198, n. 4, finds difficulties in the details; but we are not warranted
in denying the truth of the event on the ground of irregularity in the
proceedings, even while we admit that much is uncertain in the history of
the period to which the act is assigned.
[1793] P. 230, 283.
[1794] The institution of new offices and the increase in number within
existing magisterial colleges by act of the centuries (cf. p. 234) is
merely the application of a long-recognized popular right.
[1795] Livy iv. 12. 8. This alleged act of the tribes is suspicious
because of its isolation; for in this period offices were instituted
by the centuries. It is either exceptional or an anticipation of later
usage; cf. p. 306.
[1796] Livy iv. 25. 13 f. The same author, vii. 15. 12 f., states that
the first lex de ambitu was enacted in 358; p. 296.
[1797] Livy iv. 51. 2 f.; Flor. i. 17. 2 (22); Zon. vii. 20. 5. The act,
like that of 440, is either exceptional or an anticipation of later
usage; cf. p. 309.
[1798] Livy vi. 20. 13. The context indicates that in Livy’s opinion it
was a resolution of the plebs. Dio Cass. Frag. 25.
Whether the order of the people, 437, directing the dictator at public
expense to present a golden crown of a pound weight to Jupiter was
dictatorial or tribunician cannot be determined; Livy iv. 20. 4.
[1799] Cf. iv. 48. 1; 53. 6; v. 12. 3; vi. 5. 2; 6. 1.
[1800] Livy iv. 36. 2 (424).
[1801] Livy iv. 59. 11; Diod. xiv. 16. 5; Zon. vii. 20. 6; Flor. i. 6
(12). 8; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 540, 668 f.; ii. 627; Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 212 f.; p. 284 above.
[1802] Livy vi. 42. 2; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 461.
[1803] The word utique, “at least,” inserted in this article by Livy, vi.
35. 5, belongs to the Genucian law of 342; p. 299.
[1804] Livy vi. 35. 4 f.; 42. 9; xxxiv. 4. 9.
[1805] In his account of the Licinian-Sextian legislation he makes
no mention of this last regulation, but assumes its existence for
the following period; cf. p. 291 f., on aedilician prosecutions for
violations of this article.
Other sources for the second Licinian-Sextian plebiscite are Varro, _R.
R._ i. 2. 9; Plut. _Cam._ 39; _Ti. Gracch._ 8; Appian, _B. C._ i. 8. 33;
Vell. ii. 6. 3; Val. Max. viii. 6. 3; (Aurel. Vict.), _Vir. Ill._ 20.
The statute, especially the agrarian portion, is discussed by Meyer, in
_Rhein. Mus._ xxxvii (1882). 610-27; Niese, in _Hermes_, xxiii (1888).
410-23; _Röm. Gesch._ 55, 148; Soltau, in _Hermes_, xxx (1895). 624-9;
Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. ii. 72 ff., 134 ff. Niese refuses to believe
that this agrarian legislation came so early, and prefers a date shortly
after the close of the war with Hannibal. Soltau, controverting Niese’s
view, insists that the chief regulation mentioned by Livy—the limitation
of occupation to five hundred iugera—belongs to Licinius and Sextius,
and that the article was afterward renewed, with the addition of the
other provisions stated by Appian, probably about the time of the
Hortensian legislation. Against the earlier date is especially urged the
circumstance that the large number of iugera allowed to the individual is
incongruous with the narrow limits of the Roman territory at that time.
The provision for the relief of debtors, too, has the appearance of an
anticipation of a plebiscite on the same subject passed in 447; p. 298
below; cf. Matzat, _Röm. Chron._ ii. 113, n. 9; 128, n. 6.
[1806] Livy vii. 15. 12 f.; Isler, _Ueber das poetelische Gesetz
de ambitu_, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxviii (1873). 473-7; Lange, _Kleine
Schriften_, ii. 195-213; _Röm. Alt._ i. 716; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._
i. 241 f.; Ihm, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1801; cf. p. 295
above.
[1807] P. 202.
[1808] P. 235, 314.
[1809] Livy vii. 16. 7 f.; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 246-8;
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 191; ii. 26, 621.
[1810] Livy vii. 16. 8.
[1811] Livy vii. 16. 1. Two laws of 356 have a certain degree of
financial interest: the dictatorial law which made provision for an
impending war (Livy vii. 17. 7); and the alleged resolution of the people
(p. 293) to grant the same dictator the privilege of a triumph.
[1812] Tac. _Ann._ vi. 16; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 183, n. 3.
[1813] Livy vii. 21, 5; cf. Herzog. _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 245. That
the bank commission owed its existence to a law is an inference
from the circumstances. The form of assembly is unknown. With this
Valerian-Marcian law, 352, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 621 f., conjecturally
identifies the lex Marcia against usurers; Gaius iv. 23. In his opinion
also (ibid. ii. 622; cf. Rudorff, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 51) the lex
Furia de sponsu mentioned by Gaius, iii. 121; iv. 22, “discharging the
sponsor and fide-promissor of liability in two years and limiting the
liability of each to a proportionate part” (Poste’s interpretation)
belongs to L. Furius, dictator in 345 (Livy vii. 28. 2); whereas others
assign it to the year 95 (cf. Poste, _Gai. Inst._ 359) and others to a
time subsequent to Cicero (cf. Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, ii. 30). It was
later than the lex Appuleia de sponsu, which is referred to by Gaius
iii. 122, and which must have been enacted after the establishment
of the provincial system. It is to be attributed, accordingly, to
the famous tribune of 103, 100 (Poste, ibid. 359) rather than to the
like-named tribune of 390 (Livy v. 32. 8; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 621).
These considerations render the later dating of the lex Furia the more
probable. The lex Publilia de sponsu, the date of which is also unknown,
granted the surety (sponsor) an action against the principal debtor in
case the latter failed to reimburse him within six months; Gaius iii.
127; iv. 22, cf. 171.
[1814] Livy vii. 27. 3; Tac. _Ann._ vi. 16. The author is not named.
[1815] P. 238.
[1816] Livy vii. 42. 1-3. Appian, _B. C._ i. 54, testifies to the
existence of an ancient law forbidding interest; cf. Tac. _Ann._ vi. 16.
[1817] Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. ii. 270, with his usual acumen has
argued against the existence of the Genucian as well as of the Publilian
statute; but the reasons urged by this eminent scholar do not seem to me
to be convincing. The period in which they fall is certainly within the
reach of tradition. The abolition of debts through the Valerian law was
in keeping with the populistic spirit of the masses in that age, as was
the prohibition of interest.
[1818] Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. ii. 278, n. 4: “Thus C. Junius Bubulcus
and Aemilius Barbula, consuls in 317, reappear in 311 B.C.; L. Papirius
Cursor is consul in 320, 319, 315, 313; P. Decius is consul in 312 and
in 308,” etc.; cf. further Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 519, n. 5. It is
true that on one occasion Livy, x. 13. 8 f. (298), speaks of the law and
of a proposal of the tribunes to obtain a dispensation for the candidate
Fabius by a vote of the people, oblivious of the violation of the law by
this same Fabius as well as by many others.
[1819] Livy xxiii. 31. 13 f.; Plut. _Marc._ 12 (215). On that occasion
when the people were told that the election of two plebeians as
colleagues in the consulship was displeasing to the gods, they proceeded
to choose a patrician in place of the second plebeian; cf. Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 253, n. 2. The first definitive election of two plebeians
was in 172; _Fast. Cos. Capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 25: “Ambo primi de
plebe.”
[1820] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 253.
[1821] Livy viii. 12. 14-16.
[1822] P. 235.
[1823] P. 237.
[1824] P. 307.
[1825] P. 274, 313.
[1826] The most detailed study of this subject, including a critique
of the principal modern views, is made by Soltau, _Gültigkeit der
Plebiscite_, in _Berl. Stud._ ii (1885). 1-176. His criticism is more
satisfactory than his construction.
[1827] This point is established by the circumstances (1) that no writer
of the period refers to the principle mentioned; (2) that Cicero regards
the thirty-five tribes under tribunician presidency as the universus
populus Romanus—a definition which is incompatible with the legal
exclusion of the patricians from that form of assembly (p. 129 f.); (3)
that on one occasion, 209, after the Hortensian legislation Livy (xxvii.
21. 1-4) represents the voting assembly under tribunician presidency as
composed not only of plebs but of all ranks (concursu plebisque et omnium
ordinum), and that the patricians were evidently free to take part in the
debates of the concilium; cf. Livy xliii. 16. 8; (4) Caesar, _B. C._ iii.
1, seems to represent the praetors and tribunes as presiding together
over the same comitia (“praetoribus tribunisque plebis rogationes ad
populum ferentibus”)—which would prove that no difference of composition
existed between the pretorian and the tribunician assemblies of tribes.
[1828] P. 230.
[1829] Livy ix. 5. 2.
[1830] _Inv._ ii. 30. 92.
[1831] Livy ix. 8. 14: the tribunes protested against breaking it.
[1832] Livy ix. 10. 10: the circumstance that he assaulted the Roman
fetialis is sufficient evidence of his view.
[1833] IX. 9. 4. Gellius, xvii. 21. 36, less credibly states that the
treaty was repudiated by order of the people.
[1834] Livy ix. 5-11; Cic. _Off._ iii. 30. 109; _Inv._ ii. 30. 92; Zon.
vii. 26. 15.
[1835] Livy ix. 9. 4.
[1836] Livy viii. 36. 11 f. (ambassadors of the Samnites, applying for
peace to the dictator, are ordered by him to address the senate, which
replies that it will accept the arrangements of the magistrate, 324); ix.
20. 8 (an unequal alliance with Apulia negotiated by the consul, 317);
ix. 43. 6 f. (the Hernicans, beaten in war, apply to the senate, and are
referred to the consuls, who accept their submission, 307); ix. 45. 1-3
(Samnite ambassadors ask peace of the senate, which replies that the
consul will pass through their country and will report to the senate on
the conditions which he finds there, 304); x. 3. 5 (the dictator, fining
the Marsians of a part of their territory, grants them a renewal of the
treaty, 302). In none of these instances is mention made of the people;
and most of them preclude a popular vote.
[1837] Sall. _Iug._ 39.
[1838] Cf. Livy ix. 20. 2 f. (318), in which a proposal of peace was
rejected by the people. In the treaty with the Lucanians, 298, Livy, x.
11. 13; 12. 1, mentions the senate only; Dionysius, xvii, xviii (xvi.
12). 1. 3, speaks of both senate and assembly.
[1839] Cf. Livy ix. 20. 2 f.
[1840] Polyb. vi. 14. 10 f.; 15. 9.
[1841] P. 181.
[1842] _Röm. Alt._ i. 514; ii. 638; p. 283 above.
[1843] Livy viii. 13. 10 ff.; ch. 14.
[1844] The gift of citizenship, adprobantibus cunctis, to L. Mamilius,
dictator of Tusculum, 458, does not necessarily imply a public vote; Livy
iii. 29. 6. Even if this were the opinion of Livy, it need be no more
than an anticipation of later usage. In 381 the Tusculans received the
citizenship, how we are not informed; Livy vi. 26. 8; Dio Cass. Frag.
28. 2. In the account of the settlement of Latium and Campania in 340,
involving the grant of citizenship to the Capuan equites, no mention
is made of either senate or people; Livy viii. 11. 13-16. The sources
are likewise silent as to a popular vote in the grant of citizenship
sine suffragio to the Caerites; Livy vii. 20. 8; Dio Cass. Frag. 33
(Boissevain i. p. 138); Strabo v. 2. 3, p. 220; Gell. xvi. 13. 7. From
Livy and Dio Cassius it may be reasonably inferred that the event took
place after 353, though Boissevain’s date, 273, seems to be too late.
Probably they were admitted between 353 and 332—before the hundred years’
peace had far advanced.
[1845] Livy viii. 17. 12.
[1846] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 638.
[1847] I. 14. 4.
[1848] Livy viii. 21. 10. Nothing is said as to the chairmanship of the
assembly. The event is referred to by Dio Cass. Frag. 35. 11.
[1849] Livy ix. 43. 24.
[1850] P. 352.
[1851] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 610 f., 638.
[1852] P. 234. The only exception is the creation of a prefecture of the
market by a plebiscite in 440; p. 295.
[1853] Livy viii. 23. 11 f.
[1854] Livy x. 22. 9.
[1855] Livy ix. 42. 2.
[1856] Livy x. 16. 1.
[1857] Dion. Hal. xvii, xviii (xvi. 16). 4. 4.
[1858] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 640.
[1859] Livy x. 24. 18; cf. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 531. For other
versions of the event, see Livy x. 26. 5 f.
[1860] Livy, ep. xi; p. 359 above. Probability favors the tribunician
assembly.
[1861] Livy ix. 20. 5.
[1862] Fest. 233. 14.
[1863] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 609.
[1864] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 73, 632. Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio,
_Dict._ iii. 1144, assumes that it was proposed by L. Furius, praetor in
that year.
[1865] Livy ix. 30. 3.
[1866] P. 234.
[1867] Livy ix. 30. 3 f. In ix. 38. 2 he refers to a naval commander
whom the senate placed in charge of the coast, and whom Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ ii. 580, n. 1, supposes to have been a duovir. That a duovir
commanded a fleet in 282 is proved by Livy, ep. xii; Dio Cass. Frag. 39.
4. Probably the triumviri capitales, 289, were created by a similar act
of the tribes; Livy, ep. xi; p. 312.
[1868] P. 309.
[1869] P. 311.
[1870] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 534, 636.
[1871] Fest. 246. 19.
[1872] The brief statement of Festus, ibid., is here interpreted in the
light of Livy xxiii. 23. 6. In general on the Ovinian plebiscite, see
Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 393-446; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 153-173,
668-89; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 259 ff.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._
ii. 418; iii. 873, 879.
[1873] Cf. Livy iv. 5. 2; p. 287 above.
[1874] Cf. Gell. x. 20. 4, 9 f.
[1875] Cf. Livy viii. 16. 4; ix. 7. 15; 28. 2; Diod. xix. 66. 1; p. 299,
n. 3.
[1876] Livy x. 13. 8 f.
[1877] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 641.
[1878] Livy x. 22. 9.
[1879] It is the only instance mentioned for this early time.
[1880] Livy x. 13. 10: “Iam regi leges, non regere”; cf. Appian, _Lib._
112; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 641.
[1881] P. 295 f.
[1882] P. 293, 295, n. 6.
[1883] _Div._ i. 26. 55; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11. 13 (on the reading, see
Mommsen, in _Hermes_ iv (1870). 7; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 634.
[1884] Livy viii. 13. 1.
[1885] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11. 5; Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii.
11. 54. On these games, see Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 497; Wissowa,
_Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 111 f., 385 f.
[1886] Livy ii. 36; Dion. Hal. vii. 68; Plut. _Cor._ 24; Val. Max. i. 7.
4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 634.
[1887] Livy ix. 46. 7.
[1888] _Röm. Alt._ i. 828; ii. 634.
[1889] Cic. _Dom._ 49. 127 f.; _Att._ iv. 2. 3.
[1890] Livy x. 6 f. He has evidently made a mistake in supposing the
number of pontiffs to have been increased to only eight (chs. 6. 6; 8. 3;
9. 2; cf. Bardt, _Priester der vier grossen Collegien_, 32 f.; Wissowa,
_Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 432, n. 4.)
[1891] P. 240, 241, 269, 280.
[1892] P. 241 f.
[1893] P. 295.
[1894] Livy viii. 18. 3 ff.; Val. Max. ii. 5. 3; Oros. iii. 10; August.
_Civ. Dei_, iii. 17. p. 124 Domb. The lex de veneficio mentioned by Livy,
ep. viii, may refer to the act which established this court; but it would
not be legitimate to argue from this expression a popular vote. The
epitomator undoubtedly drew all his information from the text.
[1895] Livy ix. 26. 6 ff.; cf. however, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 637.
[1896] Livy viii. 37. 8; Val. Max. ix. 10. 1; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 42. 43.
