like that of the German nobility in the time

of Tacitus. The Yakonan of California are in this condition; Farrand,

_Basis of American History_, 129.

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

Sociology_, 294 f.

[245] Cf. Giddings, ibid.

[246] Maine, ibid. 136.

[247] Laws of Athelstan.

[248] Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 296; cf. Maine, _Early Hist.

of Inst._ 141. Thus in the time of Tacitus the German youth of common

blood who entered the comitatus of a chief had a fair opportunity to

become noble; _Germ._ 13. 3-5; 14. 1 f. Among the Danes, too, some noble

families were once peasant; Maine, ibid. 135.

[249] Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_, i. 235 f., 252; Maine, ibid.

138; Ammon, _Gesellschaftsordnung_, 135; Schurtz, _Urgeschichte der

Kultur_, 148 f.; Bluntschli, _Theory of the State_, 131, 155; Tarde,

_Laws of Imitation_, 237.

[250] Giddings, _Principles of Sociology_, 315; cf. Combes de Lestrade,

_Éléments de sociologie_, 185; Rossbach, _Gesch. der Gesellsch._ i. 14. A

nobility formed purely by conquest, if such indeed exists, must be rare,

and can hardly be lasting; Schurtz, _Urgesch. der Kul._ 149.

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

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

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

[254] Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 145.

[255] Bluntschli, _Theory of the State_, 142; Freeman, _Norman Conquest_,

iv. 11. There were nobles both in England and in Normandy before the

conquest. After the battle of Senlac most of the English nobles submitted

to William, and were allowed to redeem their lands; Freeman, ibid. iv. 13

f., 36 f. It was only in punishment for later rebellion that they lost

their holdings, and some English thanes were never displaced; cf. Powell,

in Traill, _Social England_, i. 240.

[256] The most violent and oppressive Germanic invaders are supposed

to have been the Vandals, and yet they doubtless retained for the

administration of the government the trained Roman officials; Hodgkin,

_Italy and her Invaders_, ii. 263. The Ostrogoths were more liberal in

their treatment of the Romans (ibid. iv. 250, 271, 282), and the Franks

still more liberal; Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch._ ii. 202.

[257] Featherman, _Social History of the Races of Mankind_, ii. 354;

Tarde, _Laws of Imitation_, 238, n. 1, 239; Hellwald, _Kulturgesch._ i.

175 f.; Schurtz, _Urgesch. der Kult._ 149; cf. Demolins, _Comment la

route crée le type social_.

[258] P. 16.

[259] P. 37, n. 4.

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

[261] The idea that the primitive community is essentially illiberal

with its membership is erroneous. For the mingling of conquerors and

conquered, see p. 42 f. and notes. On the ethnic heterogeneity of states

in general, see Gumplowicz, _Rassenkampf_, 181. The laws of Solon granted

citizenship to alien residents who were in perpetual exile from their own

country, or who had settled with their families in Attica with a view

to plying their trade; Plut. _Sol._ 24. Under his laws, too, a valid

marriage could be contracted between an Athenian and an alien; Hdt. vi.

130. The Athenians, like the Romans, believed that many of their noble

families were of foreign origin. In Ireland “strangers settling in the

district, conducting themselves well, and intermarrying with the clan,

were after a few generations indistinguishable from it;” Ginnell, _Brehon

Laws_, 103. Nearly the same rule holds for South Wales; Seebohm, _Tribal

System in Wales_, 131. To the Germans before their settlement within the

empire the idea of an exclusive community must have been foreign; for

as yet the individual was but loosely attached to his tribe. Persons of

many tribes were united in the comitatus of a chief; the two halves of

a tribe often fought on opposite sides in war; a tribe often chose its

chief from another tribe. Intermarriage among the tribes was common, even

between Germans and Sarmatians. A single tribe often split into several

independent tribes, and conversely new tribes were formed of the most

diverse elements; Seeck, _Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt_,

i. 209 with notes; Kaufmann, _Die Germanen der Urzeit_, 136 f. Under

these circumstances the primitive German community cannot be described

as exclusive. In like manner our sources unanimously testify to the

liberality of early Rome in granting the citizenship to strangers. It is

no longer possible to oppose to this authority the objection that such

generosity does not accord with primitive conditions.

[262] Gaius i. 120 f.

[263] Mommsen’s theory of gentile ownership, adopted by Kubitschek, in

Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 790, depends upon his view that the gens

was as old as the state; in his opinion it was originally stronger but

gradually weakened, whereas the state went through the opposite process;

_Röm Staatsr._ iii. 25. But if, as I have elsewhere pointed out (_Pol.

Sci. Quart._ xxii. 685 ff.), the gens developed from the family during

the decline of the kingship and the rise of aristocracy, the theory of a

primitive gentile ownership falls to the ground.

