πέντε καὶ τριάκοντα φυλὰς, αἳ τότε ἦσαν αὐτοῖς, κατέλεξαν, ἵνα μὴ τῶν
ἀρχαίων πλέονες ὄντες ἐν ταῖς χειροτονίαις ἐπικρατοῖεν, ἀλλὰ δεκατεύοντες
ἀπέφηναν ἑτέρας, ἐν αἷς ἐχειροτόνουν ἔσχατοι. For δεκατεύοντες scholars
have attempted to substitute δέκα, δέκα πέντε, δέκα ἐνεδρεύοντες
(Mendelssohn, _App._ ii. p. 53, n.). The meaning given in the rendering
offered above, though not found elsewhere, is possible. The passage has
reference to the Latins and faithful Italians admitted by the Julian law
of 90.
[320] III. 17 (Peter, _Reliquiae_, i. 280): “L. Calpurnius Piso ex senati
consulto duas novas tribus.”
[321] II. 20. 2.
[322] Kubitschek, _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 2-6, tries to prove that the
lex Iulia, 90, provided for the enrolment of the Latins and faithful
allies in fifteen old rural tribes, and that the lex Plautia Papiria, 89,
assigned the more obstinate rebels to eight other existing rural tribes.
[323] Cf. Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 26 f.
[324] _B. C._ i. 53. 231.
[325] That there was an increase is held by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii.
179, n. 1; Drumann-Gröbe, _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 370. This view is favored by
Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 199 f. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 111 f., compromises.
[326] Livy, ep. lxxvii; App. _B. C._ i. 55. 242; p. 404.
[327] App. _B. C._ i. 59. 268; Cic. _Phil._ viii. 2. 7.
[328] Vell. ii. 20. 2; Livy, ep. lxxxiv; App. _B. C._ i. 64. 287; Cic.
ibid.; Exup. 4; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 180, 439.
[329] Livy, ep. lxxxvi.
[330] Mommsen, ibid. 180.
[331] P. 71. Their military purpose is recognized by Dion. Hal. iv. 14.
2, whereas Livy, i. 43. 13, connects with them nothing but the collection
of taxes.
[332] Livy i. 43. 13; Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 13; Varro, _L. L._ v. 45;
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 166, n. 1.
[333] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2; Laelius Felix, in Gell. xv. 27. 5; Flaccus,
in Gell. xvii. 7. 5. In referring to the year 204 Livy, xxix. 37. 3 f.,
represents the tribes as districts. The Pupinian tribe is often spoken of
as a district, as by Varro, _R. R._ i. 9. 5. On the local nature of the
urban tribes, see Varro, _L. L._ v. 56; Livy i. 43. 13; Dion. Hal. iv.
14. 1.
[334] Kubitschek, _Rom. trib. or._ 24 f.; _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 2.
[335] Cf. Grotefend, _Imp. rom. trib. descr._ 7.
[336] Kubitschek, _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 2 f.
[337] Cic. _Flac._ 32. 79 f. On the growth of the tribe, see Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 175 ff.; Kubitschek, ibid. See also the maps in the
latter work.
[338] Flaccus, in Gell. xvii. 7. 5. A list was kept of the estates
comprising a tribe; Cic. ibid.
[339] Cf. the admission of new tribes; Livy vi. 5. 8: “Tribus quattuor ex
novis civibus additae;” viii. 17. 11.
[340] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2.
[341] P. 64.
[342] Livy xxix. 37. 3 f.; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 379, n. 3.
[343] Somewhat different is the view of Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 2 f.; _Röm.
Forsch._ i. 151; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 402; controverted by Soltau, ibid.
384 ff.
[344] The Romans had but two pursuits, agriculture and war, for the
sedentary occupations were given to slaves and strangers; Dion. Hal. ii.
28; ix. 25. 2. It was assumed that those who were without property could
take no interest in the state; ibid. iv. 9. 3 f.; Livy viii. 20. 4.
[345] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 630.
[346] It is well known too that freedmen were not regularly employed in
military service; Livy x. 21. 4; p. 354 f. below.
[347] Widows and orphans were enrolled in a different list from that of
the tribes, and hence were not included in the statistics of population
which have come down to us; cf. Livy iii. 3. 9; ep. lix; Plut. _Popl._
12; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 365 f., 401. Livy, ii. 56. 3, seems to
exclude the clients. Only those lacked membership, however, who possessed
no land. Clients of free birth were as liable to military service,
according to their ratable property, as any other class of citizens; p.
22.
[348] Law of the Twelve Tables, in Gell. xvi. 10. 5; Schöll, _Leg. Duod.
Tab. Rel._ 116; Bruns, _Font. iur._ 18 f.; Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 18. 51;
_Att._ iv. 8 a. 3; Fest. ep. 9; Charis. p. 75 (Keil). The derivation from
ab asse dando proposed by Aelius Stilo, though absurd, was accepted by
Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40; _Top._ 2. 10; Fest. ep. 9 (as an alternative);
Isid. _Etym._ x. 27; Quint. _Inst._ v. 10. 55. The derivation ab
assidendo is nearer the truth; Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. Wörterb._ 1012;
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 466; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 237 f.;
Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 426. See also Varro, _De
vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 67; Gell. xix. 8. 15.
[349] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 9. 16; 22. 40; P. Nigidius, in Gell. x. 5. 2; Fest.
ep. 9, 119; Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 11; Quint. v. 10. 55; Ovid, _Fast._
v. 281; Vaniček, ibid. 506, 1149.
[350] The army in the field must have consisted largely of men in patris
aut avi potestate, whose names were reported to the censors, not for
taxation but for military service, by those who had authority over them;
cf. Livy xxiv. 11. 7; xliii. 14; Dion. Hal. ix. 36. 3; Fest. ep. 66.
Scipio’s complaint (Gell. v. 19. 16: “In alia tribu patrem, in alia
filium suffragium ferre”) indicates that the sons were regularly enrolled
in the tribe of the father. That the list comprised plebeians only
(Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 457 f.) has proved untenable; Mommsen, _Röm.
Forsch._ i. 153 f.
[351] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2; Livy i. 43. 14; Varro, _L. L._ v. 181.
[352] Livy, ibid.; Varro, ibid.; cf. p. 63, n. 4 below.
[353] Dion. Hal. iv. 19. 3; Fest. ep. 9; Ennius, in Gell. xvi. 10. 1;
cf. 12 f. Before the introduction of pay for military service in 406 the
soldiers bore their own expenses; Livy iv. 59. 11; v. 4. 5; viii. 8. 3;
Flor. i. 6. 8; Diod. xiv. 16. 5; Lyd. _De mag._ i. 45 f.; p. 71 ff. below.
[354] Plutarch, _Cam._ 2, makes Camillus the author of the tax on orphans
for the support of the knights’ horses, thus connecting this measure
with the general introduction of pay—a statement of some importance
notwithstanding Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 683.
[355] Zon. vii. 20: Οἰκόσιτοι ἐστρατεύοντο.
[356] Cic. _Rep._ v. 2. 3.
[357] Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 150 f., 159 f. with citations.
[358] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36; Livy i. 43. 9; Plut. _Cam._ 2.
[359] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 469, is of the opinion that before Servius
all the plebeians had this standing, and that Servius left the newly
conquered plebeians in that class, because if admitted to the army, they
might revolt! Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 95.
[360] On the meaning of the word, see Pseud. Ascon. 103: “Ut pro capite
suo tributi nomine aera praeberet.” On the removal from the tribe into
this class; Livy iv. 24. 7; xxiv. 18. 6, 8; 43. 3; xliv. 16. 8. The
removal from the tribe is understood when it is not mentioned; Varro, in
Non. Marc. 190; Livy ix. 34. 9; xxvii. 11. 15; Gell. iv. 12.
[361] Livy vii. 20. 7; Dio Cass. Frag. 33; Strabo v. 2. 3; Gell. xvi.
13. 7; Schol. Hor. _Ep._ i. 6. 62. On the aerarii and Caerites, see
further Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 392-4, 401 ff., 406; Kubitschek, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 674-6; iii. 1284 f.; Hülsen, ibid. iii.
1281 f.; see also the works of Herzog, Lange, Madvig, and Willems.
[362] P. 466, n. 2.
[363] It would be absurd to suppose that while the absolutely poor
citizens could vote in the proletarian century, those who possessed
considerable wealth, though not in land, were excluded.
[364] Unutterable confusion was brought into this subject by Varro, _L.
L._ v. 181: “Tributum dictum a tribubus, quod ea pecunia, quae populo
imperata erat, tributim a singulis pro portione census exigebatur;” cf.
Livy i. 43. 13; Isid. _Etym._ xvi. 18. 7. Neither is tributum derived
from tribus nor _vice versa_. Tribuere signifies “to divide,” “to
apportion;” tributum, “that which is apportioned,” tribus being only
indirectly connected with these words; Schlossmann, in _Archiv f. lat.
Lexicog._ xiv (1905). 25-40.
[365] Livy vi. 14. 12.
[366] Ibid. 32. 1.
[367] Dion. Hal. v. 20; cf. iv. 11. 2; xi. 63. 2; Plut. _Popl._ 12.
[368] Livy ii. 9. 6; xxiii. 48. 8; xxxiii. 42. 4; xxxix. 7. 5; Pliny, _N.
H._ xxxiv. 6. 23; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 162, n. 4.
[369] Instances of public expenditure for the equipment or pay of troops
before this date (Dion. Hal. v. 47. 1; viii. 68. 3; ix. 59. 4; Livy iv.
36. 2) are either exceptional or more probably historical anticipations
of later usage. That before 406 the soldiers drew pay from their tribes
(Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 32; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 540) is disproved by
Soltau, _Altröm Volksversamml._ 407 f.
[370] Marquardt, ibid. 164-7.
[371] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 392.
[372] Varro, _L. L._ v. 181.
[373] The function of the tribuni aerarii was to pay the soldiers; Cato,
_Epist. Quaest._ i, in Gell. vi (vii). 10. 2; Varro, v. 181; Fest. ep.
2; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 1. 1. Perhaps they also collected money into
the treasury; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 3. From Cato’s statement they appear to
have been financially responsible; and we are informed that as early as
100 they constituted a rank (ordo) evidently next below the equites; Cic.
_Rab. Perd._ 9. 27. Under the Aurelian law of 70 they made up a decury
of jurors; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 3; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 1. 31. From
these facts it is clear that the aerarian tribunes were officers of the
aerarium, but no connection with the tribes can be discovered; Soltau,
_Altröm. Volksversamml._ 409-12.
[374] Diod. xx. 46; Livy ix. 46. 10 f.; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
403.
[375] Mommsen, ibid. This class came to an end in the Social War;
Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1285.
[376] In Mommsen’s opinion (_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 403) these censors
transferred to the country tribes as many landholding members of the
urban tribes as possible.
[377] Livy ix. 46. 13 f.
[378] Livy xlv. 15.
[379] The expression tribu movere or in aerarios referre was still used,
but meant no more than the transfer from a rural to an urban tribe and to
the aerarian class within the latter; p. 62, n. 7.
[380] Cf. Livy xxiv. 18. 8 f.
[381] Livy xxiv. 43. 2 f.; Cic. _Cluent._ 42. 120.
[382] P. 86.
[383] I. 43. The account given by Dionysius Hal. iv. 16 f.; vii. 59, is
the same in principle, though slightly different in detail.
[384] P. 52.
[385] Fest. 246. 30; or “discriptio classium,” ibid. 249. 1.
[386] Livy i. 60. 4.
[387] Quoted by Cic. _Orat._ 46. 156, for the forms “centuria fabrum”
and “procum.” Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86-8, is an extract from the Tabulae of
later time; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 245, n. 1.
[388] P. 52. Proof of the date is the fact that the ratings are in the
sextantarian _as_, legally adopted in 269 or 268 (page 86). The _as_ of
this standard was valued at one tenth of a denarius, so that 1000 asses
= 100 denarii = 1 mina; Dion. Hal. iv. 16 f.; Polyb. vi. 23. 15: Οἱ ὑπὲρ
τὰς μυρίας τιμώμενοι δραχμάς, descriptive of the highest rating—100,000
asses; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249, n. 4; Hill, _Greek and Roman
Coins_, 47. It could not have been later than 241, in which year the
reform of the centuriate assembly must have been far advanced, if not
completed; page 215.
[389] P. 84.
[390] It is wrong to suppose with Soltau, in _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xli
(1895). 412, n. 6, that all the details of the Servian system were known
only in this way.
[391] Cf. Livy i. 44. 2; Dion. Hal. iv. 15. 1.
[392] Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 9 ff., supposes Calpurnius Piso to have been
the intermediary. But a problem in which so many of the quantities are
unknown is incapable of solution.
[393] P. 205, n. 5, 215.
[394] Livy i. 43. 8; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; p. 207.
[395] P. 80.
[396] P. 81.
[397] P. 81.
[398] P. 82 f.
[399] Livy viii. 8. 3; Dion. Hal. iv. 22. 1.
[400] It is unnecessary here to consider the question as to the
historical personality of Servius Tullius. In this volume the name will
be given to the king (or group of kings?) who instituted the so-called
Servian tribes and the military centuries and made a beginning of the
census.
[401] P. 201.
[402] Helbig, _Sur les attributes des saliens_, in _Mémoires de l’acad.
d. inscr. et belles-let._ xxxvii (1906). 230 ff.; cf. _Comptes rendus de
l’acad._ etc. 1904. ii. 206-12. Helbig finds that the Latino-Etruscan
equipments of the time preceding Hellenic influence, as shown by
archaeology, correspond closely with those of the Salii, whom he regards
therefore as religious survivals from that early civilization. It is from
archaeological data, combined with the well-known equipment of the Salii,
that the close resemblance between the early Latino-Etruscan and the
Mycenaean military system is established.
[403] Not merely the chief, as Helbig, _Comptes rendus_, 1900. 517,
supposes. The ἠνίοχοι καὶ παραβάται who fought at Delium, and whom he
rightly regards as a survival from the age of war-chariots, acted as a
company not as individuals; Diod. xii. 70. 1.
[404] Helbig, _Le Currus du roi Romain_, in _Mélanges Perrot_, 167 f. It
was like that chiseled on a gravestone found by Dr. Schliemann on the
acropolis of Mycenae, in the main identical with the Homeric chariot,
represented in later time on the famous sarcophagus at Clazomenae;
Pellegrini, in Milani, _Studi e materiali_, i. 91-3, 98.
[405] That the army of Romulus—the primitive Roman army—was a single
legion, and that the Servian reform consisted accordingly in doubling
it, is an ancient hypothesis accepted by some moderns, as Smith, _Röm.
Timokr._ 38 f. An organization in definite numbers, however, as 1000 from
each tribe, cannot arise till the state has grown sufficiently populous
to make up the army of a part only of its available strength, when folk
and army have ceased to be identical (Schrader, _Reallex._ 350), and it
is agreed that this condition was not reached till after the adoption of
the Servian reform; Delbrück, _Gesch d. Kriegsk._ i. 225; Smith, ibid. 52
f., 56.
[406] _Il._ ii. 362.
[407] Schrader, ibid. For the Sueves, see Caesar, _B. G._ iv. 1; for
the Lacedaemonian army, see p. 71. The assumption of Helbig, _Comptes
rendus_, 1904. ii. 209, that the army was composed of patricians only
is altogether unwarranted. Equally groundless is the notion of Soltau,
_Altröm. Volksversamml._ 250, that the Homeric army was composed chiefly
of nobles with a few light-armed dependents.
[408] Cf. Liers, _Kriegswesen der Alten_, 78; Niese in _Hist. Zeitschr._
xcviii (1907). 264, 266, 289.
[409] _Il._ iv. 293 ff.
[410] Represented by the dances of the Salii; Helbig, ibid. 211 f.
[411] Paus. iv. 8. 11; Polyaen. i. 10; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i.
30 f.; Niese, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 274 ff.
[412] Cf. Thuc. v. 70; Polyaen. i. 10.
[413] Cf. Thuc. v. 69. For this and other depths, see Delbrück, ibid. i.
25; Liers, _Kriegswesen der Alten_, 45; Lammert, in _N. Jahrb. f. kl.
Philol._ xiii (1904). 276 f.
[414] Tyrtaeus, Frag. xi (Bergk). For the shield which covered “hips,
legs, breast, and shoulders,” v. 23 f. It was abolished by Cleomenes III;
Plut. _Cleom._ 11; cf. Liers, ibid. 34; Lammert, ibid. 276 f.
[415] XII. 26; Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 16. A public gift of a bronze cuirass
is mentioned by Aristotle, _Lac. Pol._ 75, Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._
ii. p. 127. Gilbert, _Const. Antiq._ 73; Delbrück, ibid. 25, maintain
that the cuirass was a regular part of the equipment. This is true of
soldiers who carried smaller shields.
[416] Beloch, _Griech. Gesch._ i. 200 f.; cf. Liers, _Kriegswesen der
Alten_, 34 f.; Droysen, _Griech. Kriegsalt._ 3 ff.
[417] Cf. the name of one of these regiments Μεσσοάτης (Schol. Thuc.
iv. 8) derived from the village or local tribe Messoa. Schol. Aristoph.
_Lysistr._ 453, mentions five by name; cf. Aristotle, Frag. 541. Perhaps
a sixth for guarding the kings was drawn from all the tribes; Busolt,
_Griech. Gesch._ i. 535 ff. with notes. Lenschau, in _Jahresb. ü.
Altwiss._ cxxxv. 83, holds that there were but four phylae.
[418] The name pentecosty indicates that it originally comprised fifty
men, which suggests that the century may have been a higher group. Before
the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. v. 68) the Lacedaemonian organization had
departed far from its original form.