136; p. 288, n. 1.
[1897] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 637.
[1898] Livy ix. 16. 10; xxvi. 33. 10.
[1899] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 34. 59; Livy viii. 28; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 105;
Dion. Hal. xvi. 5 (9); Suidas, s. v. Γάιος Λαιτώριος; cf. Kleineidam, _in
Festg. f. F. Dahn_, ii. 1-30.
[1900] Varro, ibid., assigns the law to a dictator, C. Popillius, which
may be a mistake for C. Poetelius, dictator in 313; Livy ix. 28. 2.
[1901] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 74.
[1902] P. 238.
[1903] P. 284.
[1904] Livy, iv. 11. 3-7, represents the tribunes of 442 as attempting
to call to account the colonial commissioners of that year (cf. p. 288).
In 418 they planned to offer a bill for colonizing Labici (Livy iv. 47.
6). In 415 a bill for colonizing Bolae, introduced by a tribune of the
plebs, was vetoed by a colleague; Livy iv. 49. 6; cf. Diod. xiii. 42. 6.
Many similar instances are given for the time immediately following; cf.
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 626 f. with citations. Although we may question
the truth of these individual cases, we have no ground for doubting that
such agitation continued long before the tribunes succeeded in carrying a
colonial law.
[1905] Livy x. 21. 9; p. 307.
[1906] Livy viii. 36. 9 f.; ix. 42. 5.
[1907] Cf. Livy x. 6. 3; 21. 9; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 282 f.
[1908] Cf. Livy x. 17. 10; 20. 16; 25. 3; 30. 10: “Praemia illa
tempestate militiae haudquaquam spernenda”; 31. 4; 44. 1; 45. 14; 46. 15.
[1909] Livy x. 13. 14; 23. 13; 47. 4.
[1910] Livy x. 46. 5 f.
[1911] Livy x. 31. 8; 47. 6; ep. xi; Zon. viii. 1. 10; Val. Max. i. 8. 2.
[1912] Livy x. 23. 11 f.
[1913] P. 307, n. 1, 332.
[1914] P. 279.
[1915] Boissevain’s reading.
[1916] The chief source is a mutilated fragment of Dio Cassius viii. 37.
2-4, which is paraphrased in the text above. The account given by Zonaras
viii. 2 is a brief epitome of the fragment, adding the circumstance
of the foreign war. The restoration of the fragment is due chiefly to
Niebuhr, _Rhein. Mus._ ii (1828). 588 ff. See also the edition of Dio
Cassius by Boissevain, i. 110 f. and by Melber, i. 108 f. The secession
to the Janiculum is mentioned by Livy, ep. xi, and by Pliny, _N. H._ xvi.
10. 37.
[1917] Pliny, _N. H._ xvi. 10. 37: “Q. Hortensius dictator, cum
plebes secessisset in Ianiculum, legem in aesculeto tulit, ut quod ea
iussisset omnes quirites teneret”; Gaius i. 3: “Unde olim patricii
dicebant plebiscitis se non teneri, quia sine auctoritate eorum
facta essent; sed postea lex Hortensia lata est, qua cautum est ut
plebiscita universum populum tenerent; itaque eo modo legibus exaequata
sunt”; Laelius, in Gell. xv. 27. 4: “Ita ne leges quidem proprie, sed
plebisscita appellantur, quae tribunis plebis ferentibus accepta sunt,
quibus rogationibus ante patricii non tenebantur, donec Q. Hortensius
dictator legem tulit, ut eo iure, quod plebs statuisset, omnes quirites
tenerentur”; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 8: “Quia multae discordiae
nascebantur de his plebis scitis, pro legibus placuit et ea observari
lege Hortensia: et ita factum est, ut inter plebis scita et legem species
constituendi interesset, potestas eadem esset.”
[1918] P. 235, 372.
[1919] This fact is clearly expressed by Gaius; see p. 313, n. 2 above.
[1920] Before acquiring this right they had been accustomed to sit
on their bench at the door of the curia, in order to watch the
proceedings within. Though as yet without an unrestricted legal right of
intercession, they had attempted to force their veto upon the senate;
Val. Max. ii. 2. 7; Zon. vii. 15. 8; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 316
f. The wording of the law of 304 regarding the dedication of a temple
or altar indicates that the tribunes had not yet acquired the right to
convoke the senate and bring measures formally before it; Mommsen, ibid.
p. x, n. 2.
[1921] P. 270.
[1922] Granius Licinianus, in Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 30: “Lege Hortensia
effectum, ut fastae essent (nundinae), uti rustici, qui nundiniandi
causa in urbem veniebant, lites componerent. Nefasto enim die praetori
fari non licebat”; § 29: “Iulius Caesar sexto decimo auspiciorum libro
negat nundinis contionem advocari posse, id est cum populo agi: ideoque
nundinis Romanorum haberi comitia non posse”; cf. p. 471 below.
[1923] P. 139.
[1924] P. 471 below; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 644; Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 287 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 372 f.
[1925] P. 243, 287 f.
[1926] P. 247, 289.
[1927] P. 309.
[1928] P. 290.
[1929] p. 248 ff.
[1930] P. 330 ff.
[1931] P. 248.
[1932] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 50. 1.
[1933] Livy xxii. 35. 3; 40. 3; 49. 11; xxvii. 34. 3 f.; xxix. 37. 13 f.
[1934] P. 62.
[1935] Livy xxiv. 18. 3, 6.
[1936] Livy xxii. 53. 4 f.
[1937] Livy xxiv. 43. 1-3; cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
ii. 2093.
[1938] A similar attempt in 204 by Cn. Baebius, tribune of the plebs,
to prosecute the censors C. Claudius and M. Livius while in office was
quashed by the senate; Livy xxix. 37; Val. Max. vii. 2. 6; cf. Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 4.
[1939] P. 249. The state agreed to insure from the enemy and from storms
cargoes shipped for the use of the army; Livy xxiii. 49. 1-3; xxv. 3. 10.
Postumius took advantage of this insurance to send out old, unseaworthy
ships with cargoes of little value, and after wrecking them, to report
many times the real amount of the loss; ibid. § 10 f. The senate,
fearing to give offence to the powerful order of publicans, failed to
act when informed by the praetor; § 12. Thereupon the tribunes brought
the accusation. For the trial, see ibid. § 13-9 and ch. 4; cf. Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 177, 588. The weight of the _as_ in which the fine was
estimated is not given by Livy xxv. 3. 13.
For a similar transfer of the case against Cn. Fulvius, retired praetor,
from the tribes to the centuries, 211, see p. 249.
[1940] Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 5. Here, too, should be mentioned the
condemnation of a member of the same board in a similar action for
neglect to inspect the watchmen; Val. Max. ibid. § 6.
[1941] Cato, _Orat._ i: “Dierum dictarum de consulatu suo.”
[1942] Livy xxvii. 46. 1 f.
[1943] Cato, _Orat._ xiii; Livy xxxviii. 57. 10; cf. Mommsen, _Röm.
Forsch._ ii. 459 ff.
[1944] For the cognomen, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv.
1475.
[1945] Polyb. xxiii. 14; Gell. iv. 3-5, 7-12; Diod. xxix. 24 (from
Polyb.); Livy xxxviii. 54; Val. Max. iii. 7. 1 d; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir.
Ill._ 49. 16-9.
[1946] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 464 f.
[1947] In the story of the trial given by Antias the two Petilii were the
prosecutors of Publius (Livy xxxviii. 50 f.). In ch. 54 f. Livy, again
following Antias, represents these tribunes as authors of a plebiscite
for the appointment of a special court to inquire concerning the money
received from King Antiochus, and states that L. Scipio was condemned
by this court. The story may not be without foundation; but if such a
plebiscite was adopted, it could not have had the desired result.
[1948] This incident is considered doubtful by Bloch, in _Rev. d. étud.
anc._ viii. (1906). 109.
[1949] According to Diod. xxix. 21, Scipio was threatened with the death
penalty; but the trial actually took the form described above in the text.
[1950] Gell. vi. 19. 2. It was probably in connection with this trial
that Cato delivered his speech “Concerning the money of King Antiochus”;
Livy xxxviii. 54. 11; Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 15; Cato, _Orat._ xv.
[1951] The edicts of these conflicting tribunes are given by Gell.
vi. 19. 5, 7; cf. Livy xxxviii. 56. 10; Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 8. 18. The
dissenting edict states that the fine was imposed nullo exemplo, yet it
was within the competence of the tribune; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
322, n. 2.
[1952] The account here given closely follows Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii.
417-510. For other authorities on the trial, see p. 329.
[1953] Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 19; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 590; Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 4.
In 142 P. Scipio Aemilianus when censor had deprived Ti. Claudius Asellus
of his public horse. Afterward this man as tribune of the plebs brought
against him an accusation for malversation in his censorship; Gell.
iii. 4. 1; cf. ii. 20. 6. It was a finable case (ibid. vi. 11. 9), in
which was charged against him a lustrum malum infelixque; Lucilius, in
Gell. iv. 17. 1; cf. Cic. _Orat._ ii. 64. 258; 66. 268. The prosecution
probably failed; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 591; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
322, n. 4.
[1954] Cf. Plautus, _Capt._ 476.
[1955] Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 27. 100; Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 15. Cato’s
_Oration_ liv was delivered on one of these occasions. For his general
character and activity, see Livy xxxix. 40.
[1956] Livy xliii. 7 f. With this trial was concerned the senatus
consultum of 170; cf. Bruns, _Font. iur._ p. 162. See further Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 287, 591; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 3; cf. i.
699 f.
[1957] P. 358.
[1958] P. 231 f.
[1959] Fest. 193. 21; 314. 33; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 591.
[1960] Livy, ep. xlvii; cf. Lange, ibid. ii. 313, 591.
[1961] P. 359.
[1962] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 14; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 131 f.;
Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 2270.
[1963] Fest. 314. 30; cf. Livy, ep. lviii.
[1964] P. 256 f.
[1965] Vell. ii. 12. 3 assigns the tribunate of Domitius to 103, Ascon.
80 f. to 104. Probably the latter refers to his entrance upon the office,
December 10, 104; but see Bardt, _Priester der vier grossen Collegien_, 7
f.
[1966] P. 391.
[1967] Ascon. 80; Cic. _Caecil._ 20. 67; _Verr._ ii. 47. 118 (in both
Ciceronian passages the motive of the accusation is said to have been
personal); cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 592; iii. 70; Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 3.
[1968] Ascon. 1; Cic. _Deiot._ 11. 31; Val. Max. vi. 5. 5; Dio Cass.
Frag. 92. A personal motive is suggested for this trial also by the
sources.
[1969] Cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ v. 1324-7.
[1970] Dio Cass. Frag. 95. 3; App. _B. C._ i. 33. 148; Schol. Bob. 230;
Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 9. 24; _Flacc._ 32. 77; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn.
2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 592; iii. 86; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
323, n. 1; Mühl, _App. Sat._ 94 ff., 105 f.; Rohden, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ ii. 259.
[1971] P. 257, n. 5 (4). Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 352, holds the unusual
opinion that he was condemned by a quaestio.
To the time shortly preceding the dictatorship of Sulla belong certain
threats of tribunician prosecution which may be mentioned here. In 87 a
day was set for the trial of L. Cornelius Sulla himself by the tribune
M. Vergilius. The accused, taking no notice of the prosecution, departed
for the East; Cic. _Brut._ 48. 179; Plut. _Sull._ 10; cf. Fröhlich, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1537. In the same year Appius Claudius
Pulcher, summoned to trial by a tribune of the plebs, retired into exile,
whereupon his propretorian imperium was abrogated; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 83;
Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2489; Greenidge, _Leg.
Proced._ 352. In 84 Cn. Papirius Carbo, consul, was threatened with a
prosecution, or more strictly with an abrogation of his office, if he
should fail to return to Rome to hold the election of a colleague; App.
_B. C._ i. 78. 358 f.
[1972] P. 414.
[1973] Plut. _Lucull._ 37; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 221; Greenidge, _Leg.
Proced._ 353.
[1974] Suet. _Caes._ 23; cf. p. 377 below.
[1975] Dio Cass. xliv. 10.
[1976] Whether the case against Rabirius in 63, begun as perduellio, was
transformed into a finable action is uncertain; p. 258. The attack of
Clodius on Cicero in 58 took the form, not of a judicial case, but of an
interdict through a plebiscite; p. 446.
[1977] P. 291.
[1978] Fest. 238. 28; Varro, _L. L._ v. 158; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 283 ff.;
Tac. _Ann._ ii. 49.
[1979] Livy xxxiii. 42. 10.
[1980] Livy xxxv. 10. 11.
[1981] Livy xxxv. 41. 9.
[1982] Livy xxxviii. 35. 5 f.
[1983] Piso, in Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 6. 41; Serv. _in Ecl._ viii. 99;
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 2.
[1984] Val. Max. vi. 17; Plut. _Marcell._ 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 823;
ii. 585.
[1985] Livy xxv. 2. 9; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 585. The statement of
Gellius v. 19. 10, that women had nothing to do with comitia (“Feminis
nulla comitiorum communio est”), does not refer to their lack of
suffrage, as Lange assumes, for Gellius is explaining why women could not
be arrogated. Originally they had no right to be present in contiones or
comitia; but in time the principle was modified to a limited extent; p.
147. It was not necessary, however, that the accused should be present in
person during the trial; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 496.
[1986] Plut. _Q. R._ 6; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 126; ii. 585.
[1987] Ateius Capito, in Gell. iv. 14.
[1988] P. 248, 317.
[1989] Ateius Capito, in Gell. x. 6; Livy, ep. xix; Val. Max. viii.
1. damn. 4; Suet. _Tib._ 2; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 492, n. 4.
This, says Mommsen, is the only aedilician prosecution for a crime
committed directly against the state in the period after the decemviral
legislation. With this case compare Cicero’s threat mentioned in the text
below.
[1990] Suet. _Tib._ 2.
[1991] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 586; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 496.
[1992] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 12. 33; Val. Max. ix. 11. 2; Lange, ibid. iii.
134; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 352.
Valerius Maximus, vi. 1. 8, refers to a prosecution (probably aedilician)
of Cn. Sergius by Metellus Celer for stuprum, which seems to have
occurred about this time; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 4.
[1993] _Verr._ i. 12. 36; v. 58. 151; 67. 173; 69. 178; 71. 183.
[1994] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 586.
[1995] Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 3; _Sest._ 44. 95; _Vat._ 17. 40; Ascon. 49; Dio
Cass. xxxix. 18 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 586; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._
ii. 493, n. 1; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 341, 353.
On the aedilician jurisdiction in general, see especially Girard, _Org.
jud. d. Rom._ 243 ff.
[1996] P. 269, 287.
[1997] Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 439 f.; Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ i. 195 f.; ii. 36.
[1998] Livy xxxvii. 51. 4 f.
[1999] Livy xl. 42. 9 f.
[2000] Cic. _Phil._ xi. 8. 18.
[2001] Fest. 343. 6; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 439, n. 8. For
the pontifical cases above mentioned, see also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii.
593-5.
[2002] Cf. ch. v and p. 322.
[2003] P. 313 f.
[2004] P. 307.
[2005] P. 107, 113.
[2006] On the lack of a popular opposition to the nobility during this
period, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 26. On the antiquated character of
the assemblies, ibid. 39 f.
[2007] For this era we have to depend upon the epitome of Livy and
occasional notices of other authors. The complete Livian narrative which
treats of the age, should it ever be discovered, would doubtless reveal
a considerable number of other comitial measures; but we could hardly
expect to find any of more importance than those which are actually known.
[2008] P. 235, 300.
[2009] Cic. _Brut._ 14. 55. Cicero informs us that the law under
consideration was passed after the tribunate of M’. Curius, which must
have preceded his consulship (290). The enactment should preferably
be placed after that of Hortensius, when the patres were no longer in
a position to oppose it; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 409; ii. 216, 654;
Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 281 f. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 69 ff.,
attempts to assign it to 338.
[2010] Livy x. 15. 7 ff.; Cic. ibid.
[2011] Dion Hal. xix, 16. 5 (xviii. 19); xx. 13 (3). 3.
[2012] In this year C. Marcius Rutilus, elected censor a second time
(_Fast. cos. capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 22), persuaded the people to
adopt this law; Val. Max iv. i. 3; Plut. _Cor._ 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ I.
797; ii. 122, 654; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 317-20; Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ i. 520.
[2013] Livy, ep. xv; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22. Lydus, _Mag._ i. 27, supposes
the newly created quaestors to have been naval officers, and wrongly
states their number at twelve. Whether the lex Titia de provinciis
quaestoriis (Cic. _Mur._ 8. 18; Schol. Bob. 316) belongs to this date or
to some later time cannot be determined; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
532, n. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 654. See further on the act of 267,
Mommsen, ibid. ii. 527, 570 ff.; Lange, ibid. i. 891; ii. 124.
[2014] Livy, ep. xix; Lyd. _Mag._ i. 38, 45.
[2015] Val. Max ii. 8. 2; Zon. viii. 17. 1; 18. 10; Polyb. ii. 23. 5.
[2016] P. 307, n. 1, 312.
[2017] Fest. 347. 3; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 884, 910; ii. 654;
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 594 f.; Girard, _Organ. jud. d. Röm._ i. 263
ff.
[2018] Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 43. 141; cf. Polyb. vi. 16. 3.
[2019] We are informed by Theophilus, iv. 3. 15, that this statute was
a plebiscite adopted at a secession of the plebs, meaning most probably
that of 287. But his view may be merely an inference from Ulpian, in
_Dig._ ix. 2. 1 and Pomponius, ibid. i. 2. 2. 8; cf. Roby, _Röm. Priv.
Law_, ii. 186. The law is the subject of _Dig._ ix. 2 f.; Justinian,
_Inst._ iv. 3; Theoph. _Inst._ iv. 3. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i.
69, assigns it to 287. On p. 71 f. he adds other chapters which he has
gathered from various sources. See also Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii.
793 ff. Injury committed by dogs was made actionable by the lex Pesolania
of unknown though early date; Paul. _Sent._ i. 15. 1; cf. _Dig._ ix. 1.
1. 15. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 39, n. 18, assigns it to the time
closely following the decemviral legislation; cf. Cuq, in Daremberg et
Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 1158.
The lex Mamilia concerning arbitri, but not more definitely known (Cic.
_Leg._ i. 21. 55), may belong to the consul C. Mamilius, 239.
[2020] Gaius iii. 210, Poste’s rendering; cf. also the following §§;
Justin. _Inst._ iv. 3. 15.
[2021] Gaius iii. 215, 217; cf. Ulpian, in _Dig._ vii. 1. 13. 2; Cic.
_Brut._ 34. 131.
[2022] As here used, “Flaminian” is not confined to the lifetime of
Flaminius, but designates the period during which lasted the impetus
given by him to the activity of the assemblies—approximately to the end
of the war with Hannibal.
[2023] P. 213, 215.
[2024] Cato, _Orig._ ii. 10 (in Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 7): “Ager
Gallicus Romanus vocatur, qui viritim cis Ariminum datus est ultra
agrum Picentium”; Cic. _Brut._ 14. 57; _Acad. Pr._ ii. 5. 13. There is
reason for believing that about this time the Licinian-Sextian agrarian
enactments were revived and extended by a comitial statute; p. 296, 363.
[2025] Cf. Cic. _Inv._ ii. 17. 52; Val. Max. v. 4. 5.
[2026] Cic. _Acad. Pr._ ii. 5. 13; Val. Max. ibid.
[2027] _Senec._ 4. 11.
[2028] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 149.
[2029] Kubitschek, _Röm. trib. or._ 26 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii.
176.
[2030] II. 21. 8. On this law in general, see further Ihne, _Hist. of
Rome_, ii. 125-7; iv. 26 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 344 ff.; Long,
_Rom. Rep._ i. 157 f.; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 15.
[2031] Zon. viii. 20. 7; Plut. _Marcell._ 4; cf. Livy xxi. 63. 2.
[2032] Livy xlv. 35. 4.
[2033] Livy xxvi. 21.5. Next is mentioned the plebiscite of Ti.
Sempronius, 167, for granting the imperium to three promagistrates; Livy
xlv. 35-40; cf. xxxii. 7. 4; xxxviii. 47. 1; Plut. _Aemil._ 30 ff. The
triumphs of Pompey, 80 and 71, must have been made possible by leges
de eius imperio, though none are mentioned; Plut. _Pomp._ 14, 21; Cic.
_Imp. Pomp._ 21. 61 f. The lex Cornelia, 80, which permitted Pompey to
bring his army home from Africa, was essential to the triumph but was
not the law which granted the imperium; Sall. _Hist._ ii. 21; Gell. x.
20. 10; Plut. _Pomp._ 13; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 678. The law for the
triumph over Juba was passed for Caesar in 48 in advance of his victory;
Dio Cass. xliii. 14. 3. There must have been many other such plebiscites
not mentioned by the sources. Magistrates had no more right than
promagistrates without especial authorization to command troops within
the city limits, though the triumph on the Alban Mount continued to be
permissible without an act either of the senate or of the comitia; p. 293.
[2034] P. 307.
[2035] Polyb. vi. 16. 3.
[2036] Livy xxi. 63. 3; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 353, 898;
Nitzsch, _Röm. Rep._ i. 156 f.
[2037] Ascon. 94; Dio Cass. lv. 10. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 162, 657;
Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 898.
[2038] App. _B. C._ 1. 7. 29; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 8.
[2039] Fest. 347. 14; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 45; cf. Hill, _Greek
and Rom. Coins_, 48. According to Festus, Flaminius was author, whereas
Pliny states that the change was made under the dictatorship of Q. Fabius
Maximus. One seems to refer to the enactment of the law, the other to its
administration.
[2040] P. 90.
[2041] Zon. viii. 26. 14.
[2042] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 47.
[2043] Böckh, _Metrologische Utersuchungen_, p. 472; Mommsen-Blacas,
_Hist. d. monn. Rom._ ii. 67, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 496; ii. 167,
674; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 365; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ ii. 1511; Samwer-Bahrfeldt, _Röm. Münzw._ 190 f.
[2044] Livy xxiii. 21. 6; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. 289.
[2045] Livy xxiv. 18. 12; xxvi. 36. 8.
[2046] Livy xxxvii. 51. 10; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 173 f.; Herzog,
_Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 365.
[2047] Cf. Livy xli. 27; Polyb. vi. 17.
[2048] Livy xxv. 7. 5 f.
[2049] Livy xxvii. 11. 8.
[2050] Tab. x, in Schöll, _Duod. Tab. Rel._ 153 ff.; Marquardt, _Privatl.
d. Röm._ 345.
[2051] _Mil._ 164; Hor. _Od._ iii. 24. 58; Ovid, _Trist._ ii. 471
ff.; cf. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 23. 56; Pseud. Ascon, 110; Hartmann, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1359. It remained in force to the end of
the republic. Other laws on gambling, which cannot be assigned to dates,
were the lex Cornelia (_Dig._ xi. 5. 3), the lex Publicia (ibid.), and
the lex Titia (ibid.).
[2052] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 663, 670.
[2053] Fest. 246. 32; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 662.
[2054] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxv. 17. 197. A M. Metilius was tribune in 217.
[2055] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 161 f., 670; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 354.
[2056] Livy xxxiv. 1 ff.; Tac. _Ann._ iii. 33 f.; Oros. iv. 20. 14; Zon.
ix. 17; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. 290.
[2057] P. 356. The lex lenonia mentioned by Plautus (Fest. ep. 143), if
indeed it is not a mere joke, should also be classed as sumptuary; cf. p.
528, n. 2.
[2058] Polyb. vi. 56; Plut. _Rom._ 13.
[2059] Livy xxxiv. 4. 9: “Vectigalis iam et stipendiaria plebs esse
senatui coeperat.”
[2060] Livy xxii. 1. 19; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 170.
[2061] _Sat._ i. 7. 33.
[2062] Livy xxvii. 20. 11.
[2063] Livy xxix. 20. 11.
[2064] Livy xxxiv. 4. 9; Cic. _Senec._ 4. 10; _Orat._ ii. 71. 286;
_Att._ i. 20. 7; Fest. ep. 143, including a quotation from Plautus; Tac.
_Ann._ xi. 5; xiii. 42; xv. 20; Frag. Vat. 260 ff. (Ad legem Cinciam
de donationibus); Bruns, _Quid conferant Vaticana fragmenta ad melius
cognoscendum ius Romanum_, 112 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 366;
Garofalo, in _Bull. dell’ ist. di diritt. Rom._ xv (1903). 310-2. In
the opinion of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 191, the law may have resulted
in part from the selfishness of the rich, with a view to checking the
presentation of gifts among themselves.
[2065] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 4. 11; _Lex Iul. Col. Gen._ 93; Mommsen, _Ephem.
Ep._ ii. 139; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 123.
[2066] Vat. Frag. 294, 298-309; Paulus, _Sent._ v. 11. 6; Roby, _Rom.
Priv. Law_, i. 526 f.
[2067] Such was the lex Pinaria, which ordered the appointment of a judge
on the thirtieth day after an action was instituted (Gaius iv. 15); also
the lex Silia creating the legis actio per condictionem, for the recovery
of a certain sum of money, extended by the lex Calpurnia so as to apply
to any certain object; Gaius iv. 18 f., and comment by Poste; Greenidge,
_Leg. Proced._ see index, s. Lex Calpurnia and Silia; Roby, _Rom. Priv.
Law_, ii. 71; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 594; _Röm. Civilprocess_,
230 ff.; Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 44 ff. On the probable date,
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ see indices, s. v.—The lex Crepereia, having to do
with a legis actio before the centumviral court, set the sponsia at a
hundred and twenty-five sesterces; Gaius iv. 95.—The lex Aebutia tended
to substitute for the legis actio the formulary process of later time;
Gaius iv. 30 f.; Gell. xvi. 10. 8; Greenidge, ibid. 93, 170 ff.; Roby,
ibid. ii. 347; Karlowa, _Röm. Civilproc._ 216, 324; Voigt, ibid. 124 ff.
Lange assigns these laws to the period of the war with Hannibal, Voigt to
earlier time.
To the year 214 Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 660, assigns the lex Atinia on
the usucapio of stolen property; Gell. xvii. 7; Just. _Inst._ ii. 6. 2;
_Dig._ xli. 3. 4. 6; cf. Roby, ibid. i. 475.—No date can be found for the
lex Licinnia de actione communi dividundo; Marcianus, in _Dig._ iv. 7. 12.
[2068] Livy xx, Frag.; Krüger and Mommsen, in _Hermes_, iv (1870). 371-6;
Tac. _Ann._ xii. 6. Livy states that a marriage of a patrician with a
relative of the sixth degree caused a riot of the plebs, which drove the
patres for refuge to the Capitol.
[2069] Ulpian, Frag. v. 6; cf. _De gradibus cognationum_.
[2070] Plut. _Q. R._ 6; Livy xlii. 34. 2 (case of a man’s marrying his
cousin shortly after the war with Hannibal); Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 126;
ii. 659 f.; Marquardt, _Privatl. d. Röm._ 30 f.
[2071] Livy xxxix. 9. 7.
[2072] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 659 f.
[2073] Cf. Lange, ibid. i. 231; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 27. It
supplemented the Twelve Tables, v. 1 f. (Gaius i. 144; ii. 47; Schöll,
_Duod. Tab. Rel._ 126).
[2074] Cic. _Off._ iii. 15. 61; _N. D._ iii. 30. 74; Varro, _L. L._ vi.
5; _Lex Iul. Munic._ 112.
[2075] Plaut. _Pseud._ 303; _Rud._ 1382.
[2076] The author may have been the Plaetorius who carried a law
concerning the urban praetor; p. 342, n. 1; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._
ii. 306, thinks it the result of continual war, which while giving young
men experience in military affairs, deprived them of the opportunity to
acquaint themselves with the management of property.
[2077] Livy xxiii. 31. 10.
[2078] P. 310.
[2079] Livy xxvi. 33. 10-4. For the decree of the plebs, § 14: “Quod
senatus iuratus, maxima pars, censeat, qui adsient, id volumus
iubemusque.”
[2080] Ibid. ch. 34.
[2081] Livy xxii. 10. 1.
[2082] It is given in full by Livy xxii. 10; cf. xxxiii. 44. 1 f.; xxxiv.
44. 1-3.
[2083] The consular law of Ti. Sempronius Longus, 215, appointing
duumviri, one of them the builder, Q. Fabius, for dedicating the temple
of Venus Erucina; Livy xxiii. 30. 13. f.—The lex granting Q. Lutatius
Catulus permission to dedicate the Capitoline temple, 78; Cic. _Verr._
II. iv. 31. 69; 38. 82; _CIL._ i. 592.—The rogation of the praetor
Caesar, 62, which threatened to deprive Catulus of the function; Suet,
_Caes._ 15; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 44. 2.
[2084] In consequence of a pestilence a pretorian law of P. Licinius
Varus, 208, placed the games in honor of Apollo in the class called
stativi—those which were celebrated annually on stated days; Livy xxvii.
23. 7; xxx. 38. 10 f.; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 241;
Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, 179 f.
[2085] Livy xxv. 5. 2, for the first instance and for the pontifical
presidency. Such a departure in favor of the people was hardly
possible in the period of comitial stagnation preceding the tribunate
of Flaminius, 232; and the law must have been passed, or at least
amended, after the institution of the last two tribes; for it specified
definitely seventeen tribes; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 16. On this measure,
see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 27 f.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d.
Röm._ 437; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 131. Pais, _L’elezione del pontefice
massimo_, etc. (1908), maintains on the contrary that the plebiscite in
question was passed about 254, and that it resorted to seventeen tribes
as the legal half of the total number (33) then existing. On the use of
the word comitia, see p. 130 above.
[2086] The first recorded instance occurs at the date mentioned; Livy
xxvii. 8. 1-3.
[2087] Cf. Cic. _Sest._ 46. 98.
[2088] P. 391.
[2089] P. 234, 305, 306.
[2090] Livy, ep. xx; _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 32. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 784; ii.
152, 654, conjecturally identifies it with the Plaetorian plebiscite,
which assigned two lictors to the urban praetor when acting as judge, and
defined his jurisdiction; Censorin. 24. 3.
[2091] Livy xxvii. 36. 14; p. 306 above. In 171 because of the impending
Macedonian war the consular lex Licinia Cassia permitted the consuls
to name their tribuni militum (Livy xliii. 31)—a precedent followed
thereafter in emergencies.
[2092] P. 305; Polyb. vi. 15. 6.
[2093] Livy xxvii. 22. 6. On the comparatively frequent use of the
promagistracy during the war with Hannibal, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_,
iv. 310.
[2094] Livy xxii. 25; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 355.
[2095] Polyb. iii. 87. 6; Livy xxii. 8. 5 f.
[2096] Cf. Herzog, ibid. i. 358 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 169.
[2097] Livy xxvii. 20. 11-3; 21. 1-4; Plut. _Marcell._ 27. It is
surprising that in 204 the question of abrogating the proconsular
imperium of Scipio through a plebiscite was discussed in the senate; Livy
xxix. 19. 6.
The grant of a burial place “virtutis caussa senatus consulto populique
iussu” (_CIL._ i. 635) to a C. Poplicius Bibulus was not to this Bibulus
but to some unknown person of the same name near the close of the
republic.
[2098] P. 360.
[2099] Livy xxvii. 21. 10; xxx. 19. 9.
[2100] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 850, 861; ii. 151, 654.