[264] We are not to think of the state as granting a certain district

to the tribe, which then parcelled it among the component curiae, etc.,

for this reason that the tribes and the curiae did not themselves

possess common lands. Rather the state divided a given district among

the families which were already included, or which it wished to include,

in a given curia or tribe. In this way the later tribes were formed

in historical time, and in this way the Claudian tribe was originally

constituted; Livy ii. 16. 4 f.; cf. Plut. _Popl._ 21. When therefore

Dionysius, ii. 7. 4, states that Romulus divided the land into thirty

lots and assigned a lot to each of the thirty curiae, he means, if he

correctly understands the matter, that land was assigned not to the curia

as a whole but to the families which composed the curia, unless indeed

the curiae once had a right of landholding not possessed in historical

time.

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

[266] In the Twelve Tables heredium has the meaning of hortus, “garden;”

Pliny, _N. H._ xix. 4. 50. It was a praedium parvulum consisting of two

iugera; Fest. ep. 99.

[267] In the earliest colonies this was the amount assigned to each

man; cf. Livy iv. 47. 6 (Labici); vi. 16. 6 (Satricum); viii. 21. 11

(Tarracina, founded 329). The first two are not so distinctly historical

as the third; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 24, n. 1. Supposing Rome to

have been a colony, the historians infer that Romulus made a similar

distribution among its earliest settlers; cf. Varro, _R. R._ i. 10. 2;

Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 2. 7; Fest. ep. 53; Juvenal xiv. 163 f.; Siculus

Flaccus 153; Livy vi. 36. 11; Plut. _Popl._ 21; Columella v. 1. 9;

Nissen, _Ital. Landesk._ ii. 507.

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

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

43; Livy i. 46. 1.

[270] Dion. Hal. v. 57. 3; Plut. _Popl._ 21. Moreover the division into

the five classes was based on unequal holdings.

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

[272] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 168.

[273] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2 might refer to a condition in which land was

still inalienable and the right of changing residence restricted.

[274] The text followed is that of Jacoby. The reading represented

by Jordan, _Cato_, p. 8, is not satisfactory. We have no ground for

impugning the statement of Dionysius that Fabius actually called the

country districts phylae, tribes. He may have termed them at once μοῖραι,

“regions,” and phylae with perfect consistency; cf. Kubitschek, _Rom.

trib. or._ 7, n. 34.

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

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

[277] Cf. Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 72 ff., who supposed that the

twenty-six rural regiones were in most respects like tribes, but

contained only plebeians, who were politically inferior to the city

people; see also Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 736 f.

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

[279] The supposition that there were originally but four rests upon

those passages which mention only that number in connection with Servius,

as Livy 1. 43. 13; Fest. ep. 368; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 7. 7; the

discussion of the four city tribes as though they were the only Servian

tribes by Dionysius (iv. 14. 1), whereas in the next chapter he describes

those also of the country; and the designation of the rural districts

as regiones rather than tribes by Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in

Non. Marc. 43: “Et extra urbem in regiones xxvi agros viritim liberis

attribuit.” In _L. L._ v. 56, however, he calls the country districts

tribes.

[280] Grotefend, ibid. 27.

[281] Inferred from an obscure passage in Fest. 213. 13, and from

inscriptions cited by Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 215; Grotefend, ibid. 67.

[282] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 504; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 39 and n.

2; Pelham, _Rom. Hist._ 39; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 457 ff.;

Greenidge, _Rom. Pub. Life_, 67.

[283] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 163 ff. Mommsen calls attention to epigraphic

evidence, cited more fully by Kubitschek, _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 26

f., which assigns Ostia unmistakably to the Voturia tribus. He notices

further that the same sort of evidence which places Ostia in the Palatina

would give Puteoli, Sutrium, Canusium, and Fundi to the same city tribe,

which is impossible. The error of including Alba and Ostia in the

Palatina is due to neglect of the fact that men excluded from the country

tribes were assigned to those of the city irrespective of domicile; cf.

_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 442 f., with notes.

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

[285] Fest. 246. 30: “‘Pro censu classis iuniorum’ Ser. Tullius cum

dixerit in descriptione centuriarum;” cf. 249. 1; Livy 1. 60. 4; iv. 4.

2. Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 22. 39, writes discriptio, which Lange, _Röm. Alt._

i. 464, following Bücheler, in _Rhein. Mus._ xiii (1858). 598, accepts as

the correct form.

[286] P. 67.

[287] Fabius Pictor, in Livy 1. 44. 2. Altogether unnecessary therefore

is Soltau’s supposition (_Altröm. Volksversamml._ 458, n. 2), in itself

improbable, that Fabius, who wrote his annals in Greek, applied the word

φυλαί incorrectly to the rural districts. However that may be, Cato, as

good an authority, spoke of these same districts as tribes. If the number

thirty was suggested to Fabius by the curiate organization (cf. Ullrich,

_Centuriatcomitien_, 9), this circumstance would be no argument against

the existence of country tribes. On the strength of the army in the early

republic, see p. 83.

[288] P. 57.

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

[290] Just as he supposed the Suburana to have been evolved, name and

all, from the pagus Succusanus; _L. L._ v. 48; cf. Fest. 302. 15; ep. 115.

[291] Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 43: “Et extra urbem in

regiones xxvi agros viritim liberis attribuit.” As this statement does

not rest upon an independent source, but is merely an interpretation of

Fabius and Cato, it has not the value which Huschke (_Verf. d. Serv._

72 f., 85 f.), Mommsen (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 168 f.), and Meyer (in

_Hermes_, xxx. 11) attach to it.

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

[293] IV. 14.

[294] Dion. Hal. iv. 15.

[295] Dion. Hal. iv. 15. 4-6. His idea of a census of the country people

he derived from Lucius Piso (§ 5 f.) and from the censors’ office through

Fabius (22. 2)—a fact which militates against Mommsen’s theory that under

Servius the country was not yet ager privatus.

[296] Livy vi. 5. 8.

[297] P. 56.

[298] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 162 ff.

[299] _Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 135, 142; _Hermes_, xxx. 11; accepted by

Neumann, _Grundherrsch. d. röm. Rep._ 14 f.; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 90.

[300] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 168.

[301] P. 50

[302] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 164 f.

[303] Ibid. 163 and n. 3, in opposition to his former view and that of

Grotefend; cf. p. 52.

[304] There might remain the conjecture that the regiones, or pagi, had

the same constitution as the tribes, but in that case the difference

between pagus and tribus would be one of name only, and would therefore

be without historical significance. Meyer’s view (_Gesch. d. Alt._ v.

135, 142) that the sixteen earliest country tribes were not formed till

after the institution of the plebeian tribunate depends partly on his

notion that the tribunes were originally the heads of the four urban

tribes and partly on the difference in the naming, the city tribes being

named after localities and the country tribes after gentes; cf. _Hermes_,

xxx. 11. The latter circumstance, he asserts, establishes a later

origin for the rural tribes. This argument is by no means convincing;

the difference may have arisen from different conditions in country and

city; probably no urban ward had one patrician gens so predominant as to

give its name. If one kind of name is earlier than another, we should

naturally suppose the gentile name to be the earlier, and in that case we

should prefer the view of Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. i. 320, n. 1; _Leg. of

Rom. Hist._ 140; cf. above, p. 52, n. 2.

The patrician gentile name does not imply patrician domination any more

than the eupatrid name of an Attic deme implies eupatrid domination of

that deme.

[305] _Hermes_, xxx. 12; followed by Neumann, _Grundherrsch. d. röm.

Rep._ 13 f.; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 90 f.

[306] P. 6.

[307] Among the scholars who insist that originally country as well

as city was divided into tribes are Müller, J. J., in _Philol._ xxxiv

(1876). 112 ff., and more recently Kubitschek, _De trib. or._ (1882);

_Imp. rom. trib. discr._ (1889), 2. Beloch, _Ital. Bund_ (1880), 28,

begins with twenty-one tribes in 495, considering it impossible to

penetrate earlier conditions. Niese, _Röm. Gesch._ (1906). 38 and n. 3,

more positively assigns the creation of twenty-one tribes to that date.

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

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

[310] Some place the immigration in the time of Titus Tatius; Verg.

_Aen._ vii. 706 ff.; Suet. _Tib._ 1; Appian, _Reg._ 12; Mommsen, _Röm.

Forsch._ i. 293; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 26, n. 1. That the earlier

tradition assigned the event to the date mentioned in the text is

asserted by Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, ibid. iii. 2663.

[311] Livy ii. 21. 7 (495): “Romae tribus una et xxx factae.” This

statement is not that thirty-one tribes were instituted in that year,

but that the number thirty-one was reached, “factae” being copulative.

If “una et xxx” is not a copyist’s error, it probably depends on the

Fabian view that there were originally thirty tribes. At all events it

is inconsistent with the later statement (vi. 5. 8) that the number

twenty-five was not reached till 387. The epitomator of Livy accordingly

corrected the number to twenty-one, which most editors now write in the

text itself. That there were twenty-one tribes in 491, when Coriolanus

was tried, is assumed too by Dion. Hal. vii. 64. 6: Μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ εἴκοσι

τότε φυλῶν οὐσῶν, οἶς ἡ ψῆφος ἀνεδόθη, τὰς ἀπολυούσας φυλὰς ἔσχεν ὁ

Μάρκιος ἐννέα· ὤστ’ εἰ δύο προσῆλθον αὐτῷ φυλαί, διὰ τὴν ἰσοψηφίαν

ἀπελέλυτ’ ἄν, ὥσπερ ὁ νόμος ἠξίου (“There being at the time twenty-one

tribes, to whom the vote was given, Marcius received the votes of nine

tribes for acquittal; so that, had two more tribes been favorable, he

would have been acquitted by an equality of votes, as the law required”).

This is not a mistake, as many assume, but an understatement; cf. Müller,

J. J., in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 110 f. Meyer’s explanation (_Hermes_,

xxx. 10, n. 2), which makes διὰ τὴν ἰσοψηφλίαν signify “owing to the

equal value of the votes,” is improbable and unnecessary.

[312] For the form of the word, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 171;

Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 117. Crustumeria had

been taken four years earlier (Livy ii. 19. 2, 499); so that a tribe of

the same name could have been admitted in 495.

[313] Livy vi, 5. 8.

[314] Ibid. viii, 15. 12.

[315] Ibid. 17. 11.

[316] Ibid. ix, 20. 6.

[317] Ibid. x, 9. 14.

[318] Ibid. ep. xix.