[419] Droysen, _Griech. Kriegsalt._ 70; Gilbert, _Const. Antiq._ 72.
Compulsory service beyond the border ceased with the fortieth year; Xen.
_Hell._ v. 4. 13.
[420] Cf. Liers, _Kriegsw. der Alten_, 14.
[421] Busolt, _Griech. Gesch._ ii. 180 ff.; Helbig, in _Mém. de l’acad.
des inscr._ xxxvii¹ (1904). 164. But the Athenian army did not become
efficient till long after Solon; cf. Niese, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii
(1907). 278-82.
[422] The Romans believed that they got the phalanx from the Etruscans;
_Ined. Vat._, in _Hermes_, xxvii (1892). 121 from an early historian,
Fabius Pictor or Posidonius or Polybius (Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 323); Diod.
xxiii. 2 (Müller); Athen. vi. 106. p. 273 f.; Wendling, in _Hermes_,
xxviii (1893). 335 ff.; Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 364 ff.; Smith,
_Röm. Timokr._ 40. The circumstance does not prove that the Romans were
then in subjection to the Etruscans.
[423] Some of the ancients derive classis from calare, “to call,” hence
“summoning;” Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; Quint. _Inst._ i. 6. 33; accepted by
Walde, _Lat. Etym. Wörterb._ 125; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 242;
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 464. Others connected it with κᾶλος “firewood,”
hence “gathering;” Serv. _in Aen._ i. 39; Isid. _Etym._ xix. 1. 15;
Schol. Luc. i. 306. Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 494, proposes to derive it from
a root “clat,” which appears in the Greek κλητεύειν (Lat. *clat-ē-re),
Germ. laden, which would still give the meaning “summoning;” cf. Curtius,
_Griech. Etym._ 139; Vaniček, _Griech. Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 143 (*cla-t,
cla-t-ti-s). Mommsen accepted the meaning “summoning” in the early
editions of his _History_, but rejects it in the _Staatsrecht_, iii. 262
f. (cf. his _History_, English ed. i. 1900. 115 f., 118) on the ground
that however adapted it may have been to the later political classes, it
could not well apply to the fleet and army, and hence could not belong
to the earlier use of the word, which denoted the line in contrast with
those who fought outside the line. But against his reasoning it could be
urged that classis with the idea of “summoning” first applied to the line
of heavy infantry—the only effective part of the army; and when once the
connotation of “line” had been established, it could easily extend to the
fleet.
[424] Gell. vi (vii). 13: “‘Classici’ dicebantur non omnes, qui in
quinque classibus erant, sed primae tantum classis homines, qui centum
et viginti quinque milia aeris ampliusve censi erant. ‘Infra classem’
autem appellabantur secundae classis ceterarumque omnium classium, qui
minore summa aeris, quod supra dixi, censebantur. Hoc eo strictim notavi,
quoniam in M. Catonis oratione, qua Voconiam legem suasit, quaeri solet,
quid sit ‘classicus,’ quid ‘infra classem;’” Fest. ep. 113; cf. Cic.
_Verr._ II. i. 41. 104; Pseud. Ascon. 188; Gaius ii. 274.
[425] The statement of Diod. xxiii. 2 (Müller), and of the _Ined. Vat._
(in _Hermes_, xxvii. 121) that the Romans derived their round shield
from the Etruscans accords with archaeological evidence for the use of
the round shield by the early Etruscans; Pellegrini, in Milani, _Studi e
materiali_, i. 91 ff.; Helbig, in _Comptes rendus de l’acad. des inscr._
1904. ii. 196.
[426] The notion of Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 227, that the army
was not organized in centuries till after the beginning of the republic
has no foundation whatever.
[427] P. 76. The original number cannot be determined.
[428] Tubero, in Gell. x. 28. 1; Non. Marc. 523. 24. From this fact it
appears that military conditions made a far greater demand upon the early
Romans than upon the Lacedaemonians.
[429] Helbig, in _Comptes rendus de l’acad. des inscr._ 1900. 516 ff.;
_Mém. de l’acad._ etc. xxxvii¹ (1904). 157 ff.; _Hermes_ xl (1905). 109.
The objection of Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 37, n. 3, is not well founded.
[430] Incertus Auctor (Huschke), p. 1.
[431] _Ined. Vat._, in _Hermes_ xxvii (1892). 121; Helbig, ibid, xl
(1905). 114. The transvectio equitum was instituted in 304; Livy ix. 46.
15. On the close connection of the Roman cavalry with that of the Greeks
of southern Italy, see Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. ii. 607, n. 1.
[432] The priores had each two horses; Granius Licinianus xxvi, p. 29:
“Verum de equitibus non omittam, quos Tarquinius ita constituit, ut
priores equites binos equos in proelium ducerent;” cf. Fest. ep. 221. On
the Tarentine cavalry, see Livy xxxiii. 29, 5. The inference is that the
posteriores had one horse each.
[433] Helbig, in _Hermes_ xl (1905). 107. _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1899.
167, fig. 17 (cf. p. 157); 1900. 325, fig. 28; Pellegrini, in Milani,
_Studi e materiali_, i. 106.
[434] Pellegrini, ibid. i. 97, fig. 5; 104, fig. 10.
[435] P. 75.
[436] P. 3, n. 8.
[437] VI. 13. 4.
[438] The principal sources are Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36; 22. 39; Livy i.
13. 8; 15. 8; 36. 7; 43. 8 f.; Dion. Hal. ii. 13; vi. 13. 4; Pliny, _N.
H._ xxxiii. (9.) 35; Fest. ep. 55; Plut. _Rom._ 13. On the basis of these
sources we could reckon an increase to 1800, 3600, or 5400 according
to our assumption as to the number of horsemen to the century; cf.
Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercenturien_, 3-8.
[439] Helbig, in _Hermes_, xl (1905). 101, 105, 107.
[440] Livy i. 13. 8; Dion. Hal. ii. 13. 1 f.; Fest. ep. 55.
[441] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36: Livy i. 36. 2, 7; Fest. 344. 20; ep. 349.
Writers differ slightly in the form of the names.
[442] P. 73, n. 7.
[443] This distinction of rank among the patrician centuries of the
comitia centuriata is proved by the expression “proceres patricii” in
the Censoriae Tabulae, quoted by Fest. 249. 1: “Procum patricium in
descriptione classium, quam fecit Ser. Tullius, significat procerum. I
enim sunt principes;” Cic. _Orat._ 46. 156: “Centuriam fabrum et procum,
ut censoriae tabulae loquuntur, audeo dicere, non fabrorum aut procorum.”
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 109, n. 1, has rightly referred it to one
of the sex suffragia, for no century outside this group could have been
so designated; cf. Livy ii. 20. 11, who speaks of the cavalry as proceres
iuventutis. The mention of a century of leading patricians implies the
existence of one or more centuries of the less distinguished members of
the same rank, which must have been the rest of the sex suffragia. The
superior rank of the equites in early Rome is proved by Dion. Hal. ii.
13. 1; iv. 18. 1; Livy i. 43. 8 f.; ii. 20. 11. In ii. 24. 2 Livy implies
that the patricians did not serve on foot (militare), and in iii. 27. 1
he speaks of a patrician who, as an exception among his rank, served on
foot because of his poverty. In ii. 42 f. he distinguishes the cavalry
from the infantry as patricians from plebeians. The fact that in the
political conflict between the two social classes the patricians often
threatened to carry on foreign wars with the aid merely of their clients
(cf. Dion. Hal. x. 15, 27 f., 43) proves that the phalanx was essentially
plebeian. On the honorable place of the equites in the camp, see Nitzsch,
in _Hist. Zeitschr._ vii (1862). 145. That the sex suffragia remained
patrician down to the reform of the comitia centuriata is probable; cf.
Sallust, _Hist._ i. 11, who represents the struggle between the social
classes as continuing to the opening of the war with Hannibal; see also
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 254.
[444] Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 4; cf. Polyb. vi. 25. 1; Varro, _L. L._ v. 91:
“Turma terima (e in u abiit) quod ter deni equites ex tribus tribubus
Titiensium Ramnium Lucerum fiebant: itaque primi singularum decuriones
dicti, qui ab eo in singulis turmis sunt etiamnunc terni;” cf. Curiatius,
in Fest. 355. 6.
[445] Cf. Polyb. vi. 25. 1.
[446] Three hundred is given as normal by Polyb. i. 16. 2; vi. 20. 9.
In iii. 107. 10 f. he states it at 200, increased to 300 when to meet
extraordinary cases the legion was strengthened to 5000; cf. ii. 24.
3. Livy, xxii. 36. 3, agrees with the latter statement. Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ iii. 477, believes that the normal number was 300, decreased to
200 when a greater number of legions was levied.
[447] Niese, _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 283, rightly assumes that
the first and second classes at Athens were not cavalry; Helbig is right
in understanding them to be mounted hoplites. Niese’s criticism (ibid.
287 and n. 1) of Helbig’s view is not convincing.
[448] Considerable time was required for the establishment of the
earliest known meaning of classis before the second and third divisions
were added.
[449] This is a conjecture of Bruncke, in _Philol._ xl (1881). 362,
favored by Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 222.
[450] P. 79, 86.
[451] Usually scholars (cf. Domazewski, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
iii. 1953 f.; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 227; Smith, _Röm.
Timokr._ 39) assume fifteen centuries for the fifth rating, on the
authority of Livy i. 43. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 17. 2; vii. 59. 5. But our
knowledge of the phalanx is only inference, which to be acceptable must
have at least the merit of possibility. The number fifteen is wrong
because it could not have been divided evenly between the two legions;
and on the other hand it will be shown later (p. 208) that in all
probability the fifteenth century was not military but was added in the
make up of the comitia centuriata.
[452] Müller, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 129, is right in supposing that
the legion was strengthened between the time of Servius and 387, but it
was not in the way he assumes. The tradition of a legion (half phalanx)
of 4000 men is preserved in Livy vi. 22. 8.
[453] Polyb. vi. 20.
[454] Cf. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 121 ff.
[455] Livy iv. 46. 1: “Dilectum haberi non ex toto passim populo placuit:
decem tribus sorte ductae sunt. Ex his scriptos iuniores duo tribuni ad
bellum duxere.” If this passage does not state a historical fact, at
least it gives the idea of the writer as to the custom of earlier time.
[456] P. 72, 76.
[457] Cf. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 51 ff.
[458] In time of especial danger, however, the legion was increased to
five thousand; Polyb. vi. 20. 8.
[459] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 268, n. 2.
[460] That the phalanx was a comparatively late institution at Rome, or
that it was slow in becoming the only military system, is indicated by
the survival in tradition of a more primitive mode of warfare. Sometimes
in the early republic a single gens with its clients took the field; for
the Fabian gens, see Livy ii. 48 ff. Often the patricians threatened to
arm their clients, to carry on a war without the aid of the troublesome
plebeians; cf. Dion. Hal. x. 15, 27 f., 43. As there was no motive in
later time for the invention of such stories, they must contain a kernel
of real tradition; hence they could not go back to the sixth century, and
it is difficult to believe that they are so old as the fifth.
Collateral evidence that the second and third divisions were instituted
relatively late may be found in the circumstance that the scutum, the
distinctive piece of armor of these divisions, was introduced no earlier
than the age of Camillus—the period of the war with Veii and the Gallic
conflagration; Livy viii. 8. 3; Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 366. It
was Samnite (Athen. vi. 106, p. 273 f.; cf. Sall. _Cat._ 51), and was
therefore probably adopted in the fourth century when Rome first came
into contact with that people.
[461] It is evident to the reader that these proportions are those of the
discriptio centuriarum of Livy and Dionysius (p. 66 above), and it will
be made clear below (p. 86) that the ratings were originally in terms of
iugera, the minima of the five ratings being in all probability 20, 15,
10, 5, and 2½ or 2 iugera respectively.
[462] For the date, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 334 f.; Kubitschek,
in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1902 f.; Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I.
ii. 13, 33 f.
[463] There may be some truth in the etymology suggested by Varro, _L.
L._ v. 89; cf. Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 256.
[464] Cf. Liers, _Kriegsw. d. Alten_, 46.
[465] Dionysius Hal. iv. 17. 1, includes the fourth rating in the phalanx
of heavy infantry. For other possibilities of arrangement, see Smith,
_Röm. Timokr._ 46 f.
[466] Thuc. v. 68; p. 86 above.
[467] Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 229; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 45
ff. That the second and third divisions of the phalanx were sometimes
withdrawn to operate on the flanks (Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 249)
is possible, though we have no proof of it.
[468] P. 76. From early times the Greek and Italian states kept arsenals
with which to arm the poor in crises; Liers, _Kriegsw. d. Alten_, 36 f.
[469] P. 84.
[470] Fest. ep. 14, 18, 369; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 56-58. From them the
centurions and decurions engaged their servants; Cato, in Varro, _L. L._
vii. 58; Varro, _Vit. pop. rom._ iii, in Non. Marc. 520; Veget. ii. 19.
Hence they served the civil magistrates as attendants; cf. Censoriae
Tabulae, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88; Livy iii. 33. 8; Suet. _Caes._ 20;
Non. Marc. 59. They must have corresponded with the squires of the Greek
and Roman cavalry; p. 73. They were sometimes called adscriptivi, or
as carriers ferentarii. If, as has been suggested, the secretaries and
other attendants of the higher officers were also drawn from them, this
circumstance would help explain the honor attaching to the collegium
accensorum velatorum of imperial time; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 289;
Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 233.
[471] Notwithstanding Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 135
f.
[472] Livy viii. 8. 8. Leinveber, in _Philol._ N. F. xv (1902). 36,
estimates 558 accensi to the legion.
[473] The cornicines tubicinesque; Livy i. 43. 7.
[474] The cornicines marched in front of the banners; Joseph. _Bell.
Iud._ v. 48; Fiebiger, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1602.
[475] The number is unknown. In the legio III Augusta there were
thirty-six cornicines; _CIL._ vii. 2557; Fiebiger, ibid. 1603.
[476] Livy i. 43. 3.
[477] Varro, _L. L._ v. 88: “Centuria qui sub uno centurione sunt, quorum
centenarius iustus numerus;” Fest. ep. 53: “Centuria ... significat ...
in re militari centum homines;” Isid. _Etym._ ix. 3. 48; cf. Huschke,
_Verf. d. Serv._ 107.
[478] Estimates have been made by Müller, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 127;
Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 224; Beloch, _Bevölk. d. griech.-röm.
Welt_, 42 f.; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 67. In the United States the ratio is
more than four to one; _Special Reports: Suppl. Analysis and Derivative
Tables, Twelfth Census of the United States_, 1900, Washington, 1906.
p. 170 f. The estimate given in the text is based upon the “Deutsche
Sterbetafel” for men, in E. Czuber, _Warscheinlichkeitsrechnung_
(Leipzig, 1903), p. 572, 574. The ratio is almost exactly three.
[479] Livy i. 43. 2. For the year 401, see Livy v. 10. 4: “Nec iuniores
modo conscripti, sed seniores etiam coacti nomina dare, ut urbis
custodiam agerent;” for 389, vi. 2. 6; for 386, vi. 6. 14; for 296, x.
21. 4: “Nec ingenui modo aut iuniores sacramento adacti, sed seniorum
etiam cohortes factae libertinique centuriati. Et defendendae urbis
consilia agitabantur;” cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 409, n. 5. The
last of the definite instances here mentioned could alone be historical,
and in this case not centuriae or legiones but cohortes seniorum are
spoken of.
[480] Cf. Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 227 f.
[481] If the senior centuries were formed in the way assumed by Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 261 (“Nicht selbständig gebildet worden, sondern
daraus hervorgegangen, dass wer aus einer Centurie des ersten Aufgebots
Alters halber ausschied, damit in die entsprechende Centurie des zweiten
Aufgebots eintrat”), about a half generation must have been required to
evolve them. An objection to his idea is that the military centuries as
well as the legions were formed anew at each year’s levy (Polyb. vi.
20, 24), whereas the political centuries were made up by the censors
(cf. Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40: “In una centuria censebantur”), doubtless
modified annually by the consuls. A military century and a political
century accordingly could not have been composed of the same men.
The Tabulae Iuniorum contained the names of all juniors in honorable
service in the field; Livy xxiv. 18. 7. Tabulae Seniorum are not
mentioned. Classis Iuniorum (Fest. 246. 30) may apply to all eighty-five
(or eighty-four) centuries of juniors, as Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 474,
supposes, or to the first class; Tubero, _Historiae_, i, in Gell. x.
28. 1: “Scripsit Servium Tullium regem, populi Romani cum illas quinque
classes iuniorum census faciendi gratia institueret.” It is doubtful
whether there was a separate list of seniors.
[482] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40: “Illarum autem sex et nonaginta centuriarum
in una centuria tum quidem plures censebantur quam paene in prima classe
tota.”
[483] Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 240.
[484] The confusion of the comitia with the army, which the ancient
writers began, the moderns have intensified till the subject has
become utterly incomprehensible. Chiefly to Genz, _Servianische
Centurienverfassung_ (1874) and Soltau, _Alröm. Volksversammlungen_
(1880) belongs the credit of putting in a clear light the fact that the
original Servian organization was an army. Both authors, however, have
made the fundamental mistake of supposing that for a time during the
early republic the army officiated as an assembly.
[485] Livy xxiv. 8. 19.
[486] After the inclusion of the Tribus Clustumina; Beloch, _Ital. Bund_,
74; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 58, n. 1.
[487] Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 223 f.; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 58.
[488] Beloch, _Bevölk. d. griech.-röm. Welt_, 53; Meyer, _Forsch. z.
alt. Gesch._ ii. 162, n. 3; Delbrück, ibid. i. 14. Ferrero’s estimate
(_Greatness and Decline of Rome_, i. 1) of a total population of 150,000
seems to be too large.