[2101] Livy xxvii. 6. 7; cf. p. 298 above. Two other dispensations from
laws by act of the people are recorded for the latter part of this
century: (1) the plebiscite of 203, which exempted C. Servilius from
the law prohibiting the election of a man to the plebeian tribunate or
aedileship in the lifetime of a father who had filled a curule office
(Livy xxx. 19. 9); (2) a plebiscite of 200 for permitting L. Valerius
Flaccus to take the oath of office for the aedileship as a proxy for his
brother, who being flamen Dialis was forbidden to swear; Livy xxxi. 50.
7-9.
[2102] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 369.
[2103] VI. 11. 1.
[2104] VI. 51. 3.
[2105] Ibid. § 5.
[2106] Ibid. § 7.
[2107] Polyb. vi. 56.
[2108] Ibid. 11. 11.
[2109] VI. 18.
[2110] VI. 12.
[2111] VI. 13.
[2112] P. 217, n. 5.
[2113] A plebiscite of M’. Acilius and Q. Minucius, 201, ordered the
senate to negotiate peace with Carthage; Livy xxx. 43. 2. Tribal
ratification may be assumed for every treaty, and for that reason is
generally not mentioned in this volume.
[2114] Polyb. vi. 14.
[2115] Polyb. vi. 12. 4.
[2116] VI. 15. 9 f.
[2117] Ibid. § 11.
[2118] VI. 16. 1 f. Polybius speaks of the decisions of the senate; but
since that body as a whole was not a court, and since there was no appeal
from either the special or the standing quaestiones, he must be thinking
here of the consilia of the magistrates, which also were composed of
senators.
[2119] VI. 16. 3. Doubtless he has in mind the Claudian statute of 219;
p. 335.
[2120] VI. 16. 4 f.
[2121] VI. 17. 9.
[2122] P. 33, 173.
[2123] Polyb. vi. 18. 5-8; Sall. _Iug._ 41.
[2124] Livy xxxii. 27. 6. A law may be assumed for this act.
[2125] Livy xl. 44. 2; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 198, n. 4; more
accurately, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 259, 655; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ ii. 2728.
[2126] Cf. Arnold, _Rom. Prov. Administr._ 47.
[2127] Cato, _Orat._ xxv; Fest. 282. 28; Non. Marc. 470; Livy xl. 59. 5.
[2128] Livy xxxiii. 42. 1; cf. Cic. _Orat._ iii. 19. 73; Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ ii. 211 f., 675; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 357, 446.
The people continued occasionally to create temporary magistracies
and commissions. A lex Plaetoria for the appointment of duoviri aedi
dedicandae (_CIL._ vi. 3732) probably belongs to 151; cf. Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ ii. 621, n. 1.
[2129] Livy xl. 44. 1. Cf. in general on the leges annales, Fest. ep. 27;
Cic. _Phil._ v. 17. 47; _Leg._ iii. 3. 9; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 65 f.; Tac.
_Ann._ xi. 22; Arnob. ii. 67. A rogation of similar import was offered by
a certain M. Pinarius Rusca (Cic. _Orat._ ii. 65. 261), who is perhaps
to be identified with a praetor of that name in 182; Livy xl. 18. 2;
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 529, n. 1.
[2130] This interval is assigned to the lex Villia by none of the ancient
authorities, but is found to be the practice after its enactment;
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 526 f.
[2131] Cic. _Phil._ v. 17. 47.
[2132] Cf. Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 8.
[2133] Wex, in _Rhein. Mus._ iii (1845). 276-88; Nipperdey, in _Abhdl.
sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig_, v. (1870). 1-88; Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ i. 707; ii. 259-61, 655; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 529 f., 537;
Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 386 f., 664 ff.; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i.
335 ff.; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1114.
[2134] They were not in force in 196 (Livy xxxiii. 42. 1) or in 194 (Livy
xxxiv. 53. 1 f.; xxxv. 9. 7). On the other hand Cicero’s description
(_Dom._ 20. 51; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 8. 21) of these laws as veteres should
place them a hundred years or more before his time. The two passages of
Cicero are the only sources; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 919; ii. 315 f.,
655; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 835. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 501,
thinks they may have resulted from the Gracchan agitation.
[2135] _CIL._ i². p. 146; Obseq. 18.
[2136] _Orat._ xxxvi.
[2137] Livy, ep. lvi (mentioned in connection with the year 134); Long,
_Rom. Rep._ i. 85-7. Long does not consider the date settled; but see
Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 521; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 485;
Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1117.
[2138] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 712; ii. 316, 655.
[2139] Livy xl. 19. 11; Schol. Bob. 361; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 717; ii.
257, 663; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 92; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._
i. 391; Hartmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1801, Mommsen,
_Strafr._ 867, n. 2.
[2140] Polyb. vi. 56. 4; Livy, ep. xlvii; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 717; ii.
312, 663; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 92; Hartmann, ibid.
[2141] P. 250.—Of minor importance is the lex Rutilia, 169, which
besides confirming the earlier statute for the election of twenty-four
military tribunes (p. 342) defined the rights of the tribuni “rufuli”
and “a populo” respectively; Fest. 261. 29; ep. 260; cf. Livy vii. 5.
9; xxvii. 36. 14; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 365.—The rogation of
Ti. Sempronius, tr. pl. in 167, for granting the imperium to certain
promagistrates for the day of their triumph has been considered above; p.
335, n. 2.
[2142] _Lex Ant. de Termess._ in _CIL._ I. 204. ii. 13-7; cf. Livy xxxii.
27. 3 f. (cutting down such expenses in Sardinia); xxxiv. 4; cf. Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 207, 673; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 307.
[2143] Cato, _Orat._ lxix, in Gell. xx. 2. 1; cf. Livy xxxii. 8. 3; xli.
14. 11; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 280, 673.
[2144] App. _Lib._ 135; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 19. 51. Appian and Cicero
speak of a senatus consultum only; but a lex Livia is vouched for by the
_Lex Agr._ of 111; _CIL._ i. 200. 81; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
643; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ i. 465.
[2145] Livy xxxiii. 25. 6. A lex Maevia, seemingly on Asiatic affairs,
supported by Cato but otherwise unknown, belongs perhaps to 189; Cato,
_Orat._ lxxv.
[2146] Livy, ep. xlix; new ep. l. 98-100; Cic. _Brut._ 23. 89; _Att._
xii. 5. 3; Val. Max. viii. 1. absol. 2.
[2147] Cic. _Off._ iii. 30. 109.
[2148] Livy xl. 38. 9; cf. 59. 1 (179 B.C.).
[2149] Val. Max. ii. 8. 1; Oros. v. 4. 7; cf. Cic. _Pis._ 26. 62; Livy
xxxvii. 46. 1 f.; xl. 38. 9; Gell. v. 6. 21; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 262,
676; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 133.
[2150] P. 293.
[2151] Livy xxxii. 29. 3 f. These colonies were actually founded in 194;
Livy xxxiv. 45. 1; Vell. i. 15. 3.
[2152] Livy xxxiv. 53. 1 f. The former was founded in 192; Livy xxxv. 40.
5.
[2153] _Lex Agr._ of 111, in _CIL._ i. 200. 43; Livy xxxiv. 45.
[2154] Livy xxxvii. 57. 7.
[2155] Livy xxxix. 55. 5. On the colonies of 181, see Livy xl. 29. 1; 34.
2; Vell. i. 15; _CIL._ i. 538, in which nothing is said either of the
senate or of the people.
[2156] I. 41. 1.
[2157] P. 307, 311.
[2158] It was in the capacity of administrator of public property that
the senate controlled this field. The only other instance of popular
legislation in this period touching state economy was the plebiscite of
M. Lucretius, 172 (Livy xlii. 19. 1 f.; cf. xxvii. 11. 8; Gran. Licin.
xxviii), for renewing the tribunician law of 210, which directed the
censors to farm the vectigalia of Campania; p. 337 above.—In 169 a
tribunician rogation of P. Rutilius threatened to annul the censorial
contracts (Livy xliii. 16. 6) as a rebuke to the censors for their
arbitrary management of the business. When this object was secured, the
bill was allowed to drop. It is true, as Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 24,
n. 1, remarks, that no one questioned the right of the people to cancel
an administrative act of the censors; but it was quite another thing
to find a college of tribunes unanimously disposed to interfere. The
significant fact is that in all the time between the peace with Hannibal
and the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus no important financial act was passed
by the comitia.
[2159] Livy xxxv. 7; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 221, 660.
[2160] A rogatio Iunia concerning usury, known only through Cato’s
opposition to it (_Orat._ vi), belongs to this period—perhaps to 195
(Livy xxxiv. 1. 4; xxxv. 41. 9 f.) or to 191 (Livy xxxvi. 2. 6).
[2161] Livy, ep. xli.
[2162] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 41. 104 ff.; _Rep._ iii. 10. 17; Gaius ii.
274; Dio Cass. lvi. 10. 2; Pseud. Ascon. 188; Gell, vi (vii). 13; xx. i.
23; p. 90 above.
[2163] Gaius ii. 226 and Poste’s comment; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 298,
660; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 95, 128; Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, i. 345.
It took the place of a lex Furia of earlier date for limiting to one
thousand asses the amount which a legatee or, in view of death, a donee
could accept; Gaius, ibid.; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 940 ff.
Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 502, places the lex Furia between 203 and
170.
[2164] Cato, _Orat._ lxviii, lxxv; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 660; Voigt,
_Die lex Maenia de dote vom Jahre 568 der Stadt_; _Röm. Rechtsgesch._
i. 789-801, attempts to determine the contents as well as the date; cf.
Arndts, in _Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch._ vii (1868). 1-44.
[2165] Livy xxxvii. 36. 7 f.; cf. Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 5. 13.
[2166] Ibid. § 9; p. 57 f., 334 above.
[2167] P. 340.
[2168] Livy xxxviii. 36. 5 f.
[2169] Cic. _Brut._ 20. 79; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 135, n. 1.
[2170] A pretorian law of Valerius Flaccus, 98, for the purpose is
mentioned by Cic. _Balb._ 24. 55; cf. _CIL._ vi. 2181 f.; Pais, _Anc.
Italy_, 309. Naturally before the establishment of the right of the
people in this matter (p. 283, 304) the grant was made by the consuls and
the censors.
[2171] Cic. _Balb._ 9. 24.
[2172] Cf. the bestowal of citizenship upon the Carthaginian Muttines by
a plebiscite ex auctoritate patrum in 210; Livy xxvii. 5. 7; Varro, in
Ascon. 13.
[2173] See the literature on the ius postliminii in Schiller, _Röm.
Staatsalt._ 618. There were certain cases of restoration of citizenship,
however, which were thought to require a comitial vote; Cic. _Balb._ 11.
28. But on this question opinions differed; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._
iii. 656, n. 1.
[2174] Cf. the lex Plautia Papiria, in Cic. _Arch._ 4. 7: “Data est
civitas Silvani lege et Carbonis: Si qui foederatis civitatibus adscripti
fuissent, si tum, cum lex ferebatur, in Italia domicilium habuissent et
si sexaginta diebus apud praetorem essent professi”; also _Balb._ 8.
19 (singillatim); _CIL._ ii. 159; iii. 5232 (viritim); Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ iii. 132.
[2175] Gell. xvi. 13. 6; Cic. _Balb._ 8. 21. Heraclea and Naples
preferred their freedom; Cic. ibid.; _Fam._ xiii. 30. 1.
[2176] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 133.
[2177] This spirit expressed itself in the lex Minicia of unknown date,
though probably anterior to the social war. It ordered that children born
of a union between a Roman and a person of a nationality with which there
was no conubium should follow the condition of the alien parent; Gaius i.
78 f.; Ulp. v. 8; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 182.
[2178] Livy xxxix. 3. 5 f.
[2179] Livy xli. 9. 9-11; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 21, 115; Herzog,
_Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 964, n. 1; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 92, n. 1.
[2180] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 435 f.; cf. however Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ ii. 27; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 993.
[2181] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 705; ii. 27.
[2182] Livy ix. 46; Plut. _Mar._ 5.
[2183] Livy xxxix. 19. 5 f.; Cic. _Sest._ 52. 110; _Phil._ ii. 2. 3.
A law of Augustus, 18 B.C., permitted all excepting senators to marry
freedwomen; Dio Cass. liv. 16. 2; lvi. 7. 2. Conubium had not been
impossible, but had been considered disgraceful both by society and by
the law.
[2184] Cf. Livy x. 21. 4; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 515; ii. 27; p. 60 above.
[2185] P. 334.
[2186] Livy, ep. xx; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 436, n. 3. The
statement of the epitomator is that by the censors “Libertini in quattuor
tribus redacti sunt, cum antea dispersi per omnes fuissent, Esquilinam,”
etc. It refers either to the censorship of Flaminius (Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 995) or far less probably to the one immediately
preceding. On the city tribes, see p. 64.
[2187] P. 205 f.
[2188] Suet. _Claud._ 24; Livy vi. 46. 6; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 2. 32;
cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 422; Herzog, ibid. i. 977.
[2189] Plut. _Flamin._ 18.
[2190] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 234; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 436
f. This interpretation seems necessary notwithstanding Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 884.
[2191] As in 217; Livy xxii. 11. 8.
[2192] In general, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 26-38; Mommsen,
_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 420 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 976 ff.,
992 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._, see index, s. Libertini. On the censorial
distribution of the libertini in 179, see p. 85, n. 3.
[2193] P. 338.
[2194] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 174, 211, 670; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 23.
[2195] Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 2; Diod. xxxvii. 3. 5; Ferrero, _Rome_, i.
23; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 425.
[2196] Macrob. ibid. § 3; Schol. Bob. 310; Fest. 242. 12.
[2197] Fest. 201. 31; Cato, _Orat._ xxvii.
[2198] Gell. ii. 24. 3; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 3-5; Athen. vi. 274 C.
[2199] Pliny, _N. H._ x. 50. 139.
[2200] Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 6.
[2201] The author may, as Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 311, 672, assumes, be
identical with the Cn. Aufidius who was tribune in that year; Livy xliii.
8. 2. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2288 f., regards the
identity as no more than possible.
[2202] Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 17. 64.
[2203] Cic. _Cornel._ i. 25 (Frag. A. vii); Ascon. 69.
[2204] Livy xxxiv. 44. 4.
[2205] Mention of this law is made in connection only with the Roscian
statute of 67, which is spoken of as a restoration of an earlier act; p.
428 f. below.
[2206] P. 253 ff.
[2207] Cic. _Off._ ii. 21. 75.
[2208] Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 3. 8.
[2209] _Dig._ xlviii. 15.
[2210] _Curc._ 621 f.; _Merc._ 664 f.
[2211] In _Verhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xxxvii (1885). 320.
[2212] Ibid. 327.
[2213] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 663; cf. _CIL._ i². p. 144.
[2214] _Röm. Strafr._ 780, n. 4.
[2215] _Declam. in Cat._ 19. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664 f., prefers to
assign it to the tribune of 139; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 563, n. 4,
doubts its existence.
[2216] Cic. _Fam._ viii. 12. 3; 14. 4; Suet. _Dom._ 8. 3 (Scantinius;
Ihm); Juv. ii. 44; Quint. _Inst._ iv. 2. 69. Voigt, in _Verhdl. d. sächs.
Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xlii (1890), 273, assigns it to 226 or 225. Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 667 f., places it between 227 and 50. The date 149
rests upon W. W. Fowler’s restoration of the new epitome, 115 f.: “M.
Sca(n)ti(ni)us ... am tulit (de) in stupro deprehensi(s).” Quite another
matter, however, is referred to in this passage, if Kornemann’s reading
is correct: “Sca(n)tius (qui repuls)am tulit in stupro deprehens(us se
occidit).” The date of the law, therefore, still remains in doubt.
[2217] Schol. Bob. 233; Cic. _Brut._ 27. 106; _Off._ ii. 21. 75; _Verr._
iii. 84. 195; iv. 25. 56; Val. Max. vi. 9. 10; Tac. _Ann._ xv. 20; Lex
Acil. in _CIL._ i. 198. 23, 74, 81; Mommsen, ibid. p. 54 f.; _Strafr._
708; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 321 f., 664; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 419.
[2218] In general the leges repetundarum were for the protection of Italy
as well as of the provinces; cf. p. 376, 377, 442.
[2219] Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 17; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 415 f.
[2220] P. 255, n. 1 (3).
[2221] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 13. 21; Censor, xx. 6. f.; Livy xliii. 11. 3;
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 353; ii. 223, 676; Mommsen, _Röm. Chron._ 40 ff.;
Matzat, _Röm. Chron._ i. 46.
[2222] P. 116; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 308 f.
[2223] Schol. Bob. 319; cf. Cic. _Sest._ 26. 56: “De tempore legum
rogandorum.”
[2224] Livy, new ep. liv. 193 f.: “A. Gabinius verna(e ... rogationem
tulit) suffragium per ta(bellam ferri),” indicates servile descent.
[2225] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 35; cf. 15. 34; _Amic._ 12. 41; _Leg. Agr._
ii. 2. 4.
[2226] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 35 f.; _Brut._ 25. 97; 27. 106; _Sest._ 48.
103; _Amic._ 12. 41; Ascon. 78; Pseud. Ascon. 141 f.; Schol. Bob. 303;
Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 105-10; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 658; Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 422; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 340 f.
[2227] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 30. 84; Ascon. 46; Val. Max. iii. 7. 9; cf. Cic.
_Brut._ 25. 97; Vell. ii. 10. 1; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 7.
[2228] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 344; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 94.
[2229] See especially Cic. _Leg._ iii. 15. 34: “Quis autem non sentit
omnem auctoritatem optimatium tabellariam legem abstulisse?”
[2230] P. 347.
[2231] P. 184.
[2232] App. _Lib._ 112 (White’s rendering); cf. Livy, ep. l.
[2233] Livy, ep. lvi; App. _Iber._ 84.
[2234] App. _Iber._ 83; cf. p. 188, n. 2, 342, 367.
[2235] Cic. _Amic._ 25. 96; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 335, 688.
[2236] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 8.
[2237] Polyb. vi. 18. 5-8 (Shuckburgh’s rendering).
[2238] The main part of his history was composed before the third war
with Carthage; Christ, W., _Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur_ (4th ed. 1905),
585; Cuntz, O., _Polybius und sein Werk_ (1902), 82. It is understood,
however, that certain parts were inserted after the beginning of the
revolutionary period.
[2239] It is true that the Gracchan trouble opened his eyes to some of
the defects in the constitution; but the aristocratic recovery after the
tribunate of Tiberius (and perhaps after that of Gaius) confirmed his
belief in the fundamental soundness and in the recuperative power of the
state.
[2240] P. 360 f.
[2241] Livy xxxv. 10. 12: “Multos pecuarios damnarunt.” In Livy xxxiv.
4. 9 Cato while speaking in defence of the Oppian law, in 195, is
represented as mentioning the article which established the limit of five
hundred iugera.
[2242] _Orig._ v. 5.
[2243] These are provisions of an agrarian law passed before the
tribunate of Ti. Gracchus (App. _B. C._ i. 8. 33 f.) but not expressly
referred to Licinius and Sextius in any ancient source. The first article
seems to assume a greater development of slavery than could be true of
the year 367, and the second would belong more naturally to a repetition
than to the original enactment; p. 296, n. 4, 334, n. 1.
[2244] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9.
[2245] App. _B. C._ i. 9. 37 and 11. 46 states that an additional two
hundred and fifty iugera were allowed for each son, and Livy, ep. lviii,
sets the maximum at a thousand iugera. Combining the two sources, we
reach the probable result given in the text; cf. also (Aurel. Vict.)
_Vir. Ill._ 64. 3; Siculus Flacc. p. 136. 10 (CC is a corruption of ↀ).
See Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 450, n. 3; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_,
i. 114; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87.
[2246] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; cf. Greenidge, ibid.
[2247] App. _B. C._ i. 11. 46. It is not stated that these lots should
become private property. Appian mentions this article as the only
compensation for improvements on the lands surrendered. The fact that
article 2 was withdrawn from the bill before it became a law may account
for its omission from this source.
[2248] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; App. _B. C._ i. 11.
[2249] _CIL._ i. 200. 14: “_Sei quis_ ... agri iugra non amplius xxx
possidebit habebitve.” In all probability this specification came
originally from the Sempronian law.
[2250] Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 88; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; App. _B. C._
i. 27. 121; Weber, _Röm. Agrargesch._ 151.
[2251] This is a necessary deduction from a speech of Tiberius quoted by
App. _B. C._ i. 9. 35; cf. 11. 43; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9. The _Lex Agr._
of 111 (_CIL._ i. 200. 21) refers to assignments made by C. Gracchus to
Latins and allies as compensation for public lands surrendered by them
to the government for colonial purposes; cf. § 31. Doubtless a similar
provision was included in the statute of Tiberius. Although viritim
assignments had hitherto benefited citizens only, Latins and Italians
had been admitted to Latin colonies founded by Rome; Meyer, _Gesch. d.
Gracch._ 91.
[2252] Cf. _Lex Agr._ in _CIL._ i. 200. 6: “_Extra eum agrum, qui ager
ex_ lege plebive scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebei)
rog(avit), exceptum cavitumque est nei divideretur.” The exceptions
numbered from a to g in the text above are taken from the agrarian law of
111. As these exceptions were made in the agrarian law of C. Gracchus, it
is here assumed that they were made previously by Tiberius.
[2253] _Lex Agr._ in _CIL._ i. 200. 31 f.; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ i. 4. 10;
ii. 22. 58 (land held similarly in Africa).
[2254] Cf. Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90.
[2255] In the earliest arrangement of the kind the part was one third,
as the name indicates; Livy xxxi. 13. 9; _CIL._ i. 200. 31 f.; cf.
Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 113; Weber, _Röm. Agrargesch._ 149-51.
The word is derived from trientare, as stabulum from stare; Mommsen, in
_CIL._ i. p. 90.
[2256] _CIL._ i. 200. 14; cf. 25 f. See Mommsen’s comment, p. 91;
Frontin. _Contr._ p. 15; Hygin. _Cond. Agr._ p. 116. 23; _Lim. Const._ p.
201. 12; Siculus Flacc. p. 157; Weber, _Röm. Agrargesch._ 120 f.
[2257] Voigt, in _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ x (1888). 229;
Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 113.
[2258] _CIL._ ibid. 28.
[2259] _CIL._ 200. 1, 4, 6, 13, 22; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ i. 7. 21; ii.
29. 81; _Att._ i. 19. 4; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 91; Greenidge, ibid.
112 f.
[2260] _CIL._ ibid. 24-6; Voigt, ibid. 227. The classification of public
land reserved from distribution by the agrarian law of 111 is that of
Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90 f.
[2261] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31; App. _B. C._ i. 9. 37; Livy, ep.
lviii.
[2262] They are so called in _Lex Lat. Bant._ 15, in _CIL._ i. 197; _Lex
Rep._ 13, 16, 22, ibid. 198; _Lex Agr._ 16, ibid. 200.
[2263] _Lex Agr._ in _CIL._ i. 200. 13 f., 17, 21-3; Cic. _Att._ i. 19.
4; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87. Illegal occupations alone are thereafter
mentioned; Cic. _Orat._ ii. 70. 284; App. _B. C._ i. 36. 162.
[2264] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 10; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 121;
Strachan-Davidson’s explanation (_Appian_, p. 13) seems to be incorrect.
[2265] Livy, ep. lviii; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 10-3; App. _B. C._ i. 12 f.;
Cic. _N. D._ i. 38. 106.
[2266] Livy, ep. lviii; App. _B. C._ i. 13. 55; Vell. ii. 2. 3; Flor. ii.
2. 6.
[2267] P. 347 f.
[2268] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 13.
[2269] Livy, ep. lviii: “Promulgavit et aliam legem agrariam, qua sibi
latius agrum patefaceret, ut iidem triumviri iudicarent, qua publicus
ager, qua privatus esset.”
[2270] _CIL._ i. 552-5, 583; ix. 1024 f.
[2271] _B. C._ i. 19. 78 f. The context indicates that in Appian’s
opinion the people had nothing to do with the measure.
[2272] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 688 (cf. iii. 22) and Greenidge, _Hist. of
Rome_, i. 158, suppose without evidence that Scipio effected his object
by means of a law.
[2273] P. 373 below. On the agrarian law of Ti. Gracchus, see further
Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 159-91; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 445-52; Ihne,
_Hist. of Rome_, iv. 382-400; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 110-28;
Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 156-84.
[2274] Livy, ep. lviii; Vell. ii. 2. 3: “Octavio collegae pro bono
publico stanti imperium abrogavit”; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 12; App. _B. C._
i. 12; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 10. 24; Dio Cass. Frag. 83. 4.
[2275] P. 360.
[2276] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 12; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 80,
395; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 185 ff. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 125-7,
and Pöhlmann, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad._ 1907. 465 ff., contend for its
legality.
[2277] P. 233 f.
[2278] P. 255.
[2279] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 16; Dio Cass. Frag. 83. 7. These sources are
obscure and somewhat inconsistent. The proposals of Tiberius can, better
than in any other way though not with absolute certainty, be inferred
from the laws of his brother.
[2280] P. 360.
[2281] P. 307 f.
[2282] Livy, ep. lix; Cic. _Amic._ 25. 96.
[2283] _B. C._ i. 21. 90: Καὶ γάρ τις ἤδη νόμος κεκύρωτο εἰ δήμαρχος
ἐνδέοι ταῖς παραγγλείαις, τὸν δῆμον ἐκ πάντων ἐπιλέγεσθαι. White
translates, “For in cases where there was not a sufficient number of
candidates, the law authorizes the people to choose from the whole number
then in office”; and scholars usually suppose that in the first clause
reference is to candidates. But if tribunus, the equivalent of δήμαρχος,
stood in the law, it must have signified tribune, not candidate; and in
that case παραγγελίαις, however Appian may have understood it, must be
the equivalent of renuntiationibus, “announcements of votes.”
[2284] Cf. Strachan-Davidson, _Appian_, p. 23. It was under the second
contingency that C. Gracchus was reëlected tribune without being a
candidate; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 8. The third time, though as some averred
he had a majority of votes, the presiding tribune dared reject them;
ibid. 12; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 94, n. 3. Fowler’s suggestion (_Eng.
Hist. Rev._ xx. 217) that the law permitted but one reëlection of an
individual is on the whole unlikely.
[2285] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 35; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 461;
Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 163 f.
[2286] The measure was being agitated at the time to which Cicero
referred the dialogue _On the Republic_, iv. 2; cf. Q. Cic. _Petit.
Cons._ 8. 33; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 657; iii. 25. On the Claudian law,
see p. 335 above.
[2287] P. 358.
[2288] _Lex Acil. Rep._ 23, 74, in _CIL._ i. 198; Zumpt, in _Abhdl. d.
Akad. zu Berlin_, 1845. 1-70, 475-515; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664; iii.
26; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 420; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 135, 211. The
Latin Lex Bantina (_CIL._ i. 197), identified by some with the Lex Iunia,
seems rather to belong to the tribunate of C. Gracchus; p. 379.
[2289] Cic. _Off._ iii. 11. 47; _Brut._ 28. 109; Fest. 286. 10; Long,
_Rom. Rep._ i. 237 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 166 f.
[2290] App. _B. C._, i. 21, 34. 152; Val. Max. ix. 5. 1; Ihne, _Hist. of
Rome_, iv. 418-21; Long, ibid. 241; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 462;
Greenidge, ibid. 167 ff.; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 93; Fowler, in _Eng.
Hist. Rev._ xx. 422.
[2291] In March, April, and May, according to Kornemann, _Gesch. d.
Gracch._ 44.
[2292] On the order of his enactments, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 38;
Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 210; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 466;
Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 95, n. 4; Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._
42 ff.; Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. (1905). 216 ff. Meyer calls
attention to the fact that while Appian, _B. C._ i. 21 f., states the
enactments in substantially correct order, he wrongly identifies the date
of reëlection—midsummer 123—with the date of entrance upon his second
term—December 10, 123—in this way pushing forward into the second year a
large group of enactments which belong to the latter part of his first
term.
[2293] P. 367.
[2294] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; Diod. xxxv. 25, 2; Fest. ep. 23 (abacti);
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 655; iii. 30 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 202.
[2295] P. 368.
[2296] P. 255 f. For the comitial interdict against Popillius, see p. 256.
[2297] Cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 204 f.; Fowler, _Eng. Hist.
Rev._ xx. 224.
[2298] Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1346. For examples,
see Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 114, and especially, Oliver, _Roman
Economic Conditions_, 61 ff.
[2299] Livy, ep. lx; App. _B. C._ i. 21. 89; Schol. Bob. 303; Vell. ii.
6. 3; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5.
[2300] App. ibid. § 90; Diod. xxxv. 25; Cic. _Sest._ 48. 103.
[2301] Cic. _Off._ ii. 21. 72; _Tusc._ iii. 20. 48; Diod. ibid; Oros. v.
12. 4; cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 261-3; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i.
203-7.
[2302] The view here offered was suggested in Botsford, _History of Rome_
(1901), 156. It is presented in greater detail by Fowler, in _Eng. Hist.
Rev._ xx (1905). 221 ff.
[2303] Begun by his lex de provocatione; p. 371.
[2304] Placed before the frumentarian law by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 31.
Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 95, n. 4, and Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._
43, hold the view represented above in the text.
[2305] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 9.
[2306] _CIL._ i. 200. 6, 22; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 32.
[2307] P. 364 f., 386.
[2308] App. _B. C._ i. 23. 98; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 6 f.; cf. Voigt, in
_Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xxiv (1872). 68 ff.
[2309] Livy, ep. lx; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 88.
[2310] Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 209; cf. _CIL._ i. 200, 1, 3, 4, 6,
22. Dio Cassius, Frag. 84. 2, intimates that after the death of Scipio
the distribution of the public land was renewed with energy. Reference
must accordingly be to the operation of the law of Gaius.
[2311] Cf. App. _B. C._ i. 21 f.
[2312] App. _B. C._ i. 14. 58.
[2313] P. 358.
[2314] P. 345.
[2315] P. 368. The measure is referred to as a lex iudiciaria by Macrob.
_Sat._ iii. 14. 6.
[2316] The epitomator of Livy, lx, supposes that Gaius offered and
actually carried a measure for adding six hundred knights to the senate
with the understanding that the jurors were to be drawn from that body
thus enlarged; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 530, n. 1. Such an act,
however, could not have been termed a lex iudiciaria, as it would have
been concerned simply with the composition of the senate. Everything
is opposed to the assumption that the bill in this form passed or at
least that it was put into effect. Plutarch, _C. Gracch._ 5 f., seems
to signify that his law provided for an album of six hundred jurors,
one half to be drawn from the senate, the rest from the knights. It is
by no means necessary, with Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx (1905).
426, n. 16, to interpret the expression ὁ δὲ τριακοσίους τῶν ἱππέων
προσκατέλεξεν αὐτοῖς οὖσι τριακοσίοις, καὶ τὰς κρίσεις κοινὰς τῶν
ἑξακοσίωον ἐποίησε (cf. _Ag. et Cleom. et Gracch._ _Comp._ 2) as “adding
three hundred equites to the senate to form the body of iudices.” These
sources have confused the projects with the law as actually passed; cf.
Strachan-Davidson, _Appian_, p. 23.
[2317] App. _B. C._ i. 22. 92; Vell. ii. 6. 3; 32. 3; Varro, in Non.
Marc. 454; Tac. _Ann._ xii. 60; Pseud. Ascon. 103, 145; Flor. ii. 1. 6;
5. 3 (iii. 13. 17); Diod. xxxv. 25; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5; Livy, ep. lx;
cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 668; iii. 38-40; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i.
466 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 263-9; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 434; _Hist.
of Rome_, i. 212-7; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 457-64; Madvig, _Röm.
Staat._ ii. 219-21.
[2318] This is true at least of the extraordinary quaestio established by
the Mamilian law of 110; Cic. _Brut._ 34. 128; cf. 33. 127; Schol. Bob.
311; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 381 f., 435.
[2319] _CIL._ i. 198.
[2320] _CIL._ i. 198. 16. There was under the republic a census
qualification for the knights who acted as iudices (Cic. _Phil._ i. 8.
20), though we have no authority that the limit of four hundred thousand
sesterces existed before the principate. Originally Mommsen supplied the
lacuna with a statement of the money qualification as here given; but
afterward, changing his mind, he filled the gap with “equum publicum
habebit habuerit.”
[2321] An article of the lex Acilia provides that within ten days after
the enactment of this statute the said praetor shall choose the four
hundred and fifty persons from whom the jurors of that court are to be
drawn; thereafter the revision is to be annual; _CIL._ i. 198. 12, 14.
[2322] Strachan-Davidson, _Appian_, p. 23, followed by Fowler, in _Eng.
Hist. Rev._ xx. 429, identifies the two—on untenable ground, for the
reliable sources speak distinctly of a Sempronian law and an Acilian law.
[2323] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 531, n. 1, preferably regards the
Sempronian as the later; but in that case the transfer would have been
achieved in substance by the Acilian statute—a view which is contradicted
by the sources.
[2324] This idea would explain the fact that the extant fragments of the
lex Acilia contain no reference to a Sempronian lex iudiciaria.
[2325] Cic. _Verr._ i. 17. 51 f.; II. i. 9. 26; _Brut_. 68. 239; Pseud.
Ascon. 149, 165.
[2326] P. 370.
[2327] _CIL._ i. 198. Reference to the IIIviri of the Sempronian agrarian
law (§ 13, 16, 22) proves it to belong to 133-119, while the fact that
it does not admit senators among the jurors requires it to follow the
judiciary law of C. Gracchus; and more particularly, the implication that
at the time of its enactment the lex Rubria (p. 383 below) was in force
places it between 123 and 121; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 55; Ruggiero,
_Diz. Ep._ i. 41. In general on the law, see Rudorff, _Ad legem Aciliam_;
Zumpt, in _Abhdl. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1845. 1-70, 475-515; _Röm.
Criminalr._ i. 99 ff.; Huschke, in _Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch._ v (1866).
46-84; Hesky, in _Wiener_ _Studien_, xxv (1903). 272-87; Brassloff,
ibid. xxvi. 106-17; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664; iii. 40; Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ iii. 642; _Röm. Strafr._ 708 f.; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._
420; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 214, n. 2; Ruggiero, ibid. 41-4; Klebs, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 256.
[2328] _Lex Rep._ 2 f.; cf. 8 f.
[2329] _Lex Rep._ 1.
[2330] Vell. ii. 8. 1; cf. Cic. _Verr._ iii. 80. 184; Ruggiero, _Diz.
Ep._ i. 42.
[2331] _Lex Rep._ 8 f.
[2332] The principle was expressed in an article of the lex Memmia de
incestu of 111 (Val. Max. iii. 7. 9), and probably in every law for the
establishment of a court. It was used throughout the history of the
republic; cf. Livy x. 37. 7; 46. 16 (year 293); p. 289 above; Suet.
_Caes._ 23 (59); Dio Cass. xxxix. 7. 3 (57).
In this connection mention may be made of the lex Hostilia, which allowed
actions for theft to be brought in behalf of persons absent in the
service of the state or in captivity or in wardship; Just. _Inst._ iv.
10. The date is unknown, though Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 282, n. 14,
inclines to assign it to 209 or 207.
[2333] _Lex Rep._ 19-26; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 216 f. Ruggiero, ibid.
43, is obviously wrong.
[2334] _Lex Rep._ 76-8; cf. 83-5.
[2335] § 28 states that money within a specified limit might legally be
received—perhaps by the patron of the accuser—from which we may infer
that the law defined precisely what was permitted and what forbidden all
persons participating in the trial; cf. Brassloff, in _Wiener Studien_,
xxvi. 109 f.
[2336] Cic. _Cluent._ 56. 154: “Illi (senatus) non hoc recusabant, ne ea
lege accusarentur, qua nunc Habitus accusatur, quae tum erat Sempronia,
nunc est Cornelia” (“They did not object to being accused under that law
under which Habitus is now being tried, which was then the Sempronian
but is now the Cornelian statute”). The trial was before the quaestio
veneficis under the Cornelian law which constituted this court and which
is described as essentially identical with a Sempronian law. _CIL._ i. p.
200. xxxiii: (“C. Claud. Ap. F. C. N. Pulcher) ... IUDEX. Q. VENEFICIS,”
aedile 99, praetor 95, consul 92, corroborates the existence of such a
court before Sulla. For other proofs, see Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 36 ff.;
cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664.
[2337] P. 255, n. 1 (4), 358.
[2338] Cic. _Cluent._ 55. 151.
[2339] Ibid. 52. 144.
[2340] In 66 Cluentius Habitus was brought to trial before the quaestio
inter sicarios et veneficos on the charge (1) of having corrupted the
jurors in an earlier trial of the kind, (2) of poisoning; Cic. _Cluent._;
cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 12.
[2341] The whole tenor of Cicero’s _Pro Cluentio_ is to the effect
that the knights were not bound by the provision against bribery. He
had a strong motive, however, for bringing into prominence the article
which provided for the punishment of magistrates and senators, and for
suppressing the one, if there was one, concerning the punishment of
equites; and this suppression was rendered easy by the fact that the
Cornelian law then in force mentioned senatorial jurors only. Appian, _B.
C._ i. 22. 97 (cf. 35. 158, 161), assumes that under the Sempronian law
there were trials for the bribery of jurors, rendered useless, however,
and finally done away with by the conspiracy and violence of the knights;
cf. Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 18 f. This interpretation of the known facts
seems preferable to the view of Cicero, which, however, is accepted by
most scholars; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 635; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._
421; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 216 f.
[2342] _CIL._ i. 197; Ritschl. _Prisc. lat. mon. epigr. tab._ xix.
[2343] Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 48-53; Girard, _Textes_, p. 26-9.
[2344] As indicated by the “Ioudex, quei ex hace lege plebeive scito
factus erit”; § 2.
[2345] Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 431. Kirchhoff, _Stadtrecht von
Bantia_, 90-7, regards it as a part of a judiciary law. Mommsen, in
_CIL._ i. p. 46 f., connects it with a treaty between Rome and Bantia.
See also Krüger-Brissaud, _Hist. d. source d. droit Rom._ 94.
[2346] Cic. _Verr._ iii. 6. 12; _Att._ i. 17. 9; Schol. Bob. 259; Vell.
ii. 6. 3; Gell. xi. 10; App. _B. C._ v. 4. 17 f.; Fronto, _Ad Verum_, p.
125; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 674 f.; iii. 34; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._
i. 468 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 217-21. Hitherto the senate had
exercised unrestricted power in granting such remissions; Polyb. vi. 17.
5.
[2347] App. _B. C._ v. 4. 19; Diod. xxxv. 25.
[2348] App. _B. C._ i. 22. 94-7.
[2349] Varro, in Non. Marc. 454; Flor. ii. 5. 3 (iii. 17).
[2350] Diod. xxxvii. 9; cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 9. 20. As a substitute for
his law concerning the taxation of Asia his opponents vainly offered the
rogatio Aufeia, probably pretorian, on the same subject; Gell. xi. 10;
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 675; iii. 35.
[2351] Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 2. 3; _Balb._ 27. 61; _Dom._ 9. 24; _Fam._
i. 7. 10; Sall. _Iug._ 27; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 41; Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 470. Before the enactment of this law it was possible
for the people to grant a province to whomsoever it pleased, whether
magistrate or private person. A lex of 131, probably tribunician, had
given the province of Asia to P. Licinius Crassus, consul; Livy, ep. lix;
Cic. _Phil._ xi. 8. 18. The Sempronian law did not affect their right. In
107 a plebiscite of C. Manlius granted Numidia, with the conduct of the
Jugurthine war, to C. Marius, consul; Sall. _Iug._ 73; Gell. vii. 11. 2;
_CIL._ i. p. 290 f. On the Sulpician law for granting the conduct of the
Mithridatic war to Marius, then a private citizen, see p. 404.
[2352] Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 7. 17.
[2353] Cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 222 f.
[2354] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 672.
[2355] P. 368.
[2356] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5; cf. Livy xxv. 5. 5-8. In speaking on the
rogation of Cn. Marcius Censorinus, a proposal not otherwise known, Gaius
is said to have remarked: “Si vobis probati essent homines adulescentes,
tamen necessario vobis tribuni militares veteres faciundi essent”;
Charis. 208. The new epitome of Livy proves that the military question
was more prominently before the public at this time than has hitherto
been supposed.
[2357] XXXV. 25. For the Gracchi in general Diodorus draws from
Posidonius, an exceedingly hostile source.
[2358] Livy lx; App. _B. C._ i. 23 f.; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 6, 8 f.;
(Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 3. The date is established by Vell. i. 15.
4; Oros. v. 12. 1; cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 95, n. 4; Mommsen, in
_CIL._ p. 87, 96.
[2359] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 9; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 224 f.
[2360] Vell. i. 15. 4; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 3; cf. Kornemann,
in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 522; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 55. His
plan to colonize Capua (Plut. _C. Gracch._ 8) was not carried out.
[2361] The lex Sempronia or Graccana, mentioned in the _Liber
Coloniarum_, in _Gromatici_ (Lachmann), p. 229, 233, 237, 238; cf. p.
216, 219, 228, 255; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 224, n. 2.
[2362] This fact is deduced from the literary references to the subject
and from the terms of the agrarian law of 111; _CIL._ i. 200. 5, 13; cf.
Mommsen’s comment, p. 90. The same principle holds for any other colonies
founded in Italy between 133 and 111.
[2363] _Lex Acil._, in _CIL._ i. 198. 22; _Lex Agr._, _CIL._ i. 200. 59;
Vell. i. 15. 4; ii. 7. 8; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 10 f.; App. _B. C._ i. 24;
_Pun._ 136; Livy, ep. lx; Fronto, _Ad Verum_, ii. p. 125; Sol. 28. For
the date, see Vell. i. 15. 4; Oros. v. 12. 1; Eutrop. iv. 21.
[2364] Vell. ii. 6. 2; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5, 8 f.; App. _B. C._ i. 23.
99; 34. 153; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 474 f.; Greenidge, _Hist.
of Rome_, 233-7. About the end of 123 or the beginning of 122 Gaius had
proposed to give the Latins equal suffrage with the Romans; Plut. ibid. 8
f.: Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 45. The promulgation of this earlier
rogation must have preceded that of the Livian bills.
The bill (or possibly bills) which included the Italians among the
recipients of the citizenship could have been offered only between his
return from Carthage and the elections of midsummer, 122; Kornemann,
ibid. 51; Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 425.
[2365] Cf. Fannius, in Jul. Victor vi. 6. p. 224 Or.; Charisius, p. 143
Keil.
[2366] Appian, _B. C._ i. 23. 101; Plut. C. _Gracch._ 9. Plutarch, who
alone speaks of the exemption from rent, seems to consider the measure
to have applied retroactively to the Sempronian settlements as well
as to those proposed by Livius. Although this could hardly have been
the intention of the Livian act, the exemption of the colonists under
it would naturally lead to the extension of equal privileges to the
beneficiaries of the Sempronian agrarian laws.
[2367] Appian, _B. C._ i. 35. 156 (cf. p. 397 below) assumes that the
colonial bill of Livius became a law. If that is true, there is no reason
for supposing that the other was dropped before being brought to vote.
Gaius might have prevented both by his veto (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 45);
but even if he felt the intention to be mischievous, he could not have
afforded to oppose so popular measures. Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87, is
of the opinion that Minervia may have been a Livian colony; but he cannot
understand why the others provided for were not founded. The reason
doubtless is that the senate, which had used Livius as a tool, never
seriously intended to execute the law.
[2368] A rogation of Gaius, proposed about the same time as the lex de
civitate danda, concerning the order of voting in the comitia centuriata
is mentioned by (Sall.) _Rep. Ord._ ii. 8: “Mihi ... placet lex quam C.
Gracchus in tribunatu promulgaverit, ut ex confusis quinque classibus
sorte centuriae vocarentur: ita coaequatur dignitate pecunia.” His
object, to eliminate the influence of wealth, could be achieved by
determining by lot the order of voting of the five classes; or a new
grouping of the centuries could be substituted for the classes; but he
could not have proposed that the centuries should vote one by one.
[2369] We know that in 91 they vehemently opposed the admission of the
allies; p. 399, 400 below; cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 106, n. 1.
[2370] Opimius, consul in 121, ordered the equites to come each with two
armed slaves to the support of the government; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 14.
Sallust, _Iug._ 42, states that the senate, by holding out to the equites
the hope of an alliance with the aristocracy, detached them from the
plebs; cf. Meyer, ibid. 106.
The lex Acilia Rubria, passed most probably in 122, seems to have
had to do with the participation of aliens in the worship of Jupiter
Capitolinus; _S. C. de Astypalaeensibus_, in _CIG._ ii. 2485. 11 (cf.
Böckh’s comment); Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 42. It is to be connected with
the rogation for granting the citizenship to the allies, and probably
aimed to liberalize the worship in the Sempronian spirit.
[2371] Cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 231.
[2372] Dio Cassius, Frag. 85. 3, in a mutilated passage seems to refer to
the great possibilities of a longer career. It would be unreasonable to
suppose that so creative a mind could rest content at any given point.
[2373] Fest. 201. 19; Flor. ii. 3. 4 (iii. 15); Diod. xxxiv. 28 a (from
Posidonius); (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 5; Oros. v. 12. 5; Plut. _C.
Gracch._ 13; App. _B. C._ i. 24. 105; _Pun._ 136; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii.
47; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 248; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 96.
[2374] App. _B. C._ i. 27. 121; cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 352; Greenidge,
ibid. i. 285; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 4 f.
[2375] Ibid. § 122.
[2376] It seems to be a mistake for Spurius Thorius (Cic. _Brut._ 36.
136: “Sp. Thorius .... qui agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege
vectigali levavit”). By interpreting this sentence “Sp. Thorius ... who
relieved the public land of a defective and useless law by the imposition
of a vectigal,” Mommsen (in _Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ 92
f.) attempts to bring Cicero into agreement with Appian. But the
interpretation is violent and is not generally accepted. The statement
of Cicero applies to the law of 111 far better than to that which Appian
mentions under the name of Borius.
[2377] App. ibid.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 688; iii. 51; Long, _Rom. Rep._
i. 353 f.; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 9; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i.
285-8. If, as Greenidge supposes, the Livian colonial rogation became a
law, it did not affect the vectigal imposed by the Sempronian statutes
(p. 383 above).
It may have been as a compensation for the repeal of this Sempronian
statute and of that of Rubrius that a lex of an unknown author provided
in this year for the establishment of the colony of Narbo Martius in
Narbonensis; Vell. i. 15. 5; ii. 7. 8; Eutrop. iv. 23; Cic. _Brut._ 43.
160; _Cluent._ 51. 140; _Font._ 5. 13; Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ iv. 522.
[2378] _Brut._ 36. 136 (quoted p. 385, n. 5 above); cf. _Orat._ ii. 70.
284; App. _B. C._ i. 27. 123; _CIL._ i. 200; Rudorff, in _Zeitschr.
f. gesch. Rechtswiss._ x (1842). 1-194; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 75
ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 478; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 351-86;
Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 288.
[2379] The classification here given is a close reproduction of Mommsen,
in _CIL._ i. p. 87-106; cf. _Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ i.
89-101.
[2380] _Lex Agr._ 27 (cf. 4), in _CIL._ i. 200.
[2381] Ibid. 20-23.
[2382] Ibid. 2; cf. 13 f.
[2383] Ibid. 3, 15 f. The word sortito in these passages, e.g. “IIIvir
sortito ceivi Romano dedit adsignavit,” proves a reference to the
founding of colonies, as viritim assignations were not by lot; Mommsen,
in _CIL._ i. p. 87.
[2384] Ibid. 5.
[2385] Ibid. 13 f. Although occupation was forbidden by the agrarian law
of Ti. Gracchus (p. 366 above), they did take place, and are legalized
by this article of the law of 111, in so far as they do not exceed the
specified limit.
[2386] _Lex Agr._ 12: “Eum agrum quem ex h(ace) l(ege) venire dari
reddive oportebit”; cf. 32. We do not know what land is meant. Perhaps
Sipontia is included in this category; cf. 43; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p.
89.
[2387] _Lex Agr._ 19 f.; App. _B. C._ i. 27. 123; Cic. _Brut._ 36. 136:
“Sp. Thorius ... qui agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege vectigali
levavit” (“Sp. Thorius ... who by a mischievous and useless law freed the
public land of vectigal”).
[2388] P. 365.
[2389] _Lex Agr._ 11-3; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90.
[2390] _Lex Agr._ 45, 55, 59-61, 66-9, 79, 89.
[2391] Ibid. 75 f., 79 f., 85.
[2392] Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 98 ff.
[2393] _Lex Agr._ 96. This part of the inscription is hopelessly
mutilated.
[2394] Ibid. 29.
[2395] P. 385.
[2396] P. 255.
[2397] P. 256 f.
[2398] Cic. _Brut._ 34. 128; cf. _Red. in Sen._ 15. 38; _Red. ad Quir._
4. 9; 5. 11; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 279 f.; Ihne, _Hist. of
Rome_, v. 6 f.
[2399] P. 255.
[2400] Tac. _Ann._ xii. 60, confirmed by a statement of Cicero, in Ascon.
79, that senators and knights first sat together as jurors under the
Plautian law of 89 (p. 402 below).
[2401] Cassiod. _Chron._ 384 C: “Per Servilium Caepionem consulem iudicia
equitatibus et senatoribus communicata”; Obseq. 41 (101).
[2402] Cf. further Cic. _Inv._ i. 49. 92; _Brut._ 43. 161; 44. 164;
_Cluent._ 51. 140; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 668; iii. 67 f.; Long, _Rom.
Rep._ ii. 2 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 477-82. But that the
knights continued in uninterrupted possession of the courts is proved by
Cicero, _Verr._ i. 13. 38; Pseud. Ascon. 103, 145.
[2403] P. 355.
[2404] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 72. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 53;
Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 478. His lex sumptuaria of the same year,
perhaps combined in one law with the provision concerning the libertini,
limited not only the expense of meals but also the kind of food and the
mode of preparing it; Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 57. 223; cf. Gell. ii. 24. 12;
(Aurel. Vict.) ibid.—Two other sumptuary laws, both of which were enacted
before 97, may be mentioned here. The statute of P. Licinius Crassus,
pretorian or tribunician, ex senatus consulto, perhaps 104, made some
changes in the lex Fannia and the lex Didia; Gell. ii. 24. 7; xv. 8;
Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 7; Fest. ep. 54; p. 356 above.—It was repealed by
the plebiscite of M. Duronius before 97; Val. Max ii. 9. 5; Lange, _Röm.
Alt._ iii. 71, 88.
[2405] Ascon. 67 f.; cf. p. 382, 392.
[2406] The reading of the MS. of Velleius, ii. 11. 1 (“natus equestri
loco”) should not be corrected to “agresti loco” to conform with Plut.
_Mar._ 3. Velleius has mentioned his equestrian birth to explain his
connections with the publicans referred to in the following sentence.
[2407] The opposition of Marius to the populace is proved by his
intercession against a frumentarian rogation of the same year, the
purport of which is not definitely stated; Plut. _Mar._ 4.
[2408] Cic. _Pis._ 15. 36; _Red. in Sen._ 11. 28. On the pontes, see p.
469.
[2409] Varro, _R. R._ iii. 5. 18. On the custodes, see also p. 467 below.
[2410] Cic. _Pis._ 5. 11; _Red. in Sen._ 7. 17; cf. p. 466.
[2411] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 17. 38.
[2412] Plut. _Mar._ 4; Cic. ibid.; Lange, _Rom. Alt._ ii. 490; iii. 51;
Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 322 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 304-6. The
opposition of the consuls to this measure, and the consequent threat of
Marius to imprison them, Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 8, regards as a farce.
This interpretation of the circumstances, however, is unnecessary for
explaining the policy of Marius; as a champion of the peasants, rather
than of the plebs as a whole, be consistently passed his election law and
opposed the frumentarian bill.
[2413] Plut. _Cat. Min._ 42.
[2414] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 36; Oros. v. 15. 24; cf. Münzer, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 195 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 527;
iii. 66. On the leges tabellariae in general, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_,
iv. 94, 340; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 105-10; Lange, ibid. see indices, s. v.
[2415] P. 388.
[2416] Cic. _N. D._ iii. 30. 74; Ascon. 46; Livy, ep. lxiii; Dio Cass.
Frag. 87; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 10. 5 f. A plebiscite of C. Memmius, 111, de
incestu (p. 377, n. 5) refers to the same subject.
[2417] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 697 f.
[2418] Sall. _Iug_. 40. 65; Cic. _Brut._ 33. 127 f.; Schol. Bob. 311. In
111 a plebiscite of the C. Memmius mentioned in n. 4 had commissioned L.
Cassius, praetor, to bring Jugurtha to Rome as a witness against those
accused of having bribed him; Sall. _Iug._ 32.
[2419] Livy, ep. lxvii; Ascon. 78; cf. (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 14. 24, which
refers to a defence against the tribunes. For the earliest case of the
kind, see p. 360; cf. p. 342.
[2420] The court was established by a plebiscite of C. Norbanus, 104; Dio
Cass. Frag. 90; Gell. iii. 9. 7; Strabo iv. 1. 13; Cic. _N. D._ iii. 30.
74; _Balb._ 11. 28; Val. Max. iv. 7. 3; vi. 9. 13.
[2421] Ascon. 78: “Ut, quem populus damnasset cuive imperium abrogasset,
in senatu non esset.” The disgraceful defeat of Caepio in Gaul and his
embezzlement of the treasury found at Tolosa excited the people to this
line of action; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 484. On the author, see
Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1738. 63.
[2422] The lex Acilia repetundarum (_CIL._ i. 198. 13, 16), adopted
in 122, implies that they did not have the right; but they must have
acquired it before 102; App. _B. C._ i. 28. 126.
[2423] Ateius Capito, in Gell. xiv. 8. 2; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 228.
[2424] P. 341.
[2425] Cic. _Amic._ 25. 96.
[2426] Cic. ibid.; _Brut._ 21. 83; _N. D._ iii. 2. 5; 17. 43.
[2427] P. 347.
[2428] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 18; _Fam._ viii. 4. 1; _Ad Brut._ i. 5. 3;
_Phil._ ii. 2. 4; xiii. 5. 12; Suet, _Ner._ 2; Vell. ii. 12. 3; Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 537, 675; iii. 71; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm_,
418; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 49 f.; ii. 40-2; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i.
484 f.
[2429] Priscian, _Inst. Gram._ p. 90: “Cato nepos de actionibus ad
populum, ne lex sua abrogetur: facite vobis in mentem veniat, quirites,
ex aere alieno in hac civitate et in aliis omnibus propter diem atque
fenus saepissimam discordiam fuisse.” This is the only source for the
measure.
[2430] P. 388 f.
[2431] Ascon. 67 f.
[2432] The only source is Cic. _Off._ ii. 21. 73.
[2433] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 46; Mommsen-Blacas, _Hist. d. mon. Rom_,
ii. 101 (for date and character).
[2434] P. 389.
[2435] Ascon. 21; Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 9; _Balb._ 23. 53; 24. 54.
Cicero here informs us that by a provision of this law citizenship was
offered to Latins as a reward for evidence in cases arising under it.
This article was borrowed from the lex Acilia; p. 378. See also Val.
Max viii. 1. 8; Cic. _Brut._ 62. 224; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i.
309-11. Proof of the repeal of the Acilian law no later than that year is
the circumstance that on the reverse of the stone which contains it is
inscribed the agrarian law of 111; Mommsen, _CIL._ i. p. 55 f.
[2436] Cic. _Verr._ i. 9. 26.
[2437] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 8 f. The quotation is from Greenidge, _Hist.
of Rome_, i. 310.
[2438] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 9; cf. Mommsen. _Röm. Strafr._ 709;
Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 423.
[2439] Cic. _Brut._ 62. 224.
[2440] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 73. 1: “Ut gratiam Marianorum
militum pararet, legem tulit, ut veteranis centena agri iugera in
Africa dividerentur, intercedentem Baebium collegam facta per populum
lapidatione submovit”; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 76; Herzog, _Röm.
Staatsverf._ i. 485; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 262.
In the opinion of Mühl, _App. Sat._ 77 f., the colonia Mariana (p. 396
below) was founded under this law.
[2441] P. 86, 89.
[2442] Cic. _Orat._ ii. 25. 107; 49. 201; _N. D._ iii. 30. 74.
[2443] As indicated by the fact that the trial of C. Norbanus in 95 took
place under the law; Cic. _Orat._ 21. 89; 25. 107; 50. 203; _Off._ ii.
14. 49; Val. Max. viii. 5. 2.
[2444] The theory that the court established by the Appuleian law was
special is held by Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, iii (1898). 440, n. 1; _Röm.
Staatsr._ ii. 664, n. 1; _Röm. Strafr._ 198. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 76,
82, supposes that in his first tribunate he established a special court
and in his second by his lex maiestatis a quaestio perpetua. Mühl, _App.
Sat._ 74, also strongly favors the second. The statement of Gran. Licin.
xxxiii (?). 4—“Cn. Manilius (for Manlius or Mallius; cf. _CIL._ i². p.
152 f.) ob eandem causam quam et Cepio L. Saturnini rogatione e civitate
est cito (for plebiscito?) eiectus”—Lange applies to the rogation for a
special court. The circumstance that the trial of Norbanus took place no
less than five years after the enactment of the law and the general tenor
of Cicero’s account of that trial (see n. 4 above) point clearly to the
existence of a standing court; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 485;
Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ ii. 275; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
ii. 262 f.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 23-32.
To the same tribune, either in 103 or in 100, may belong the lex Appuleia
de sponsu (Gaius iii. 122; p. 298, n. 1 above). In that case the lex
Furia de sponsu (Gaius iii. 121; iv. 22; cf. same page above) must belong
to the first century B.C.
[2445] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 73. 5: “Tribunus plebis refectus
(Saturninus) Siciliam, Achaiam, Macedoniam novis colonis destinavit et
aurum (Tolosanum), dolo an scelere Caepionis partum, ad emptionem agrorum
convertit.” For Corsica, see p. 396.
[2446] Cic. _Balb._ 21. 48. The MS. reads “ternos,” which may be a
mistake for a larger number (trecenos?).
[2447] App. _B. C._ i. 29. 130, 132; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 111 f.;
Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 486.
[2448] (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 12. 21; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 114 f.; Herzog,
ibid. i. 486 f.
[2449] _B. C._ i. 29. 131; cf. Plut. _Mar._ 29.
[2450] Cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 265.
[2451] App. _B. C._ i. 30 f.; Plut. _Mar._ 29; (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. _Ill._
73; 8; Vell. ii. 15. 4; Val. Max iii. 8. 4; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82; _Har.
Resp._ 19. 41; _Sest._ 47. 101; _Leg._ iii. 11. 26. After the downfall
of Appuleius, Metellus was recalled by a plebiscite of Q. Calidius, 98;
Cic. _Planc._ 28. 69; _Dom._ 32. 87; _Red. ad Quir._ 4. 9; 5. 11; Val.
Max. v. 2. 7; App. _B. C._ i. 33. 147-9; Dio Cass. Frag. 95. 1; (Aurel.
Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 62. 3. On this Calidius, see further Münzer, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1354. 5. A fruitless attempt to recall
Metellus had been made in 99 through the tribunician rogatio Porcia
Pompeia; Oros. v. 17. 11; App. _B. C._ i. 33.
[2452] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 6. 14. According to Oros. v. 12. 10, P. Furius,
tribune in 99, secured the enactment of a law for confiscating the
property of those who conspired against the state.
[2453] Pliny, _N. H._ iii. 12. 80: “Marianam a C. Mario deductam”;
Seneca, _Ad. Helv._ vii. 9; Solin. iii. 3; Mela ii. 7. 122; Mommsen, in
_CIL._ x. p. 838, 997; Kornemann, in Pauly Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv.
522.
[2454] Obseq. 46 (106); Val. Max viii. 1. damn. 3; cf. Cic. _Orat._ ii.
11. 48.
[2455] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 6. 14; 12. 31; Obseq. ibid. A criminal lex Titia,
the contents of which also are unknown—Auson. _Epigr._ 92 (89). 4—may
belong to this tribune; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 661, 668.
[2456] Cic. _Dom._ 20. 53; _Leg._ iii. 4. 11; 19. 43. The enactment was
merely the confirmation of an old custom or law introduced between the
Licinian-Sextian legislation and 122; cf. _Lex Acil._ 72, in _CIL._ i.
198.
[2457] Cic. _Dom._ 16. 41; _Sest._ 64. 135; Schol. Bob. 310. This, too,
was a confirmation of an earlier usage; Dion. Hal. vii. 58. 3; x. 3. 5;
Livy iii. 35. 1; p. 189, 260, n. 1 above; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._
iii. 336, 376 f.
[2458] Cic. _Off._ iii. 11. 47; cf. p. 354, 370.
[2459] Cic. _Balb._ 21. 48.
[2460] Cic. _Brut._ 16. 63; Schol. Bob. 296.
[2461] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 20.
[2462] Ascon. 67. On the law in general, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii.
90; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 128; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 490. On
Caecilius and Didius, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii.
1216. 95; v. 407-10.
[2463] Vell. ii. 13. 1; Dio Cass. Frag. 96. 2; Diod. xxxvii. 10.
[2464] The citations of the preceding note, and Ascon. 68; Livy, ep. lxx;
less clearly Flor. ii. 5. 1, 4 (iii. 17).
[2465] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 4 f.; _CIL._ vi. 1312 (i. p. 279
vii). Livy, ep. lxxi, merely mentions them.
[2466] _B. C._ i. 35. 156.
[2467] P. 383 above.
[2468] This may be inferred from the silence of Cicero, _Leg. Agr._ i. 7.
21; ii. 29. 81; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 102; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_,
v. 181; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 490.
[2469] App. _B. C._ 36. 162 f.; Flor. ii. 5. 6 (iii. 17): “Exstat vox
ipsius nihil se ad largitionem ulli reliquisse nisi siquis aut caenum
dividere vellet aut caelum.”
[2470] _CIL._ vi. 1312; cf. i. p. 279. vii. A beginning was actually made
of the colonization; and this is all that could be indicated by the verb
ὑπήγετο (App. _B. C._ i. 35. 156), “he was for conducting.”
[2471] Ep. lxxi.
[2472] Cf. Vell. ii. 13. 2; Livy, ep. lxx f.
[2473] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 46. The idea was to issue one
silver-plated copper denarius to every seven silver denarii; Mommsen,
_Röm. Münzw._ 387 (Mommsen-Blacas, _Hist. d. mon. Rom_, ii. 41 f., 82);
Babelon, _Mon. d. la rép. Rom_, 1. introd. p. lix.
[2474] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 674; iii. 103.
[2475] _B. C._ i. 35. 157 f. The same view seems to be held by (Aurel.
Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 4. It is accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 97;
Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 436. The objection is that a judiciary measure,
as the Livian, could not have dealt primarily with the composition of the
senate; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 489.
[2476] II. 13. 2. Florus, ii. 5. 4 (iii. 17), is non-committal.
[2477] LXXI; accepted by Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 177.
[2478] Cf. App. _B. C._ i. 35. 157.
[2479] Flor. ii. 5. 3 (iii. 17); App. _B. C._ i. 35. 158.
[2480] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 7. 16; _Cluent._ 56. 153; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_,
v. 177 f.
[2481] Velleius, ii. 14. 1, regards it as an afterthought, whereas
Appian, _B. C._ i. 35. 155, asserting that, petitioned by the Italians
for the citizenship, he had already promised to grant it, intimates that
this was his main object. At all events the Italians expected it of him
and were prepared to support him in his effort by force of arms.
[2482] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 4; Oros. v. 18. 2.
[2483] Vell. ii. 14. 1; App. _B. C._ i. 35. 155 f.; 36. 162; Livy, ep.
lxxi; Flor. ii. 5. 6. Most probably he combined this measure with his
colonial rogation; App. _B. C._ i. 36.
[2484] App. _B. C._ i. 35 f.
[2485] Livy, ep. lxxi; Flor. ii. 5. 7 (iii. 17).
[2486] Ascon. 68.
[2487] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 6. 14; 12. 31; _Dom._ 16. 41; Frag. A. vii
(_Cornel._ i. 24); Ascon. 68; Diod. xxxvii. 10. 3.
[2488] According to Diod. xxxvii. 10. 3, he declared that though he had
full power to prevent the decree, he would not willingly exert it; for
he knew well that the wrongdoers in this matter would speedily suffer
merited punishment.
[2489] Cf. the elogium, n. below.
[2490] Elogium, in _CIL._ vi. 1312 = i. p. 279. vii: “M. Livius M. F. C.
N. Drusus, Pontifex, tr. mil. X. vir. stlit. iudic. tr. pl. X. vir. a. d.
a. lege sua et eodem anno V. vir. a. d. a. lege Saufe(i)a, in magistratu
occisus est.”
[2491] On M. Livius Drusus, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 96-106; Long,
_Rom. Rep._ II. ch. xiii; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 488-93; Ihne,
_Hist. of Rome_, V. ch. xiii; Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, bk. IV. ch. vi;
Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 451-74; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 79 f.
[2492] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 2; Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 19. 55; Schol.
Gronov. 431; Ascon. 30; _Dig._ xxii. 5. 13; xlviii. 16. 3. 2; Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; iii. 101; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 491, 494. Hitzig,
in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1416, places it earlier.
[2493] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 20. 57; Pliny, _Paneg._ 35; Seneca, _De Ira_,
iii. 3. 6; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 495. It is almost certain that the
punishment mentioned was prescribed by this law; Hitzig, ibid.
[2494] This conclusion is deduced from the circumstance that Varius was
tried under his own law. The charge could not possibly have been that
of favoring the Italians, but must rather have been the instigation of
the sedition by which his statute was originally carried; Lengle, _Sull.
Verf._ 35.
[2495] Cic. _Brut._ 89. 304: “Exercebatur una lege iudicium Varia,
ceteris propter bellum intermissis.”
[2496] This is an inference from the fact that the court which tried Cn.
Pompeius Strabo in 88, and which sat under the Varian law, was composed
in accordance with the subsequent Plautian judiciary law (Cic. Frag. A.
vii. _Cornel._ i. 53). A special court was composed in no other way than
by the law which established it. In general on the Varian law, see Ascon.
21 f., 73, 79; Val. Max. viii. 6. 4; App. _B. C._ i. 37; Cic. _Tusc._ ii.
24. 57. From Appian we learn that the law was passed before the outbreak
of the Social War, and Cicero, _Brut._ 89. 305, informs us that the
prosecutions under it continued through the war. The last trial mentioned
is that of Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 88, referred to above. See also Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ iii. 108; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 493; Mommsen, _Röm.
Strafr._ 198; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 164 f.; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._
384 f.; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 188 f.; and especially Lengle, _Sull.
Verf._ 32-6, where further sources are cited.
[2497] Cic. _Brut._ 62. 222. It belongs to about 90; Lange, _Röm. Alt._
ii. 693.
[2498] _Off._ ii. 21. 72. It is an interesting fact that, as this passage
shows, Cicero did not object to frumentarian laws on principle, but
condemned the Sempronian act because it was burdensome to the treasury.
[2499] Gell. iv. 4. 3.
[2500] Vell. ii. 16. 4; cf. App. _B. C._ i. 49. 212 (who speaks merely of
a senatus consultum). This statute seems to have considered the Po the
northern boundary of Italy; Sall. _Hist._ i. 20.
[2501] Cic. _Balb._ 8. 21: “Ipsa Iulia lege civitas ita est sociis et
Latinis data, ut, qui fundi populi facti non essent, civitatem non
haberent.” On fundus see Fest. ep. 89. Heraclea and Naples declined the
citizenship; Cic. ibid.
[2502] P. 57 f.
[2503] Cic. _Arch._ 10. 26; _Balb._ 8. 19; 14. 32; 22. 50; _Fam._ xiii.
36; Sisenna, Frag. 17, in Peter, _Hist. Rom. Reliq._ i. 280; Frag. 120,
ibid. 293: “Milites, ut lex Calpurnia concesserat, virtutis ergo civitate
donari”; cf. Kiene, _Röm. Bundesgenossenkrieg_, 224 f., 229 f. The
identity of the author is uncertain; he may be the Calpurnius who was
praetor in 74; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1395. 98.
[2504] Cic. _Arch._ 4. 7: Schol. Bob. 353.
[2505] Dio Cass. Frag. 102. 7.
[2506] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 9. 3; Ascon. p. 3; Pliny, _N. H._ iii. 20. 138;
Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 118; cf. however Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i.
497 f.
[2507] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 53; Ascon. 79; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 539,
668 f.; iii. 115; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 499; Greenidge, _Leg.
Proced._ 385; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 213 f. We may connect with this
change the prosecution and condemnation of Q. Varius; p. 401, n. 1 above;
Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 224 f.
[2508] _Röm. Strafr._ 198, n. 1, followed by Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._
386. A difficulty with this interpretation is the great number of jurors
provided for, apparently enough to supply all the courts.
[2509] Verr. i. 13. 38.
[2510] Cic. _Att._ i. 18. 6.
[2511] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 46; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ ii. 1512; Gardner, in Smith, _Dict._ i. 206; Babelon,
_Monn. de la rép. Rom._ i. 74 f.
[2512] Strabo v. 4. 11.
[2513] P. 162.
[2514] Livy, ep. lxxvii; App. _B. C._ i. 55. 242 f.; Vell. ii. 18. 6;
Ascon. 64; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1532. The
libertini may have been those who fought in the recent war; App. _B. C._
i. 49. 212; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11. 32.
[2515] (Cic.) _Herenn._ ii. 28. 45; Livy, ep. lxxvii; Lange, _Röm. Alt._
iii. 123; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 501.
[2516] P. 400 f.
[2517] Plut. _Sull._ 8.
[2518] P. 403 above; also Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 84.
[2519] In this way a justitium, cessation of civil business, was
indirectly brought about; Plut. _Sull._ 8; _Mar._ 35; App. _B. C._ i. 55.
244; p. 141 above; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 221; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i.
513; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1533; Mommsen, _Röm.
Staatsr._ i. 263, n. 6.
[2520] For the abrogation of Sulla’s imperium Vell. ii. 18. 6 is
authority. Plutarch, _Sull._ 8, states that Pompeius, not Sulla, was
deprived of the consulship and that from Sulla was taken merely the
provincial command. Appian, _B. C._ i. 56. 249 (cf. Plut. _Mar._ 35;
Schol. Gronov. 410) speaks only of the transfer of the command. That
the fourth article was added after the departure of Sulla from Rome,
and that the latter knew nothing of it till summoned to deliver up his
command is clearly stated by Appian, ibid. ch. 56 f.; cf. Fröhlich, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1533 f.
[2521] Plutarch, _Sull._ 8 and Livy, ep. lxxvii, speak of a decree of the
senate only, whereas the account of Appian, _B. C._ i. 60. 271 (Πολεμίους
Ῥωμαίων ἐψήφιστο εἶναι) implies a vote of the assembly. Velleius, ii. 19.
1 (“Lege lata exules fecit”) distinctly mentions a comitial act, though
he is wrong in supposing it to be a sentence of exile, as may be gathered
from his context; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 237.
[2522] App. _B. C._ i. 59. 268; Cic. _Phil._ viii. 2. 7. Scholars are
at variance as regards the character and motives of Sulpicius. Herzog,
_Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 501 (cf. Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 85 f.), can see in
his measures no earnest purpose of reform. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v.
225 f., 233 f., hesitatingly inclines to regard him as a demagogue.
Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1532, looks upon him as a
statesman with a mind and heart for the best interests of his country.
In the opinion of Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, iii. (1898). 531 f., he was
essentially the successor of Drusus, a reformer in the interest of the
senate, yet led by the force of circumstances to adopt revolutionary
methods. Cf. also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 121-5; Long, _Rom. Rep._ II.
ch. xvii; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 507-17.
[2523] P. 277, 313 f.
[2524] App. _B. C._ i. 59. 266: Εἰσηγοῦντό τε μηδὲν ἔτι ἀπροβούλευτον ἐς
τὸν δῆμον ἐσφέρεσθαι, νενομισμένον μὲν οὕτω καὶ πάλαι, παραλελυμένον δ’
ἐκ πολλοῦ.
[2525] Ibid.: Εἰσηγοῦντο ... καὶ τὰς χειροτονίας μὴ κατὰ φυλάς, ἀλλὰ κατὰ
λόχους, ὡς Τύλλιος βασιλεὺς ἔταξε γίνεσθαι.
[2526] P. 86.
[2527] In _Hermes_, xxxiii (1898). 652.
[2528] This view is held by Sunden, _De trib. pot. imm._ (1897) 21 ff.;
Meyer, ibid. 652-4; Vassis, in _Athena_, xii (1900). 54-7. Fröhlich,
in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1537, supposes that elections
simply were thereby transferred to the comitia centuriata; but the
word χειροτονίαι used by Appian, though often denoting elections (as
in _B. C._ i. 14. 58-60; 15. 66; 28. 127, where the meaning is easily
derived from the context), includes also voting on laws, as in _B. C._
i. 23. 100; 55. 244. Had he meant elections, he would here have written
ἀρχαιρεσία (cf. i. 1. 1; 44. 196), as otherwise the meaning would have
been doubtful. The view represented by Fröhlich, moreover, would in no
way explain the passage, nor was it likely that Sulla would leave to
the tribes the ratification of laws but deprive them of the politically
unimportant right to elect minor officials.
[2529] Appian’s words πολλά τε ἄλλα τῆς τῶν δημάρχων ἀρχῆς ...
περιελόντες (i. 59. 267) imply an extensive curtailment of the
tribunician power not definitely specified. The statement of Livy,
ep. lxxxix, that Sulla afterward (82) deprived the tribunes of all
legislative power (p. 413 below) is not true of his dictatorial
law-giving, but belongs properly to the year under consideration.
[2530] Lengle (_Sull. Verf._ 10) argues, on the contrary, that the
measure could be intended for the tribunes only, because, as he supposes,
a patrician magistrate always consulted the senate concerning his
legislative proposals. But Lengle has reckoned without the facts. An
examination of the sources will show that from the time of the dictator
Publilius Philo (Livy viii. 12. 14) to the time of the dictator Julius
Caesar (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 3 f.; Plut. _Caes._ 14; App. _B. C._ ii. 10)
patrician magistrates occasionally brought rogations before the comitia
without the senatorial sanction. But it is possible that in speaking of
“an ancient law long disused” (p. 406, n. 2) Appian may wrongly have had
in mind the pre-Hortensian restriction on the plebiscite; p. 277, n. 4.
[2531] _B. C._ i. 1. 1, 2, 3; 19. 81; 20. 83; 22. 91; 29. 132 (city
people); 30. 136; 32. 143; 33. 147; 35. 155; 36. 162; 38. 169; 100. 469.
Δημόται always means plebeians; i. 24. 106; 25. 109; 33. 146; 100. 469.
Sometimes δῆμος is exactly equivalent to πλῆθος, multitude, as in i. 26.
119.
[2532] _B. C._ i. 12. 51; 13. 55; 20. 83; 21. 90; 22. 92; 23. 101; 25.
107; 28. 128; 29. 131.
[2533] _B. C._ i. 27. 122. In 33. 148 it applies to the judicial contio
preliminary to the comitia centuriata.
[2534] _B. C._ i. 13. 56; 25. 112; 32. 143; 54. 236; 104. 485.
[2535] _B. C._ i. 12. 49; 32. 141.
[2536] _B. C._ i. 101. 472.
[2537] _B. C._ i. 59. 267.
[2538] Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 402 f.
[2539] Livy, ep. lxxvii.
[2540] Fest. 375. 7.
[2541] Cf. the law of 357; p. 297. See also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii.
126 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 502; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ iv. 1537.
[2542] Billeter, _Gesch. d. Zinsfusses_, 155-7.
[2543] App. _B. C._ i. 73. 339. No mention is here made of the manner of
repeal, but we may infer a comitial act from the public policy of Cinna.
It seems probable that at this time, or after his return from exile, the
Plautian judiciary law of 89 was also repealed; p. 402.
[2544] Cic. _Phil._ viii. (3.) 7; Vell. ii. 20. 2 f.; Schol. Gronov. 410;
Jul. Exuper. 4; App. _B. C._ i. 64. 287; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii.
180, 439; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1283.
[2545] App. ibid.; Flor. ii. 9. 9 (iii. 21); (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._
69. 2.
[2546] Livy, ep. lxxix; Vell. ii. 20. 3; App. _B. C._ i. 65. 296; (Aurel.
Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 69. 2; Plut. _Mar._ 41.
[2547] Cinna is represented as the author by Vell. ii. 21. 6; Plut.
_Mar._ 43; Dio Cass. Frag. 102. 8; whereas Appian, _B. C._ i. 70.
324, mentions tribunes. Cf. Diod. xxxviii, xxxix. 1-4; Münzer, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1285; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 244.
[2548] P. 405.
[2549] Livy, ep. lxxxiv: “Novis civibus senatus consulto suffragium datum
est.”
[2550] P. 58 above. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 141, unnecessarily assumes a
consular lex Papiria for the purpose.
In the year 87 the propretorian imperium of Appius Claudius Pulcher,
father of the famous tribune of 58, was abrogated by a lex of an unknown
tribune. The ground was a refusal to obey the summons of the tribune in
question; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 83; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._
iii. 2848 f.
[2551] Vell. ii. 23. 2; Cic. _Font._ 1. 1; _Quinct._ 4. 17; Sall. _Cat._
33; Mommsen, _Röm. Münzwesen_, 385; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 251; Ferrero,
_Rome_, i. 92.
[2552] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 33. 89; 34. 92; 36. 98.
[2553] _CIL._ i². p. 154.
[2554] App. _B. C._ i. 3, 98 f.; Plut. _Sull._ 33; Vell. ii. 28. 2; Oros.
v. 21. 12; Diod. xxxviii, xxxix. 15; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii.
703 f. The office had been disused for a hundred and twenty years; Plut.
ibid.; Vell. ibid.; _CIL._ i². p. 23. On the form of comitia, see p. 236.
[2555] App. _B. C._ i. 97. 451; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ iii. 2. 5.
[2556] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 43. 126; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa,
_Real-Encycl._ iv. 1556; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 404. From
this Ciceronian passage it is necessary to infer that the Valerian law
contained an article similar to the later Cornelian lex de proscriptione;
p. 421 below.
[2557] _CIL._ i². p. 27.
[2558] Livy, ep. lxxxix; App. _B. C._ i. 100. 465; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 2.
[2559] P. 406 f.
[2560] Livy, ep. lxxxix: “Tribunorum plebis potestatem minuit, et omne
ius legum ferendarum ademit.” We should infer from this statement, which
is the sole authority for the view it presents, that he absolutely
deprived the tribunes of legislative initiative, were it not that under
his constitutional arrangements they actually proposed laws de senatus
sententia; _CIL._ i. 204 (year 71); Bruns, _Font. iur._ p. 94; