[1040] Cf. Livy i. 22; 30. 3; 35. 7; 38. 4.
[1041] P. 230.
[1042] P. 171.
[1043] For the Indo-Europeans, see Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 655 ff.;
Maine, _Ancient Law_, xv f., 2 ff.; Hirt, _Indogermanen_, ii. 522 ff.
There may have been occasional legislation by the assembly in its
earliest history; cf. the prohibition of the importation of wine by the
Suevi (Caesar, _B. G._ iv. 2), which may have been an act of the kind.
[1044] _Il._ i. 238; ix. 98; _Od._ vi. 12.
[1045] Cic. _Rep._ v. 2. 3; Livy i. 19. 1.
[1046] Livy i. 19. 5; cf. 42. 4; Tac. _Ann._ iii. 26.
[1047] Livy i. 8. 1; Verg. _Aen._ i. 292 f.
[1048] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 10. 17; Livy i. 16.
[1049] On the legislation of the kings, see Voigt, in _Abhdl. d. sächs.
Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ vii (1879). 555 ff.
[1050] Livy ii. 1. 1.
[1051] Cf. Cic. _Rep._ i. 2. 2. To the end of the republic resort was had
in national crises to the numen deorum as the ultimate source of law;
Cic. _Phil._ xi. 12. 28.
[1052] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 11.
[1053] Mommsen, ibid. iii. 313; cf. Jenks, _History of Politics_, 89 f.
[1054] In the preceding chapter (p. 153, 157) an attempt is made
to determine under what influence the curiate organization and the
systematic vote were introduced into the assembly.
[1055] Cf. Gell. v. 19. 9: “Velitis, iubeatis, uti.... Haec ita, uti
dixi, ita vos, quirites, rogo.” This reference to an arrogation is quoted
here merely for the sake of the formula. For further citations, see
Mommsen, ibid. iii. 312, n. 2.
[1056] For ut rogas, see Livy vi. 38. 5; x. 8. 12. Antiquo for “no” may
be inferred from the use of antiquare to designate the rejection of a
proposal; e.g. Livy iv. 58. 14; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 1108,
n. 4; p. 467 below.
[1057] Lex may be related to lēgare, ligare, “to bind”; Brugmann,
_Grundriss_, I. i. 134; Corssen, _Aussprache_, i. 444; Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 112, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ 1. 315 (“bindende
Vorschrift”). Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 308, n. 4, quotes J. Schmidt
for the fundamental meaning of the root leg, “to place in order,”
connecting it with English “law” (cf. θεσμός, Gesetz); cf. Kretschmer,
_Einleitung in die Geschichte der griech. Sprache_, 165; Schrader,
_Reallexikon_, 657; Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ 1906.
215.
[1058] Cf. Corssen, _Aussprache_, i. 684.
[1059] Cf. Vaniček, _Etym. Wörterb._ 227; Herzog, ibid. i. 116, n. 3
(Rechtsetzen). Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 657, connecting ius with Avest.
yaoš, “pure,” develops its meaning through (1) oath of purification in
legal procedure, (2) legal procedure, finally (3) human law, right,
as distinguished from fas; cf. Christ, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad.
d. Wiss._ 1906. 212 (ius = Skt. yōs). On the meaning, see further
Nettleship, _Contributions to Latin Lexicography_, 497; Clark, _Practical
Jurisprudence_, 16-20.
[1060] For the leges censoriae, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 430.
[1061] Livy i. 26. 7: “Hac lege duumviri creati.”
[1062] On the legum dictio, see Serv. _in Aen._ iii. 89.
[1063] Examples of leges datae are the ordinances of the kings or of
extraordinary constitutive magistracies, as the triumviri rei publicae
constituendae, municipal laws and provincial regulations established by
Rome; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 311 and notes.
[1064] Law of the XII Tables, cited by Gaius, in _Dig._ xlvii. 22. 4:
“Dum ne quid ex publica lege corrumpant”; Cato, _Orig._ iv. 13: “Duo
exules lege publica (condemnati) et execrati”; Gaius ii. 104; _CIL._ vi.
9404, 10235; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 310, n. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._
ii. 598 f.
[1065] Ateius Capito’s definition in Gell. x. 20. 2 (“Lex est generale
iussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu”) fails to cover all cases,
as Gellius immediately shows.
[1066] E.g. the granting of the imperium to Pompey or the recall of
Cicero from exile; Gell. x. 20. 3.
[1067] Livy iv. 60. 9; cf. 58. 14.
[1068] Cato, _Orig._ iv. 13; n. 2 above.
[1069] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 598 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 111
ff. The election of a king was a iussus populi, which was equivalent to
a lex; Livy i. 22. 1. For an election by the centuriate assembly, see
Livy vii. 17. 12. The lex curiata de imperio was regarded strictly as an
election; p. 184 ff. On judicial decisions see Lange, ibid. i. 629 f.;
ii. 571.
[1070] Cic. _Div._ ii. 35. 74: “Ut comitiorum vel in iudiciis populi vel
in iure legum vel in creandis magistratibus”; _Leg._ iii. 3. 10; 15. 33.
Iudicia populi practically disappeared, leaving comitia legum and comitia
magistratuum; idem, _Sest._ 51. 109; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii.
326, n. 1.
[1071] The usual expression for the validity of a law is lege populus
tenetur; cf. Cic. _Dom._ 16. 41; _Phil._ v. 4. 10; Gell. xv. 27. 4; Gaius
i. 3. For further citations, see Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 356, n. 1; Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 159, n. 1, 309, n. 3.
[1072] Cf. Livy. ix. 34. 8-10.
[1073] _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 2.
[1074] Ascribed to Ancus Marcius by Livy (i. 32. 2) and Dionysius (iii.
36. 2 ff.), to Romulus and his successors by Pomponius (ibid.), but
destroyed in the Gallic conflagration (Livy vi. 1. 1).
[1075] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ 1. 314 f.; Voigt, in _Abhdl. d. sächs.
Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ vii (1879). 559; Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 657 f.
[1076] The sources uniformly represent the kings as acting alone in the
admission of individuals and of entire communities to citizenship. The
view of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 29, that the assembly coöperated
rests upon his theory of an original popular sovereignty and of an
original patrician state, neither of which has any basis in fact.
[1077] Cic. _Rep._ v. 2. 3; Livy 1. 38. 7; 44. 3; 56. 1 f.
[1078] Ibid. i. 43.
[1079] Ibid. i. 44. 1; cf. especially the summary condemnation and
execution of Mettius; ibid. i. 28. Livy’s complaint (i. 49. 4) against
Tarquin the Proud is that he decided capital cases without assessors, not
that he allowed no appeal.
[1080] Lange’s view (_Röm. Alt._ i. 314) that under the kings there was
no legislation, except the passing of the lex de imperio, cannot be
proved and seems unlikely. Mommsen’s hypothesis (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii.
327) that under the kings the comitia were exclusively legislative,
elective and judicial functions being a republican innovation, is
disproved by the facts presented in this chapter. There is no reason for
supposing that the republic brought to the comitia any absolutely new
functions.
[1081] Schrader, _Reallexikon_, 662.
[1082] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 298 f.
[1083] Cf. Livy i. 26. 8 ff.; Cic. _Mil._ 3. 7; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._
8, 305 ff.
[1084] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 2. 4; 7. 13; Livy i. 13. 4.
[1085] I. 17. 11. Cicero (_Rep._ ii. 13. 25), however, supposes he was
elected by the people.
[1086] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 21. 37; Livy i. 41-6; Dion. Hal. iv. 8.
[1087] Livy i. 49. 3.
[1088] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 6 f.
[1089] Cf. Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25; 17. 31; 18. 33; 20. 35; Livy i. 17.
10; 32. 1; 35. 1, 6; 46. 1; Jordan, _Könige im alt. Ital._ 25 ff.
[1090] Cf. Livy xxii. 35. 4.
[1091] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25 (Numa); 17. 31 (Tullus Hostilius); 18. 33
(Ancus Marcius); 20. 35 (Tarquinius Priscus).
[1092] The formula for the curiate law is unknown. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i.
307 ff. 407 f., 459, 461 f., supposes that it not only pledged the people
to obedience, but also defined the imperium and bound the king not to
exceed the limitations imposed; that every constitutional modification
of the imperium required a corresponding modification of the curiate
act. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 111 f., further assumes that the law
contained the formula of treaty on which in his opinion the state rested,
and that before the age of written documents this treaty was handed
down orally through the repetition of the law. Lange’s theory, which
runs throughout his great work, seems to rest on the single statement
of Tacitus, _Ann._ xi. 22: “Quaestores regibus etiam tum imperantibus
instituti sunt, quod lex curiata ostendit a L. Bruto repetita.” But this
statement proves only that the quaestors were mentioned in the curiate
law, and this circumstance is otherwise explained below, p. 189. That the
law defined and limited the imperium is unlikely (1) because in early
time, when the act had a real meaning, precise definitions were unknown;
(2) because there is no evidence for it.
P. Servilius Rullus stated, evidently in his rogation, that the object of
the curiate act to be passed for the decemviri provided for in his bill
was “ut ii decemviratum habeant, quos plebs designaverit” (Cic. _Leg.
Agr._ ii. 10. 26)—a formula probably copied from earlier laws. From this
statement and from evidence furnished below (p. 185 f.) it is practically
certain that the formula for the curiate act ran somewhat like that for
an election.
[1093] It is true that Cicero (p. 183, n. 2) supposes the king to have
been elected by the curiate assembly, and the imperium to have been
afterward sanctioned by the same assembly. This double vote of the curiae
seems as improbable as it was unnecessary. We may reasonably consider the
alleged first vote a mistaken inference from the later election of higher
magistrates by the centuries. The assumption of an acclamation as the
first stage in the process accords far better with primitive conditions.
[1094] The people claimed that the right to elect magistrates had come
down to them from Servius Tullius; Appian, _Lib._ 112 (probably from
Polyb.); Livy i. 60. 4; p. 360.
[1095] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 26: “Maiores de singulis magistratibus
bis vos sententiam ferre voluerunt. Nam cum centuriata lex censoribus
ferebatur, cum curiata ceteris patriciis magistratibus, tum iterum de
eisdem iudicabatur, ut esset reprehendendi potestas, si populum beneficii
sui paeniteret”; cf. 10. 26; _Rep._ ii. 13. 25.
[1096] _Röm. Verf._ 361 f., 379 f. For a summary of the various modern
views, see Nissen, _Beitr. zum röm. Staatsr._ 42-6.
[1097] P. 435.
[1098] It is not probable that an official could pass the law for a
colleague, the intention being that each higher magistrate should
personally propose and carry it for himself; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._
i. 610, n. 2.
[1099] _Leg. Agr._ ii. 10. 26: “Hoc inauditum et plane novum, ut ei
curiata lege magistratus detur, cui nullis comitiis ante sit datus.”
[1100] In Gell. xiii. 15. 4: “Magistratus ... iustus curiata datur lege.”
[1101] In Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 29: “Tum ii decemviri, inquit, eodem
iure sint, quo qui optuma lege.” In keeping with this statement is the
object of the curiate act as given by the Servilian rogation (p. 183, n.
5).
[1102] Plaut. _Most._ 713; Cic. _Off._ i. 31. 111; 42. 151; _Fin._ iv.
12. 31; _Rep._ iii. 17. 27; _Cat._ i. 9. 21; _Sest._ 43. 94; _Planc._ 36.
88; _Marc._ 1. 4; _Fam._ iii. 8. 6; _Att._ xv. 3. 2.
[1103] Gaius ii. 197: “Proinde utile sit legatum atque si optimo iure
relictum esset; optimum ius est per damnationem legati.” It is clear that
this statement refers merely to the form.
[1104] Fabius Pictor, in Gell. i. 12. 14: “Uti quae optima lege fuit, ita
te, Amata, capio.”
[1105] Cic. _Phil._ xi. 12. 30: “Senatui placere C. Cassium pro consule
provinciam optinere, ut qui optimo iure eam provinciam optinuerit” (with
all the formality usual in cases of appointment to that province); v. 16.
44: “Sit (Caesar) pro praetore eo iure quo qui optimo.”
[1106] Cic. _Har. Resp._ 7. 14 (reference is to the complete and perfect
title with which Cicero holds his dwelling); _Phil._ ix. 7. 17 (a burial
place granted by the state to a family with a perfect title); _Lex Agr._
(_CIL._ 200) 27: “_Is ager locus do_mneis privatus ita, utei quoi optuma
lege privatus est, esto.”
[1107] _Lex Col. Gen._ (_CIL._ ii. Supplb. 5439) 67: “Quicumque
pontif(ices) quique augures c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) post h(anc)
l(egem) datam in conlegium pontific(um) augurumq(ue) in demortui
damnative loco h(ac) lege lectus cooptatusve erit, is pontif(ex)
augurq(ue) in c(olonia) Iul(ia) in conlegium pontifex augurq(ue) esto,
ita uti qui optuma lege in quaque colon(ia) pontif(ices) auguresq(ue)
sunt erunt”; ch. 66: “Ei pontifices c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae)
sunto, ... ita uti qui optima lege optumo iure in quaque colon(ia)
pontif(ices) augures sunt erunt.” Optima lege refers to the perfection of
their right to the sacerdotal places (cf. 67 above), whereas optumo iure
seems to apply to the privileges and honors attaching to these positions.
[1108] Papinian, in _Dig._ iv. 4. 31 (slaves manumitted in the way here
described were exempt from payment to maintain their freedom, on the
ground that they were emancipated in a perfectly legal way—optimo iure);
_Lex Salp._ (_CIL._ ii. 1963) 28: “Ut qui optumo iure Latini libertini
liberi sunt erunt” (Just as are, or shall be, Latin freedmen or freemen
of best standing); Cic. _Verr._ II. v. 22. 58: “Quae colonia est in
Italia tam bono iure, quod tam immune municipium, quod ... sit usum.”
[1109] _Lex Col. Gen._ 67, quoted in n. above.
[1110] Fest. 198. 32; cf. 189. 21. Applied to the censor, dictator, and
interrex in Livy ix. 34. 10-12, it has reference not to amount of power
but length of office.
[1111] See p. 186, n. 5.
[1112] As the _Lex Col. Gen._ 66 f.; p. 186, n. 1 above.
[1113] P. 186.
[1114] Magistratus optuma lege is the same as magistratus iustus; cf.
Messala, p. 185, n. 6. In this connection iustus does not signify legal
as opposed to illegal, but legally or technically perfect, correct;
cf. for the meaning “proper,” “perfect,” Cic. _Fam._ ii. 10. 3 (iusta
victoria); Caes. _B. G._ i. 23 (iustum iter); Livy i. 4. 4 (iusti cursum
amnis); xxxix. 2. 8 (iusto proelio). When Cicero (_Red. in Sen._ 11.
27), accordingly, speaks of the comitia centuriata as the iusta comitia,
he does not imply that the other comitia and their acts lack legality,
but rather that they carry less weight; and when as late as 300 the
patricians claimed that they alone had iustum imperium et auspicium
(Livy x. 8. 9), they could only mean that their right to these powers
was better established than that of the plebeians. C. Flaminius, consul
in 217, possessed imperium, which he was actually exercising over his
troops, but which was not iustum, for he had neglected the auspical
formalities appropriate to the entrance upon the consulship (Livy xxii.
1. 5). It would be wrong, however, to suppose with Nissen, _Beitr. z.
röm. Staatsr._ 51, that he commanded on the sufferance only of his
soldiers.
[1115] Including the auspices; see n. above.
[1116] The usual expression is “de suo imperio curiatam legem tulit,”
or “populum consuluit;” Cic. _Rep._ ii. 13. 25; 17. 31; 18. 33; 20.
35; 21. 38; Livy ix. 38. 15. According to Cicero, _Phil._ v. 16. 45,
the senate grants the imperium to Octavianus, a private citizen. The
interrex, who could not have had a curiate law, nevertheless possessed
imperium (Livy i. 17. 5 f.), and the absolute imperium was granted by a
decree of the senate (Livy iii. 4. 9; Sall. _Cat._ 29; _Hist._ i. 77.
22). See also Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 9: “Imperia, potestates, legationes,
quom senatus creverit populusve iusserit, ex urbe exeunto;” _Leg. Agr._
ii. 7. 17: “Omnes potestates, imperia, curationes ab universo populo
proficisci convenit” (reference cannot here be to the curiate assembly,
which in this connection Cicero does not recognize as the people). For
the centuriate assembly, see Livy xxvi. 18. 9: “Omnes non centuriae modo
sed etiam homines P. Scipioni imperium esse in Hispania iusserunt;”
22. 15: “Centuriam vero iuniorum seniores consulere voluisse, quibus
imperium suffragio mandarunt.” For the tribal assembly, see T. Annius
Luscus, _Orat. adv. Ti. Gracch._ in Fest. 314. 30: “Imperium quod plebes
... dederat.” It is a fact, too, that the tribal assembly had power to
abrogate the imperium; Livy xxvii. 20. 11; 21. 1, 4; xxix. 19. 6; cf. p.
342, 360, 367. Also from Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 28 (“Vidit ... sine
curiata lege decemviros potestatem habere non posse, quoniam per novem
tribus essent constituti”) we must infer that had these decemvirs been
elected in the regular way, by the thirty-five tribes, they would have
had the potestas without a curiate law. The phrase nullis comitiis in
11. 29 (“Si hoc fieri potest, ut ... quisquam nullis comitiis imperium
aut potestatem adsequi posset, etc.,”) implies that the imperium or
potestas may be obtained in more than one form of comitia—either the
centuriata or the tributa. In the same paragraph he asserts that on the
principle followed by Servilius, whom he is assailing, any one could
obtain the imperium or potestas without the vote of any comitia, for he
does not consider the comitia curiata real comitia, seeing that they have
degenerated into a mere form. From these passages it is clear that Cicero
believed the imperium or potestas to be conferred by the centuries or
tribes and merely confirmed by the curiae.
[1117] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 27: “Curiatis eam (potestatem) comitiis
... confirmavit.”
[1118] Livy ix. 38 f.; Dion. Hal. v. 70. 4: Ὃν ἃν ἥ τε βουλὴ προέληται
καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἐπιψηφίσῃ. To avoid unnecessary delay the sanctioning act
was probably always kept free from the obligation of the promulgatio per
trinum nundinum; Livy iii. 27. 1; iv. 14. 1; p. 396 f. below.
[1119] The consuls proposed the curiate law for the quaestors; Tac.
_Ann._ xi. 22. That these inferior officials required the law is further
indicated by Cic. _Phil._ ii. 20. 50. For the lower functionaries in
general, see Gell. xiii. 15. 4. The agrarian rogation of Servilius Rullus
provided that the praetor should propose the law for the decemviri agris
adsignandis required for the administration of his measure; Cic. _Leg.
Agr._ ii. 11. 28.
That the magisterial helpers who were in need of the curiate law included
not only the quaestors but also the lictors seems to be indicated by Cic.
_Rep._ ii. 17. 31: “Ne insignibus quidem regiis Tullus nisi iussu populi
est ausus uti. Nam ut sibi duodecim lictores cum fascibus anteire” (the
remainder of the sentence is missing). Dion. Hal. ii. 62. 1 ascribes
the introduction of the lictors to Tarquin the Elder. This curiate
law, however, may not be thought of by Cicero and Dionysius as a mere
sanction, but rather as a legislative act which called the lictors into
being; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 372, n. 1, 613, n. 1.
[1120] In the opinion of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 300 ff., the election
conferred potestas only, the lex curiata imperium.
[1121] Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3.
[1122] Ibid.; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30: “Consuli si legem curiatam
non habet, attingere rem militarem non licet;” Livy v. 52. 15: “Comitia
curiata, quae rem militarem continent.” These statements, however, are
not, as some have imagined, to the effect that the lex curiata _confers_
military power upon the magistrate.
[1123] Dio Cass. xli. 43. 3.
[1124] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25.
[1125] Cic. _Att._ iv. 18. 4: “Appius sine lege suo sumptu in Ciliciam
cogitat.”
[1126] Ibid.
[1127] Such an article in favor of the decemviri agris adsignandis
appeared in the Servilian agrarian rogation of 63; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii.
11. 29; cf. p. 186.
[1128] According to Dion. Hal. ii. 5 f., those who are entering upon an
office pass the night in tents and in the morning under the open sky take
the auspices. Livy, xxi. 63. 10, states that the consul dons his official
robe in his own house, but neither he nor any other authority intimates
that the public auspices were taken in his private house, as Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 616, asserts.
[1129] Livy ix. 39. 1.
[1130] Ibid. xxi. 63. 9; Varro, in Gell. xiv. 7. 9.
[1131] Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 365 ff.
[1132] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 612, n. 1.
[1133] Sall. _Cat._ 29: “Ea potestas per senatum more Romano magistratui
maxuma permittitur, exercitum parare, bellum gerere, coercere omnibus
modis socios atque cives, domi militiaeque imperium atque iudicium summum
habere; aliter sine populi iussu nullius earum rerum consuli ius est;”
_Hist._ i. 77. 22: (The senate decreed) “uti Appius Claudius cum Q.
Catulo pro consule et ceteris quibus imperium est, urbi praesidio sint
operamque dent, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat.” The interpretation
which includes the interrex, Appius Claudius, with those who possessed
the imperium is confirmed by Livy i. 17. 5 f., who informs us that the
imperium of an interrex lasted five days.
[1134] Livy ix. 38 f.
[1135] Cf. Nissen, _Beitr. z. röm. Staatsr._ 51 f.
[1136] XXI. 63. 5 ff.
[1137] Fest. 347. 14; p. 336 below.
[1138] Cf. Livy xxii. 1. 5 ff.
[1139] Nissen, ibid., supposes, too, that Appius Claudius, consul in 179,
went to the army without a curiate law and for that reason the soldiers
refused to obey him; Livy xli. 10. Livy mentions the neglect of other
formalities, but makes no reference to the curiate act.
[1140] Livy xxv. 37. 5 f.; cf. xxvi. 2. 1.
[1141] Ibid. xxvi. 2. 2.
[1142] Dio Cass. xli. 43. In this instance the senate had conferred
dictatorial power upon the magistrates by its supreme decree (Caesar,
_B. C._ i. 5); that they were constitutionally in command, whereas the
general direction of affairs by Pompey, however autocratic, was only
informal, is expressly stated by Dio Cass. xl. 43. 5. What Nissen,
_Beitr. z. röm. Staatsr._ 53 f., says of these magistrates’ lack of
military imperium is therefore baseless.
[1143] Cic. _Att._ iv. 18. 4; _Q. Fr._ iii. 4. 6; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 47;
xxxix. 65. The praetor was Ser. Sulpicius Galba.
[1144] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25; cf. _Q. Fr._ iii. 2. 3; p. 417 below.
[1145] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25: “Appius ... dixit ... legem curiatam consuli
ferri opus esse, necesse non esse.”
[1146] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2.
[1147] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 4; _Q. Fr._ iii. 3. 2; cf. p. 111 above.
[1148] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 3 ff.; 18. 3; _Q. Fr._ iii. 2. 3; 3. 2 f.
[1149] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 3.
[1150] The compact (Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2) made between Appius and his
colleague in the consulship, 54, parties of the first part, and Memmius
and Domitius, candidates for the consulship for the ensuing year, parties
of the second part, that the parties of the second part in the event of
their election should produce three augurs to testify that the parties
of the first part had proposed and carried a lex curiata, or in failure
to produce the witnesses should forfeit to the parties of the first
part a specified sum of money, assumes, inasmuch as the evidence was
not to be forthcoming till after the election, (1) that the lex curiata
was not essential to holding the elective comitia, but (2) that it was
highly advantageous to the promagistrate. Cicero, who often refers to the
postponement of the elective comitia of this year, never intimates that
the want of a lex curiata stood in the way.
Varro, consul in 216, must have found it extremely difficult, though
perhaps not impossible, after carrying his lex de imperio in the
comitium, to complete the consular and pretorian elections in the Campus
Martius—all between sunrise and sunset on the same day; Livy xxii. 35. 4.
[1151] P. 192.
[1152] Dio Cass. xli. 43. 3. Livy, v. 52. 15, proves that the comitia
curiata could meet only within the pomerium.
[1153] Dio Cass. xli. 43. 2.
[1154] Cf. Livy v. 52. 15.
[1155] Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3. The date of the trial was Feb. 7, 56; Cic.
_Q. Fr._ ii. 3. 2.
[1156] _Lex Cornelia de XX Quaest._ in _CIL._ i. 202; Cic. _Verr._ i. 10.
30; Schol. Gronov. 395. Mark Antony when quaestor performed the functions
of his office through the year without the sanctioning law; Cic. _Phil._
ii. 20. 50.
[1157] It is always spoken of in the singular, the implication being that
one act served for all; cf. especially Caesar, _B. C._ i. 6; Livy ix. 38.
15; Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3.
[1158] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 48: “Itaque auspicato ... tr. pl. comitiis
curiatis creati sunt”; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; ix. 41. 2; cf. Livy ii. 56.
2; p. 262 below.
[1159] V. 46. 10.
[1160] _Röm. Verf._ 381 and n. 2.
[1161] Based on his reading of Fest. 351. 34: “(Triginta lictoribus l)ex
curiata fertur; quod Hanni(bal in propinquitate) Romae cum esset, nec ex
praesidi(is discedere liceret), Q. Fabius Maximus Verru(cosus egit per
tr. pl. et Ma)rcellus cos. facere in(stituit.”...).
[1162] The attendance on the comitia tributa was sometimes as low as five
to the tribe; Cic. _Sest._ 51. 109.
[1163] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 16 f.; in connection with the preceding
note and p. 127.
[1164] Mommsen’s restoration is, “(Transit imperium nec denuo l)ex
curiata fertur, quod Hanni(bal in vicinitate) Romae cum esset nec ex
praesidi(is tuto decedi posset), Q. Fabius Maximus Verru(cossus M.
Claudius Ma)rcellus cos. facere in(stituerunt)”; _Röm. Forsch_, ii. 412;
_Röm. Staatsr._ i. 613, n. 3. Bergk, _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xix (1864).
606, with less success proposes translatione imperii; cf. also Herzog,
_Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 679. The passage is in fact past healing, though
Mommsen’s reconstruction is an improvement on Rubino’s.
[1165] The second inference is from the present tense of the verb
“fertur.”
[1166] Livy xxiv. 7-9.
[1167] Ibid. 9. 3.
[1168] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 679. It is not to be assumed,
however, that the senatus consultum had to be repeated at every such case
of transition. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 175, 704 f., who gives the measure
a wider constitutional scope, assumes that it was a plebiscite. Mommsen,
_Röm. Forsch._ ii. 413, supposes that the two consuls on entering office
in 214 simply omitted the curiate sanction on the ground that they
already held the imperium, which was unlimited in duration, and that the
jurists accepted this procedure as constitutional. The specific motive
for this action, Mommsen asserts, was the fact that they were absent from
Rome at the opening of their official year. But the truth is that they
were both present (Livy xxiv. 10 f.), and had accordingly no occasion for
establishing such precedent on their own responsibility. All they did in
the matter, then, was to take advantage of a measure already enacted.
[1169] Cf. Livy xxi. 63; xxii. 1.
[1170] The existence of the measure of 215 proves that the curiate
assembly and curiate law were at the time something more than a mere
formality.
[1171] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2; cf. p. 113, 194, n. 2. The Ciceronian
passage, our only authority on this point, seems to imply a custom.
[1172] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30.
[1173] On the servility of the lictors, see Cic. _Verr._ ii. 29. 72;
_Pis._ 22. 53.
[1174] That the comitia curiata were no longer attended by the people in
the time of Cicero is attested by _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 27: “Curiatis ...
comitiis, quae vos non initis”; cf. n. 6.
[1175] _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 27. On the Aelian and Fufian statutes, see p.
116, 358 f.
[1176] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31: “Illis (comitiis) ad speciam atque ad
usurpationem vetustatis per ... lictores auspiciorum causa adumbratis.”
[1177] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30: “Consulibus legem curiatam ferentibus
a tribunis plebis saepe est intercessum”; cf. Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3.
[1178] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 29; p. 227 above.
[1179] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25; p. 193 above.
[1180] Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 905.
[1181] This chapter historically follows ch. iv.
[1182] Livy i. 60. 4. This is the first act which Livy records, and it is
his opinion that the last king never consulted the people; i. 49. 3. His
view harmonizes with that of Dionysius, iv. 40. 3, that Servius intended
to resign his office and establish a republic, had he lived.
[1183] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 53: “(Valerius Poplicola) legem ad populum
tulit eam, quae centuriatis comitiis prima lata est.” Dionysius, iv.
20. 3, supposes that Servius actually used this assembly for elections,
legislation, and declarations of war, that Tarquin the Proud set aside
the Servian arrangement (iv. 43. 1), which was restored at the beginning
of the republic. The first of these ideas is an inference from republican
usage, not based on knowledge of any definite act of the assembly in the
regal period. In this matter, Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 264, has
given him too much credit.
[1184] An objection to the view represented by Soltau, ibid. 270-5, that
the coöperation of the army in the overthrow of Tarquin the Proud caused
its immediate transformation into the comitia centuriata, is that we
have no ground for accepting as historical the details of the overthrow
to which he calls attention. In p. 285-96 he attempts to reconstruct
the earliest constitution of the republic on the theory that the army
elected the consuls (283), that for a time those who were not actually on
military duty were excluded from a vote in the centuriate assembly. The
sources give no information regarding such an assembly, and we have no
right to assume it, at least as a regular, recognized institution, for
any period however early. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 465, supposes that with
the founding of the republic the assembly began to diverge from the army,
the two institutions having previously been identical; cf. Guiraud, in
_Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 1.
[1185] Livy ix. 13. 1.
[1186] Livy vii. 16. 4.
[1187] Livy v. 28. 7; vii. 36. 9.
[1188] Livy viii. 31.
[1189] Ibid. 32. 1.
[1190] Livy viii. 32 f.
[1191] Livy x. 19. 11.
[1192] Livy vii. 36. 9.
[1193] Ibid. ch. 37, especially § 9.
[1194] Cic. _Fam._ xi. 13. 3; Livy vii. 37. 9. viii. 32. 1; ix. 13. 1; x.
19. 11; xxviii. 26. 12; xl. 36. 4; xlii. 53. 1; Dion. Hal. iii. 13. 1.
[1195] Livy vii. 35. 1 f.
[1196] Livy v. 46. 5 ff.
[1197] Livy vii. 16. 7; p. 297.
[1198] Livy xxvi. 2. 2 (211 B.C.). On the military contio, see also p.
140.
[1199] Laelius Felix, _Lib. ad. Muc._ in Gell. xv. 27. 5: “Centuriata
autem comitia intra pomerium fieri nefas esse, quia exercitum extra urbem
imperari oporteat, intra urbem imperari ius non sit.”
[1200] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3: Συνῄει δὲ τὸ πλῆθος εἰς τὸ πρὸ τῆς πόλεως
Ἄρειον πεδίον ὑπὸ λοχαγοῖς καὶ σημείοις τεταγμένον ὥσπερ ἐν πολέμῳ; p.
211. During the session Janiculum was occupied by a garrison, above
which, in view of the Campus Martius, waved a flag; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 27;
cf. Gell. xv. 27. 5.
[1201] P. 104, 140 f., 244.
[1202] _Comm. Consular._ in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88; Livy xxxix. 15. 11;
Laelius Felix, in Gell. xv. 27. 5; Fest. ep. 103; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16.
15; Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 1. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 216, 294, n.
2, is of the opinion that the centuriate assembly was termed exercitus
because it met for military exercise on the Campus Martius. But we have
no evidence that the assembly ever took such exercise; in fact the drill
of the proletarian mob would be hardly less ridiculous than that of the
nonagenarians, both of whom had a right to vote in the assembly.
[1203] IV. 84. 5.
[1204] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 216 and n. 3.
[1205] Fabius Pictor, _Ann._ i, in Gell. x. 15. 3 f.: “Dialem flaminem
... religio est classem procinctam extra pomerium, id est, exercitum
armatum, videre; idcirco rarenter flamen Dialis creatus consul est, cum
bella consulibus mandabantur.” There was no objection to this flamen’s
seeing the comitia centuriata, but the armed centuries it was not lawful
for him to see. Cf. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 93: “Alia de causa hic magistrates
(quaestor) non potest exercitum urbanum convocare; censor, consul,
dictator, interrex potest, quod censor exercitum centuriato constituit
quinquennalem, cum lustrare et in urbem ad vexillum ducere debet.” But
the term exercitus urbanus sometimes denotes the body of men enlisted for
military service from those who were ordinarily exempt; Livy xxii. 11. 9.
[1206] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 265, supposes that in the original
form of census-taking the citizens were so arranged in companies under
their leaders as to constitute an army ready to be led against the enemy.
But the only citation he offers (Dion. Hal. ii. 14, perhaps for iv. 22.
1; see n. below) has no bearing on the matter.
[1207] IV. 22, i: Κελεύσας τοὺς πολίτας ἅπαντας συνελθεῖν εἰς τὸ μέγιστον
τῶν πρὸ τῆς πόλεως πεδίων ἔχοντας τὰ ὅπλα καὶ τάξας τοὺς θ’ἱππεῖς κατὰ
τέλη καὶ τοὺς πεζοὺς ἐν φάλαγγι καὶ τοὺς ἐσταλμένους τὸν φιλικὸν ὁπλισμὸν
ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ἑκάστους λόχοις καθαρμὸν αὐτῶν ἐποιήσατο.
[1208] _L. L._ vi. 86: “Censor ... praeconi sic imperato ut viros
vocet.... Omnes quirites pedites armatos, privatosque curatores omnium
tribuum, si quis pro se sive pro alio rationem dari volet, vocato in
licium huc ad me” (Mommsen’s reading, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 361, n.
6). Spengel reads, “Omnes quirites, (equites) pedites, magistratos
privatosque, curatores,” etc., in which armatos does not appear.
[1209] Such an inspection by the censors, if it ever existed, must have
fallen early into disuse (cf. Mommsen, ibid. iii. 397); but we could more
reasonably suppose that the inspection of the arms and of the physical
condition of the men always belonged to the officers who attended to the
levy; Polyb. vi. 20.
[1210] Cf. Livy xliii. 14. 8: “Censores edixerunt ... qui in patris aut
avi potestate essent, eorum nomina ad se ederentur.” The father gave the
census of his son; Fest. ep. 66: “Duicensus (census of two) dicebatur
cum altero, id est cum filio census;” Dion. Hal. ix. 36. 3. The son was
classed according to the census of the father; Livy xxiv. 11. 7.
[1211] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 15. 6; v. 75. 3; Gell. iv.
20. 3 ff.
[1212] Notwithstanding Genz, _Centuriatverf._ 11; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i.
477.
[1213] Polyb. vi. 20 ff. The Romans were of the opinion that the same
principle held for the earliest times; Varro, _L. L._ v. 89; Dion. Hal.
iv. 14; cf. Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 337.
[1214] Polyb. vi. 19. 2.
[1215] The five classes contained accordingly 80, 20, 20, 20, and 28
centuries respectively; cf. p. 66 f., 77; see also table on p. 210. A
great difference exists between Livy and Dionysius, on the one hand,
and Cicero, on the other, as to the number of centuries in the highest
class. Cicero (_Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Nunc rationem videtis esse talem, ut
equitum centuriae cum sex suffragiis et prima classis addita centuria,
quae ad summum usum urbis fabris tignariis est data, LXXXVIIII centurias
habebat”) states that the eighteen centuries of knights, the centuries of
the first class, and one century of mechanics amounted to eighty-nine,
which would give but seventy to the first class. The most satisfactory
explanation of this difficulty seems to be that Cicero, while professing
to describe the earlier centuriate system, had in mind a formative stage
of the new organization, in which the first class comprised seventy
centuries; p. 67, 215, n. 2. On the number in the fifth class, see p. 66,
77, 208.
[1216] P. 68.
[1217] The two are mentioned by Livy i. 43. 3 and Dion. Hal. iv.
17. 3; vii. 59. 4. Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 1. 1, speaks of a guild of
coppersmiths, and Plut. _Num._ 17, refers to the same guild and to that
of the carpenters, ascribing both to Numa as founder. Cicero, _Rep._ ii.
22. 39; _Orat._ 46. 156, mentions only the century of carpenters. Placing
this century with the first class, he either overlooks that of the smiths
or wishes to reckon it with the second class (cf. Huschke, _Verf. des
Serv._ 153). As he reckons the total number of centuries at one hundred
and ninety-three, he has allowed for both.
[1218] Plut. _Num._ 17; also n. above.
[1219] I. 43. 3.
[1220] _Rep._ ii. 22. 39; cf. n. 2 above.
[1221] IV. 17. 3.
[1222] Cf. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 91 f. with citations.
[1223] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40; Livy i. 43. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 17. 3 f.;
vii. 59. 5; cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 91; Cato, in Gell. xx. 2.
[1224] Plut. _Num._ 17, speaks of only one guild of musicians, the
pipers. But the cornicines formed a guild in imperial times; _CIL._ vi.
524. The two centuries were united in the collegium aeneatorum; Fest. ep.
20; _CIL._ vi. 10220 f.; Domazewski, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
iii. 1954.
[1225] P. 68, 80.
[1226] _Röm. Trib._ 137, accepted by Genz, _Centurienverf._ 3, 8; Soltau,
_Altröm. Volksversamml._ 254, 317, 520, n. 1. Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._
172, assumes ten and includes them in the fifth class. Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ i. 471, supposes the accensi to have included the entire fifth
class, which in his opinion was not instituted till the beginning of the
republic.
[1227] I. 43. 7.
[1228] _Rep._ ii. 22. 40: “Quin etiam accensis velatis, liticinibus,
cornicinibus, proletariis.”
[1229] _CIL._ vi. 9219: “Praef(ectus) c(enturiae) a(ccensorum)
v(elatorum)”; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. p. xi, n. 1; Ulpian,
_Vat. Frag._ 138, mentions the privileges of this century. A decuria of
the accensi velati is referred to by _CIL._ vi. 1973; cf. Kubitschek, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 136.
[1230] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 282; Kubitschek, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 135 ff.; Domazewski, ibid. iii. 1953 f.
[1231] P. 68.
[1232] _XII Tables_, in Gell. xvi. 10. 5: “Adsiduo vindex adsiduus esto.
Proletario iam civi, cui, quis volet, vindex esto.”
[1233] Livy i. 43. 8; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; Ennius, in Gell. xvi. 10. 1.
[1234] IV. 18. 2.
[1235] That there was a proletarian century, besides the accensi velati,
in the comitia centuriata is proved by Livy i. 43. 8; Dion. Hal. iv.
18. 2; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40. Mommsen’s attempt (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii.
237 f., 285 f.) to rule this century out of existence has failed,
notwithstanding the approval of some recent writers, as Domazewski, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1953. Cf. Kübler, ibid. iii. 1521 ff.
[1236] IV. 17. 2; vii. 59. 3.
[1237] Cf. Livy i. 43. 10.
[1238] Cf. p. 66, 77, n. 2.
[1239] P. 77 and n. 2.
[1240] 177. 21: “‘Niquis scivit’ centuria est, quae dicitur a Ser. Tullio
rege constituta, in qua liceret ei suffragium ferre, qui non tulisset in
sua, nequis civis suffragii iure privaretur.... Sed in ea centuria, neque
censetur quisquam, neque centurio praeficitur, neque centurialis potest
esse, quia nemo certus est eius centuriae. Est autem ni quis scivit nisi
quis scivit.”
[1241] As does Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 285 f.
[1242] This view accords best with the words of Livy i. 43. 7: “In his
accensi, cornicines tubicinesque, in tres centurias distributi” (they
were reckoned among the thirty).
[1243] Accepted by Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 152, but rejected by
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 283, n. 1.
[1244] P. 7, 62, 74 ff. 93, 96.
[1245] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Equitum centuriae cum sex suffragiis”;
Fest. 334. 29. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82, is uncertain.
[1246] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39 (n. above); Livy i. 36. 7; 43. 9.
[1247] P. 62, 93.
[1248] P. 93.
[1249] L. Scipio Asiagenus retained his public horse till, six years
after his consulship, he was deprived of it by Cato the censor; Plut.
_Cat. Mai._ 18; Livy xxxix. 44. 1. Both censors of the year 204 had
public horses; Livy xxix. 37. 8. The senators were equites and voted
in the equestrian centuries as late as 129; Cic. _Rep._ iv. 2. 2; cf.
Gerathewohl, _Reiter und Rittercent._ 77 and n. 2 f.
[1250] P. 94.
[1251] P. 96.
[1252] Livy viii. 8, while describing the manipular arrangement under
the year 340, assigns the beginning of it to the time of Camillus,
considering it due to the introduction of pay; Plut. _Cam._ 40
(for change of armor at time of Camillus); cf. Soltau, _Altröm.
Volksversamml._ 278; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 332 f.; Delbrück,
_Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 235.
[1253] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3 (p. 203, n. 2). There seems to be no reason
for doubting this statement; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 1100.
[1254] P. 157 b.
[1255] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 563. His citations, however (Fest. 177. 27;
Cic. _Orat._ ii. 64. 260), do not prove the point; Herzog, ibid.
[1256] Dion. Hal. iv. 21. 1; x. 17.
[1257] Livy i. 43. 11; Dion. Hal. iv. 20. 3-5; vii. 59. 3-8; x. 17. 3.
On the prerogative equestrian centuries, see Livy i. 43. 8; v. 18. 1:
“Praerogativa ... creant” (corrupt text); x. 22. 1: “Praerogativae et
primo vocatae centuriae ... dicebant”; Fest. 249. 7.
[1258] Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49; _Q. Fr._ ii. 14. 4; _Div._ i. 45. 103; Fest.
ibid.
[1259] Ch. iv.
[1260] P. 64, 86 f.
[1261] P. 86 f.
[1262] V. 18. 1 f.; “P. Licinium Calvum praerogativa tribunum militum non
petentem creant ... omnesque deinceps ex collegio eiusdem anni refici
apparebat.... Qui priusquam renuntiarentur iure vocatis tribubus....
Calvus ita verba fecit.” We might amend this evidently corrupt passage
either by changing praerogativa to the plural, as do Müller (2d ed.
1888) and Weissenborn (8th ed. 1885), thus making it refer to the
equestrian centuriae. At the same time we might read iis revocatis (scil.
praerogativis). The passage would then apply to the Servian arrangement.
Or we could bring it to the support of the reformed order by reading
creat (cf. Madvig). The preferable interpretation of the qui priusquam
... tribubus clause seems to be “Before they could be declared elected
on the official reports from the tribes,” the official reports being
counted tribe by tribe, as will hereafter appear; p. 225. See also on
this passage, Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 10 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 496.
Here, as often elsewhere, Ullrich, _Centuriatcom._ 14, is wrong. But it
is impossible to prove or to disprove anything by the emendation of such
a passage.
[1263] VI. 21. 5: “Omnes tribus bellum iusserunt.” As the tribal assembly
did not declare war, this passage must refer to the reformed comitia
(Lange, ibid.; Plüss, ibid. 13), unless omnes tribus is carelessly used
to designate the unanimous vote of the populus Romanus. The assembly
tributim mentioned by Livy vii. 16. 7 for the year 357 was tribal, not
centuriate as Ullrich, ibid. 15, supposes.
[1264] In fact some scholars have assigned the reform to the decemvirs,
451; cf. Peter, _Epoch. d. Verfassungsgesch._ 75; Soltau, _Altröm.
Volksversamml._ 361 ff.
[1265] P. 77 f., 214.
[1266] X. 22. 1: “Eumque et praerogativae et primo vocatae omnes
centuriae.” Praerogativae refers to the equestrian centuriae and hence
to the Servian organization. It is hazardous, however, to make so much
depend on a single letter; should final e be dropped from this adjective,
the sentence would still read correctly.
[1267] P. 57 f., 66 f., 86 f.
[1268] I. 43. 12.
[1269] Cf. xxiv. 7. 12 (215 B.C.): “Eo die cum sors praerogativae Aniensi
iuniorum exisset”; 9. 3: “Praerogativae suffragium iniit ... eosdem
consules ceterae centuriae ... dixerunt”; xxvi. 22. 2 f.; xxvii. 6. 3.
[1270] Livy xl. 51 is evidence that the censors had power to make changes
as extensive as these.
[1271] Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 108, preferred Fabius, and his view has
been accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 499; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._
i. 326; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956; Le Tellier,
_Organ. cent._ 75; Willems, _Droit public Röm._ 93; Karlowa, _Röm.
Rechtsgesch._ i. 384; and others. But in his _Staatsr._ iii. 254, n.
4, 270, n. 3, following Göttling, _Gesch. d. röm. Staatsverf._ 383, he
changes his preference to Flaminius on the ground that the conflict
between the patricians and the plebeians continued to the war with
Hannibal (Sall. _Hist._ i. 9. 11), ending, as he supposes, in the opening
of the six patrician centuries of knights to the plebeians—a change which
he connects with the reform under discussion. His reasoning as to the
date is not cogent, and is outweighed by the consideration given in the
text.
[1272] II. 21.
[1273] XXI. 63; cf. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956.
[1274] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 499; Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 10; Le
Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 73 ff.
[1275] Guiraud, in _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 7.
[1276] I. 43. 12: “Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem, qui nunc est post
expletas quinque et triginta tribus duplicato earum numero centuriis
iuniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Serv. Tullio summam non convenire”
(Nor need we be surprised that the arrangement as it now exists after the
tribes have been increased to thirty-five, their number being doubled
in the centuries of juniors and seniors, does not agree with the total
number instituted by Servius Tullius).
[1277] IV. 21. 3: Οὑτος ὁ κόσμος τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἐπὶ πολλὰς διέμεινε
γενεὰς φυλαττόμενος ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίον· ἐν δὲ τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς κεκίνηται χρόνοις
καὶ μεταβέβληκεν εἰς τὸ δημοτικώτερον, ἀνάγκαις τισὶ βιασθεὶς ἰσχυραῖς,
οὐ τῶν λόχον καταλυθέντων, ἀλλὰ τῆς κρίσεως (or κλήσεως) αὐτῶν οὐκέτι τὴν
ἀρχαίαν ἀκρίβειαν φυλαττούσης, ὡς ἐγνων ταῖς ἀρχαιρεσίαις αὐτῶν πολλάκις
παρών. (After this arrangement had continued many generations, carefully
preserved by the Romans, it has assumed in our time a more democratic
character, driven into this new course by certain powerful forces. The
centuries were not abolished, but the decision of their votes has lost
its former carefulness—or we may read, the calling of the centuries no
longer retains its precise order. This fact, he tells us, he himself
often noticed when present at elections.)
If κρίσεως, supported by most MSS., is retained, it should refer to the
equalization of power among the classes; κλῆσεως would probably mean that
the prerogative century was now drawn by lot.
[1278] P. 77 f.
[1279] _Röm. Gesch._ iii. 374 ff.
It is not improbable that the first step was the reduction of the first
class to seventy centuries, the ten centuries deducted being at the same
time added to the lower classes. This view will explain Cic. _Rep._ ii.
22. 39, which otherwise must be considered a mistake; p. 67, 205, n. 5.
[1280] P. 213, n. 5.
[1281] Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 12, concludes that the change was
gradual. The line of development suggested by Plüss, _Centurienverf._,
however, is ill supported by the evidence. Guiraud, _Rev. hist._ xvii
(1881). 1 ff., also accepts the view of a gradual reform but minimizes
its importance.
[1282] The citations below refer to a plurality of classes for the
period following the reform, without mentioning a definite number; Sall.
_Iug._ 86; Cic. _Rep._ iv. 2. 2; _Flacc._ 7. 15; _Red. ad Quir._ 7. 17;
Symmachus, _Pro Patre_, 7 (Seeck); Auson. _Grat. Act._ iii. 13; ix. 44
(Peiper); p. 287, 293 (Bip.). In his speech for the Voconian law, 169,
the elder Cato, in Gell. vi. 13. 3, referred to the distinction between
the classici and those who were infra classem, from which we may conclude
that the distinction existed in his time. The agrarian law of 111 (_CIL._
i. 200. 37) mentions the first class; also Livy xliii. 16. 14. The
first and second are spoken of by Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82. Ullrich’s
view (_Centuriatcom._), resting on these passages, is that there were
but two classes, one of seniors another of juniors. Besides involving
many impossibilities, it is refuted by the frequent references to the
continuance of the census as an element in the system (see note below)
and by the occasional mention of the five classes. The latter number for
the time of C. Gracchus is given by Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._ 2. 8. This
work, though late, is generally considered good authority; cf. Greenidge,
_Hist. of Rome_, i. 237 f. Five are mentioned also by Gell. vi (vii). 13.
1; Serv. _in Aen._ vii. 716; Arnob. _Adv. Nat._ ii. 67, with no definite
reference to a particular period. Cicero’s allusion (_Acad. Pr._ ii. 23.
73) to the fifth class implies at least that the five classes were then
fresh in the memory. The mention of an amplissimus census for the time
of Cicero by Ascon. _in Pis._ 16, proves the existence of more than two
classes at the time. These citations, together with the fact that no
other definite number but five is ever spoken of by the ancient writers,
must lead to the conclusion that there was no change.
[1283] To the time of Marius the soldiers were still drawn from the
census classes; Polyb. vi. 19. 2; Sall. _Iug._ 86. The first class
was distinguished from the rest by its armor, Polyb. vi. 23. 15. That
the political classes likewise rested on the census is proved by Cic.
_Leg._ iii. 3. 7; 19. 44; Gell. vi (vii). 13; xv. 27. 5; Ascon. _in
Pis._ 16. The agrarian law of 111 (_CIL._ i. 200. 37) implies a property
qualification of the class mentioned (note above). These citations
dispose of the hypothesis of Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 36 ff., 80, which
represents the classes of this period as consisting of groups of tribes
resting partly on the census but mainly on differences of rank.
[1284] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82; Livy xliii. 16. 14; Pseud. Sall. _Rep.
Ord._ 2. 8; Val. Max. vi. 5. 3; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 57. 3.
[1285] Livy i. 43. 12; xxiv. 7. 12; xxvi. 22. 2 f.; xxvii. 6. 3 (p. 213,
n. 5 above); Cic. _Rep._ iv. 2. 2; _Verr._ II. v. 15. 38: “Qui (praeco)
te totiens seniorum iuniorumque centuriis illo honore (praetorship)
adfici pronuntiavit”; _Har. Resp._ 6. 11; _Leg._ iii. 3. 7; Horace, _Ars
Poet._ 341: “Centuriae seniorum agitant expertia frugis.”
[1286] Varro, _L. L._ vii. 42; Cic. _Flacc._ 7. 15; _Sull._ 32. 91; _Tog.
Cand._ in Ascon. 85; _Red. in Sen._ 11. 27; _Imp. Pomp._ 1. 2; _Brut._
67. 237; _Orat._ ii. 64. 260; Ascon. 16, 95; Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._
2. 8; Livy i. 43. 12 f.; xxvi. 18. 9; 22. 4, 8, 10, 13; xxvii. 21. 4;
xxviii. 38. 6; xxix. 22. 9; xxxi. 6. 3; 7. 1; xxxvii. 47. 7; xliii. 16.
14, 16; Dion. Hal. iv. 21. 3; et passim.
[1287] I. 43. 12 f. “Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem, qui nunc est post
expletas quinque et triginta tribus duplicate earum numero centuriis
iuniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Servio Tullio summam non
convenire. Quadrifariam enim urbe divisa ... partes eas tribus appellavit
... neque eae tribus ad centuriarum distributionem numerumque quicquam
pertinuere.”
[1288] Livy xxiv. 7. 12.
[1289] Livy xxvi. 22. 2 f.
[1290] Livy xxvii. 6. 3.
[1291] Voting or the announcement of the votes according to tribes
is indicated by Polyb. vi. 14. 7: Τοῖς γὰρ θανάτου κρινομένοις, ἐπὰν
καταδικάζωνται δίδωσι τὴν ἐξουσίαν τὸ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἔθος ἀπαλλάττεσθαι
φανερῶς, κἂν ἔτι μία λείπηται φυλὴ τῶν ἐπικυρουσῶν τὴν κρίσιν ἀψηφόρητος,
ἑκούσιον ἑαυτοῦ κατγνόντα φυγαδείαν. (To those who are on trial for
life, while the vote of condemnation is being taken, even if a single
tribe of those whose suffrages are needed to ratify the sentence has not
voted, the Roman custom grants permission to depart openly, condemning
themselves to voluntary exile.) This procedure must have been in the
comitia centuriata, and hence the votes of the centuries must have been
taken or announced by tribes; cf. Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._
xii (1892). 220; Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 14. See also Cic. _Leg. Agr._
ii. 2. 4: “Meis comitiis non tabellam vindicem tacitae libertatis, sed
vocem [unam] prae vobis indicem vestrarum erga me voluntatum ac studiorum
tulistis. Itaque me non extrema tribus (not diribitio) suffragiorum, sed
primi illi vestri concursus, neque singulae voces praeconum, sed una
vox universi populi Romani consulem declaravit.” The MSS. have tribus
and there is nothing against it, though Müller, following Richter, has
adopted diribitio for the Teubner text, 1896. The meaning is “In my
election you offered not merely the ballot, the vindication of your
silent liberty, but also your unanimous voice as evidence of your good
will to me and of your eagerness in my behalf. Hence it was not the last
tribal group of votes but your first coming together, not the single
announcements of the criers but the unanimous voice of the entire Roman
people which declared me consul.” From this passage we may infer (1) that
the votes were cast or announced by tribes, (2) that the tribe cast more
than one vote, (3) that the result was sometimes known before the last
tribe was reached. Cf. further Cic. _Phil._ vi. 5. 12; 6. 16; xi. 8. 18;
Livy v. 18. 2; vi. 21. 5; viii. 37. 12; xxix. 37. 13; ep. xlix; Oros. v.
7. 1; Lucan, _Phars._ v. 391 ff.; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 42.
[1292] Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49: “Unius tribus pars” (i.e. the prerogative
century); Pseudacr. Schol. Cruq. ad Hor. _Poet._ 341: “Singulae tribus
certas habebant centurias seniorum et iuniorum”; Livy i. 43. 12 f.
implies that the number of centuries was a multiple of the number of
tribes, in other words that the century was an integral part of the
tribe; cf. Q. Cic. _Petit._ 5. 17 f.; 8. 32; Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 74.
The most convincing evidence is that of inscriptions of the imperial
period (p. 220) which prove the urban tribes to have comprised each an
integral number of centuries. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 274, has
therefore failed in his attempt to limit to the first class the division
of the tribes into centuries.
[1293] _Röm. Gesch._ iii. 382 f., followed by Plüss, _Centurienverf._
23 ff. Niebuhr places the change in 304, when there were but thirty-one
tribes, which would give for that date but sixty-two half-tribe centuries.
[1294] P. 216.
[1295] Niebuhr, ibid. His authorities for the two classes are Livy xliii.
16. 14: “Cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent
multaeque aliae primae classis”; Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82: “Prima classis
vocatur, renuntiatur; deinde, ita ut adsolet, suffragia; tum secunda
classis vocatur; quae omnia sunt citius facta, quam dixi. Confecto
negotio bonus augur ... alio die inquit”; cf. p. 113. In the Livian
citation, however, the mention of only the first class affords no hint
as to the number of classes to follow; and the keen analysis of the
Ciceronian passage made by Huschke, _Verf. des Serv._ 615 and n. 8,
proves confecto negotio to signify not necessarily that the voting
had been finished, but rather that the comitia had advanced so far as
to preclude the obnuntiatio. It should be served before the assembly
convened, not after the meeting began (“Non comitiis habitis, sed
priusquam habeantur”; § 81). Confecto negotio, equivalent to comitiis
habitis, is the negative of priusquam habeantur. This interpretation
deprives the theory of two classes, held by Niebuhr, Ullrich, and others,
of its only support.
[1296] P. 216, n. 1.
[1297] P. 216, n. 2.
[1298] _Verf. des Serv._ 623.
[1299] Ibid. 617 ff.
[1300] Ibid. 634. Similar is the view of Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 36 ff.,
80, that for the period 179-86 the classes were groups of tribes based
partly on the census and partly on social rank.
[1301] P. 216, n. 3. The long-known hypothesis here mentioned was
sufficiently refuted by Huschke, ibid. 619 ff., but has been more
recently revived by Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 117 ff., who, however, so
develops it as to make the five classes voting divisions of the century.
This notion is controverted by Genz, _Centuriatcom. nach der Ref._, and
defended without success by Gerathewohl, _Reit. und Rittercent._ 90 f.
[1302] This result is in fact suggested by the passage in Livy 1. 43. 12
f. (p. 217, n. 1); it is not to be wondered at that an increase in the
tribes should bring about an increase in the centuries—a diminution in
the centuries could not be spoken of in the same way.
[1303] P. 217.
[1304] P. 218, n. 1.
[1305] P. 216, n. 3.
[1306] ¶ above.
[1307] P. 216, n. 4.
[1308] A monk who lived 1494-1567. For his view see Drackenborch’s
commentary on Livy i. 43. To the 350 centuries of juniors and seniors
he added 35 or 70 centuries of knights and a century of proletarians,
making a total of 386 or 421 respectively. No scholar now holds to more
than 18 equestrian centuries. With this and a few other variations as to
supernumerary centuries his view has been adopted by Savigny, _Vermischte
Schriften_, i. 1 ff.; Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._; Genz, _Centuriatcom. nach
der Ref._; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 15; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i.
324; Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 181-244; Schiller,
_Röm. Alt._ 633; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956
ff.; Greenidge, _Rom. Publ. Life_, 253; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 89
ff.; Göttling, _Gesch. der röm. Staatsverf._ 383; Peter, _Epoch. d.
Verfassungsgesch._ 75; Morlot, _Comices élect._ 85 ff.
[1309] _CIL._ vi. 196-8, 1104, 10097, 10214-8; _Inscr. bull. della comm.
di Roma_, 1885. 161; _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1887. 191.
[1310] There must have been in the reformed comitia two curators from
each class for every tribe. This connection with the classes was wrongly
transferred to the tribunes of the plebs by Livy iii. 30. 7; Ascon. 76.
[1311] III. 274 ff.; cf. his _History of Rome_ (Eng. ed. 1900), iii. 52 f.
[1312] II. 22.
[1313] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 274 with notes; cf. Guiraud, in _Rev. hist._
xvii (1881). 16.
[1314] _Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Quae discriptio, si esset ignota vobis,
explicaretur a me; nunc rationem videtis esse talem.”
[1315] Seventy in Cicero’s description, eighty according to the
annalists; p. 67 f., 205, n. 5.
[1316] It is unnecessary here to enter into the controversy regarding the
text. Evidently the second hand has drawn from a reliable source (Klebs,
ibid. 200-210); yet in view of its uncertainty the passage should not be
made the foundation of a theory so thoroughly objectionable as Mommsen’s.
[1317] To Soltau, _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xli (1895). 411, n. 3, this
explanation seems “too cheap.”
[1318] In the clause “Ut equitum centuriae cum sex suffrages et prima
classis addita centuria, quae ... data, LXXXVIIII centuriae habeat,”
centuriae applies to the centuries proper, but in the clause immediately
following, “Quibus ex centum quattuor centuriis (tot enim reliquae sunt)
octo solae accesserunt,” the word on Mommsen’s supposition must denote
not the centuries themselves but the voting groups of centuries. Though
Mommsen usually avoids the application of the term century to the assumed
voting units, he allows himself to do so on p. 274 and in n. 2. Granting
that in this instance he has used the word correctly, we should have the
first class composed of simple centuries and the others of centuries
which were themselves composed of centuries—an evidently absurd result of
his assumption.
[1319] Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 197. Not less
complicated is Le Tellier’s supposition (_Organ. cent._ 88, n. 1) that
the four classes may have differed in number of votes (for example, 30,
28, 28, 14), and that the several voting groups of a class comprised the
same number of centuries, in some cases with a fraction of a century,
e.g., 2, 2½, 2½, 5 centuries for the four classes respectively. This
combination would be as undemocratic and as impracticable as any of those
proposed by Klebs.
[1320] Klebs, ibid. 187.
[1321] P. 214, n. 6.
[1322] I. 43. 12.
[1323] P. 220.
[1324] P. 217.
[1325] P. 216, n. 3. Soltau’s modifications, _Jahrb. f. Philol._ xli
(1895). 410-4, of Mommsen’s hypothesis are no improvement on the original.
[1326] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 510 ff.
[1327] In this way the prerogative century, after serving as an omen
(Cic. _Mur._ 18. 39), would be joined with four others of the same
half-tribe.
[1328] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 526.
[1329] Livy xliii. 16. 14 (171 B.C.): “Cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum
octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis, extemplo
principes civitatis ... vestem mutarunt.” This proves that the votes were
made public early in the course of the voting, though not necessarily
before the second class began; cf. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82. Lange too
hastily rejects the evidence of these two passages. The vote of each
century was announced separately; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 42: “Quod ...
comitiis cum recitatur a praecone dicitur olla centuria,” which would not
be true, if, as Lange supposes, the announcement was by tribal groups of
five.
[1330] Cf. Gerathewohl, _Reit. und Rittercent._ 90, n. 2.
[1331] As authority for the six votes of the eighteen equestrian
centuries Lange cites Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Equitum centuriae cum sex
suffrages”; _Phil._ ii. 33. 82; “Prima classis vocatur, renuntiatur;
deinde, ita ut adsolet, suffragia.” So far as these two passages are
concerned, Lange could be right; but his view is contradicted by Festus
334. 29 (“Sex suffragia appellantur in equitum centuriis, quae sunt
adiecta—MS. adfectae—ei numero centuriarum, quas Priscus Tarquinius rex
constituit”), which distinguishes the sex suffragia from the remaining
centuries of cavalry, and by Livy xliii. 16. 14, which gives each century
a vote.
[1332] All the tribes voted; Livy vi. 21. 5 (a historical anticipation
but useful for showing later custom); viii. 37. 12; xxix. 37. 13 f.; ep.
xlix; Val. Max. ix. 10. 1. All the centuries voted; Livy xxiv. 9. 3;
xxvi. 18. 9; 22. 13; xxvii. 21. 4; xxviii. 38. 6; xxix. 22. 5; xxxi. 6.
3; Cic. _Sull._ 32. 91; Pis. 1. 2; _Imp. Pomp._ 1. 2.
[1333] In _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 230 ff.
[1334] Lucan v. 392 ff.:
“Fingit solemnia campi
Et non admissae diribet suffragia plebis
Decantatque tribus et vana versat in urna.”
These verses picture a sham election held by Caesar in 49; he pretends to
hold comitia, counts the votes of the plebs, who are not really permitted
to be present, calls off the tribes, and draws lots for them from the
empty urn.
[1335] _Orat._ 46. 156: “Centuriam, ut Censoriae Tabulae loquuntur,
fabrum audeo dicere, non fabrorum.” Cicero seems to refer to recent
Tabulae Censoriae; though he might quote ancient poets, he was not the
man to ransack old documents even to learn the ancient usage of words.
[1336] Plut. _Num._ 17; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 1. 1.
[1337] Ascon. 75: “Postea collegia S. C. et pluribus legibus sunt sublata
praeter pauca atque certa, quae utilitas civitatis desiderasset, qualia
sunt (MS. quasi, ut) fabrorum fictorumque.”
[1338] P. 207, n. 1.
[1339] See citations in Olcott, _Thes. ling. lat. ep._ i. 51.
[1340] P. 208 f.
[1341] That these supernumerary centuries were abolished at the time
of the reform is argued by Huschke, _Verf. des. Serv._ 622 f.; Plüss,
_Centurienverf._ 28, 34; Genz, _Centuriatcom. nach der Ref._ 12; Klebs,
in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii. 218. That they continued in the new
system is the belief of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 281 ff.; Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 512; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 90.
[1342] P. 220 f.
[1343] The supposed Sullan reaction to the earlier form of the centuriate
comitia is not well founded; p. 406.
[1344] P. 212.
[1345] P. 217. This is a necessary inference from the term used to
describe a prerogative centuria, e.g., Aniensis iuniorum. Had the drawing
been from a group of classes, the number of the class would have been
added, e.g., Aniensis iuniorum secundae classis.
[1346] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82.
[1347] Livy xliii. 16. 14: “Cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo
censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis” (171 B.C.). This
passage proves that the announcement distinguished the votes of the
twelve equestrian centuries both from the sex suffragia and from those of
the class. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82: “Sortitio praerogativae; quiescit.
Renuntiatur; tacet. Prima classis vocatur, renuntiatur; deinde, ita ut
adsolet, suffragia; tum secunda classis vocatur.” Here Cicero informs us
that the (sex) suffragia were announced after the report of the first
class had been given. The circumstance that he does not mention the
separate calling of the suffragia indicates that their separation from
the first class was limited to the announcement. There is no reason why
the Romans should have added to the length of the centuriate sessions by
assigning a part of the day to the exclusive use of these six centuries.
Livy, i. 43. 8 f., has their inferiority in mind. It is unnecessary to
amend the Ciceronian passage. The attempt of Holzapfel, in _Beiträge zur
alten Gesch._ i (1902). 254 f., is unsuccessful. Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d.
Savignyst._ xii (1892). 237 ff., fruitlessly opposes the division of the
equites into these two groups.
[1348] P. 74 f., 95 f., 209 f.
[1349] P. 211, 467, 469.
[1350] P. 201, n. 2.
[1351] The idea that Servius Tullius gave this assembly the right to
elect kings (Dion. Hal. v. 12. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 458; ii. 531) is
proved wrong by the circumstance that the organization attributed to him
was purely military, from which the comitia centuriata slowly developed;
p. 203 ff.
[1352] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 531. On the number of praetors, see
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 202. The election of a centurion to the
function of dedicating a temple (Livy ii. 27. 6) in the period before the
first secession Lange (ibid. i. 917; ii. 532) with good reason considers
a myth. It is doubtful, however, whether he is right in viewing as
historical the so-called lex Valeria de candidatis, assigned to the first
year of the republic (Plut. _Popl._ 11; Lange, ibid. ii. 532), which
ordered the presiding magistrate to accept as candidates all qualified
patricians who offered themselves for the consulship—a principle said to
have been afterward applied to other patrician offices.
[1353] P. 331.
[1354] Cic. _Brut._ 14. 55; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 409; ii. 115, 532.
[1355] On the centuriate elective function in general, see Lange, ibid.
ii. 531-3. Willems, _Sén. Röm._ ii. 69 ff., contends unconvincingly that
the Maenian statute should be assigned to 338.
[1356] P. 177.
[1357] P. 181 f.
[1358] P. 177.
[1359] P. 177.
[1360] P. 202 f.; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 599 f.
[1361] Dion. Hal. viii. 15. 3.
[1362] VIII. 91. 4.
[1363] IX. 69. 2.
[1364] Livy iv. 30. 15.
[1365] Livy iv. 58. 8, 14; 60. 9 (406); vi. 21. 3 (383) 22. 4 (382); vii.
6. 7 (362); 12. 6 (358); 19. 10 (353); 32. 1 (343).
[1366] Livy vii. 20. 3.
[1367] Livy viii. 22. 8 (327); 25. 2 with Dion. Hal. xv. 14 (326); Livy
viii. 29. 6 (325); 43. 2 (306); 45. 8 (304); x. 12. 3 (298); 45. 6 f.
(293).
[1368] Polyb. i. 11.
[1369] Dio Cass. Frag. 49. 5; Zon. viii. 19. 4.
[1370] Livy xxi. 17. 4.
[1371] Livy xxxi. 5-8; especially 6. 1, 3; 7. 1.
[1372] Livy xxxvi. 1. 4 f.; 2. 2 f.
[1373] Livy xlii. 30. 10 f.; 36. 2.
[1374] Oros. v. 15. 1: “Consensu populi.”
[1375] Livy xxxi. 6. 3; 7. 1; xlii. 30. 10; cf. 36. 1.
[1376] Livy xlv. 21; Polyb. xxx. 4. 4 ff.
[1377] Livy xxxviii. 42. 11; 45. 4 ff.
[1378] Livy xxxviii. 50. 3.
[1379] Livy xli. 6; 7. 8; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 3.
[1380] Appian, _Iber._ 51, 55. The condemnation of M. Aemilius Lepidus,
proconsul in 136, to a fine by a judgment of the people seems to have
been more for the failure of his war upon the same state than for
beginning it without authorization; Appian, _Iber._ 80-82; Livy, ep. lvi;
Oros. v. 5. 14.
[1381] Livy iv. 58. 14.
[1382] This is the Macedonian war beginning in 200; p. 231; cf. Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 602.
[1383] P. 176; Gell. xvi. 4. 1; Livy xxxvi. 2. 2.
[1384] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 41. 1 ff.; Cic. _Pis._ 21. 48 f.
[1385] E.g., the act which recalled Camillus from exile; Livy v. 46. 10;
xxii. 14. 11; Cic. _Dom._ 32. 86.
[1386] P. 181 f.
[1387] P. 201, 240.
[1388] Livy iii. 55. 4; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54.
[1389] Livy x. 9. 5; cf. p. 242 below.
[1390] P. 250 f. 349.
[1391] P. 270 f.
[1392] P. 272.
[1393] P. 269.
[1394] Fest. 237. 17; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 622; ii. 603. The contents
are unknown.
[1395] Livy iii. 34. 6. Doubt has been thrown on the early date of the
Twelve Tables by Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 558-606, and on their
official character as well by Lambert, _La question de l’authenticité
des XII Tables et les annales maximi_; _L’histoire traditionelle des XII
Tables et les critères d’inauthenticité des traditions en usage dans
l’école de Mommsen_ in _Mélanges Ch. Appleton_, 503-626; _La fonction
du droit civil comparé_, 390-718; _Le problème de l’origine des XII
Tables_, in _Revue générale de droit_, 1902. 385 ff., 481 ff. Their views
are controverted by Greenidge, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx (1905). 1-21.
For other literature on the subject, see _Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ cxxxiv
(1907). 17 ff.
According to Diod. xii. 26. 1, the last two tables were drawn up by
Valerius and Horatius, consuls in 449.
[1396] Livy ii. 18. 5; Dion. Hal. v. 70. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 585;
ii. 603. Dion. Hal. vi. 90. 2, assumes the enactment of a statute for the
creation of the plebeian tribunate, 494.
[1397] Livy iii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. x. 55. 3 (cf. p. 273).
[1398] Livy vii. 17. 12: “In Duodecim Tabulis legem esse, ut, quodcumque
postremum populus iussisset, id ius ratumque esset; iussum populi et
suffragia esse.” After the decemviral legislation an attempt was made to
extend the principle to elections, as in the case here mentioned by Livy.
[1399] P. 274 ff.
[1400] P. 287.
[1401] Livy vii. 5. 9; Sall. _Iug._ 63; Cic. _Cluent._ 54. 148; _Leg._
iii. 3. 6; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 25, 604. It is only an inference that
this important constitutional change was brought about by the centuries
rather than by the tribes.
[1402] P. 299 f.
[1403] P. 233, 241 f.
[1404] P. 313.
[1405] Livy iv. 6. 8. A law is not mentioned but must be inferred; Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ i. 650; ii. 603.
[1406] Livy ix. 34. 7: “Illi antiquae (legi), qua primum censores creati
sunt”; cf. Lange, ibid. i. 664. In 433 a law, doubtless centuriate, of
the dictator Mam. Aemilius cut down the term of the censors to eighteen
months; Livy iv. 24. 5 f.; ix. 33. 6; ch. 34.
[1407] Livy iv. 43; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; cf. Lange, ibid. i. 666.
[1408] Livy vi. 42. 11.
[1409] Ibid. § 13. The laws last named, relating to the quaestorship,
praetorship, and aedileship, are not mentioned by the ancient authorities
but are necessarily assumed; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 476, 479.
[1410] Livy vii. 41. 4.
[1411] Appian, _Samn._ i. 3; cf. p. 298.
[1412] P. 238.
[1413] Livy viii. 12. 15; cf. i. 17. 9. The auctoritas applied to comitia
curiata as well as centuriata; Cic. _Dom._ 14. 38; Livy vi. 41. 10. On
the comitia tributa, see p. 314.
[1414] The view maintained by Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 33 ff., that
the patres auctores were all the senators, not merely the patrician
members, is disproved by Cic. _Dom._ 14. 38 (Should the patriciate
become extinct, there would no longer be “auctores centuriatorum et
curiatorum comitiorum”). In spite of some looseness of statement in the
passage cited, there seems to be no good ground for considering either
the whole oration spurious or the particular reference to the auctoritas
inaccurate. The question, too complex for detailed treatment in this
volume, is of practical importance for the period only from about 400 to
339.
[1415] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 605 f.
[1416] P. 412.
[1417] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 553; ii. 606.
[1418] _Leg. Agr._ iii. 2. 5; cf. _Leg._ i. 15. 42; _Rosc. Am._ 43. 125;
Schol. Gron. 435; Appian, _B. C._ i. 98. 458 ff.; Plut. _Sull._ 33.
[1419] Cic. _Dom._ 30. 79; _Caecin._ 33. 95; 35. 102.
[1420] P. 416, n. 1.
[1421] Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 19 obscurely suggests that these two laws were
centuriate, though Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 606, doubts it; cf. p. 455.
[1422] Cf. Appian, _B. C._ iii. 30. 117.
[1423] Cic. _Phil._ x. 8. 17; xiii. 15. 31; cf. v. 19. 53.
[1424] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 26: “Centuriata lex censoribus ferebatur.”
[1425] P. 185. Before the institution of the censorship the original
motive of the sanctioning act—to leave the curiae a share in the elective
function—must have given way to the purpose stated by Cicero and
represented here in the text.
[1426] Livy iv. 24. 3 ff.; cf. ix. 33 f.
[1427] Livy viii. 12. 16; cf. p. 300. Livy’s words referring to the
censorship are corrupt, but the passage seems to have the meaning here
given; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 340, n. 2. It was not till 131
that advantage was taken of the provision; Livy, ep. lix. Herzog, _Röm.
Staatswerf._ i. 257, refuses to believe that both censors might now be
plebeian.
[1428] Livy vi. 35. 5. The provision that “at least” one should be
plebeian is doubtless an anticipation of the Genucian law.
[1429] Livy vii. 42. 2; cf. p. 299.
[1430] The alleged centuriate resolution granting a place for a dwelling
to P. Valerius Publicola, passed under his own presidency (Ascon. 13), is
still earlier and less trustworthy.
[1431] Livy ii. 41; Dion Hal. viii. 71, 73 ff.
[1432] Livy iii. 31. 1. In 32. 7 he calls it the Icilian law with the
idea that it was tribunician; but Dion. Hal. x. 32. 4, referring to the
document kept in the temple of Diana, states that it was passed by the
centuriate assembly; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 169, n. 1. Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ i. 619; ii. 607 f., wrongly asserts that it was a plebiscite;
cf. p. 272 below.
[1433] P. 234 f., 298.
[1434] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 13. 21.
[1435] Livy vii. 3. 5.
[1436] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 608 f.
[1437] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 541, and note on earlier literature;
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 148 f., 160 f.; iii. 353.
[1438] Livy i. 26. 5-14; viii. 33. 8. For the theory that the popular
assembly was sometimes a court of the first instance, see p. 260.
[1439] Lange’s idea (ibid. i. 457 f.; ii. 542) that Servius Tullius
transferred appellate jurisdiction to the comitia centuriata rests
upon his view that Servius was the author of the political centuriate
organization.
[1440] Cf. Fest. 297. 11-24; Cic. _Mil._ 3. 7; _Rep._ ii. 31. 54; Livy i.
26.
[1441] Dion. Hal. iv. 25. 2; Livy i. 26. 5; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
11; _Röm. Strafr._ 474.
[1442] For the earlier literature on the ius provocationis, see Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 542, n.
[1443] Cic. _Rep._ i. 40. 62; ii. 31. 53: “Legem ad populum tulit eam,
quae centuriatis comitiis prima lata est, ne quis magistratus civem
Romanum adversus provocationem necaret neve verberaret”; 36. 61; Livy
ii. 8. 2; 30. 5 f.; iii. 33. 9 f.; Val. Max. iv. 1. 1; Plut. _Popl._
11; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 16; Dion. Hal. v. 19. 4; cf. Ihne, in
_Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 168.
[1444] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54; Livy iii. 55. 4; x. 9. 3-6; cf. Pais,
_Storia di Roma_, I. i. 489.
[1445] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54: “Ab omni iudicio poenaque provocari
indicant XII Tabulae compluribus legibus; et quod proditum memoriae
est, X viros, qui leges scripserint, sine provocatione creatos, satis
ostenderit reliquos sine provocatione magistratus non fuisse.”
[1446] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 311. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 68: “Quiritare
dicitur is qui quiritium fidem clamans implorat”; cf. Cic. _Fam._ 32. 3;
Livy ii. 55. 5 f.; iv. 14 f.
[1447] Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1886). 165 ff. Two cases of appeal,
which indeed may be mythical, are mentioned by the annalists for the time
before the decemviral legislation—that of Sp. Cassius, which is only one
of several views as to his condemnation and death (Livy ii. 41; iv. 15.
4; Dion. Hal. viii. 77 f.; ix. 1. 1; 3. 2; 51. 2; x. 38. 3; Diod. xi. 37.
7; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Flor. i. 26. 7), and that of the plebeian M.
Volscius Fictor for false testimony; Livy iii. 25. 2 f.
[1448] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54, quoted p. 240, n. 6. The statement of
Cicero is too general; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 312.
[1449] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 4. 11: “De capite civis Romani nisi per maximum
comitiatum ollosque, quos censores in partibus populi locassint, ne
ferunto”; 19. 44; _Sest._ 30. 65; 34. 73: “De capite non modo ferri, sed
ne iudicari quidem posse nisi comitiis centuriatis”; cf. _Rep._ ii. 36.
61; Plaut. _Pseud._ 1232; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 578; Karlowa,
_Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 409; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 317; p. 268.
[1450] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54; Livy iii. 55. 4; cf. Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ iii. 352, n. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 638; ii. 551; Greenidge,
_Leg. Proced._ 318.
[1451] Livy iii. 55. 14; cf. 54. 15.
[1452] Livy iv. 13. 11 f.; vi. 16. 3 (385); vii. 4. 2 (362); viii. 33-35
(325; see p. 242, n. 5); Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 164 f. with notes;
_Röm. Strafr._ 476; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 318; cf. p. 242.
[1453] Livy x. 9. 4.
[1454] Livy iii. 20. 7; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 66 f.; iii. 352.
[1455] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 543; Mommsen, ibid.
[1456] Livy x. 9. 5: “Improbe factum.” This denunciation might involve
penal consequences according to Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 319 f. Mommsen,
_Röm. Strafr._ 167, 632 f., supposes the expression to signify that the
offending magistrate was to be treated as a private person and punished
for murder. Some are of the opinion that it involved loss of citizenship,
whereas others suppose its effect was simply moral; cf. Karlowa, _Röm.
Rechtsgesch._ i. 429.
[1457] Livy ii. 18. 8; 30. 5; iii. 20. 8; viii. 33 (dictator permits
appeal); Dion. Hal. v. 75. 2 f.; vi. 58. 2; Zon. vii. 13. 13; Pomponius,
in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 18; Lydus, _Mag._ i. 37; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
163, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 756 f.
[1458] Livy ii. 55. 5; iii. 45. 8; 55. 6, 14; 56. 5; 67. 9; viii. 33. 7:
“Tribunos plebis appello et provoco ad populum”; xxxvii. 51. 4; Dion.
Hal. ix. 39. 1 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 277.
[1459] Livy iii. 24. 7; 25. 2; 29. 6; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 840; ii. 544.
[1460] The appeal of Fabius from the jurisdiction of the dictator in 325
was granted not under compulsion but in grace; Livy viii. 35. 5. On the
freedom of the dictatorship from this restriction in the period between
449 and 325, see p. 241, n. 5. The court mentioned by Livy ix. 26. 6 ff.
(314) seems to have been an extraordinary quaestio under the presidency
of a dictator; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 165, n. 6. On the subjection
of his authority to appeal, see Fest. 198. 32: “Optima lex ... in
magistro populi faciendo, qui vulgo dictator appellatur, quam plenissimum
posset ius eius esse significabat, ut fuit M’. Valerio M. f. Volusi
nepotis, qui primus magister populi creatus est. Postquam vero provocatio
ab eo magistratu ad populum data est, quae ante non erat, desitum est
adici, ‘ut optima lege,’ utpote imminuto iure priorum magistrorum.”
[1461] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 165; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 319.
[1462] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 6; Livy ii. 29. 4: “Ab lictore nihil aliud
quam prendere prohibito”; ii. 55. 5; Dion. Hal. vi. 24. 2.
[1463] Livy i. 26. 5: “Duumviros ... qui ... perduellionem iudicent
secundum legem facio”; § 7: “Hac lege duumviri creati”; vi. 20. 12: “Sunt
qui per duumviros, qui de perduellione anquirerent creatos auctores sint
damnatum.” Creare applies to appointments though less commonly than to
elections; cf. Livy ii. 18. 4 f.; 30. 5; iv. 26. 6; Fest. 198. 4 (of the
dictator); Livy iv. 46. 11; 57. 6 (of the magister equitum). In vi. 20.
12, quoted above, Livy may possibly be thinking of election, which seems
to have become the rule before the disuse of the office; cf. Greenidge,
_Leg. Proced._ 304, 309.
[1464] Livy i. 26; Fest. 297. 11.
[1465] _Dig._ xlviii. 4. 11: “Qui perduellionis reus est, hostili animo
aduersus rem publicam uel principem animatus”; cf. Greenidge, _Leg.
Proced._ 303.
[1466] Livy vi. 20. 12; see n. 1 above.
[1467] Ibid. vi. 19. 6 ff.
[1468] Cf. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 177.
[1469] P. 258.
[1470] This comitial resolution may be anticipated in the account of the
process against Horatius given by Livy i. 26. 5: “Duumviros ... secundum
legem facio”; cf. § 7: “Hac lege duumviri creati.” The king, whose
judgments were absolute, could not have thus been forced; hence more
probably lex in these phrases is not a comitial act but the formula of
appointment; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 356 and n. 1. The procedure in the
trial of C. Rabirius was in this respect similar; a law compelling the
praetor to appoint duumviri is suggested by Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 12.
[1471] Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 27. 2, finds fault with the procedure against
Rabirius on the ground that the duumviri for judging him were appointed
by the praetor, not elected as they should have been “according to
ancestral usage.”
[1472] Livy i. 26. 5; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 16; Cic. _Leg._ iii.
12. 27; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 544; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 617 f.
[1473] P. 104.
[1474] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 303-5.
[1475] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Livy ii. 41. 11; Dion. Hal. viii. 77. 1;
cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 309.
[1476] _Röm. Alt._ i. 610; ii. 545.
[1477] Cf. the trial of Horatius for murder by the duumviri perduellioni
iudicandae; p. 243.
[1478] Livy ii. 41. 10.
[1479] Livy iii. 24. 3; 25. 2.
[1480] Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 23: “Quia ... de capite civis Romani
iniussu populi non erat lege permissum consulibus ius dicere, propterea
quaestores constituebantur a populo, qui capitalibus rebus praeessent:
his appellabantur quaestores parricidii, quorum etiam meminit lex
Duodecim Tabularum”; cf. Fest. 258. 29; ep. 221.
[1481] Pliny _N. H._ xxxiv. 4. 13: “Camillo inter crimina obiecerit
Sp. Carvilius quaestor, quod aerata ostia haberet in domo.” According
to Livy v. 23. 11; 32. 8 f., it was misappropriation of the Veientan
spoil. Diodorus, xiv. 117. 6, states that according to one report the
accusation was that he had driven white horses in his triumph. The appeal
was to the comitia centuriata; Cic. _Dom._ 32. 86. This case indicates
either inconsistency in legal usage, quite possible in early time, or
more probably the union of inconsistent traditions. The facts that Pliny
mentions a quaestor apparently as prosecutor, not simply as witness
(Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 582), and that Cicero represents the trial as
belonging to the centuries suffice to indicate a questorian prosecution
before that assembly. Should we venture to bring consistency to so
uncertain a story, we could suppose that in his absence, the tribunes,
taking up the case, lightened the penalty to a fine.
[1482] Varro, _L. L._ 90-92 (mutilated excerpts from the record of this
trial, preserved in the _Commentaria Quaestorum_ and containing part of
the edict for summoning the assembly and the accused).
[1483] That is, after the increase in the number of praetors; Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ i. 884; ii. 551; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 543, n. 2.
[1484] P. 243, 248.
[1485] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 543 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i.
389, 884, 910; ii. 555.
[1486] P. 241.
[1487] Cf. Livy xxvi. 3. 9; xliii. 16. 11; Gell. vi. 9. 9; Karlowa, _Röm.
Rechtsgesch._ i. 409.
[1488] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 196.
[1489] Livy iii. 59. 4; Dion. Hal. xi. 49. 3.
[1490] Livy iii. 56-8; Dion. Hal. xi. 46, 49.
[1491] Livy iii. 58. 10; Dion. Hal. xi. 49; Zon. vii. 18. 11.
[1492] Livy iii. 58. 10; Dion. Hal. xi. 46. 5; Gell. xx. 1. 53. False
testimony in a case of this kind, which was vindicia not murder, was not
capital; hence it did not ordinarily come before the tribunes; Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 324, n. 6. The political importance of the case,
however, was a sufficient motive to their undertaking it.
[1493] Livy iv. 16. 5 f.; 21. 3 f.; Cic. _Dom._ 32. 86; _Rep._ i. 3.
6; Val. Max. v. 3. 2 g; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 668; ii. 553. Roman
law regarded false testimony in capital cases as murder; hence the
prosecution of Minucius might legally have come before the quaestors;
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 324, n. 6.
[1494] Livy vi. 1. 6.
[1495] Livy viii. 28; Dion. Hal. xvi. 5 (9); Suid. s. Γάιος Λαιτώριος.
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 325, n. 1, denies that a case of the kind
could come before the tribunes.
[1496] Dion. Hal. xvi. 4 (8); Val. Max. vi. 1. 11; Suid. ibid. This
prosecution could be brought on the ground of misconduct of office;
Mommsen, ibid.
[1497] Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 45. 180; Val. Max. viii. 1. 8.
[1498] Livy ix. 33. 4 f.
[1499] Ibid. 34. 26.
[1500] Val. Max. viii. 1. abs. 9.
[1501] Livy ix. 23. 2; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 5.
[1502] The same thing is true of the finable actions of this period; p.
290.
[1503] This view has no other warrant than the uncertainty of our sources
for the fifth and early fourth centuries B.C. That the tribunes should
make early gains in jurisdiction, to be afterward partially lost, is
thoroughly consistent with the law of plebeian progress, which consisted,
not in a steady forward movement, but in successive advances and retreats.
[1504] Livy, ep. xix.; Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 71; _N. D._ ii. 3. 7; Polyb.
i. 52. 1-3; Schol. Bob. 337; Val. Max. viii. 1. abs. 4; Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ ii. 556; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 321, n. 1; iii. 357, n. 1; p.
317 below.
[1505] Cic. _Div._ ii. 33. 71; _N. D._ ii. 3. 7; Val. Max. i. 4. 3.
[1506] P. 318.
[1507] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 328 f., wrongly assumes that in this
case the charge of perduellio came before the tribes; the interdiction of
the man by the tribes after his departure was not a iudicium but a lex.
[1508] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm Staatsr._ ii. 299.
[1509] P. 241.
[1510] P. 267, 446.
[1511] Livy xxv. 3 f.
[1512] Livy xxv. 20. 6 ff.; p. 318, n. 8 below. Livy gives us to
understand that defeat resulting from ignorance or temerity could not be
made a ground of prosecution.
[1513] Livy xxvi. 2. 7 through ch. 3; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320,
n. 2, 321, n. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 556; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._
329 f. On the right to change the form of action, see p. 287.
[1514] The two plebeian tribunes and the aedile who accompanied this
commission were sent to recall Scipio, should he be found responsible for
the conduct of his legate; Livy xxix. 20. 11. They do not seem to have
been members of the commission.
[1515] Livy xxix. 8. 6 ff.; chs. 16-22.
[1516] Livy xxix. 19. 5; 22. 7. The form of comitia is inferred from the
circumstances.
[1517] Livy xxxiv. 44. 7 f.
[1518] Livy xxix. 22. 8 f. (cf. xxxi. 12. 2); Diod. xxvii. 4; cf. Vai.
Max. i. 2. 21; Appian, _Hann._ 55.
[1519] XXIX. 22. 8.
[1520] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 557. The date of the execution of C.
Veturius in pursuance of a vote of the people (Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3) is
unknown.
[1521] Sall. _Cat._ 51. 21 f.: “Quamobrem in sententiam non addidisti,
ut prius verberibus in eos animadvorteretur? An quia lex Porcia vetat?
At aliae leges item condemnatis civibus non animam eripi sed exilium
permitti iubent”; 51. 40: “Postquam res publica adolevit et multitudine
civium factiones valuere, circumvenire innocentes, alia huiusce modi
fieri coepere, tum lex Porcia aliaeque paratae sunt, quibus legibus
exilium damnatis permissum est”; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 3. 8: “De civibus
Romanis contra legem Porciam verberatis aut necatis”; Pseud. Sall. _in
Cic._ i. 5: charges against Cicero that in putting Roman citizens to
death he has abolished the lex Porcia. Livy x. 9. 4: “Porcia tamen lex
... gravi poena, si quis verberasset necassetve civem Romanum, sanxit”;
cf. Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 12 f.; _Verr._ v. 63. 163; Gell. x. 3. 13.
Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 320, doubts whether it allowed exile to one
condemned by a vote of the people. Against him is Polyb. vi. 14. 7,
quoted p. 217, n. 5.
[1522] Livy xxxii. 7. 8; Fest. 234. 10; The opinion here given is that
of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 205, 558. A different view is represented by
Orelli-Baiter, Cic. _Op._ viii. 3. 252 f.
[1523] The decisive evidence is a coin, described by Mommsen, _Röm.
Münzwesen_, 552, representing an armed man evidently in the act of
condemning a civilian, whose appeal is indicated by the word PROVOCO
beneath. The inscription on the obverse P. LAECA reveals the author of
the law.
[1524] _Röm. Alt._ i. 249; ii. 559.
[1525] VI. 37 f.
[1526] Livy, ep. lvii; cf. Cic. _Rep._ i. 40. 63: “Noster populus in
bello sic paret ut regi.”
[1527] _Leg._ iii. 3. 6: “Militiae ab eo qui imperabit provocatio nec
esto,” which however, Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 117, n. 2 (cf. _Röm.
Strafr._ 31, n. 3) sets down as merely a pious wish of the author.
[1528] Livy, ep. lv: (In the consulship of P. Cornelius Nasica and D.
Junius Brutus) “C. Matienus accusatus est apud tribunos plebis, quod
exercitum in Hispania deseruisset, damnatusque sub furca diu virgis
caesus est, et sestertio nummo veniit.” The new epitome, l. 207-9, speaks
of desertores who on this occasion were thus flogged and sold. It is not
known that the tribunes tried cases of desertion or that they inflicted
the kind of punishment here described. C. Titius, sent for trial to the
tribunes on the charge of having stirred up a mutiny (Dio. Cass. Frag.
100; year 89), may have been a civilian.
[1529] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 9.
[1530] _Iug._ 69.
[1531] Modestinus, in _Dig._ xlix. 16. 3. 15; Menander, ibid. 16. 6. 1 f.
[1532] An example of a military consilium is given by Livy xxix. 20 f.
[1533] _Rep._ ii. 31. 54: “Neque vero leges Porciae, quae tres sunt trium
Porciorum, ut scitis, quicquam praeter sanctionem attulerunt novi.”
[1534] Cic. _Verr._ v. 62. 162.
[1535] Livy xliii. 16. 8 ff.
[1536] Polyb. vi. 14. 6; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 560.
[1537] Cic. _Brut._ 25. 97; 27. 106; _Leg._ iii. 16. 37; _Sest._ 48. 103;
Schol. Bob. 303; Cic. Frag. A. vii. 50; Ascon. 78; Pseud. Ascon. 141 f.;
Orelli-Baiter, Cic. _Op._ viii. 3. 278 f.
[1538] Cic. _Planc._ 6. 16.
[1539] IV. 50. 6 ff.
[1540] Livy viii. 18; Val. Max. ii. 5. 3.
[1541] IX. 26.
[1542] (1) In 186 for the trial of the Bacchanalians (Livy xxxix. 8-19);
(2) in 180 two courts for the detection and trial of poisoners in Rome
and Italy (Livy xl. 37). The two courts established in 186 for the trial
of poisoners and for putting down the last of the Bacchanalians are
mentioned by Livy xxxix. 41 without a hint as to the manner of their
appointment; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 135, n. 4.
[1543] Polyb. vi. 16. 2; Cic. _Dom._ 13. 33.
[1544] Dion. Hal. xx. 7. Though no mention is here made of a quaestio
extraordinaria, we may assume one for every such instance. In actual
iudicia populi the senate had no part.
[1545] Livy xxvi. 33 f.
[1546] The following pre-Gracchan quaestiones extraordinariae, according
to our authorities, owed their existence to a popular vote. (1) The lex
de pecunia regis Antiochi of the two Q. Petilii, tribunes in 185, for
the establishment of a special court to try L. Scipio Asiagenus and some
others for the misappropriation of public money; Livy xxxviii. 54, p.
399 below.—(2) The plebiscite of M. Marcius Sermo and Q. Marcius Scylla,
tribunes in 172, directed the senate to establish a special court for
the trial of M. Popillius on the charge of having unjustly subjugated
and enslaved the Ligurians; Livy xlii. 21. 5.—(3) By the lex Caecilia,
154, a special quaestio repetundarum was established for the trial of
L. Lentulus, retired consul of 156; Val. Max. vi. 9. 10.—(4) Another
special court for the trial of L. Hostilius Tubulus on the charge of
having accepted bribes while president of a murder court (quaestio inter
sicarios) was ordered by a plebiscite of P. Mucius Scaevola in 141,
whereupon the accused went into exile; Cic. _Fin._ ii. 16. 54; iv. 28.
77; v. 22. 62; _N. D._ i. 23. 63; iii. 30. 74; _Att._ xii. 5 b; Ascon.
22; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 197.
[1547] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 728. The formula varied with the occasion,
and other magistrates were often associated with the consuls in this
supreme power.
[1548] Cic. _Cat._ i. 11. 28: “Numquam in hac urbe, qui a re publica
defecerunt, civium iura tenuerunt”; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 359;
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 560.
[1549] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 16; p. 368 below. The idea of Tiberius is to
be inferred from the law which his brother afterward passed.
[1550] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; Cic. _Lael._ 11. 37; _CIL._ i². p. 148.
[1551] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 172.
[1552] Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 4. 12: “C. Gracchus legem tulit, ne de capite
civium Romanorum iniussu vestro iudicaretur”; _Cat._ iv. 5. 10; _Verr._
v. 63. 163; _Sest._ 28. 61; Schol. Gronov. 412: “Lex Sempronia iniussu
populi non licebat quaeri de capite civis Romani”; Schol. Ambros. 370;
Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; p. 371 below.
[1553] For examples of special courts afterward instituted, see p. 390.
[1554] Sall. _Cat._ 51. 40; Cic. _Cat._ i. 11. 28; iv. 5. 10.
[1555] Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82 f.; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; cf. Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ ii. 561. It is not probable, as Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 330;
_Hist. of Rome_, i. 201, has assumed, that the Sempronian law transferred
jurisdiction in such cases from the centuries to the tribes. The comitia
tributa had long exercised the right to condemn those who had fled into
exile to avoid trial; p. 249, 267, 257, n. 5 (3).
[1556] Cic. _Sest._ 28. 61; cf. Dio Cass. xxxviii. 14. 5; Greenidge,
_Hist. of Rome_, i. 200 f.
[1557] Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82; _Leg._ iii. 11. 26; cf. _Cluent._ 35. 95;
Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 465.
[1558] Vell. ii. 7. 4.
[1559] Livy, ep. lxi: “Quod indemnatos cives in carcerem coniecisset”
(Mommsen reads “in carcere necasset” or “in carcerem coniectos necasset”;
_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 111, n. 1); Cic. _Part. Or._ 30. 104, 106; _Orat._
ii. 25. 106; 30. 132; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 562; iii. 50; Greenidge,
_Hist. of Rome_, i. 278-80.
[1560] _History of Rome_, v. 5-7. His view is an inference from the
circumstances.
[1561] The prosecutor was L. Crassus; Cic. _Brut._ 43. 159; cf. _Orat._
i. 10. 40; ii. 40. 170; _Verr._ II. iii. 1. 3; Val. Max. vi. 5. 6.
[1562] Valerius Maximus, iii. 7. 6, assumes that the accused went into
exile; Cicero, _Fam._ ix. 21. 3, informs us of a rumor that he committed
suicide. Both reports may be true; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 282;
cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 51.
[1563] P. 358.
[1564] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 223 ff.
[1565] (1) After the case against Carbo may be mentioned the accusation
of perduellio against C. Popillius Laenas, 107, on the ground of a
disgraceful surrender to the Tigurini. It was on this occasion that the
ballot was first used in a trial for perduellio. The accused seems to
have been condemned to exile; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 36; _Herenn._ i. 15.
25; iv. 24. 34; Oros. v. 15. 24. This case, which resembles those of far
earlier time, has nothing to do with violation of the right of appeal;
(Cic.) _Herenn._ ibid.—(2) Similar in this respect was the prosecution
of Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus for the murder of his son. The accused
went into exile before judgment was pronounced; Oros. v. 16. 8; Val. Max.
vi. 1. 5.—(3) More famous is the prosecution of Q. Caecilius Metellus
Numidicus, 100, by L. Appuleius Saturninus because the former refused
to swear to maintain the agrarian law of the latter. Technically the
charge was that Metellus refused to do his duty as a senator. The accused
withdrew into exile before the trial, whereupon, by vote of the assembly,
he was interdicted from fire and water; Livy, ep. lxix.; Appian, _B. C._
i. 31. 137-40; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82; _Sest._ 16. 37; 47. 101.—(4) Decianus,
tribune of the plebs, 97, in accusing P. Furius, tribune of the preceding
year, let fall some complaint regarding the murder of Saturninus, and
on that ground was accused, probably by a tribune of the plebs, and
condemned to exile; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 9. 24; Schol. Bob. 230.—(5) The
prosecution of M. Aemilius Scaurus for maiestas by Q. Varius, tribune,
Dec. 91, was withdrawn in the second anquisitio; Ascon. 19, 21 f.;
(Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 72. 11; Quintil. v. 12. 10; Cic. _Scaur._ 1,
3; _Sest._ 47. 101.—(6) L. Cornelius Merula and Q. Lutatius Catulus, 87,
avoided trial, probably for perduellio, by suicide; Diod. xxxviii. 4;
Appian, _B. C._ i. 74. 341 f.—(7) On the first day of the following year,
86, P. Popillius Laenas, tribune of the plebs, hurled from the Tarpeian
Rock Sextus Lucilius (or Licinius?), tribune of the preceding year, and
set a day of trial for the colleagues of the latter. The accused fled to
Sulla and in their absence were interdicted from fire and water. They
were charged with perduellio; their offence was the veto of the popular
measures of Cornelius Cinna. This is the only certain case of calling
retired tribunes to account for their official conduct, and may be
regarded as a symptom of the revolution then in progress; Vell. ii. 24;
Livy, ep. lxxx; Dio Cass. Frag. 102. 12; Plut. _Mar._ 45.
[1566] P. 255, n. 1 (4).
[1567] Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 38; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 326.
[1568] Dio Cass. lvi. 40. 4; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 326; iii. 359 f.
[1569] P. 243.
[1570] P. 203, n. 2.
[1571] Cic. _Rab. Perd._; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 26 ff.; Suet. _Caes._
12; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 563 f.; iii. 240; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch.
Roms_, iii. 150-5; Wirz, in _Jahrb. f. Philol._ xxv. (1879). 177-201.
In the opinion of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 298, n. 3; 615, n. 2,
following Niebuhr, a tribunician accusation involving a fine was then
introduced, and the oration of Cicero was delivered in this second trial.
Drumann-Gröbe, ibid.; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 357 f.; Schneider,
_Process des Rabirius_ (Zürich, 1899), and others maintain that Cicero
spoke in the trial conducted by the duumviri and that after it was
dropped no further accusation was brought. Wirz, ibid., supposes that the
senate quashed the process of the duumviri on the ground of illegality,
that the accuser (Labienus) then brought a tribunician accusation for
perduellio, but intimated a possible finable action in addition, and that
the trial was ended, without resumption, by the hauling down of the flag.
[1572] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 13. 33: “Orbis terrarum gentiumque omnium
datur cognitio sine consilio, poena sine provocatione, animadversio sine
auxilio”; p. 435.
[1573] Cic. _Har. Resp._ 4. 7.
[1574] Anquisitio seems to mean an examination on both sides—including
testimony for and against the accused; Fest. ep. 22; Greenidge, _Leg.
Proced._ 345, n. 3.
[1575] Varro, _L. L._ vi. 91 f.
[1576] Cic. _Dom._ 17. 45: “Cum tam moderata iudicia populi sint a
maioribus constituta ... ne inprodicta die quis accusetur, ut ter ante
magistratus accuset intermissa die, quam multam inroget aut iudicet,
quarta sit accusatio trinum nundinum prodicta die, quo die iudicium
sit futurum, tum multa etiam ad placandum atque ad misericordiam reis
concessa sint, deinde exorabilis populus, facilis suffragatio pro salute,
denique etiam, si qua res ilium diem aut auspiciis aut excusatione
sustulit, tota causa iudiciumque sublatum sit.”
[1577] The trinum nundinum, which included three market days (Macrob.
_Sat._ i. 16. 34), could not have contained less than seventeen days or
more than twenty-four.
[1578] Livy, xliii. 16. 11.
[1579] E.g. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 306, 344. The theory has little in
its favor and is not generally accepted; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 167
f.
[1580] On the quarta accusatio, see Cic. _Dom._ 17. 45, quoted p. 259, n.
6. An example of the mitigation of a capital to a finable action is the
case against T. Menenius for the mismanagement of a campaign which he had
conducted as consul; Livy ii. 52. 3-5 (476). Two examples of change in
the form of action in the opposite direction are given on p. 249 f.
[1581] Cic. _Dom._ 17. 45, quoted p. 259, n. 6.
[1582] Cf. the case of Appius Claudius Pulcher, p. 248.
[1583] Livy ii. 33. 1; Calpurnius Piso, in ibid. § 3; 58. 1; Dion. Hal.
vi. 89. 1; cf. Cic. _Rep._ ii. 33. 58; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 274
f. with notes. Meyer, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxvii (1882). 616 f., suggests
a doubt as to whether they were instituted at that time. Niese, _De
annalibus Romanis observationes_ (1886), and Meyer, in _Hermes_, xxx
(1895), 1-24, have tried to prove that they were not instituted till 471
and that their original number was four. Niese’s view is controverted by
Joh. Schmidt, in _Hermes_, xxi (1886). 464-6. Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 260,
275, assumes that they came into existence as a result of the abolition
of the decemvirate.
[1584] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 48: “Tanta igitur in illis virtus fuit, ut anno
XVI post reges exactos propter nimiam dominationem potentium secederent
... duos tribunos crearent, ... Itaque auspicato postero anno tr. pl.
comitiis curiatis sunt”; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; cf. ix. 41. 4 f. (included
clients and patricians); Livy ii. 56, especially § 3, 10. These authors
represent the tribunes as trying vainly to force the patricians from the
assembly while the voting was under way. The question of excluding the
patricians, however, is connected with the statute of Publilius Philo
(339) rather than with the so-called plebiscite of Publilius Volero
(471); p. 300 f.
Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 2, places the first tribal meeting in 491, twenty
years before the date to which its institution is otherwise assigned. If
his account is not an anticipation of later usage, it is exceptional.
[1585] (1) Because there were no other magistrates at the time, (2)
because the meeting was auspicated; p. 262, n. 2.
[1586] Inferred from the circumstance that this dignitary presided over
the assembly which elected the first college of tribunes after the fall
of the decemvirs; Livy iii. 54. 5, 9, 11; p. 285 below.
[1587] Livy iii. 13. 6; 56. 5; viii. 33. 7; ix. 26. 16; xxxviii. 52.
8; Suet. _Caes._ 23. Naturally the plebeians were in most need of
protection; cf. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866). 169.
[1588] Livy ii. 33. 3: “Auxilii non poenae ius datum illi potestati”; cf.
Ihne, ibid. 170.
[1589] Gell. iii. 2. 11; xiii. 12. 9; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 3. 8; Dion. Hal.
viii. 87. 6; Serv. _in Aen._ v. 738; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
291, n. 2.
[1590] Plut. _Q. R._ 81.
[1591] In this respect the plebeian body was analogous to a corporation;
Gaius, in _Dig._ xlvii. 22. 4 (quoting a law of the Twelve Tables). But
it was not a private association. It could neither limit its membership
nor change its organization. Proof of these two facts is that the change
of organization from curiate to tribal and the consequent exclusion of
the landless resulted from a centuriate law; p. 271. Notwithstanding the
fact that its resolutions lacked the force of law, the close relation
existing between it and the state gave it from the beginning a prominent
place in the constitution.
[1592] Livy ii. 56. 11-13 (The consul asserted that according to
ancestral usage he himself had no right to remove any one from the place
of assembly); cf. 35. 3: “Plebis non patrum tribunos esse.”
[1593] Livy ii. 35. 3: “Auxilii non poenae ius datum illi potestati”; 56.
11-13.
[1594] Cf. Livy ii. 35. 2; 52. 3 ff.; 54. 3 ff.; 61.
[1595] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 2; Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._
xxi (1866). 175 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 157.
[1596] Hence they had no viatores; so that for a time after they assumed
criminal jurisdiction the aediles acted as their bailiffs; p. 290.
[1597] Livy iii. 55. 10: (In the opinion of some iuris interpretates)
“Tribunos vetere iure iurando plebis, cum primum eam potestatem creavit,
sacrosanctos esse.”
[1598] Fest. 318; Livy iii. 55. 6-10; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 3. The wording
of the oath as given above is derived from the law which, according to
Livy, was carried by the consuls Valerius and Horatius in 449; but there
can be no doubt that this statute confirmed the oath taken long before by
the plebs. As to the connection of Ceres with the plebeian organization,
Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 272 ff., believes that her temple was not built
before the middle of the fifth century, whereas Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult.
d. Röm._ 45, holds to the traditional date (493); cf. De Sanctis, _Storia
d. Romani_, ii. 30. The building of the temple did not necessarily
precede the institution of the tribunate. On the sacrosanctitas of the
aediles, see Cato, in Fest. 318. 8; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 472 f.
[1599] As late as 131 a tribune of the plebs, C. Atinius Labeo, regarding
the censor Q. Caecilius Metellus as a homo sacer for alleged violation of
the tribunician sanctity, attempted without legal trial to hurl him from
the Tarpeian Rock; Livy, ep. lix; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 44. 142 f., 146;
Cic. _Dom._ 47. 123. See also Vell. ii. 24. 2; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._
66. 8.
[1600] Cic. _Balb._ 14. 33; Fest. 318. 9; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._
i. 147; also in _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xxii (1876). 139-50; cf.
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 286. Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi (1866).
176, expresses the belief that the lex sacrata had nothing more than a
religious influence, that the offender suffered in his conscience and
in public opinion only. The known leges sacratae, collected by Herzog,
were (1) the first Valerian law of appeal; Livy ii. 8. 2 (cf. ii. 1.
9); (2) the act which rendered the persons of the tribunes sacred, and
which, as intimated above, was not strictly a statute; Livy ii. 33. 1,
3; Fest. 318. 30; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 2; Cic. Frag. A. vii. 48; (3) the
lex de Aventino; Livy iii. 31. 1; 32. 7; Dion. Hal. x. 32. 4; (4) the
Valerian-Horatian law of appeal; Livy iii. 55. 4; (5) the military lex
sacrata of 342; Livy vii. 41. 3; (6) the law of M. Antonius for the
abolition of the dictatorship, 44; Appian, _B. C._ iii. 25. 94; Dio Cass.
xliv. 51. 2.
[1601] Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 263.
[1602] Dion. Hal. vi. 84, 89. 1; cf. vii. 40; xi. 55. 3; Fest. 318; Livy
iv. 6. 7. The idea that there was such a treaty is represented among
moderns by Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 249 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i.
591; ii. 566, and opposed by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 146 f.; De
Sanctis, _Storia d. Romani_, ii. 29.
[1603] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 15; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 287, n.
1. The fictitious character of the legal basis on which the plebeians
are represented as acting in this early period of their history may be
illustrated, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 299, n. 3, has pointed
out, by their assumption of the agrarian proposal of Sp. Cassius as
one of their fundamental principles, the application of which neither
magistrates nor private individuals were at liberty to impede; cf. Livy
ii. 54, 61; Dion. Hal. ix. 37, 54; Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 480, 531,
567. The fault is not all with the annalists.
[1604] P. 274.
[1605] Livy, ep. lviii; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 10.
[1606] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 3.
[1607] Dion. Hal. vii. 17. 5: Δημάρχου γνώμην ἀγορεύοντος ἐν δήμῳ μηδεὶς
λεγέτω μηδὲν ἐναντίον μηδὲ μεσολαβείτω τὸν λόγον. Ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα
ποιήσῃ, διδότω τοῖς δημάρχοις ἐγγυητὰς αἰτηθεὶς εἰς ἔκτισιν ἧς ἂν
ἐπιθῶσιν αὐτῶ ζημίας. Ὁ δὲ μὴ διδοὺς ἐγγυητὴν θανάτῳ ζημιούσθω, καὶ τὰ
χρήματ’ αὐτοῦ ἱερὰ ἔστω. Τῶν δ’ ἀμφισβητούντων πρὸς ταύτας τὰς ζημίας αἱ
κρίσεις ἔστωσαν ἐπὶ τοῦ δήμου; cf. x. 32. 1; 42. 4. Although we may feel
uncertain as to the author and the date of this plebiscite, we need not
doubt its existence, especially as the principle it contains is derived
from leges sacratae by Cicero (_Sest._ 37. 79; cf. Pliny, _Ep._ i. 23),
and was often put into practice; Livy iii. 11. 8; xxv. 3 f.; Dion. Hal.
x. 41 f.; Cic. _Inv._ ii. 17. 52; Val. Max. ix. 5. 2; (Aurel. Vict.)
_Vir. Ill._ 65; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 260 n. 2; ii. 289, n. 1;
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 602 f.; ii. 567. For the state, however, it had no
more validity than had the original lex sacrata, of which the so-called
Icilian plebiscite was an expansion.
[1608] Gell. xiii. 12. 9: “Tribuni, qui haberent summam coercendi
potestatem.”
[1609] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 179; Ihne, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxi
(1866). 174.
[1610] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 299, n. 1, expresses the opinion that
the original form of the story represented Coriolanus as consul proposing
a law for the abolition of the tribunate.
[1611] Dion. Hal. vii. 20-67, especially 59. 9 f.; 65; Livy ii. 34 ff.;
Plut. _Cor._ 16-20; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 605; ii. 565.
[1612] P. 56, n. 4, 270 f.
[1613] Livy iii. 11. 8 f.; Dion. Hal. x. 5 ff.
[1614] Livy iii. 13. 8; Dion. Hal. x. 8. 3.
[1615] Livy’s idea that this assembly met in the Forum (iii. 13. 8) is
sufficient evidence of his point of view. Cicero’s opinion (_Dom._ 32.
86; cf. _Sest._ 30. 65) may be biassed by his personal feelings; p. 268,
n. 6.
[1616] Dion. Hal. x. 41 f. Various attempts of tribunes in this period to
punish retired magistrates for abuse of office are also alleged by the
ancient writers; cf. p. 264.
[1617] P. 265 f.
[1618] Livy ii. 35. 3; cf. 56. 11 f.
[1619] Livy iii. 55. 6.
[1620] Livy ii. 54.
[1621] Frag. 22. 1.
[1622] P. 241; cf. also Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 157. A far
different view as to the form of assembly which received appeals in
tribunician capital cases is represented by Cicero, in whose opinion the
comitia centuriata were established as the sole power to judge concerning
the caput of a citizen even in pre-decemviral time by the leges sacratae
(_Sest._ 30. 65); and accordingly he believes that the sentence of exile
was passed on Kaeso Quinctius by that body (_Dom._ 32. 86). But in this
opinion Cicero’s personal bias already referred to (p. 267, n. 6) cannot
be neglected: in discrediting the decree of exile passed against himself
by the tribal comitia, it was agreeable to his purpose to deny that this
assembly ever had enjoyed such competence. The view given in the text,
represented by the annalists and confirmed by a law of the Twelve Tables,
is obviously preferable.
[1623] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Gell. xi. 1. 2 f.; Fest. 202. 11; 237.
13; ep. 144; cf. p. 233 above. Dionysius, x. 50. 1 f., wrongly gives two
cattle and thirty sheep as the maximum.
[1624] X. 50. 1 f.
[1625] With less probability Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 620; ii. 576 f.,
regards it as a concession to the plebs to satisfy their craving for the
limitation of the consular power by written law.
[1626] Livy ii. 43. 3; 44. 6; Dion. Hal. viii. 87. 4; ix. 5. 1; 18. 1; x.
26. 4; Dio Cass. Frag. 22. 3; Zon. vii. 17. 7.
[1627] Livy iii. 11. 1.
[1628] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 297.
[1629] The veto of governmental acts, assigned them for the
pre-decemviral period by the historians (cf. Livy ii. 44), is therefore
an anachronism. The very fact mentioned by Livy, in the chapter here
cited, of the patrician attempt to win as many tribunes as possible
points to obstruction rather than to the veto as their weapon. The
increase in the number of tribunes from two to ten indicates the same
condition.
[1630] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 157.
[1631] Cf. Livy ii. 42. 6; 43. 3; 44. 1; 48. 2 f.; 52. 2 f.; 54. 2; Dion.
Hal. viii. 87. 4 f.; ix. 5. 1; 37. 1 f.
[1632] Livy ii. 56. 2: “Rogationem tulit ad populum, ut plebei
magistratus tributis comitiis fierent.”
[1633] The senate gave its consent; Livy ii. 57; Dion. Hal. ix. 49. 3 f.
[1634] Livy ii. 56. 3: “Haud parva res sub titulo prima specie minime
atroci ferebatur, sed quae patriciis omnem potestatem per clientium
suffragia creandi quos vellent tribunos auferret”; cf. Dion. Hal. ix. 41.
5.
[1635] That the ancients had this conception of the curiate assembly
which elected tribunes cannot be doubted; p. 24, 32; cf. Mommsen, _Röm.
Forsch._ ii. 283, n. 1.
[1636] P. 54, 60 f.
[1637] IX. 49. 5; cf. 41. 3. Patrician magistrates auspicated their
comitia, plebeian magistrates did not; p. 104.
[1638] VII. 17. 6: Καί τινες τῶν δημάρχων ἄλλα τε κατὰ τῶν εὐπατριδῶν
συνέγραψαν, καὶ τὸ ἐξεῖναι τῷ πλήθει καὶ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ συνιέναι καὶ ἄνευ
ἐκείνων βουλεύεσθαι καὶ χρηματίσαι πάνθ’ ὅσα ἂν ἐθελήσῃ; cf. Livy ii. 60.
4 f.
[1639] Livy ii. 56. 11 f.
[1640] Livy iii. 11. 4; vi. 35. 7; Dion. Hal. x. 3. 5; ch. 4; 40. 3 f.;
41.
[1641] P. 300 f.
[1642] IX. 43. 4.
[1643] Dion. Hal. ix. 49. 5; Livy ii. 56. 2; Dio Cass. xxxix. 32. 3;
Suet. _Caes._ 76; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 799, n. 2.
[1644] Diod. xi. 68. 8: Ἐν τῇ Ῥῶμῃ τότε πρώτως κατεστάθησαν δήμαρχοι
τέτταρες, Γάιος Σικίνιος καὶ Λεύκιος Νεμετώριος, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις Μάρκος
Δουίλλιος καὶ Σπόριος Ἀκίλιος. Livy, ii. 58. 1, following Piso, supposes
that the number was now increased from two to five. Dio Cassius probably
placed the increase from five to ten at this date; Zon. vii. 15. 1; 17.
6; Dio Cass. Frag. 22. 1. In the opinion of Meyer, in _Hermes_, xxx
(1895). 1-24; _Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 141 f., the plebeian tribunate was
instituted at this time and the original number was four; cf. p. 55,
n. 1 above. But Diodorus does not say so; indeed his grouping of the
four tribunes in pairs suggests a doubling—a fact which he has perhaps
condensed from his source.
[1645] It has been shown above (119 ff., 126 ff.) that the assembly of
tribes under tribunician presidency is rightly so designated.
[1646] Livy ii. 61. 1; 63. 2; iii. 1. 2 f.; Dion. Hal. ix. 51 f.
[1647] Livy iii. 31. 5 f. (454); Dion. Hal. x. 34 f., 42, 48; Pliny, _N.
H._ vii. 28. 101.
[1648] Livy iii. 10; 25. 9; 30. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 15. 3; 20. 4; 26. 4; Dio
Cass. Frag. 21.
[1649] Livy iii. 30. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 30. 6 (457). The object, as stated
by Livy, was increased protection for the commons. Any enlargement of
the number after they had acquired the veto would have been a positive
disadvantage; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 161; cf. above p. 270, n. 2.
The change was made with the consent of the senate, doubtless through a
centuriate law.
[1650] P. 233, 265, n. 1 (3).
[1651] P. 265, n. 1 (3).
[1652] Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 170.
[1653] Livy. ii. 9. 6. Even if these acts are not historical, there can
be no doubt that the senate had the power which they imply.
[1654] Cf. Livy ii. 15. 1 f.
[1655] Livy ii. 3. 5; 5. 1.
[1656] Cf. Livy iii. 70. 14.
[1657] Livy ii. 36. 1; 37. 1.
[1658] Livy ii. 37. 8.
[1659] Cf. Livy iii. 21. 1 f.
[1660] Livy iii. 4. 9 (464). As long as the dictatorship was in use (till
near the end of the third century B.C.) there was no need of resorting to
this measure, although it cannot be doubted that the senate had the right.
[1661] Cf. Livy iii. 11. 1.
[1662] Livy iii. 11. 4; 14. 5; 16. 6; 17. 4; Dion. Hal. x. 3. 3 f.; 4. 2.
[1663] Livy iii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. x. 55. 3; p. 233 above.
[1664] Cf. Livy ii. 58. 1; iii. 24. 9; 30. 6.
[1665] Cf. p. 264 ff.
[1666] P. 234.
[1667] Livy. iii. 55. 7; cf. p. 264.
[1668] Ibid. § 6 f.
[1669] Livy iii. 55. 8 ff.; cf. Cic. _Balb._ 14. 33; _Tull._ 20. 47;
Appian, _B. C._ ii. 108. 453; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 303 with notes.
[1670] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 15.
[1671] Livy iii. 55. 3: “Cum velut in controverso iure esset,
tenerenturne patres plebi scitis, legem centuriatis comitiis tulere, ut
quod tributim plebis iussisset, populum teneret, qua lege tribuniciis
rogationibus telum acerrimum datum est”; cf. 67. 9; Dion. Hal. xi. 45. 1.
[1672] On the tribunician legislation of the period 449-339, see p. 292
ff.
[1673] P. 271.
[1674] XI. 45. 3: Εἴρηται δὲ καὶ πρότερον, ὅτι ἐν μὲν ταῖς φυλετικαῖς
ἐκκλησίαις οἱ δημοτικοὶ καὶ πένητες ἐκράτουν τῶν πατρικίων.
[1675] VI. 35. 7: “Qui (patres) ubi tribus ad suffragium ineundum citari
a Licinio Sextioque viderunt, stipati patrum praesidiis nec recitari
rogationes nec sollemne quidquam aliud ad sciscendum plebi fieri passi
sunt.” When the tribes were again called for voting, the dictator,
accompanied by a crowd of patricians, took a seat in the assembly and
supported the tribunician protest; Livy vi. 38. 5 ff. On another occasion
some years earlier the patres old and young came into the Forum, and
taking their places in the several tribes, appealed to their tribesmen
to vote against the proposal of the tribunes; Livy v. 30. 4 f. Still
earlier C. Claudius and other senior patricians spoke in a tribunician
assembly against the measure then before the plebs. Soltau’s objection
(_Berl. Stud._ ii. 47) to the interpretation here represented has little
weight, as it rests upon the theory that from the beginning everything
was carefully defined and regulated by law.
[1676] P. 153, 156 f.
[1677] P. 157, 211.
[1678] P. 211.
[1679] P. 271, n. 3.
[1680] P. 300 f.
[1681] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 157, regarding the alleged
pre-decemviral plebiscites as genuine acts of the plebs, believes that
this conditioned validity of such acts was established at some unknown
time prior to the decemvirate. The view of Herzog that certain statutes
termed plebiscites in the sources were in reality centuriate laws is
accepted in this chapter.
[1682] P. 235.
[1683] Livy iii. 55. 15; iv. 6. 3 (Canuleian plebiscite); 12. 8 (for the
election of a prefect of the market, 440); 49. 6 (“Temptatum ab L. Sextio
tribuno plebis, ut rogationem ferret, qua Bolas quoque sicut Labicos
coloni mitterentur, per intercessionem collegarum, qui nullum plebi
scitum nisi ex auctoritate senatus passuros se perferri ostenderunt,
discussum est,” 415); 51. 2 f. (413); vi. 42. 9 (Licinian-Sextian
plebiscite); vii. 15. 12 f. (law against bribery, 356); 27. 3 (347);
viii. 23. 11 f. (the plebiscite for prolonging the consular imperium,
327); x. 6. 9 (Ogulnian plebiscite, 300); 21. 9 (plebiscite ordering
the praetor to appoint triumviri for conducting colonies, 296). Cf.
also Dion. Hal. x. 26. 4 f. (457); 30. 1; 48. 1 (454); 50. 3; xi. 54.
4 (444); Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 208 ff. All the citations from
Dionysius, excepting the last, refer to pre-decemviral time, and hence
are anticipations of a later condition.
The first triumph by order of the people, without the consent of the
senate, according to Livy iii. 63. 11 (cf. Dion. Hal. xi. 50. 1), took
place in 449. It is to be noticed, however, that a magistrate always had
a right to triumph without permission either of the senate or of the
people (Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 214 f.), provided he paid his own
expenses; Polyb. vi. 15. 8; Livy xxxiii. 23. 8. The resolution of the
people on this occasion, if historical, may have been a mere pledge of
sympathy and confidence; cf. p. 293. But Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i.
194, doubts its reality.
The “ancient law long ago abolished,” which required the consent of the
senate to proposals brought before the people, and which Sulla is said
to have renewed (Appian, _B. C._ i. 59. 266; cf. p. 406), is ordinarily
referred, as by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158; Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 193, to the condition on the validity of the plebiscite
under discussion. Appian may have had this restriction in mind, for
we know at least that under the constitution as reformed by Sulla the
tribunes did propose laws de senatus sententia; _CIL._ i. 204 (year 71);
Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 94; Girard, _Textes_, 66; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii.
154; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559.
[1684] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 157.
[1685] Lange’s idea (_Röm. Alt._ ii. 619; cf. i. 611, 614, 642) that
there was no statute which made the consent of the senate essential to
the validity of the plebiscite does not appear to be well considered. Had
the tribunes not been bound by written enactment, they would have felt
themselves free to legislate without the senate’s coöperation, and even
the law they tried in vain to disregard.
[1686] Livy iii. 55. 13.
[1687] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158.
[1688] Diod. xii. 25. 3: Ἐὰν δὲ οἱ δήμαρχοι μὴ συμφωνῶσι πρὸς ἀλλήλους,
κύριοι εἶναι τὸν ἀνὰ μέσον κείμενον μὴ κωλύεσθαι; Livy iv. 48. 10-16
(416); 53. 6; v. 25. 1 (395); vi. 36. 8; 37. 3; 38. 5. The same passages
show the dependence of the government upon the tribunes for checking
innovations.
[1689] Livy iii. 69. 5 f.; iv. i. 6; 30. 15; 53. 2, 6 (407); 55. 1-5
(406); 60. 5 (403); v. 12. 3, 7 (397); vi. 27. 9 f. (376); 31. 4 (cf. 31.
1 f., year 374); vi. 36. 3 f.; Dion. Hal. xi. 54. 3 (444).
[1690] It is true that Livy (iv. 50. 6, 8; 56. 10-13, year 408; v. 9.
4 ff., year 402; vi. 35. 9) assigns the tribune this right; but on one
occasion (vii. 17. 12, year 356) he informs us that such a protest was
disregarded by the magistrate. We may suppose that in this period they
often attempted the power, but usually without success. They possessed a
growing influence in the right to address the people, which must often
have added an overwhelming force to their protests; cf. Livy iv. 25.
1 (434); 58. 14 (406); v. 2. 2 ff. (403); ch. 6 (403). This kind of
obstruction may be meant by Livy iv. 36. 3 (424); 43. 3 (421); v. 17. 5
(397); vii. 21. 1 ff. (353). The government, on the other hand, continued
to use the levy for the obstruction of tribunician bills; Livy iv. 55. 1
(409); v. 11. 9 (401).
[1691] The principal recorded seditions are (1) the revolt against the
decemvirate in 449 (Livy iii. 50 ff.); (2) a plebeian secession to the
Janiculum in the struggle for the Canuleian law (Florus i. 25); (3) a
state of anarchy in 376 (Diod. xv. 61. 1), which, according to Matzat
(_Röm. Chron._ ii. 110), lasted about four months; (4) a state of anarchy
in the struggle for the Licinian-Sextian laws (Diod. xv. 75. 1; Livy vi.
35. 10), which, according to Matzat (ibid. ii. 112), continued three
years, 376-373; (5) a secession of the plebs to the Janiculum in the
struggle which resulted in the Hortensian legislation, 287 (Livy, ep. xi;
Dio Cass. Frag. 37; Zon. viii. 2. 1).
[1692] P. 104, 110, 116 f.
[1693] X. 47. 1.
[1694] P. 116 f.
[1695] P. 230.
[1696] Cf. Livy vi. 3. 2 (389); 33. 7 f. (377); vii. 19. 7 (353).
[1697] Livy vi. 14. 1: “Dictator ... minime dubius bellum cum his populis
patres iussuros” (385). In 381 the senate decreed that the Tusculans
should be punished with war (Livy vi. 25. 5), no mention being made of
the people; and the declaration of war against the Latins in 340 appears
to have been merely acclaimed by the people who chanced at the time to be
in front of the senate-house; Livy viii. 6. 4-8.
[1698] Livy v. 49. 2 (390).
[1699] Livy iv. 58. 1 f.; v. 28. 5 (394); 50. 3 (390); vi. 10. 9 (382);
vii. 19. 4 (353); 22. 5 (351); 38. 1 (343); viii. 2. 1 (341); 19. 1-3
(330); x. 11. 13 with 12. 1, 13 (298); 45. 4 (293); p. 302.
[1700] Livy viii. 11 f., 14 (340, 338). It punished for revolt; ibid.
viii. 20. 7 (329).
[1701] Livy vi. 26. 8; viii. 11. 16; p. 304.
[1702] P. 273.
[1703] Livy v. 19. 6 (396); cf. iv. 27. 1 (431).
[1704] Livy v. 50 (390).
[1705] Cf. Livy vii. 28. 5 f. (345).
[1706] Livy iv. 59. 11 (406); p. 367. The statement of Diodorus, xiv. 16.
5, that the Romans voted to pay for military service does not necessarily
point to an act of the assembly; and the opposition of the tribunes to
the measure indicates that at least in Livy’s opinion it was an act of
the senate alone.
[1707] Cf. the tributum for the new wall; Livy vi. 32. 1.
[1708] Cf. Livy v. 30. 8 (393); p. 295, 310.
[1709] Livy iv. 11; 47. 6; v. 24. 4; 30. 8; ix. 28. 8 (313); Vell. i. 14.
1; p. 310.
[1710] Livy vi. 4. 5 (389).
[1711] Livy v. 13. 5 (399).
[1712] Livy iv. 30. 9 (428).
[1713] Livy x. 1. 3 (303).
[1714] Livy iv. 46. 10; 56. 8; vi. 11. 10; vii. 6. 12; 21. 9; vii. 3. 4;
viii. 17. 3; 29. 9 (325).
[1715] Livy v. 9. 6 (402).
[1716] Livy v. 9; 17. 2 f. (397); 31 f. (392, 391); viii. 3. 4 (341).
[1717] Livy viii. 16. 11; 20. 7; 39. 15 (322).
[1718] P. 277, n. 4.
[1719] Livy vi. 19. 3 (384).
[1720] Livy iii. 54. 5, 9, 11 (449).
[1721] Livy iii. 65. 1 (448). That the coöptation of tribunes was once
legal is proved by a formula quoted by Livy iii. 61. 10. That the coöpted
tribunes were patrician is now generally disbelieved (cf. Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 195) because it does not accord with the conventional
view of a constitution kept in perfect working order from the beginning
to the end of Roman history. The irregular is possible and is less likely
to be invented.
[1722] Livy iii. 65. 1-4; Diod. xii. 25. 3. Diodorus, who mentions
the penalty, connects the law closely in time, as does Livy, with the
reëstablishment of the constitution.
[1723] V. 10. 11; 11. 1-3.
[1724] Livy iv. 16. 3 (439).
[1725] Continuous fasti tribunicii, however, did not exist.
[1726] Thereafter when a vacancy occurred during the year, it was filled
by election; Appian, _B. C._ i. 13. 54; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 13.
[1727] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; Cic. _Fam._ vii. 30. 1; cf. Gell. xiii. 15. 4.
[1728] Livy ix. 46. 1 f.; xxv. 2. 7; Varro, _R. R._ iii. 17. 1; Cic.
_Planc._ 20. 49; Piso, in Gell. vii. 9. 2.
[1729] Sall. _Iug._ 63.
[1730] Gell. xiii. 15. 4.
[1731] P. 280.
[1732] P. 241, 268.
[1733] Cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 19. 45; Livy xxvi. 3. This subject is
admirably presented by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 578-80.
[1734] Cic. _Inv._ i. 38. 68.
[1735] Cf. Livy v. 11. 4; 12. 2; 29. 6 f.; viii. 33. 17; xxvi. 3. 6.
[1736] Livy xxvi. 3. 6-9; p. 307 f., 322 above.
[1737] P. 234, 269 above; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Livy iv. 30. 3. The
equivalents are mentioned in connection with the lex Aternia Tarpeia;
Gell. xi. 1. 2; Fest. 202. 11; 237. 13; ep. 144; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i.
622; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 172, 639. The law is no proof of the
existence of coins at that time.
[1738] Cato, _Orig._ v. 5; Fest. 246 (lex Silia); Cic. _Rep._ 35. 60;
Livy iv. 30. 3; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 409; Lange, _Röm. Alt._
ii. 580.
[1739] Livy viii. 37. 8 ff. A tribune of the plebs brought before the
tribes certain Tusculans, accused of having incited neighboring states
against Rome, 323. They were acquitted; p. 310.
[1740] Livy iv. 11. 3-7. This is one of the few prosecutions of inferior
officials for maladministration; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 2.
The event is too early to be certain.
[1741] Livy iv. 40. 4; 41. 10 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 581.
[1742] Livy v. 11. 4 ff.; 12. 1.
[1743] P. 244 f.
[1744] Livy vi. 1. 6.
[1745] Livy vii. 3-5.
[1746] _Off._ ii. 31. 112.
[1747] Livy x. 37. 7; cf. xxix. 19. 6 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
320, n. 3.
[1748] Livy x. 46. 16.
[1749] Livy, ep. xi; cf. p. 306 below.
[1750] Livy, ep. xi; Dion. Hal. xvii. 4 f.; Dio Cass. Frag. 36. 32.
Dionysius states the fine at 50,000 denarii.
[1751] Livy v. 29. 6 f. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 823; ii. 581, looks
with suspicion on this case because it is the only one of the kind in
the period. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 1, considers it an
anticipation of the condemnation of the tribunes in 84 for having taken
the side of Sulla.
[1752] Livy iv. 21. 3 f.
[1753] Livy vi. 38. 9; Plut. _Cam._ 39.
[1754] P. 247, 248, n. 1.
[1755] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 282, 475. In time the aediles
themselves received viatores through a lex Papiria of unknown date;
_CIL._ vi. 1933.
[1756] Dion. Hal. vii. 35. 4; Plut. _Cor._ 18. For this reason
tribunician sentences continued to the end to be executed by a tribune or
an aedile; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 146.
[1757] Dion. Hal. vi. 90. 2; cf. 95. 4; Zon. vii. 15. 10.
[1758] Livy iii. 31. 4-6; Dion. Hal. x. 48; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 29. 201.
[1759] P. 264, 272. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 475, n. 3, however,
who looks upon it as a legally credible tradition, remarks that the
competence of the aediles, at that time coextensive with that of the
tribunes, must afterward have been limited by the Twelve Tables.
[1760] As in 204, when an aedile was sent to arrest Scipio, should
circumstances favor his apprehension: Livy xxix. 20. 11; xxxviii. 52. 7.
More frequently they executed the sentence; p. 290, n. 5.
[1761] Livy vii. 16. 9; Dion. Hal. xiv. 12 (22); Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3.
17; Plut. _Cam._ 39; Val. Max. viii. 6. 3.
[1762] Livy x. 13. 14; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 341.
[1763] Livy x. 23. 13. We are not informed whether these cases came
before the assembly.
[1764] Livy x. 47. 4.
[1765] Livy vii. 28. 9. The rank of the prosecutor cannot be more
definitely stated.
[1766] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. (6.) 19. The accuser, Cn. Flavius, was
curule aedile; Livy ix. 46. 1.
[1767] Livy x. 23. 11 f. The prosecutors were curule aediles.
[1768] Livy viii. 22. 3; Val. Max. viii. 1. 7. Fourteen of the
twenty-nine tribes then existing had declared against him, when the
prosecuting aedile by an unintentional expression turned the vote in
his favor. This result is to be explained on the supposition that the
proceedings were at that point interrupted, and the whole vote taken
again; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 486.
[1769] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii.
584. From the nature of the process we infer that it was aedilician; and
as the accuser was a patrician, his aedileship must have been curule.
[1770] P. 233, 269, 287.
[1771] P. 264.
[1772] P. 103.
[1773] P. 102, n. 1.
[1774] P. 273 ff.
[1775] Livy iii. 54. 14.
[1776] Ibid. § 15.
[1777] Livy iii. 55. 14.
[1778] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 279, n. 1, 302.
[1779] We have no means of testing the historical truth of these three
alleged plebiscites. The first Icilian was of transient character, and
the first Duillian was unnecessary, though not especially suspicious on
that account. The second Duillian represents constitutional principles
known to have been early established. They are doubted by Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 149 f.
[1780] XII. 25. 2. He does not state that this arrangement was embodied
in a law, although otherwise it could not have been effective.
[1781] Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. i. 558 f. The fact that Fabius Pictor
(in Gell. v. 4. 3) places the election of the first plebeian consul in
the twenty-second year after the Gallic conflagration indicates (1)
that Diodorus did not depend upon Fabius, (2) that Livy’s view of this
constitutional change is essentially that of Fabius; cf. Pais, ibid. I.
ii. 136, n. 2.
[1782] Livy iii. 63. 8-11; Dion. Hal. xi. 50. 1; _Act. Triumph. Capit._,
in _CIL._ i². p. 44; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 194.
[1783] Livy vii. 17. 9; _Act. Triumph. Capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 44. In
this case it is possible that the senate for a time resisted, to yield
finally under pressure.
[1784] Cf. Polyb. vi. 15. 8; Dio Cass. Frag. 74. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._
ii. 623.
[1785] Postumius, consul in 294, when refused a triumph by the senate,
refrained from bringing the case before the people because he foresaw
tribunician resistance, but declared his intention to triumph by right
of his consular imperium; Livy x. 37. 6-12; Dion. Hal. xvii, xviii. 5.
3 (18); _Act. Triumph. Capit._ in _CIL._ i². p. 45. Q. Minucius, consul
in 197, when refused by the senate, asserted that he would triumph on
the Alban Mount, also by right of his consular imperium and after the
example of many illustrious men; Livy xxxiii. 23. 3; _CIL._ i². p. 48;
cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 214 f.; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 134.
[1786] P. 273, 284.
[1787] Cf. Livy iv. 20. 1; vi. 42. 8.
[1788] P. 285; cf. p. 301.
[1789] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 37. 63; Livy iv. 1-6; Flor. i. 17. 25. The
commonly accepted theory that this decemviral enactment merely confirmed
a custom which had existed from the beginning of Rome is supported
neither by the sources nor by a comparison of early usage in other states.
[1790] P. 234.
[1791] P. 286.