[489] P. 81.
[490] Cf. Liers, _Kriegsw. d. Alten_, 10.
[491] Ascribed to Camillus; Plut. _Cam._ 40; cf. Fröhlich, _Gesch. d.
Kriegsführung und Kriegskunst der Römer zur Zeit der Rep._; Schiller,
_Röm. Alt._ 708.
[492] P. 80; cf. 63.
[493] Fröhlich, ibid. 21 f.; Schiller, ibid.
[494] P. 76.
[495] Fest. 189. 13; ep. 56, 225; Fabius Pictor, _Annales_, i, in Gell.
x. 15. 3 f.
[496] Gell. i. 11. 3; Vergil, _Aen._ vii. 716: “Hortinae classes.”
[497] Gell. vi (vii). 13. 3: “In M. Catonis oratione, qua Voconiam legem
suasit, quaeri solet, quid sit classicus, quid infra classem;” p. 90
below.
[498] _CIL._ i. 200 (Lex Agr.). 37: (“Recuperatores ex ci)vibus L quei
classis primae sient, XI dato.”
[499] P. 66 f.; cf. Fest. 249. 1: “In descriptione classium quam fecit
Ser. Tullius.” The attempt of Smith, _Röm. Timokr._, especially 140
ff., to prove that the five classes were introduced by the censors of
179 has nothing in its favor. It rests upon Livy xl. 51. 9: “Mutarunt
suffragia, regionatimque generibus hominum causisque et quaestibus
tribus descripserunt.” This passage makes no reference to the classes.
In “generibus hominum” are included chiefly the “genus ingenuum” and
the “genus libertinum.” “Causis” applies to those conditions of the
libertini, such as the possession of children of a definite age, which
might serve as a ground for enrolment in a rural tribe; and “quaestibus”
refers to the distinction between landowners and the “opifices et
sellularii” of the city. “They changed the arrangement for voting, and
drew up the tribal lists on a local basis according to the social orders,
the conditions, and the callings of men;” cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii.
265 f.; p. 354 f. below. Among the many objections to Smith’s theory
these two may be mentioned: if the classes were introduced at this
late historical time, (1) they would not have been ascribed to Servius
Tullius; (2) they would have been adapted to the economic conditions of
the second century B.C., whereas in 179 they were largely outgrown by
the depreciation of the standard of value, the increase in the cost of
living, and the growth of enormous estates. The _Römische Timokratie_ is
ably written, but its main thesis—the institution of the classes in the
second century B.C.—remains unproved.
[500] P. 64.
[501] _Verf. d. Serv._ 643 f. et passim. He made a mistake however in
supposing that from the beginning land was valued in terms of money.
[502] Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 111; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 247 ff.; Kübler,
in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2631. When the change was made
from a land to a money rating, the land of the fifth class was appraised
relatively higher than that of the others. Neumann, _Grundherrsch. d.
röm. Rep._ 9 f., prefers to assume 16 (= 2 + 14) iugera for the highest
class in order to explain the often mentioned estates of seven and
fourteen iugera. But it is difficult to work out a consistent scheme on
this basis. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 78 ff. et passim, strongly objects
to the view in any form, as he doubts the existence of the Servian
classes. In general he has greatly exaggerated the difficulties of their
administration.
[503] Sall. _Iug._ 86; Gell. xvi. 10. 14, 16; cf. Cass. Hem. 21 (Peter,
_Reliquiae_, i. 102 f.).
[504] Haeberlin, in _Riv. ital. numis._ xix (1906). 614 f.
[505] Samwer-Bahrfeldt, _Gesch. d. alt. röm. Münzw._ 176 f.; Hill,
_Greek and Roman Coins_, 47, 49, n. 1; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ ii. 1509 ff.; Hultsch, ibid. v. 206; Regling, in _Klio_,
vi (1906). 503. Babelon, _Trait. d. mon. Grecq. et Rom._ i. 595, still
holds the view that the triental _as_ was introduced in 269; cf. his
_Orig. d. la mon._ 376; _Mon. d. la rép. Rom._ i. 37.
[506] P. 66 f.
[507] As silver is at present worth 51¼ cents an ounce (so quoted in
New York, Sept. 5, 1908), a denarius (= ⅟₇₂ lb. Troy) of the coinage
preceding 217 is worth by weight today 8½ cents. A more just comparison
would be based on the present coined values. As a dollar contains 371¼
grains of silver, a denarius would be worth 21½ cents; or with a liberal
allowance for the alloy, we might say about 20 cents. The sesterce, ¼
denarius, would therefore be equivalent to five cents. An estate of
100,000 asses of heavy weight (sesterces) would be worth about $5000, of
the sextantarian standard $2000. It is hardly possible that so large a
proportion of the population as was contained in the first class should
average the former amount of wealth to the family. In fact the purchasing
power of money was enormously higher than these equivalents indicate. In
430 the value of an ox or cow was legally set at 100 libral asses and of
a sheep at ten. Reckoning a beef at the low modern value of $45, and a
sheep at $4.50, we obtain a value of 45 cents for the libral _as_, or 22½
cents for one of 5 oz. weight (sesterce), which would give the denarius a
purchasing power of 90 cents.
[508] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249. In his _History_ (Eng. ed. 1900), iii.
50, he expresses some doubt as to the numbers.
[509] I. 43; cf. p. 66.
[510] IV. 17. 2.
[511] Plut. _Popl._ 21.
[512] The view of Goguet, _Centuries_, 29 (following Niebuhr), that Livy
has made a mistake, is not so likely.
[513] VI. 19. 2: (All must serve in war) πλὴν τῶν ὑπὸ τὰς τετρακοσίας
δραχμὰς τετιμημένων· τούτους δὲ παριᾶσι πάντας εἰς τὴν ναυτικήν. That it
was the minimal rating of the fifth class, and not a still lower rating
for military use only, is proved by a statement of Sall. _Iug._ 86, that
till the time of Marius the soldiers were drawn from the classes.
[514] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 251.
[515] Commercially the denarius was then, after 217, worth sixteen asses;
Hultsch, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ v. 209.
[516] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40; Gell. xvi. 10. 10.
[517] XVI. 10. 10.
[518] Cf. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1522.
[519] This interpretation differs slightly from that of Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ iii. 237.
[520] In like manner those possessing above 100,000 asses were at times
divided into groups for the distribution of military burdens according
to wealth; cf. Livy xxiv. II. 7-9. This too has no reference to the
organization of the comitia.
[521] _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 43: “Maximus census C̅X̅ assium fuit illo
(Servio) rege, et ideo haec prima classis.”
[522] Fest. ep. 113.
[523] VI (VII). 13.
[524] Plut. _Popl._ 21; Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 164.
[525] VI. 23. 15.
[526] I. 43. 2.
[527] IV. 16. 2.
[528] After the adoption of the _as_ of an ounce weight in 217, sixteen
asses of this standard were considered equivalent to a denarius or a
drachma, which would give a rating of 160,000 asses for those who wore
the cuirass. But the military pay was still reckoned at ten asses to the
denarius (Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 45); the censors seem to have used
the same ratio (Livy xxxix. 44. 2 f. compared with Plut. _Cat. Mai._
18); and it is therefore highly probable that in this statement Polybius
intended to express in drachmas the value of 100,000 asses. Taken in
its entirety, the passage sufficiently proves that reference is to the
highest class; the majority (οἱ πολλοί) of soldiers, he says, have
breastplates, but those rated above 10,000 drachmas wear cuirasses. If,
as Belot, _Rév. écon. et mon._ 77 ff., imagines, the sum of 100,000 asses
fell below the rating of the lowest class, there would hardly have been a
soldier without the cuirass.
[529] Gaius ii. 274. That registration was necessary is proved by Cic.
_Verr._ II. i. 41. 104 ff. By the word “censi” Cicero does not mean to
designate any group or division of citizens; he simply refers to the
fact of registration. P. Annius Asellus, of whom he speaks, had not been
registered, or in any case at that sum, and hence was not technically
liable to the law; but the value of his estate could be ascertained by
authority of a court of justice, according to Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._
95 f. Mommsen held the opinion, on the contrary (_Abhdl. d. Akad. d.
Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1863. 468 f.), that the incensi were absolutely free
from the law.
[530] P. 85 above.
[531] VI (VII). 13. For his rating of 125,000 asses for the first class,
see p. 89.
[532] N. 5 above.
[533] Dio Cass. lvi. 10. 2; Pseud. Ascon. 188.
[534] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249, n. 4; Greenidge, _Leg.
Proced._ 95.
[535] The part containing this reference was not essentially later than
the enactment of the Voconian law (p. 361).
[536] P. 403.
[537] XLV. 15. 2.
[538] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249, n. 2.
[539] P. 90, n. 4.
[540] First offered in his _Histoire des chevaliers_, i (Paris, 1866),
and afterward defended in his _Révolution économique et monétaire ... à
Rome_ (1885).
[541] Cf. _Rév. écon. et mon._ 82.
[542] Livy xxiv. 11. 7 f.
[543] Ibid. § 5.
[544] Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 498 f.
[545] _Rév. écon. et mon._ 50. The Roman and Campanian (cives sine
suffragio) knights together amounted to 23,000; Polyb. ii. 24. 14.
[546] About 270,000 in 220; Livy ep. xx.
[547] Even with this understanding we shall have to assume for the
requisition of 214 a division between 100,000 and 300,000—those rated at
100,000-200,000 asses furnishing two and those at 200,000-300,000 asses
three sailors. Otherwise the number of sailors will be greatly in excess
of the need.
[548] Similar conditions exist at present in America. The monstrous
luxury of the few and the heavy fines recently imposed on the Standard
Oil Company do not prove all Americans to be wealthy.
[549] P. 61 f.
[550] Livy i. 43. 9; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36; Fest. ep. 81, 221; Gaius iv.
27.
[551] Gaius iv. 27.
[552] _Rep._ ii. 20. 36.
[553] I. 43. 9.
[554] _Cam._ 2. This statement is valuable notwithstanding Kubitschek, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 683.
[555] Payment is mentioned by Livy v. 7. 12 (403) but triple pay is first
spoken of in ch. 12. 12 (400); cf. Polyb. vi. 39. 12; Fest. 234. 26.
[556] Polyb. vi. 39. 15. The statement of Varro, _L. L._ viii. 71
(“Debet igitur dici ... non equum publicum mille assarium esse, sed
mille assariorum”), seems to signify that in practice the cost of
a public horse meant a payment to the eques of a thousand asses a
year; cf. Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 49 ff., whose
interpretation is preferable to that of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii.
257, n. 5. The fact that the support of one knight was considered equal
to that of three legionaries (Livy xxix. 15. 7) is further evidence that
the triple pay covered the purchase and keep of the horse. Reference in
Livy vii. 41. 8, may be to the sums (aera) for the purchase and keep of
the horse; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 257, n. 3.
[557] Dionysius Hal. vi. 44. 2, assigns the first recruiting of the
equites from the plebeians to the year 494, dating the event about a
century too early; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 478, n. 1.
[558] Livy v. 7. 5.
[559] All this may be gathered from Livy v. 7. 4-13; cf. Gerathewohl,
_Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 16 ff.
[560] Polyb. vi. 19. 2; Livy xxvii. 11. 14.
[561] Livy xxvii. 11. 14, 16. This passage does not refer to those who
avoided duty equo privato, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 478, n. 2,
supposes. Those were punished who were qualified to serve equo publico
but had avoided military duty altogether. Gerathewohl, ibid. 20 f.,
believes that Livy has made a mistake in assigning this judgment to the
censors of 209, as it would much better suit the conditions of 214.
[562] The credit of establishing this fact beyond a doubt is due to
Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 14-34.
[563] _N. H._ xxxiii. 1. 30: “Equitum nomen subsistebat in turmis equorum
publicorum;” cf. Fest. ep. 81: “Equitare antiqui dicebant equum publicum
merere.”
[564] P. 75.
[565] There were four legions each with 4000 infantry and 300 horse at
the opening of the First Punic War; Polyb. i. 16. 2. Four legions fought
against Pyrrhus at Asculum, 279; Dion. Hal. xx. 1. This was the normal
number for the Samnite wars; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 477.
[566] Two legions of juniors was the maximal limit of Rome’s military
strength during the period of twenty-one tribes; cf. p. 77, 84. The
incorporation of the Veientan territory, 387, could not at once have
doubled this force.
[567] Livy xxv. 3. 1-7; cf. Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._
54. The sources do not suggest that the number after reaching eighteen
hundred remained unalterable. In Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36 (“Deinde equitum
ad hunc morem constituit, qui usque adhuc est retentus”) reference
is not to number but to character; Gerathewohl, ibid. 8 f. Mommsen’s
interpretation (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 259, n. 5) is therefore wrong.
[568] In 200 the seven legions contained twenty-one hundred equites or
fewer; Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 56.
[569] _Orat._ lxiv: “Nunc ego arbitror oportere restitui (Mommsen’s
emendation ‘institui’ is unnecessary), quin minus duobus milibus ac
ducentis sit aerum equestrium.” Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 259,
wrongly holds the opinion that the measure failed to pass.
[570] See citations collected by Gerathewohl, ibid. 56, n. 1.
[571] Dion. Hal. vi. 13. 4: Ἔστιν ὅτε shows that the number varied; cf.
Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 171.
[572] Suet. _Aug._ 38.
[573] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39; Livy i. 43. 8 f.; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 1.
High birth and great wealth are emphasized, but no definite rating of
the class is given. Their treatment of the subject is compatible with
the view that the knights were then patrician—a view however which
these writers did not have clearly in mind. Livy’s statement (iii.
27. 1) that a certain patrician served in the infantry because of his
poverty harmonizes well with the same view; for as the aes equestre and
hordearium were not yet introduced, a poor patrician would be unable
to own and keep a horse. Those scholars therefore seem to be wrong
who, like Grathewohl, ibid. 67, following Rubino, in _Zeitschr. f. d.
Altertumswiss._ iv (1846). 219, refer the equestrian census to Servius
Tullius.
[574] P. 94. It is for about this time (403) that Livy, v. 7. 5, first
refers definitely to an equestrian census.
[575] This fact is most clearly stated by Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3, and is
confirmed by Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39.; cf. Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 43;
for further evidence, see Belot, _Rev. écon. et mon._ 5 ff.
[576] P. 92.
[577] Hor. _Ep._ I. i. 57; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 2. 32; Mart. iv. 67; v.
23, 25, 38; Pliny, _Ep._ 1. 19. 2; Juv. i. 105; v. 132; xiv. 326; Suet.
_Caes._ 38.
[578] Serv. _in Aen._ iii. 89; vi. 190; xii. 259.
[579] Cic. _Div._ 16. 29 f.: “Dirae, sicut cetera auspicia, ut omina, ut
signa, non causas adferunt, cur quid eveniat, sed nuntiant eventura, nisi
provideris.” The last statement means only that a misfortune will happen,
if an evil omen is unheeded. Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 70: “Non enim sumus ii
nos augures, qui ... futura dicamus;” cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 331;
Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 198.
[580] Serv. _in. Aen._ iii. 20: “Auspicari enim cuivis ... licet.”
[581] Cic. _Div._ i. 16. 28: “Nihil fere quondam maioris rei nisi
auspicato ne privatim quidem gerebatur, quod etiam nunc nuptiarum
auspices declarant, qui re omissa nomen tantum tenent;” 46. 104; Val.
Max. ii. 1. 1. On the nuptial auspices, see De Marchi, _Cult. priv. di
Rom._ i. 152-5.
[582] Romulus consulted the rest of the gods along with Jupiter; Dion.
Hal. ii. 5. 1.
[583] The public auspices were Jupiter’s alone; Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 20.
So were the auspical chickens; _Div._ ii. 34. 72; 35. 73; cf. Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 77, n. 2. In historical time the sign called for was
Jupiter’s lightning; Cic. _Div._ ii. 18. 42; _Vatin._ 8. 20; _Phil._ v.
3. 7. The epithet Elicius, notwithstanding Varro, _L. L._ vi. 95; Livy
i. 20. 7; 31. 8, does not find its explanation in the auspices; Aust, in
Roscher, _Lex. Myth._ ii. 656 ff.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 106.
[584] P. 100, n. 3.
[585] In Gell. xvi. 4. 4.
[586] Cato, _De sacrilegio commisso_, in Fest. 234. 30. No one could
imagine Attus Navius, the swineherd, to have been a patrician, and
yet he was the most famous of private augurs; Cic. _Div._ i. 17. It
is significant, too, that the great authority on private auspices, P.
Nigidius Figulus, author of _Augurium privatum_ in several books (Gell.
vii. 6. 10), was a plebeian.
[587] Livy iv. 2. 5 f.
[588] Livy iv. 6. 1 f.
[589] Livy vi. 41. 5 f.
[590] Cic. _Div._ ii. 36. 76: “Nos, nisi dum a populo auspicia accepta
habemus, quam multum iis utimur?” i. 16. 28.
[591] Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 46, n. 2, has pointed out that the phrase
auspicia publica occurs only in Livy iv. 2. 5, where he believes it to be
used in a special sense. In the time of Cicero no one but an antiquarian
ever thought of any other kind of auspices.
[592] Livy x. 8. 9.
[593] The usual view, represented by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 89,
n. 1, is that the plebeians did not possess this right originally but
acquired it later; cf. also Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
ii. 2581; Di Marchi, _Cult. priv. di. Rom._ i. 233. This hypothesis not
only lacks support, but is also vitiated by the fact that at the time of
the supposed equalization private auspices must have been declining, as
Cicero found them extinct.
The treatment of private auspices here given is supplementary to the
study of the social classes made in ch. ii.
[594] Messala, in Gell. xiii. 15. 4; Fest. 157. 21; Rubino, _Röm. Verf._
71 ff.; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 580.
[595] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 9; Livy vi. 41. 6; viii. 23. 15 f.
[596] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 96 ff.
[597] Messala, _De auspiciis_, i, in Gell. xiii. 15. 4; Bouché-Leclerq,
ibid. ii. 581.
[598] Messala, ibid.
[599] As when for instance the consul forbids the minor magistrate to
“watch the sky” on an appointed comitial day; Gell. xiii. 15. 1: “In
edicto consulum, quo edicunt, quis dies comitiis centuriatis futurus sit,
scribitur ex vetere forma perpetua: ne quis magistratus minor de caelo
servasse velit.”
[600] _Commentarium Anquisitionis_ of a quaestor, in Varro, _L. L._ vi.
91: “Auspicio operam des et in templo auspices, dum aut ad praetorem
aut ad consulem mittas auspicium petitum.” This passage shows that the
quaestor, though asking permission, himself holds the auspices.
[601] The first alternative is held by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 89,
whereas Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2584, is inclined
to the latter.
[602] Gell. xiv. 7. 4, 8, quoting Varro.
[603] _Leg._ iii. 3. 10: “Omnes magistratus auspicium iudiciumque
habento.” The previous paragraph is concerned with the tribunes, and
in this citation the use of iudicium instead of imperium points to the
tribunes. It is hardly possible that Cicero in his _Laws_ would give the
tribunes a right they did not possess.
[604] In Gell. xiii. 15. 4. Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii.
2583, seems therefore to be incorrect in excluding the tribunes from the
right.
[605] In stating that the tribunes were given the right to take auspices
for their assemblies, Zonaras, vii. 19, evidently confuses the oblativa
with the impetrativa. It is an interesting fact that according to Cicero
the first college of tribunes was elected under auspices in the comitia
curiata; Frag. A. vii. 48: “Itaque auspiciato postero anno tr. pl.
comitiis curiatis creati sunt.”
[606] Cic. _Div._ ii. 34. 71: “Hic apud maiores nostros adhibebatur
peritus, nunc quilubet.” As in the time of Cicero auspices had come to
be a mere pretence (p. 118), an attendant without skill or scruple would
best serve the magistrate’s purpose. In Livy iv. 18. 6, the augurs see
the omen for the dictator, but some other attendant might serve the
purpose. Being a paid functionary, the bird-seer mentioned by Dion. Hal.
ii. 6. 2 as assisting in an auspication could not have been a public
augur; Valeton, in _Mnemos._ xviii. 406 ff.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d.
Römer_, 456, n. 8. The magistrate requested assistance in the following
form: “Q. Fabi, te mihi in auspicio esse volo;” and the reply was
“Audivi;” Cic. _Div._ ii. 34. 71; cf. § 72. From this formula it appears
that the person summoned did not hold, but assisted in, the auspices;
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 338. The auspices are always said to belong not to
the augurs, but to the magistrates; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 10; Messala, in
Gell. xiii. 15. 4. Instead of remaining with the augurs in the city the
auspices followed a duly elected consul into the field; Livy xxii. 1.
6. Auspicari is strictly a function of the magistrate (cf. Varro, _Rer.
hum._ xx, in Non. Marc. 92) though the word is sometimes applied to the
observation made by augurs (Fest. ep. 18), whose function is properly
termed augurium, augurare; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 200 f.; Wissowa, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2580 f.
[607] The derivation is unknown. Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ ii. 2313 f., summarizes the principal theories.
Probability seems to favor the view that it is a combination of the root
of avis with a verbal noun meaning “to see” or the like; Walde, _Lat.
etym. Wörterb._ 55.
[608] Attus Navius from his boyhood was renowned for his augural skill;
Cic. _Div._ i. 17; Livy i. 36; Dion. Hal. iii. 70 f.; cf. Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ i. 333. Romulus, too, is said to have been an excellent augur;
Remus possessed similar skill (Cic. _Div._ i. 2. 3; 17. 30; 40. 89;
Ennius, in Cic. _Div._ i. 48. 107), and in the opinion of Livy, i. 18. 6;
iv. 4. 2, there was no augural college before Numa.
[609] Varro, _L. L._ v. 33; Cic. _Fam._ vi. 6. 7; _Senec._ 18. 64; Fest.
161. 20; _CIL._ vi. 503, 504, 511, 1233, 1449; x. 211; Wissowa, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2314.
[610] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 9. 16; 14. 26; Livy x. 6. 7; ep. lxxxix; Marquardt,
_Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 398; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 334 f.; Wissowa,
_Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 451; also his article in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ ii. 2316 f. In adding a supernumerary (Dio Cass. xlii. 51.
4) Caesar set an example extensively followed by the principes; cf. Dio
Cass. li. 20. 3; Wissowa, ibid. ii. 2317.
[611] As distinguished from magistrates they were privati; Cic. _Div._ i.
40. 89.
[612] Auctor Incertus (Huschke) p. 4: “Collegium augurum ordo hominum
prudentum erat, qui prodigiis publicis praeerant;” cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._
i. 330.
[613] Cic. _Div._ ii. 34. 71 f.; cf. Livy xli. 18.
[614] Plut. _Q. R._ 99.
[615] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 20; _Phil._ xiii. 5. 12.
[616] They are never called flamines, and no flamen was attached to their
office; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 451. The great sacerdotal
colleges were more political than religious, and the college of augurs
was the most thoroughly political of all; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et
Saglio, _Dict._ i. 564.
[617] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 20; Dio Cass, xxxvii. 24 f.; Aust, _Relig. d.
Römer_, 199; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2325-30.
[618] Fest. 333. 9: “Spectio in auguralibus ponitur pro aspectione; (data
est) et nuntiatio, qui omne ius auspiciorum habent, auguribus non spectio
dumtaxat, quorum consilio rem gererent magistratus, ut possent impedire,
nuntiando quaecumque vidissent; privatis spectio sine nuntiatione
data est, ut ipsi auspicio rem gererent, non ut alios impedirent
nuntiando.”—Valeton’s emendation, in _Mnemos._ xviii (1890). 455 f.
[619] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 21: “Quique agent rem duelli quique domi
popularem, auspicium praemonento ollique obtemperanto;” cf. Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ i. 332.
[620] It generally happened that both the augural and pontifical colleges
were filled by statesmen, so that Cicero could lay down the principle
that the sacred and political offices were held by the same persons;
_Div._ i. 40. 89; cf. Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2321.
[621] Livy iv. 7. 3; viii. 23. 14-17; xxiii. 31. 13; xlv. 12. 10; Cic.
_Phil._ ii. 33. 83; _Leg._ ii. 12. 31; _N. D._ ii. 4. 11. A defect in the
auspicia impetrativa was expressed by the formula “vitio tabernaculum
captum esse” (Cic. _N. D._ ii. 4. 11; _Div._ i. 17. 33; Livy iv. 7.
3; Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 178), whereas the phrase “vitio creatum esse”
or the like (Livy viii. 15. 6; 23. 14; xxiii. 31. 13; xlv. 12. 10;
Plut. _Marcell._ 4) denoted a failure to take the auspices or to heed
unfavorable omens; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2334. On
the annulment of laws through augural decrees, see Cic. _Leg._ 8. 21; 12.
31; _Div._ ii. 35. 74. The decree was no more than an opinion, on which
the senate acted; Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 88. n. 3; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_,
201.
[622] An example of such boldness was that of C. Flaminius; Livy xxi. 63;
cf. Plut. _Marcell._ 4; Zon. vii. 20. For the case of Appius Claudius
Pulcher, see Livy ep. xix; Polyb. i. 52.
[623] P. 112.
[624] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 21. Strictly it was the templum minus as
distinguished from the templum magnum, a region of the sky; Varro, _L.
L._ vii. 7; Fest. 157. 24; Serv. _in Aen._ i. 92.
[625] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86, 91. It was always rectangular, and was
usually covered with a tent; Fest. 157. 24; Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 512; iv.
200; Nissen, _Templum_, 162 ff.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_,
455; in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2337 ff.; Valeton, in _Mnemos._
xx (1892). 338-90; xxi. 62-91, 397-440; xxiii. 15-79; xxv. 93-144,
361-385; xxvi. 1-93; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i.
554 f.
[626] When wars were waged in the immediate vicinity of Rome the augurs
could easily accompany the commander; cf. Livy iv. 18. 6; Cic. _Leg._
ii. 8. 21. But they certainly did not often go as far as Samnium; cf.
Livy viii. 23. 16; ix. 38. 14. Though the augurs remained at Rome, the
auspices followed the commander into the field; Livy xxii. 1. 6; p. 105,
n. 1.
[627] Livy iii. 20. 6; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 201.
[628] Gell. xiii. 14. 1; Varro, _L. L._ v. 143; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult.
d. Römer_, 456, n. 1.
[629] Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2339.
[630] Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 197; Varro, _L. L._ vi. 53; Wissowa, _Relig. u.
Kult. d. Römer_, 456; also his article in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
ii. 2339.
[631] Varro, _L. L._ v. 143; Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 21; _CIL._ vi. 1233;
Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 456 and notes.
[632] Varro, _L. L._ v. 33.
[633] The elder Tiberius Gracchus vitiated the election of his successors
in the consulship by forgetting to renew the auspices, when, after
entering the city to preside over the senate, he recrossed the pomerium
to hold the election in the Campus; Cic. _N. D._ ii. 4. 11; _Div._ i. 17.
33; cf. Tac. _Ann._ iii. 19.
[634] Fest. 250. 12; 157. 29; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i, 97, n. 1;
Valeton, in _Mnemos._ xviii (1890). 209 f. The reason for the auspication
on such occasions is differently stated by the authorities, but the
interpretation given by Jordan-Hülsen, _Top. d. Stadt Rom_, 1. iii. 472
f., that this brook marked the boundary of the city auspices, seems
preferable.
[635] Avispex, auspex, bird-seer; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ ii. 2580.
[636] Livy i. 7. 1.
[637] Fest. ep. 64; Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 71: “Haec certe quibus utimur,
sive tripudio sive de caelo” (the auspicia tripudio being used in the
military sphere, leaving only the auspicia de caelo for the city); cf. i.
16. 28; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 79, n. 1; Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_,
203; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2333.
[638] Dio Cass, xxxviii. 13. 3. Lightning from left to right especially
in a clear sky was favorable; Dion. Hal. ii. 5. 2; Verg. _Aen._ ii.
692; vii. 141; ix. 628 (on the last, see Servius). A thunderclap was
unfavorable to one entering office; xxiii. 31. 13; Plut. _Marcell._ 12;
cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 80, n. 2.
[639] Tac. _Hist._ i. 18.
[640] Cic. _Div._ ii. 18. 42.
[641] Cic. _Div._ ii. 35. 74; 18. 43; Dio Cass, xxxviii. 13. 3 f.
[642] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86: “Ubi noctu in
templum censor auspicaverit atque de caelo nuntium erit, praeconi sic
imperato ut viros vocet.”
[643] Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2585. The auguraculum
was doubtless used only by the augurs, not as Mommsen (_Röm. Staatsr._ i.
103, n. 2) supposes, by the magistrates.
[644] Livy viii. 14. 12; Cic. _Vatin._ 10. 24: “In rostris, in illo
inquam augurato templo ac loco.”
[645] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91; Val. Max. iv. 5. 3; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 11;
Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2585 f.
[646] Valeton, in _Mnemos._ xxiii (1895). 28 ff.
[647] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86; Livy viii. 23. 15;
x. 40. 2.
[648] The auspices had to be taken on the day the business was to be
transacted, counting the day from midnight to midnight; Gell. iii. 2. 10;
Consorinus xxiii. 4.
[649] Verrius, in Fest. 347. 17; Serv. _in Aen._ ix. 4; Statius, _Theb._
iii. 459. Romulus, however, stood upright; Dion. Hall. ii. 5. 1.
[650] P. 105.
[651] Silence was essential to perfect auspices; Fest. 348. 29; ep. 64;
Livy viii. 23. 15; ix. 38. 14; x. 40. 2; Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 57. 223.
[652] Serv. _in Aen._ iii. 89; Livy i. 18. 9.
[653] Cf. Livy xli. 18. 14.
[654] Cf. Livy ix. 38. 15; 39. 1.
[655] Cf. p. 115, 118, n. 2.
[656] Livy v. 52. 15; ix. 38. 15 f.; 39. 1; Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 3; Cic.
_Att._ ii. 7. 2; 12. 1; viii. 3. 3. Hoffmann, _Patric. u. pleb. Curien_,
29 ff., is of the opinion that the assembly which passed the lex curiata
was not auspicated, his idea being that the lex curiata itself conferred
the ius auspiciorum publicorum. There is no ground, however, for either
of these suppositions.
[657] Cic. _N. D._ ii. 4. 11; Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 2. On the censorial
auspication of the comitia centuriata for the lustrum, see Varro, _L.
L._ vi. 86. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 98, n. 6, supposes this to be
the auspication of the censor’s entrance into office (cf. 81, n. 1),
believing that assemblies which did not vote were unauspicated. But cf.
p. 111, n. 1 below.
[658] Dio Cass. liv. 24. 1; Cic. _Fam._ vii. 30. 1; cf. Varro, _R. R._
iii. 2. 1.
[659] Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 3; 49. 5.
[660] This is shown by the _Commentarium Anquisitionis_ of M. Sergius, a
quaestor, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91.
[661] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86 f.: “Ubi noctu
in templum censor auspicaverit atque de caelo nuntium erit ... tum
conventionem habet qui lustrum conditurus est.” Mommsen’s interpretation
(_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 81, n. 2, 98, n. 6) which applies these auspices to
the censor’s entrance upon his office seems forced. It is not necessary,
however, to suppose that this magistrate had to renew the auspices for
every day of the census-taking; Mommsen, ibid. i. 113, n. 4.
[662] The current view (cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 718; Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ i. 98; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 380; Liebenam, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1150) that no contio was auspicated
appears therefore to require modification.
[663] Plut. _Pomp._ 52; _Cato Min._ 42.
[664] Ael. Don. in Terent. _Ad._ iv. 2. 8: “Qui malam rem nuntiat,
obnuntiat, qui bonam, adnuntiat: nam proprie obnuntiare dicuntur augures,
qui aliquid mali ominis scaevumque viderint.” In this late author (350
A.D.) obnuntiatio is ascribed to the augurs. When Cicero says to Antony
(_Phil._ ii. 33. 83) “Augur auguri, consul consuli obnuntiasti,” he does
it only to find fault with the proceeding; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._
i. 111, n. 2. These are the only instances known to us in which the
distinction is not observed; Mommsen, ibid.; Wissowa, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ ii. 2335; Valeton, in _Mnemos._ xix (1891). 75 ff., 229
ff.; Bouché-Leclerq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 582.
[665] Cato, _De sacr. comm._ in Fest. 234. 33: “Quod ego non sensi,
nullum mihi vitium facit;” Pliny, _N. H._ xxviii. 2. 17; Serv. _in Aen._
xii. 259: “In oblativis auguriis in potestate videntis est, utrum id
ad se pertinere velit, an refutet et abominetur;” cf. Cic. _Div._ ii.
36. 77; Wissowa, ibid. ii. 2335. An example of an evil omen privately
reported is given by App. _B. C._ i. 30.
[666] Livy ix. 38. 16 with ch. 39. 1.
[667] Fest. 234. 27.
[668] P. 104; Cato, _De re mil._ in Fest. 214-7: “Magistratus nihil
audent imperare, ne quid consul auspici peremat.”
[669] P. 114.
[670] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 32. 81: “Nos (augures) nuntiationem solum
habemus, consules et reliqui magistratus etiam spectionem;” Varro, _Rer.
hum._ xx, in Non. Marc. 92: “De caelo auspicari ius neminist praeter
magistratum;” Fest. 333. 9 (quoted p. 106, n. 8). Madvig, _Röm. Staat._
i. 267, supposes that the augurs had both the spectio and the nuntiatio;
but this view contradicts the clear statement of Cicero; Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ 1. 109, n. 1. The fact is, as has been stated (p. 106), they
had the spectio for their own functions only, and as assistants of the
magistrates simply the nuntiatio.
[671] The formula used is “in auspicio esse;” Cic. _Att._ ii. 12. 1.
[672] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 8. 20 f.; iii. 4. 11; 19. 43; _N. D._ ii. 3. 8;
_Div._ ii. 33. 71; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 339.
[673] P. 106 f.
[674] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 83; _Div._ i. 40. 89: “Privati eodem
sacerdotio praediti rem publicam religionum auctoritate rexerunt,” an
exaggeration; _Leg._ ii. 12. 31; Livy i. 36. 6. In this capacity the
augur did not look for omens with a view to reporting them, but merely
announced those which came unexpectedly.
[675] _Phil._ ii. 33. 82 f.
[676] P. 115.
[677] Three were present at curiate assemblies; Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2;
cf. ii. 7. 2.
[678] In this case the augur not only assisted with his special
knowledge, but also acted as crier; Varro, _L. L._ vi. 95.
[679] Varro, _R. R._ iii. 2. 2; 7. 1.
[680] _Leg._ ii. 12. 31.
[681] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 32. 81.
[682] P. 104, 112.
[683] Gell. xiii. 15. 1; cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 79.
[684] Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 13: “Lurco tribunus pl. solutus est et Aelia et
Fufia, ut legem de ambitu ferret;” _Sest._ 61. 129: “Decretum in curia
... ne quis de caelo servaret, ne quis moram ullam adferret” (that no one
should watch the heavens or interpose any delay in the proceedings for
the recall of Cicero). Both measures here referred to were so popular
and the magistrates were so nearly unanimous in their support that the
senate felt it could in these cases forestall the opposition of one or
two opponents.
[685] In the famous case of Bibulus against Caesar, 59; Suet. _Caes._ 20;
cf. Dio Cass. xxxviii. 4. 2 f.
[686] Proved by the fact that the watching of the sky by Bibulus should
have annulled the arrogation of Clodius (Cic. _Dom._ 15. 39 f.; _Har.
Resp._ 23. 48; _Att._ ii. 12. 2; 16. 2; _Prov. Cons._ 19. 45; Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 113, n. 2), which was brought about by an act of the
curiae under the presidency of the supreme pontiff. Any one competent to
observe the heavens necessarily had the obnuntiatio.
[687] Cic. _Sest._ 36. 78. Probably obnuntiatio against tribunes is
referred to by Cic. _Phil._ v. 3. 7 f. and by Ascon. 68 (the last is the
abolition of the Livian laws of 91), but the obnuntiating magistrate is
not known. In Cic. _Vatin._ 7. 17 (“Num quem post urbem conditam scias
tribunum pl. egisse cum plebe, cum constaret servatum esse de caelo”) the
principle is laid down that any one who has the right to obnuntiate may
use this power against a tribune. The validity of the tribunician law
for the interdiction of Cicero from fire and water was maintained on the
ground that no one was then watching the sky; Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 19. 45.
[688] Cic. _Sest._ 37. 79; cf. 38. 83; _Phil._ ii. 38. 99; _Att._ iv. 3.
3 f.; 17. 4; _Q. Fr._ iii. 3. 2 (cf. Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii.
6; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 113, n. 3); Dio Cass, xxxix. 39; Plut.
_Crass._ 16; App. _B. C._ ii. 18. 66 (cf. Cic. _Div._ i. 16. 29); iii. 7.
25.
[689] Cic. _Att._ iv. 9. 1.
[690] Cic. _Vatin._ 7. 16.
[691] Cic. _Dom._ 15. 39: “(Augures) negant fas esse agi cum populo, cum
de caelo servatum sit.”
[692] Cic. _Att._ iv. 3. 3.
[693] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 32. 81.
[694] Cic. _Att._ iv. 3. 4. In like manner Bibulus, after obnuntiating
in vain against Caesar’s agrarian law (p. 439), determined to remain at
home and continually to watch the sky for the remainder of the year. This
procedure invalidated all acts passed during that time by the assembly;
Cic. _Dom._ 15. 39 f.; _Har. Resp._ 23. 48; _Prov. Cons._ 19. 45.
[695] This procedure too was followed by Bibulus; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 6.
1; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 82, n. 3.
[696] That they were two separate enactments, and not one complex statute
by joint authors, is clearly indicated by Cic. _Har. Resp._ 27. 58:
“Sustulit duas leges Aeliam et Fufiam;” _Sest._ 15. 33. Generally they
are spoken of as separate laws, though Cicero occasionally, as _Vatin._
5. 7, groups them in one. That they were plebiscites is held probable by
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 111, n. 4.
[697] When Cicero, _Vatin._ 9. 23, states that these laws survived the
ferocity of the Gracchi, the audacity of Saturninus, etc., he places
their origin in the times before the Gracchi; and when he speaks of their
abolition, 58, he tells us that they had been in force about a hundred
years (_Pis._ 5. 10).
[698] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13.
[699] _Vatin._ 7. 18.
[700] Ibid. 9. 13.
[701] _Red. in Sen._ 5. 11; cf. _Har. Resp._ 27. 58; _Pis._ 4. 9:
“Propugnacula murique tranquillitatis atque otii.” With other provisions
of these statutes (cf. Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 13; Schol. Bob. 319 f.) the
present discussion is not concerned. See further on these laws, p. 358 f.
below.
[702] _Kleine Schriften_, i. 274 ff., 341; _Röm. Alt._ ii. 315, 477 f.
[703] _Att._ iv. 3. 4; 16. 5; _Phil._ ii. 32. 81.
[704] Cic. _Vatin._ 6. 15; 7. 18.
[705] Cic. _Red. in Sen._ 5. 11: “Legem tribunus pl. tulit, ne auspiciis
obtemperaretur, ne obnuntiare concilio aut comitiis, ne intercedere
liceret, ut lex Aelia et Fufia ne valeret;” _Har. Resp._ 27. 58; _Sest._
15. 33; _Prov. Cons._ 19. 46; _Pis._ 4. 9; 5. 11; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13.
5 f.; 14. 2; Ascon. 9; Schol. Bob. 319 f.
[706] Cic. _Att._ iv. 3. 4; 16. 5; _Phil._ ii. 32. 81; cf. Fröhlich, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 84; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii.
204 f.
[707] VIII. 23. 13 ff.
[708] Polyb. vi. 56. 6 ff.
[709] The former view was taken by Appius Claudius Pulcher, consul in 54
and author of a work _De disciplina augurali_ (Fest. 298. 26), and the
latter by C. Claudius Marcellus, consul in 50, and by Cicero—all three
being public augurs; Cic. _Div._ i. 47. 105; ii. 18. 42; 33. 70; 35. 75;
Leg. ii. 13. 32 f.; _N. D._ i. 42. 118; in general _Div._ ii. At that
time auspices were a mere pretence; the chicken omens were forced, and
the celestial signs were not seen; Cic. _Div._ ii. 33 f., 71 f.; Dion.
Hal. ii. 6. On the decline of augury and the auspices, see Wissowa, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2315, 2333.
[710] Probably the jurist of that name who lived under Hadrian, and who
is mentioned by Paulus, in _Dig._ v. 4. 3.
[711] XV. 27. 4: “Is qui non universum populum, sed partem aliquam adesse
iubet, non comitia, sed concilium edicere debet.”
[712] For the purpose of the present discussion the plebeian
assembly—that is, the assembly which convened under the tribunes of the
plebs and which issued plebiscita—is assumed to be a gathering of only a
part of the people. If it admitted patricians (p. 300), and if therefore
there was no assembly comprised exclusively of plebeians, no argument
would be needed to prove the error of the conventional distinction
between comitia and concilium.
[713] In Livy iii. 16. 6, this meeting is called a concilium.
[714] P. 341.
[715] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 170, n. 8; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 149, n. 3.
[716] _Mil._ 3. 7; cf. p. 122, n. 3 below.
[717] “Cum se in mediam contionem intulissent, abstinere suetus ante
talibus conciliis.”
[718] His last citation on this point, Livy v. 47. 7 (“Vocatis ad
concilium militibus”) has reference to the soldiers only—to a part of the
people—and is therefore altogether unlike the others. For an explanation
of it, see p. 135 f.
[719] A closely related question is whether concilium is ever restricted
to the deliberative stage of a session preliminary to the division
into voting units, with comitia limited in a corresponding manner to
the final, voting stage of the session. A few passages, as examples
(2) and (4), might be explained by such a conjecture, but others, as
Livy iii. 13. 9 (“Virginio comitia habente conlegae appellati dimisere
concilium”) prove the supposition impossible. Concilium denotes the
assembly in its final as well as in its initial stage, voting as well as
deliberating, whereas in ordinary political language contio is used to
denote the merely listening or witnessing assembly, whether organized or
unorganized, whether called to prepare the citizens for voting or for any
other purpose.
[720] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 170, n. 8.
[721] Ibid. i. 195 f. It is true that the plebeian assembly came to be
subject to the obnuntiatio (p. 117), but it would be absurd on this
ground to suppose that Livy’s statement refers especially to gatherings
of the kind.
[722] This statement admits that concilium here designates an assembly of
the whole people; but Mommsen does not tell us why the word applies with
greater propriety to the “patricio-plebeian” tribal assembly than to the
centuriate assembly. For the true reason, see p. 137, n. 5.
[723] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 149, n. 3.
[724] Undoubtedly the Caesar who was consul in 64 B.C.; Teuffel and
Schwabe, _Rom. Lit._ i. 348. § 3; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 120,
n. 6.
[725] “P. Lucullus et L. Annius, tribuni plebis, resistentibus collegis
continuare magistratum nitebantur, quae dissensio totius anni comitia
impediebat.”
[726] _De com. trib. et conc. pl. discr._ (1875); Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ iii. 149, n. 1; Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
iv. 802. The correctness of my results is acknowledged in the _Thesaurus
linguae latinae_, iv. 44 ff.
[727] “Tribunicii candidati compromiserunt HS quingenis in singulos apud
M. Catonem depositis petere eius arbitratu, ut, qui contra fecisset,
ab eo condemnaretur. Quae quidem comitia si gratuita fuerint, ut
putantur, plus unus Cato potuerit quam omnes leges omnesque iudices.” The
translation given above is Shuckburgh’s.
[728] “Permagni nostra interest te, si comitiis non potueris, at,
declarato illo, esse Romae.”
[729] _Cf._ Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 482.
[730] “Venio ad comitia, sive magistratuum placet sive legum. Leges
videmus saepe ferri multas. Omitto eas, quae feruntur ita, vix ut quini,
et ii ex aliena tribu, qui suffragium ferant, reperiantur. De me, quem
tyrannum atque ereptorem libertatis esse dicebat illa ruina rei publicae,
dicit se legem tulisse. Quis est, qui se, cum contra me ferebatur,
inisse suffragium confiteatur? cum autem de me eodem ex senatus consulto
comitiis centuriatis ferebatur, quis est, qui non profiteatur se adfuisse
et suffragium de salute mea tulisse? Utra igitur causa popularis debet
videri, in qua omnes honestates civitatis, omnes aetates, omnes ordines
una mente consentiunt, an in qua furiae concitatae tamquam ad funus rei
publicae convolant?”
[731] “Ferri de singulis nisi centuriatis comitiis noluerunt. Descriptus
enim populus censu, ordinibus, aetatibus plus adhibet ad suffragium
consilii quam fuse in tribus convocatus. Quo verius in causa nostra vir
magni ingenii summaque prudentia, L. Cotta, dicebat nihil omnino actum
esse de nobis; praeter enim quam quod comitia ilia essent armis gesta
servilibus, praeterea neque tributa capitis comitia rata esse posse neque
ulla privilegii: quocirca nihil nobis opus esse lege, de quibus nihil
omnino actum esset legibus. Sed visum est et vobis et clarissimis viris
melius, de quo servi et latrones scivisse se aliquid dicerent, de hoc
eodem cunctam Italiam quid sentiret, ostendere.”
[732] _Röm. Forsch._ i. 161, n. 53.
[733] See list of citations for electoral assemblies, p. 133.
[734] “Tribus locis significari maxime populi Romani iudicium ac voluntas
potest, contione, comitiis, ludorum gladiatorumque consessu.”
[735] “Qui (optimates) non populi concessu, sed suis comitiis hoc sibi
nomen adrogaverunt.”
[736] “Iubet enim tribunum plebis, qui eam legem tulerit, creare
decemviros per tribus septemdecim, ut, quern novem tribus fecerint,
is decemvir sit. Hic quaero, quam ob causam initium rerum ac legum
suarum hinc duxerit, ut populus Romanus suffragio privaretur.... Etenim
cum omnes potestates, imperia, curationes ab universo populo Romano
proficisci convenit, tum eas profecto maxime, quae constituuntur ad
populi fructum aliquem et commodum, in quo et universi deligant, quem
populo Romano maxime consulturum putent, et unus quisque studio et
suffragio suo viam sibi ad beneficium impetrandum munire possit. Hoc
tribuno plebis potissimum venit in mentem, populum Romanum universum
privare suffragiis, paucas tribus non certa condicione iuris, sed sortis
beneficio fortuito ad usurpandam libertatem vocare;” cf. _Imp. Pomp._ 15.
44; 22. 64.
[737] _Sest._ 51. 109.
[738] P. 301 f.
[739] “Mihi quidem eae verae videntur opiniones, quae honestae, quae
laudabiles, quae gloriosae, quae in senatu, quae ad populum, quae in omni
coetu concilioque profitendae sint;” cf. _Leg._ iii. 19. 44, quoted p.
127.
[740] The writers not included in this discussion, as Nepos and the
poets, contain nothing at variance with the results here reached.
Gudeman’s article on Concilium in the _Thes. ling. lat._ iv. 44-8, in
most respects excellent, still retains the groundless distinction between
republican and imperial usage.
[741] It will suffice here to mention the elder Cato; Livy xxxix. 40. 6:
“Si ius consuleres, peritissumus;” Cic. _Senec._ 11. 38: “Ius augurium,
pontificium, civile tracto.” On the subject in general, see Pais, _Stor.
d. Rom._ I. i. 68 and notes.
[742] For citations of other authors, see Gudeman, in _Thes. ling. lat._
iv. 45.
[743] All three passages are quoted, p. 130 f.
[744] The classification of comitial functions into elective,
legislative, and judicial follows Cicero, _Div._ ii. 35. 74: “Ut
comitiorum vel in iudiciis populi vel in iure legum vel in creandis
magistratibus.” In this volume, accordingly, “legislative” refers not
merely to law-making in the narrower sense, but also to the passing of
resolutions on all affairs, domestic and foreign, including necessarily
the lex de bello indicendo.
[745] For separate lists of the elective and the legislative and judicial
comitia, see VI (below), where will be found sufficient illustrations of
(_b_).
[746] Only one instance of concilium as an elective body has been
found; _Lex Iulia Municipalis_, in _CIL._ i. 206. 132: the election of
magistrates “comitieis conciliove.” The explanation is that the usage of
some of the Italian municipia differed from the Roman, and the author of
the law had to adapt his language to local custom. With this exception
the inscriptions are in line with the literature.
[747] P. 124.
[748] Discussed on p. 123 f.
[749] P. 132.
[750] Ibid.
[751] Ibid.
[752] Fest. ep. 38: “Concilium dicitur a concalando, id est vocando.”
It is accepted by Curtius, _Griech. Etym._ 139; Vaniček, _Griech.-lat.
etym. Wörterb._ 143; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 136. But Corssen,
_Beitr. z. ital. Sprachk._ 41 f., rejects this etymology on the ground
that it does not harmonize with all the meanings of the word and of its
derivative “conciliare”; also Gudeman, in _Thes. ling. lat._ iv. 44.
Corssen, analyzing it into con-cil-iu-m, and connecting -cil- with a root
kal-, “to cover,” supposes the original meaning to be simply “a joining
together,” “a union,”—giving that signification which he considers
primary. It is equally reasonable, however, to assume the development
to be (1) “a calling together,” (2) “a meeting for consultation,” (3)
“a natural union of individuals of any kind.” In the third sense it is
applied perhaps figuratively to inanimate things, especially the union of
atoms to form objects, by Lucretius i. 183, 484, 772, 1082; ii. 120; iii.
805; cf. Ovid, _Met._ i. 710.
[753] The meaning consultation, deliberation, clearly appears in Plaut.
_Mil._ 597 ff.:
“Sinite me priu’ perspectare, ne uspiam insidiae sient
Concilium quod habere volumus. Nam opus est nunc tuto loco
Unde inimicus ne quis nostri spolia capiat consili.
Nam bene consultum inconsultumst, si id inimicis usuist,
Neque potest quin, si id inimicis usuist, opsit tibi;
Nam bene (consultum) consilium surrupitur saepissume.”
Also in 249, 1013: “Socium tuorum conciliorum et participem consiliorum”;
Cic. _Rep._ 17. 28: “Doctissimorum hominum in concilio”; Caes. _B. C._ i.
19; Nep. _Epam._ 3. 5; Verg. _Aen._ ii. 89 (or consiliis); iii. 679; v.
75; xi. 234; Livy 1. 21. 3; see also II (_a_), p. 132, and Forcellini,
_Lat. Lex._ ii. 347. It is never a chance crowd; _Diff._ ed. Beck, p.
47. 43: “Concilium est convocata multitudo, conventus ex diversis locis
populum in unum contrahit, coetus fortuitu congregatur.” The ancients
understood this to be the meaning of the word; Varro _L. L._ vi. 43:
“A cogitatione concilium, inde consilium,” an unsuccessful though
instructive guess; Fest. ep. 38: “Concilium dicitur a populo consensu;”
Isid. _Etym._ vi. 16. 12: “Concilium a communi intentione ductum, quasi
communicilium.” This interpretation is supported by several glosses;
φιλοποιεία (_Corp. Gloss. Lat._ ii. 471. 49), συμβούλιον (ibid. ii. 107.
5), coenobulium, caenobulium (ibid. iv. 321. 27). Lastly our derivative
“council” points in the same direction. The meaning “deliberative
assembly” has been accepted by Gudeman, in _Thes. ling. lat._ iv. 46, who
has added citations from the whole range of Latin literature.
[754] Lodge, _Lex. Plaut._ i. 288; Gudeman, _Thes. ling. lat._ iv. 45.
[755] Cf. Gudeman, ibid. iv. 48.
[756] Cf. n. 1 and p. 132, II (_a_).
[757] P. 143.
[758] P. 132.
[759] The notion sometimes expressed that the word applies more
appropriately to a body of representatives of the component states of
a league is without foundation, though it is true that some foreign
concilia are of this character.
[760] P. 133.
[761] Ibid.
[762] P. 134.
[763] Thus is explained a phenomenon for which Mommsen could find no
adequate reason—that the so-called “patricio-plebeian” tribal assembly
was more apt to be called concilium than were the comitia centuriata. The
deliberative feature of the concilium also explains the close approach of
the word to contio—another fact which Mommsen knew but did not understand.
[764] Cf. p. 131. Notwithstanding all the confidence reposed by the
moderns in this utterance of Laelius, ‘debet’ suggests that he is
proposing an ideal distinction rather than stating an actual usage.
[765] P. 286, 292, 301 f.
[766] Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 51; ii. 683; Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. etym.
Wörterb._ 184; Walde, _Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 140; cf. _SC de Bacch._ in
_CIL._ i. 196. 23: “In conventionid”; Fest. ep. 113: “In conventione
in contio”; _Commentaria Consularia_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88; _Corp.
Gloss. Lat._ v. 280. 13; vi. 270, s. v.
[767] _Sat._ i. 16. 29: “Contra Iulius Caesar XVI auspiciorum libro
negat nundinis contionem advocari posse, id est cum populo agi, ideoque
nundinis Romanorum haberi comitia non posse;” cf. p. 125 f.
[768] _Att._ iv. 3. 4: “Contio biduo nulla.”
[769] Cf. Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 13: “Nundinis urbem revisitabant et
ideo comitia nundinis habere non licebat, ne plebs avocaretur;” Fest.
173. 30-3.
[770] Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 1; _Lex Gen._ 81, in _CIL._ ii. Supplb. 5439:
“In contione palam luci nundinis.” Another illustration is the statement
of Gellius, xv. 27. 3, that wills were made in comitia calata, in a
contio of the people. Mommsen’s assumption (_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 199
and n. 3) that no contio was held on a market day as a rule, to which
there were exceptions, is altogether unsatisfactory. The passages cited
refer to a law, not to a mere custom to be observed or not at the will
of the magistrate. The contio which met on a market day must have been
essentially different in nature from the contio which was forbidden for
market days; cf. also Varro, _L. L._ vi. 93; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 11.
[771] The calata comitia curiata is termed contio by Gell. xv. 27. 3:
“Quod calatis comitiis in populi contione fieret.” Cicero, _Rab. Perd._
4. 11 (cf. 5. 15) speaks of the witnessing comitia centuriata as contio,
and the lustral centuriate assembly was similarly termed; _Censoriae
Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 87: “Conventionem habet qui lustrum
conditurus est.” A widespread idea (held by Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._
i. 379; Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1149; Soltau,
_Altröm. Volksversamml._ 37, and others) that all contiones were
unorganized is therefore wrong.
[772] Fest. ep. 38.
[773] Cic. _Vatin._ i. 3; _Att._ xiv. 11. 1; 20. 3; xv. 2. 3; _Fam._ ix.
14. 7; x. 33. 2; Livy xxiv. 22. 1; Gell. xviii. 7. 6 f.; _Gloss. Corp.
Lat._ ii. 114. 25; 269. 27; 575. 8.
[774] P. 150.
[775] Examples of military contiones are Caes. _B. G._ v. 48; vii. 52 f.;
Livy i. 16. 1; ii. 59. 4 ff.; vii. 36. 9; viii. 7. 14; 31 f.; xxvi. 48.
13; xxx. 17. 9; xli. 10. 6; see also p. 202 f.
[776] Dion. Hal. iv. 37; v. 11. 2; Plut. _Popl._ 3; the candidate, too,
for the regal office; Livy i. 35. 2.
[777] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 4. 10: “Cum populo ... agendi ius esto consuli,
praetori, magistro populi equitumque eique, quem patres prodent consulum
rogandorum ergo; tribunisque, quos sibi plebes creassit ... ad plebem,
quod oesus erit, ferunto;” Varro, _L. L._ vi. 93: “Censor, consul,
dictator, interrex potest (exercitum urbanum vocare).”
[778] Schol. Bob. 330; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ I. p. xix. This
passage proves that a quaestor could call a contio in his own right; and
the same holds probable for the aediles.
[779] It is necessary to include them in the general statement of
Messala, in Gell. xiii. 16 (17). 1, that the lower magistrates had the
right; cf. the note above.
[780] Fest. ep. 38: “Contio significat conventum, non tamen alium, quam
eum, qui a magistratu vel a sacerdote publico per praeconem convocatur.”
The sacerdos is the rex sacrorum as well as the supreme pontiff. It was
necessary for the latter to hold judicial contiones; p. 259, 327. For the
former, see Varro, _L. L._ vi. 28; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9-12; Serv. _in
Aen._ viii. 654. Strictly the contiones of the rex sacrorum were calata
comitia curiata; p. 155.
[781] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 193. For a contio of the Xviri leg.
scrib. see Livy iii. 34. 1. On the duumviri for presiding at the election
of consuls in 43, see Dio Cass. xlvi. 45. 3. In the opinion of the Romans
the tribunus celerum, an officer under the kings, possessed the right;
Livy i. 59. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 71. 6; 75. 1; Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 646;
Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 3: “Exactis regibus lege tribunicia.” These
authors suppose that L. Junius Brutus held an assembly in the capacity of
tribunus celerum, whereas Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 25. 46, speaks of him as a
private citizen.
[782] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 193. But the promagistrate had a right
to attend and to address a contio called for him outside the walls by a
competent person; cf. Vell. i. 10. 4; p. 426 below.
[783] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 90.
[784] Livy xliii. 16. 5.
[785] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 93.
[786] For the quaestor, see _Com. Anq._ in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91 f. For
the curule aediles, Cic. _Verr._ i. 12. 36; v. 67. 173; Livy x. 23. 11;
31. 9; 47. 4; xxxv. 10. 11; 41. 9; Val. Max. vi. 1. 7; viii. 1. damn. 7;
Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 6. 42. For the plebeian aediles, Livy x. 23. 13;
xxv. 2. 9; xxxiii. 42. 10; Gell. x. 6. 3; p. 290, 325 below; Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 196, n. 2 f.
[787] Messala, _De Auspiciis_, in Gell. xiii. 16 (15). 1.
[788] Messala, _De Auspiciis_, in Gell. xiii. 16 (15). 1.
[789] Dion. Hal. vii. 16. 4; 17. 5; 22. 2; x. 41; Cic. _Sest._ 37. 79;
Livy iii. 11. 8; xxv. 3 f.; xliii. 16. 7-9; (Aur. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65.
5; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 604, 826; p. 266 below.
[790] Cic. _Fam._ v. 2. 7: Q. Metellus Nepos forbade Cicero to
address the people in contio on the occasion of his retiring from the
consulship—a prohibition which Cicero declares was never before heard of.
For another case, see Dio Cass. xxxviii. 12. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii.
716; iii. 299 f.
[791] Lange’s supposition (_Röm. Alt._ ii. 716) that by the holding of
a contio a tribune could prevent a patrician magistrate’s convoking
comitia is not well founded. Livy, iv. 25. 1 (“Tribuni plebi adsiduiis
contionibus prohibendo consularia comitia”), does not intend to express a
constitutional principle; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 289; Liebenam,
in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1150.
[792] Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 11: “Tune, qui civibus Romanis in contione
ipsa carnificem, qui vincla adhiberi putas oportere, qui in Campo Martio
comitiis centuriatis auspicato in loco crucem ad civium supplicium defigi
et constitui iubes, an ego, qui funestari contionem contagione carnificis
veto ... qui castam contionem, sanctum Campum ... defendo servari
oportere;” cf. 5. 15.
[793] Tac. _Ann._ ii. 32.
[794] Fest. 241. 29; Livy xxii. 57. 3; Suet. _Dom._ 8; Dio Cass. lxxix.
9. 3 f.; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 56, n. 4.
[795] Cf. Livy xli. 15. 10; _Lex Gen._ 81, in _CIL._ ii. Supplb. 5439.
[796] Livy iii. 66. 2; v. 11. 15; 12. 1; xxxviii. 52. 4; 53. 6. On the
judicial contio, see p. 259.
[797] Livy xliii. 16. 5.
[798] XIII. 16. 13.
[799] Cic. _Att._ ii. 21. 5; _Verr._ i. 15. 44; _Sest._ 12. 29; _Rep._
i. 4. 7; Nep. _Tim._ iv. 3; _Them._ i. 3; Livy ii. 2. 4; 24. 4-6; 27. 2;
iii. 31. 2; 41. 5 ff.; 54. 6; 67 f.; iv. 15; xli. 10. 13.
[800] Livy x. 13, 21; (Cic.) _Herenn._ iv. 55. 68. A contio, described
by Livy vi. 39-41, was held by the tribunes Licinius and Sextius in
the ninth year of their tribunate, after the day of election for the
following year had been set. This meeting however was as much for the
consideration of the proposed laws as of their own candidacy, and hence
could not be thought of as strictly pertaining to the election. Mommsen’s
opinion (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 392, n. 1) that stories of the kind prove
nothing does not accord with his own general attitude toward the sources
for the earlier history of Rome.
[801] P. 470.
[802] Cic. _Sest._ 50. 107 f.; _Red. in Sen._ 10. 26; _Pis._ 15. 34.
[803] P. 259 f.
[804] Livy xxxix. 17. 4 f.; Plut. _Aem._ 30; Pseud. Sall. _Declam. in
Cat._ 19; cf. the _Twelve Tables_, in _Censorin._ 24. 3.
[805] Livy xlii. 33. 2.
[806] Besides the Forum or Comitium (Dion. Hal. ix. 41. 4) it sometimes
met in the Area Capitolina (Cic. Frag. A. vii. 49; Livy xxxiii. 25. 6;
xxxiv. 1. 4), or in the Circus Flaminius (Livy xxvii. 21. 1; Cic. _Att._
i. 14. 1; _Sest._ 14. 33). In general, see Liebenam, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ iv. 1151; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 380.
[807] Cic. _Flacc._ 7. 16 (contrasting the sitting contio of the Greeks);
_Brut._ 84. 289; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 5. 13; _Acad. Pr._ 47. 144; _Tusc._ iii.
20. 48; _Orat._ 63. 213. But probably the contio in the Flaminian circus
was seated; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 396, n. 3.
[808] P. 107, 110. Although the tribune of the plebs did not auspicate
their assemblies, they like other magistrates occupied a templum during
the meeting; Livy ii. 56. 10.
[809] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro _L. L._ vi. 86. For the summons
by the consul, see the _Commentaria Consularia_, ibid. 88; and by the
quaestor, _Commentarium Anquisitionis_ of M. Sergius, ibid. 91.
[810] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86.
[811] _Censoriae Tabulae_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 87: “Praeco in templo
primum vocat, postea de moeris item vocat;” cf. 90 f.; Livy xxxix. 32.
11; Cic. _Fam._ vii. 30. 1.
[812] Documents, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86, 91.
[813] Livy xxv. 3. 17; Cic. _Sest._ 50. 107 f.
[814] Caesar, a praetor and friend of the presiding tribune, sat with him
on the porch of the temple of Castor and Pollux—used on that occasion as
the speaker’s platform; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 27; Cic. _Vatin._ 10. 24: “In
rostris, in illo, inquam, augurato templo ac loco ... quo auctoritatis
exquirendae causa ceteri tribuni pl. principes civitatis producere
consuerunt.”
[815] Documents, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88, 91; cf. 93.
[816] Livy xxxix. 15. 1: “Consules in rostra escenderunt, et contione
advocata cum solemne carmen precationis, quod praefari, priusquam populus
adloquantur, magistratus solent, peregisset consul, ita coepit: Nulli
umquam contioni, quirites, tam non solum apta sed etiam necessaria haec
sollemnis deorum comprecatio fuit.” The prayer was made at the opening
of elective as well as of deliberative assemblies (Cic. _Mur._ 1; Plin.
_Paneg._ 63) by plebeian as well as by patrician magistrates; (Cic.)
_Herenn._ iv. 55. 68. Every speech addressed to the people began with a
prayer; Serv. _in Aen._ xi. 301; Cic. _Caecil._ 13. 43; Gell. xiii. 23.
1; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 390, n. 2.
[817] P. 430, 439.
[818] Caesar first brought his agrarian bill before the senate; and
calling on the senators one after another by name to say whether
they found any fault with it, he promised to amend it or to drop it
altogether, if any clause proved unsatisfactory to any member. As the
senators would not debate the merits of the proposal, but did all they
could to delay its consideration, he offered the bill to the assembly
without their consent; and for the remainder of his consulship he brought
no more bills before the senate, but referred them directly to the
people; Dio Cass, xxxviii. 2-4; cf. p. 148.
[819] Dion. Hal. v. 11. 2; Plut. _Popl._ 3. Besides the king it was
supposed that the interrex and the tribunus celerum alone were competent;
Dion. Hal. iv. 71. 6; 75. 1. The ancient writers seem to have been
brought to this conception by a desire to contrast the despotism of the
monarchy with the liberty of the republic. But according to Livy, i. 16.
5 ff., and Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 10. 20 (cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i.
200, n. 6) Proculus Julius, a private person, made a speech in a contio
of the regal period; and in judicial assemblies speaking by private
persons was necessary; cf. Livy i. 26. For the general usage in the
primitive European assembly, see p. 169.
[820] In presenting his agrarian bill to the people Caesar first called
on his colleague, despite the fact that the latter was known to be
opposed to the measure; Dio Cass. xxxviii. 4. 1.
[821] _Commentarium Anquisitionis_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91. Clodius,
tribune of the plebs, brought forward the two consuls into the Flaminian
circus, where they gave their sanction and formal approval of all the
tribune had been saying against Cicero; Cic. _Sest._ 14. 33. On this
occasion the consul Piso condemned Cicero’s consulship for its cruelty;
Cic. _Pis._ 6. 14; _Red. in Sen._ 6. 13. In 44 Cannutius, a tribune of
the plebs, introduced into a contio the consul Mark Antony, who spoke
regarding the assassins of Caesar; Cic. _Fam._ xii. 3. 2. Earlier
instances are Livy iii. 64. 6; iv. 6. 1 f. A tribune brought the augurs
into a contio, to ask of them information concerning the auspices; Cic.
_Dom._ 15. 40.
[822] Although the senators were invited to sit on the platform (_Comm.
Anq._ in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91), speaking by them was exceptional; in
the assembly they were no more than eminent private persons; Dio Cass,
xxxviii. 4. 4; cf. ch. 5.
[823] E.g. Cic. _Att._ iv. 1. 6: “Habui contionem. Omnes magistratus
praesentes praeter unum praetorem et duos tribunos dederunt.” In a
certain contio a tribune asked Scipio Aemilianus what he thought of the
conduct of Ti. Gracchus; Val. Max. vi. 2. 3. At the suggestion of the
consul Piso, Fufius, a tribune, brought Pompey upon the platform and
asked his opinion as to the selection of jurors for a particular case;
Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 1; cf. Ascon. 50. The tribune M. Servilius invited
Cicero to speak in a contio in support of C. Cassius (Cic. _Fam._ xii.
7. 1), and it was in response to an invitation of another tribune, P.
Appuleius (_Phil._ vi. 1), that he delivered the sixth _Philippic_. Other
references to tribunician invitations are Cic. _Att._ xiv. 20. 5; Dio
Cass. xlv. 6. 3.
[824] Ascon. 38.
[825] Sall. _Iug._ 33 f.
[826] The Rhodian ambassadors were introduced by the tribune Antony to
the senate (Polyb. xxx. 4. 6), as the context (cf. § 8) indicates, not as
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 313, n. 1, supposes, to the people. There
is no question, however, as to the right of a magistrate to bring such
persons before the popular assembly.
[827] Val. Max. iii. 8. 6: “Quid feminae cum contione? Si patrius mos
sevetur, nihil.” The lex Horatia, which is alleged to have granted
the Vestal Gaia Taracia among many honors the right to give testimony
[Gell. vii (vi). 7. 1-3], and which is assigned by Cuq (_Inst. jurid. d.
Rom._ i. 255; and in Daremb. et Saglio, _Dict._ iv. 1145) to the consul
Horatius, 509, is a myth (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 608), though doubtless
in the course of the republic laws of the kind were occasionally passed,
the language of which might be quoted by the annalists (Gell. l. c.). The
rule that women were intestabiles is proved by such exceptions.
[828] XXXIV. 2. 11.
[829] Frag. 83. 8.
[830] III. 8. 6.
[831] Appian, _B. C._ iv. 32-4; see also p. 326.
[832] Livy xlv. 21. 6; 36. 1.
[833] Livy xlv. 36; cf. the statement of Dion. Hal. x. 41. 1, that on a
certain occasion the crier invited all who wished to speak. These two
passages are credible, notwithstanding the doubt expressed by Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 395, n. 2, if we regard the general invitation as a
concession on the part of the presiding magistrate rather than as a right
of the people.
[834] P. 136.
[835] Plut. _Q. R._ 63.
[836] Quint. _Inst._ iii. 11. 13: “Qui bona paterna consumpserit, ne
contionetur.”
[837] (Cic.) _Herenn_. i. 11. 20; cf. _Lex Bant._ (133-118 B.C.) in
_CIL._ i. 197. 2 f.
[838] Such a grant in Alexandria Troas, mentioned by _CIL._ iii. 392,
Mommsen (_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 201, n. 3) believes to have been in imitation
of Roman usage.
[839] Varro, _Rer. hum._ xxi, in Gell. xiii. 12. 6.
[840] Ibid.; cf. Val. Max. iii. 7. 3: “C. Curiatius tr. pl. productos
in contionem consules compellebat ut de frumento emendo referrent.”
Mommsen’s interpretation (_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 313, n. 2), that the
tribunes could not summon the consuls but could compel them to speak
when present, is not altogether satisfactory. The comment of Gellius (§
7 f.: “Huius ego iuris, quod M. Varro tradit, Labeonem arbitror vana
tunc fiducia, cum privatus esset, vocatum a tribunis non isse. Quae,
malum, autem ratio fuit vocantibus nolle obsequi, quos confiteare ius
habere prendendi? Nam qui iure prendi potest, et in vincula duci potest”)
supports the view given above in the text. A magistracy might afford
some degree of protection, but on the principle enunciated by Gellius
the tribune, who had the power to arrest a consul, was in a position
practically to compel him to appear at a public meeting. As further
examples of the president’s power to force speaking, Cato, a tribune of
the plebs, compelled the keepers of the Sibylline books to come before
the people in contio and declare the prophecy; Dio Cass. xxxix. 15. 4;
cf. also Cic. _Vatin._ 10. 24; _Att._ ii. 24; Plut. _Cic._ 9; Dio Cass.
xxxvi. 44. 1.
[841] P. 146.
[842] P. 145, n. 3.
[843] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 2-5.
[844] Cic. _Att._ ii. 24. 3: “Caesar, is qui olim praetor cum esset, Q.
Catulum ex inferiore loco iusserat dicere, Vettium in rostra produxit;”
_Vatin._ 10. 24: “Cum L. Vettium ... in contionem produxeris, indicem
in rostris, in illo, inquam, augurato templo ac loco collocaris, quo
auctoritatis exquirendae causa ceteri tribuni pl. principes civitatis
producere consuerunt.”
[845] Dio Cass. xxxix. 34. 2; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 43.
[846] Or as Foster translates, “about the distressing condition of the
times.”
[847] Dio Cass. xxxix. 34; Plut. ibid.
[848] Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 24. 69.
[849] Livy x. 8. 12.
[850] Ibid. xxxiv. 4. 20.
[851] Dio Cass. xxxix. 35. 1.
[852] Ibid.
[853] Livy ii. 56. 9: “Quirites, ... crastino die adeste.”
[854] _Commentaria Consularia_, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88: “Impero qua
convenit ad comitia centuriata.”
[855] Livy ii. 56. 12: “Si vobis videtur, discedite, quirites.”
[856] Preparatory to voting, the plebeian tribune Laetorius ordered the
removal of all, including patricians, who were not to vote; Livy ii. 56.
10: “Submoveri Laetorius iubet praeterquam qui suffragium ineant.”
[857] In the case referred to in the note above, some of the young
patricians stood their ground and refused to give way before the viator;
§ 11; cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 48. Again on other occasions the patricians when
ordered refused to withdraw before the voting (cf. Livy iii. 11. 4),
from which we may infer that the right to attend the comitia presided
over by tribunes was claimed by the patricians but denied them by the
tribunes. The word used in these passages to designate the removal of the
unqualified is “submovere.” In Livy xxv. 3. 16 (cf. Cic. _Flacc._ 7. 15)
“tribuni populum summoverunt” has reference to the adjournment of the
people to their voting divisions, and probably also to the exclusion of
those who had no right to vote; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 390, n.
1.
[858] Acclamation was retained as a regular form of voting by the army;
p. 202; cf. Bernhöft, _Röm. Königsz._ 153.
[859] Philochorus, 79 b, in Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ i. 396. The
condemnation of the generals who fought at Arginusae was voted in the
same way; Xen. _Hell._ i. 7. 9.
[860] Cf. Schröder, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. 16.
[861] It is interesting in this connection that in the Homeric assembly
the heralds (κήρυκες), who were a sacerdotal class, kept order; cf.
_Il._ ii. 97 f. In the German assembly the priests with coercive power
maintained quiet; Tac. _Germ._ ii. 3; Schröder, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_.
22 f. The Irish assemblies were of religious origin, and maintained some
religious features till after the introduction of Christianity; Ginnell,
_Brehon Laws_, 42, 44.
[862] They excluded on the one hand comitia for religious purposes
presided over by a political magistrate—for instance, the comitia
centuriata under the censor for the lustrum (p. 141)—and on the other the
meetings of the people under pontifical presidency for secular business,
such as an appeal to the comitia from the pontifical imposition of fines
(cf. Livy, xl. 42. 9), the meeting of the plebs under the supreme pontiff
for the election of plebeian tribunes after the fall of the decemvirate
(Cic. _Cornel._ in Ascon. 77; Livy, iii. 54. 5, 11), and the meeting of
seventeen tribes for the election of sacerdotes. In the three exceptional
instances last mentioned the comitia are tributa, which are never calata.
[863] Kindred words are calendae, Calabra, calator. As late as Plautus
(_Pseud._ 1009; _Merc._ 852; _Rud._ 335) a common use of calatores was
to designate slave messengers; cf. Fest. ep. 38; _Corp. Gloss. Lat._ ii.
95. 42: δοῦλοι δημόσιοι. This use became obsolete, but the word continued
to apply to certain assistants of the sacerdotes; Serv. _in Georg._ i.
268; _Corp. Gloss. Lat._ ii. 96. 3; iv. 214. 1; v. 275. 1; 595. 34,
63; 563. 66; _CIL._ vi. 712, 2053. 5; 2184-90, 3878; x. 1726; also the
_inscr._ recently discovered in the Forum; cf. Holzapfel, in _Jahresb.
f. Altwiss._ 1905. 263, 265 ff.; Warren, in _Am. Journ. of Philol._
xxviii (1907). 249-72. In all the known instances they were freemen,
often freedmen; Saglio, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 814. For other
citations, see Samter, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1335 f. They
correspond to the lictors of the magistrates.
[864] Varro, _L. L._ v. 13: “Nec curia Calabra sine calatione potest
aperiri.”
[865] Saglio, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 814; Humbert, ibid.
i. 1375. But the comitia curiata were convoked by lictors according to
Gell. xv. 27. 2: “Curiata (comitia) per lictorem curiatum calari, id
est convocari”; Theophilus, _Paraphr. Inst._ ii. 10. 1. Possibly the
lictor curiatius (or curiatus; _CIL._ iii. 6078) should in this case be
identified with the calator.
[866] Labeo, in Gell. xv. 27. 1 f.: “Calata comitia esse, quae pro
collegio pontificum habentur aut regis aut flaminum inaugurandorum causa;
eorum autem alia esse curiata, alia centuriata.” From this statement we
learn that the calate assemblies for inaugural purposes were organized
either in curiae or in centuries. As “comitia” connotes organization (p.
135), we may be sure that in all calata comitia the people stood in their
voting groups. On the centuriate comitia calata, see p. 156.
[867] Varro, _L. L._ v. 13; vi. 27; Fest. ep. 49; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9
f.; _Fast. Praenest. Kal. Ian._, in _CIL._ i.² p. 231; Jordan, _Top. d.
Stadt Rom_, I. ii. 51; Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 245, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._
i. 398 f.; Hülsen, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1821.
[868] Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ i. 1376.
[869] He may have appointed a priestly substitute for such functions.
[870] Livy xxii. 57. 3: “Scriba pontificis, quos nunc minores pontifices
adpellant.” That he acted in behalf of the college is proved by Varro,
_L. L._ vi. 27 (note below).
[871] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 27: “Primi dies mensium nominati Kalendae,
quod his diebus calantur eius mensis nonae a pontificibus, quintanae
an septimanae sint futurae in Capitolio in curia Calabra”; _Hemerol.
Praenest._ Ian. 1, in _CIL._ i.² p. 231: “Hae et (aliae pri) mae calendae
appellantur, quia (eorum pri) mus is dies est quos pont(i)fex minor
quo(vis anni) mense ad nonas sin(gulas currere edicit in capi)tolio in
curia cala(bra)”; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9 f.: “Pontifici minori haec
provincia delegabatur, ut novae lunae primum observaret aspectum visamque
regi sacrificulo nuntiaret. Itaque sacrificio a rege et minore pontifice
celebrato idem pontifex calata, id est vocata in Capitolium plebe iuxta
curiam Calabram ... quot numero dies a Kalendis ad Nonas superessent
pronuntiabat.” Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 654 and Plut. _Q. R._ 24 are
inexact, and still more confused is Lyd. _Mens._ iii. 7; cf. Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 39, n. 1. In the opinion of Mommsen the announcement
on the calends was not to an assembly, but was merely preparatory to the
assembly on the nones; but the words of Macrobius (vocata ... plebe)
clearly indicate a gathering of the people on that day.
[872] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 13, 28; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 12; cf. Herzog,
_Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 109 and n. 1. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 40,
n. 2, warns us against confusing “this unorganized contio” with the
comitia calata, which are always organized in curiae or in centuries.
Labeo, in Gell. xv. 27. 1, states, however, that calata comitia were
held for the inauguration of the king and priests. If for this occasion
the purely passive assembly was organized in voting divisions, there can
be no reason for doubting that it was organized also on the occasion
in question, when it met in the assembly-place of the calata comitia—a
place which could not be opened sine calatione—and its convocation was
designated by “calare” not “vocare.” It is significant that the phrase
“calata contio” is never used. Mommsen gives no authority or reason for
his assumption; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 398; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._
i. 111; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 283, 323; Wissowa, _Relig. u.
Kult. d. Römer_, 440, for the view here maintained that the assembly for
hearing the calendar was calata.
[873] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 15. 9.
[874] For the inauguration of the flamen Dialis, see Gaius i. 130; iii.
114; Ulpian, Frag. 10. 5; Livy xxvii. 8. 4; xli. 28. 7; the flamen
Martialis, Livy xxix. 38. 6; xlv. 15. 10; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 13. 11;
the flamen Quirinalis, Livy xxxvii. 47. 8; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult.
d. Römer_, 420, n. 3. The inauguration of augurs probably took place in
their own college.
[875] For the inauguration of the rex sacrorum, see Livy xxvii. 36. 5;
xl. 42. 8. Livy’s description of the inauguration of Numa (i. 18. 6-9)
probably follows the historical usage in the case of the rex sacrorum.
[876] Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 859.
[877] Aust, _Relig. d. Römer_, 130.
[878] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 307, n. 1. This is the only function
discovered for the calata comitia centuriata, mentioned by Labeo, in
Gell. xv. 27. 2. The origin of the inauguration must have preceded that
of the centuriate assembly; it must therefore have taken place for a time
in some other form of meeting. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
iii. 1331, objects to this interpretation but finds nothing better.
[879] Cic. _Brut._ 1 (of an augur); _Phil._ ii. 43. 110 (of a flamen);
_Leg._ ii. 8. 21 (of sacerdotes); Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 13. 11 (of the
flamen Martialis); Livy. i. 18. 6 (of the king).
[880] Fest. 343. 8; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 420, n. 5, 421,
n. 1.
[881] Gell. i. 12. 11, citing the lex Papia. Gellius calls this assembly
a contio, which includes the calata comitia; cf. xv. 27. 3: “Calatiis
comitiis in populi contione.”
[882] P. 161, 163, 165.
[883] P. 157 f.
[884] P. 170.
[885] Quint. _Inst._ viii. 3. 3: fragor here signifies “thunders of
applause.”
[886] Cic. _Fam._ xi. 13. 3; Livy xxviii. 26. 12; xl. 36. 4; xlii. 53. 1.
[887] P. 135.
[888] P. 74 f., 96.
[889] P. 211.
[890] On the meaning of suffragium, see the excellent article by
Rothstein, in _Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds 60stem Geburtstage_, 30-3.
[891] Gell. xv. 27. 3: “Isdem comitiis, quae calata appellari diximus,
... testamenta fieri solebant”; Gaius ii. 101: “Calatis comitiis
testamentum faciebant, quae comitia bis in anno testamentis faciendis
destinata erant”; Theophilus, _Paraphr. Inst._ ii. 10. 1.
[892] _Röm. Verf._ 242-5, with notes, following J. H. Dernburg, _Beitr.
zur Gesch. der röm. Testamente_, i. 53-78.
[893] _Paraphr. Inst._ ii. 10. 1, p. 154 ed. Ferrini: Ὁ βουλόμενος ὑπὸ
πάρτυρι διετίθετο τῷ δήμῳ.
[894] XV. 27. 3. This view is accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 398 f.;
Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 628; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 39; Mommsen,
_Röm. Forsch._ i. 126, 239, 270; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 221; Kübler, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1333; Mispoulet, _Inst. polit. Rom._
i. 202 f.
[895] P. 161.
[896] II. 101.
[897] P. 143.
[898] P. 139.
[899] Schrader, _Reallex._ 221, 864; Leist, _Alt-arisch. Jus Gent._ 419;
_Alt-arisch. Jus Civ._ ii. 171; Fustel de Coulanges, _Ancient City_, 104.
[900] Tac. _Germ._ 20. 5. The oldest Frankish laws make no mention of
testaments; Schrader, ibid. 865.
[901] Demosth. xx. 102; Plut. _Sol._ 21; Telfy, in _CJA._ 1399-1412, with
comment, p. 613 ff.
[902] Plut. _Agis_, 5; cf. Thumser, _Griech. Staatsalt._ 259.
[903] Bücheler und Zitelmann, _Recht von Gortyn_, 134.
[904] Aristot. _Polit._ 1309, a 24; cf. Thalheim, _Griech. Rechtsalt._ 61.
[905] Fustel de Coulanges, _Anc. City_, 105; Leist, _Alt-arisch. Jus
Civ._ ii. 171.
[906] Schrader, _Sprachv. und Urgesch._ ii.³ (1907). 374 f.
[907] This view is held by Schrader, ibid. 865; Ihering, _Geist des
röm. Rechts_, i. 145 ff.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 37 f.; iii.
318 ff.; Kappeyne van de Coppello, _Comitien_, 67; Poste, _Gai Inst._
178; Hallays, _Comices_, 18; and with some hesitation by Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 110, 118, 1063.
[908] _Röm. Chronol._ 241 ff.; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 38, n. 2; iii. 319;
_CIL._ i.² p. 289; accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 399; Kübler, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1331; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii.
323.
[909] Q(uando) R(ex) C(omitiavit); _CIL._ i. p. 291 f. after the two days
mentioned; cf. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 31: “Dies, qui vocatur sic, ‘Quando
Rex Comitiavit, Fas’ is dictus ab eo quod eo die rex sacrifiolus litat
(or perhaps venit, MS. dicat) ad comitium, ad quod tempus est nefas, ab
eo fas; itaque post id tempus lege actum saepe”; Fest. ep. 259: “Quando
Rex Comitiavit Fas, in fastis notari solet, et hoc videtur significare,
quando rex sacrificulus divinis rebus perfectis in comitium venit”; Ovid,
_Fast._ v. 727; Plut. _Q. R._ 63; _Fast. Praenest._ Mart. 24; for other
citations, see _CIL._ i². p. 289.
[910] _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 38, n. 2.
[911] Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 110, n. 2.
[912] See note 8 above; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 440, n.
6.
[913] See p. 159, n. 8 above.
[914] Gaius ii. 101, 103.
[915] Cic. _Dom._ 13. 34; cf. Leonhard, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
i. 398 ff.
[916] Gell. v. 19. 4, 6 f.; Gaius i. 99; Cic. _Att._ ii. 12. 2; _Dom._
15. 39.
[917] Gell. v. 19. 5.
[918] Cic. _Dom._ 13. 34.
[919] Gell. v. 19. 6.
[920] Gaius i. 99.
[921] Gell. v. 19. 6; cf. the leaden tessera showing on the face a man
taking another by the hand and the word ADOPTIO beneath; on the back
are three officials seated, doubtless pontiffs, with the word COLLEGIUM
beneath; Helbig, in _Compt. rend. d. l’acad. d. inscr. et bell.-let._
xxi (1893). 350-3. It evidently illustrates the preliminary stage of an
adrogatio; see also Tac. _Hist._ i. 15.
[922] Gell. v. 19. 5 f.: “Adrogationes non temere neque inexplorata
committuntur; nam comitia arbitris pontificibus praebentur, quae curiata
appellantur”; Tac. _Hist._ i. 15: “Si te privatus lege curiata apud
pontifices, ut moris est, adoptarem.” Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 253, supposes
that these comitia were under a civil magistrate; but the expressions
“arbitris pontificibus” and “apud pontifices” prove pontifical
management. Caesar, who passed the curiate law for the arrogation of
Clodius, was supreme pontiff as well as consul.
[923] Gell. v. 19. 9.
[924] Gell. v. 19. 8; Tac. _Hist._ i. 15; Cic. _Dom._ 15. 39; _Att._ ii.
12. 2; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 1 f. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 126, 270,
supposed that the curiae simply witnessed the transaction, without giving
their vote; but afterward (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 38) he changed his mind.
[925] Gell. xv. 27. 3.
[926] This seems to be the meaning of Serv. _in Aen._ ii. 156:
“Consuetudo apud antiquos fuit, ut qui in familiam vel gentem transiret,
prius se abdicaret ab ea in qua fuerat et sic ab alia acciperetur.”
[927] Gell. v. 19. 8, 10.
[928] Appian, _B. C._ iii. 14. 49.
[929] Ibid. iii. 94. 389; Dio Cass. xlv. 5. 3.
[930] On the testamentary adoption, see further Leonhard, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 420 f.
[931] Zon. vii. 15. 9.
[932] Cic. _Dom._ 14. 37; _Scaur._ 33; Ascon. 25.
[933] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 123 ff., has collected the cases.
[934] Suet. _Aug._ 2.
[935] Livy iv. 16. 3.
[936] Cic. _Brut._ 16. 62.
[937] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 1: Τήν τε εὐγένειαν ἐξωμόσατο. The similarity
of this oath to the detestatio sacrorum warrants the conclusion that
it, too, was taken in the calata comitia. The abjuration of one’s rank,
however, was not a detestatio sacrorum, for the reason given in n. 8
below.
[938] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 1: Καὶ πρὸς τὰ τοῦ πλήθους δικαιώματα, ἐς
αὐτόν σφων τὸν σύλλογον ἐσελθὼν, μετέστη; Cic. _Att._ i. 18. 4: “C.
Herennius ... tribunus pl. ... ad plebem P. Clodium traducit.” Cicero’s
following statement (“Idemque fert, ut universus populus in campo Martio
suffragium de re Clodi ferat”) signifies that Herennius was proposing to
bring the question not before the centuries, as Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch.
Roms_, ii. 188, n. 3, imagines, for a tribune had no means of doing
so, but before the thirty-five tribes, who were the universus populus
(Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 16 f.) in contrast with the curiate comitia
represented by thirty lictors; cf. p. 129 f.
[939] The falsification of pedigrees by plebeian families to prove
descent from patrician ancestors of the same name is sufficient evidence
that the name was retained through the transition; cf. Lange, _Kleine
Schriften_, ii. 7 f. Were not the sacra retained, the transition of
an entire gens would mean the destruction of its old religion and the
creation of a new one—which is impossible. For this reason it appears
that the detestatio sacrorum did not apply to such cases of transition.
[940] Lange, ibid. ii. 19.
[941] The fact that he promulgated a bill of the same tenor as that of
Herennius, even if it was merely for the sake of appearance, as Cicero,
_Att._ i. 18. 5, alleges, favors the latter view.
[942] Cic. _Att._ i. 19. 5.
[943] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 51. 2; xxxviii. 12. 1 f.; Cic. _Dom._ 13. 35; 29.
77.
[944] Cic. _Dom._ 14. 37: “Nam adoptatum emancipari statim, ne sit
eius filius qui adoptarit”; 13. 35: “Tu (Clodi) neque Fonteius es, qui
esse debebas, neque patris heres neque amissis sacris paternis in haec
adoptiva venisti.” In _Har. Resp._ 27. 57 (“Iste parentum nomen, sacra,
memoriam, gentem Fonteiano nomine obruit”) Cicero does not say that
Clodius assumed the gentile name of Fonteius, but rather that he used
this name as a means of destroying the name, sacra, etc. of his parents;
and in fact he continued to be called Clodius; cf. Dio Cass. xxxix. 23.
2 (official use). He claimed still to belong to the Clodian gens rather
than to the Fonteian (Cic. _Dom._ 44. 116), whereas Cicero, looking upon
the emancipation as a sham, insists that he was a Fonteian.
[945] That he retained the Claudian imagines is implied in Cic. _Mil._
13. 33; 32. 86. He must therefore have kept the rest of the sacra.
[946] Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 23 ff. Cicero aims to bring the
greatest possible confusion into the case by representing Clodius as
having given up his native religion without receiving that of Fonteius,
as being a gentilis of the Claudii though he had left the Claudian gens,
etc.; _Dom._ 13. 35; 49. 127.
[947] This double act is most clearly stated by Livy iv. 4. 7:
“Nobilitatem istam vestram ... non genere nec sanguine sed per
coöptationem in patres habetis ... post reges exactos iussu populi”;
p. 17, n. 5; cf. Dion. Hal. v. 40. 5: Ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος εἴς τε τοὺς
πατρικίους αὐτὸν (Appius Claudius) ἐνέγραψε. This passage shows that
Dionysius regards the process as an act of the people and of the senate,
though he does not speak of the latter as coöptation. In the case of
Appius Claudius Livy, ii. 16. 5, says simply that he was enrolled among
the patres (“inter patres lectus”), and in like manner Suetonius, _Tib._
i, states that the patrician gens Claudia was coöpted into the class of
patrician gentes.
[948] V. 13. 2.
[949] Fest. 246. 23.
[950] This measure is called the lex Cassia; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 25; p. 456
below. There can be no doubt that the author was L. Cassius Longinus, a
faithful friend of the dictator, who entered upon his tribunate Dec. 10,
45; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 128 f.; iii. 602.
[951] Dio Cass. xliii. 47. 3; xlv. 2. 7; Suet. _Caes._ 41.
[952] The lex Saenia; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 25.
[953] Augustus, _Mon. Ancyr._ 8; Dio Cass. lii. 42. 5.
[954] Neither the pontifical examination nor the curiate law is noticed
by the authorities, who refer briefly to the two acts. Lange, _Röm. Alt._
iii. 472, and Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 1101, suppose that Caesar
as supreme pontiff made the adlectio, although, as Mommsen notices,
Octavianus had not yet attained to that office when he attended to
the same function. Both writers (cf. Lange, ibid. i. 412) understand
the curiate assembly to have been a factor in the process. On these
late adlectiones, see also Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 38 f., 130;
Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 602; Büdinger, in _Denkschr. d.
kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Cl._ xxxi (1881). 211-73; xxxvi
(1888). 81-125.
[955] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 32.
[956] Ch. ii above; also p. 166, n. 3 below.
[957] Botsford, in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxii (1907). 689-92.
[958] IV. 3. 4.
[959] P. 17.
[960] IV. 4. 7; p. 24, n. 5, 200, n. 1; cf. Suet. _Tib._ 1: “Patricia
gens Claudia ... in patricias cooptata.”
[961] Mommsen’s theory (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 29 and n. 2) that the
patriciate was conferred through the coöperation of the king and the
comitia appears accordingly to rest on a weak foundation. He gives
no evidence, but bases his contention on the argument (1) that the
community was sovereign, (2) that—the patriciate being in his opinion
equivalent to the citizenship and the comitia curiata being a group
of gentes—the downfall of the comitia made the reception of gentes
impossible. Ground is taken against the theory of popular sovereignty in
the following chapter. Against his second point it can be urged that the
original comitia were neither patrician nor “gentile”; hence there is no
occasion for speaking of the downfall of such comitia or of its sweeping
consequences.
[962] Livy iv. 4. 7; p. 17, n. 5, 164, n. 6.
[963] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 74 ff.
[964] Gell. v. 19. 1-3.
[965] Such an examination was the only means by which the patricians
could protect their order from being flooded by plebeians; cf. Mommsen,
ibid. i. 77, who notices that no known instance of this kind of adoption
took place before the admission of plebeians to the pontifical college
through the Ogulnian law, 300; p. 309 below.
[966] Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 924; Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_,
ii. 407.
[967] _Il._ i. 54; ii. 50; xix. 40 ff.; _Od._ ii. 6 f.
[968] Kovalevsky, _Modern Customs and Ancient Laws of Russia_, 122, 124.
[969] We must except the purely sacerdotal meetings of the curiae
described in the preceding chapter.
[970] Tac. _Germ._ 11. 2; cf. Schröder, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. 22 f.
[971] _Rhetra_ of Lycurgus, in Plut. _Lyc._ 6; cf. Gilbert, _Altspart.
Gesch._ 131 f.
[972] Arist. _Ath. Pol._ 43. 4; cf. Gilbert, _Const. Antiq. of Sparta and
Athens_, 285.
[973] This is true of the religious-judicial assemblies of the
continental Celts (Caesar, _B. G._ vi. 13), which may also have exercised
political functions, and of the Irish assemblies; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_,
44, 51, 54; cf. Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 924.
[974] The Celtic magistrates disclosed to the people those matters only
which they determined to be expedient; and it was unlawful to speak on
public affairs outside the assembly; Caesar, _B. G._ vi. 20. The German
chiefs in council preconsidered every subject to be presented to the
assembly; Tac. _Germ._ 11. 1; Schröder, ibid. 23. The prominence of the
nobles in the Slavic assembly (Kovalevsky, ibid. 123 ff.) would lead to
the same conclusion regarding them. For the Homeric age of Greece the
meeting of the council previous to the assembly as described by _Il._ ii.
50 ff. is typical, although we could not expect the poet in every case to
repeat the procedure with uniform minuteness. The preconsidering power of
the Roman senate was of the same nature.
[975] _Il._ ii. 278 ff.
[976] Tac. _Germ._ 11. 4. As a rule the North American Indians enjoy the
same freedom of speech in their councils; Farrand, _Basis of American
History_, 160, 211.
[977] _Il._ ii. 211 ff.; xii. 212 f. Calchas the seer, a man of the
people, gained the protection of Achilles before daring to speak against
Agamemnon; _Il._ i. 76 ff.
[978] On the control of the Etruscan assembly by the nobles, see
Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 337; Hirt, _Indogermanen_, i. 55.
[979] _Od._ ii. 28 ff.
[980] P. 154 f.
[981] _Od._ ii. 35 ff.; cf. the public complaint made by a Slavic chief
of an injury he had received; Kovalevsky, ibid. 121.
[982] Such as the reception of the youth into the warrior class among the
Germans; Tac. _Germ._ 13. 2; for the witnessing assembly at Rome, see p.
155 f.
[983] Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 659, 662, 688. For the Celts; Caesar, _B.
G._ vi. 13; cf. i. 4 (trial of Orgetorix). For the Germans; Tac. _Germ._
12. 1 f. For the Slavs; Kovalevsky, _Mod. Cust. and Anc. Laws_, 126. The
famous trial scene in the Homeric assembly; _Il._ xviii. 497 ff. For
the Macedonians; Curt. vi. 8. 25. It is probably true of Vedic India;
Schrader, ibid. 688.
[984] For the Germans; Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgesch_. i. 129. For the
Slavs; Kovalevsky, ibid. 128, 130, 141 f. For the Celts; Polyb. iii. 44.
5 f.; Caes. _B. G._ v. 27, 36; Livy xxi. 20. 3; Tac. _Hist._ iv. 67. The
Helvetian assembly probably decided the question of migration; Caesar,
_B. G._ i. 2. As to the Greeks, Agamemnon proposed to the assembly to
quit the war and return home, the people gladly accepted; _Il._ ii. 86
ff. A proposal of peace came from the Trojans to the Achaean assembly;
the people rejected it on the advice of Diomede, and Agamemnon concurred
in their opinion; _Il._ vii. 382 ff.
[985] The German mode of electing a king or war-leader is well known;
cf. Brunner, ibid. i. 129. The assembly also elected the chiefs of the
pagi (Gaue) and of the villages; Tac. _Germ._ 12. 3. The Celts who were
not ruled by hereditary kings elected their chiefs annually (Caesar, _B.
G._ i. 16) or for a migration; ibid. 3. The Irish kings were generally
elected from particular families; Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 66. The Slavs
elected their king and other officials; Kovalevsky, ibid. 124 f., 127,
129, 138 f. In Homeric Greece the kingship was generally hereditary,
but the people might elect a war-leader to take command by the side of
the king; _Od._ xiv. 237; cf. xiii. 266. There are traces of elective
kingship, lasting at least a few generations, in the great majority of
early European states; Jenks, _History of Politics_, 87; cf. 35 f.
[986] _Il._ i. 22 ff. For the Lacedaemonians, see Thuc. i. 87.
[987] Tac. _Germ._ 11. 5; _Hist._ v. 17. Sometimes the Germans mingled
clamor with the clash of weapons; Amm. Marc. xvi. 12. 13.
[988] Caesar, _B. G._ vii. 21.
[989] Majority rule was unknown to primitive times. The members of the
council talked together till they came to a unanimous agreement. If the
Homeric Greeks in assembly failed to agree, each party went its own way;
_Od._ iii. 150 ff. Among the Slavs the majority forced a unanimous vote
by coercing the minority; Kovalevsky, ibid. 122 ff. For the Germans;
Seeck, _Gesch. d. Unterg. d. antik. Welt_, i. 213.
[990] For the Homeric Greek assembly, see Hermann-Thumser, _Griech
Staatsalt._ 67 f.
[991] _Il._ i. 11 ff.
[992] Ibid. i. 135 ff., 320 ff.
[993] Ibid. vii. 345 ff.
[994] In Italy, Livy i. 45. 2; 49. 8.
[995] This right is proved by the fact that the death of a king freed
the neighboring states from their treaty obligations to his community,
_e.g._, the Fidenates after the death of Romulus; Dion. Hal. iii. 23.
1; the Latins after the death of Tullus; Dion. Hal. iii. 37. 3; various
neighbors after the expulsion of the last Tarquin; Dion. Hal. viii.
64. 2; cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 175, n. 2. At the time of the Caudine
disaster (321 B.C.) the Samnite leader assumed that the Roman consuls
were competent in their own right to conclude a definitive peace; Livy
ix. 2 ff.
[996] Among the Quadi the right to declare war belonged to the council,
not to the assembly; Amm. Marc. xxx. 6. 2. With the Saxons the will of
the nobles was equivalent to the will of the people; Beowulf, cited
by Seeck, ibid. i. 217. 7, see also his notes on p. 531. The Sabine
senators (senes) are represented as responsible for the continual wars
of their people with the Romans; Livy ii. 18. 11. In general the leading
men and the senate were able by their own oath to bind the community;
Caes. _B. G._ iv. 11; cf. 13. A chief might work his will by packing an
assembly with men on whom he could rely; Tac. _Hist._ iv. 14. The Grand
Duke of Russia, relying on his comitatus, sometimes went to war without
consulting the people; Kovalevsky, _Mod. Cust. and Anc. Laws_, 142.
[997] Leist, _Graeco-ital. Rechtsgesch._ 130, 136 f. Under favorable
conditions the assembly acquired sovereignty, as at Athens and for a time
in Russia; Kovalevsky, _Russian Political Institutions_, 17. Schrader,
_Reallexikon_, 923 f., following Mommsen (cf. also Post, _Grundlagen des
Rechts_, 130; Cramer, _Verfassungsgesch. d. Germ. u. Kelt._ 61 et pass.),
is altogether wrong in supposing the assembly to have been originally
sovereign.
[998] Tac. _Hist._ iv. 64. Charlemagne suppressed the assemblies of the
Saxons except for receiving communications from his missi and for the
administration of justice; _Cap. de Part. Sax._ i. 70. 34 (Boretius 26.
p. 68).
[999] Ginnell, _Brehon Laws_, 42.
[1000] _Od._ iii. 214 f.; xiv. 239; xvi. 75, 95 f., 114; xix. 527.
[1001] In Homeric Greece; _Il._ i. 231 f.; iii. 57. The Herulians killed
their king merely because they were weary of royal government; Procopius,
_Bel. Goth._ ii. 14, p. 422 A. Sometimes the Celtic commons massacred
both magistrates and council, and took affairs into their own hands;
Polyb. ii. 21; Caesar, _B. G._ iii. 17.
[1002] Hdt. vi. 56.
[1003] _Rhetra_ of Polydorus and Theopompus, in Plut. _Lyc._ 6. This
power is essentially the same as the auctoritas of the Roman patres.
[1004] Fustel de Coulanges, _Monarchie Franque_, 598 ff.
[1005] Ibid. 638 ff.
[1006] Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, iii. 239 ff.
[1007] Kovalevsky, _Mod. Cust. and Anc. Laws_, 148.
[1008] The rest of this chapter is largely a reproduction of Botsford,
_Lex Curiata_, in _Pol. Sci. Quart._ xxiii (1908). 498-517.
[1009] P. 2, 176.
[1010] Cic. _Rep._ 28. 50; cf. 23. 43.
[1011] Livy i. 46. 3; 60. 3; ii. 1. 6 f.; 15. 3.
[1012] Cic. _Planc._ 4. 9: “Non est consilium in vulgo.”
[1013] Cf. Livy i. 34. 12.
[1014] P. 145.
[1015] P. 235.
[1016] II. 14. 3: Τῷ δὲ δημοτικῷ πλήθει τρία ταῦτα ἐπέτρεψεν·
ἀρχαιρεσιάζειν τε καὶ νόμους ἐπικυροῦν καὶ περὶ πολέμου διαγιγνώσκειν,
ὅταν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἔφη.
[1017] I. 49. 7.
[1018] This interpretation, offered by Rubino, is accepted by Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 599.
[1019] _Röm. Verf._ 257 ff.
[1020] The treaty with the Sabines rested on the oaths of the two kings
alone; Livy i. 13. 4; Dion. Hal. ii. 46. 3; Plut. _Rom._ 19. Romulus
of his own authority made a hundred years’ truce with Veii; Dion. Hal.
ii. 55. 5 f. With the advice of the senate he solicited alliances
with the neighboring states; Livy i. 9. 2. Numa personally contracted
alliances with the surrounding states; Livy i. 19. 4. Tullus Hostilius
made a treaty with the Sabines, the indemnity being fixed by a senatus
consultum; Dion. Hal. iii. 32. 6. For other citations, see Rubino, ibid.
264, n. 3.
[1021] Livy i. 24. 4 ff.
[1022] P. 171, n. 5 above.
[1023] Livy i. 30. 7.
[1024] Cf. Livy ii. 22. 5. In 495 the consul, in pursuance of a senatus
consultum, made peace with the Volscians at their request; Livy ii. 25.
6. In the same form Cassius the consul in 493 made peace with the Latins
(Livy ii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. vi. 18-21, especially 21. 2) and in 486 with
the Hernicans; Dion. Hal. viii. 68. 4; 69. 2; Livy ii. 41; cf. Rubino,
ibid. 266 f.
[1025] Cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 17. 2; 59. 4.
[1026] Livy iii. 1. 8.
[1027] Dion. Hal. ix. 36. 2 f.; x. 21. 8.
[1028] Livy ii. 39. 9 f.
[1029] Cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 17. 2, 4.
[1030] P. 351; cf. Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 269 ff.
[1031] On the epoch-making rejection of the Caudine treaty of 321, see p.
171, n. 5. 376.
[1032] Suet. _Vesp._ 8; Rubino, ibid. 261.
[1033] Cf. Rubino, ibid. 260.
[1034] Ibid. 263.
[1035] Cf. i. 14. 6; 36. 1. Too much stress should not be laid on this
distinction, however, as the Romans always regarded their enemy as the
aggressor, and assumed that every war was undertaken for the redress of
grievances.
[1036] Livy i. 32.
[1037] Ibid. i. 32.
[1038] P. 1 f., 173. The formula is extremely ancient in origin, but it
must have undergone modifications in time, as is indicated by the word
prisci applied to the Latins. Possibly the reference to the populus
should be similarly explained.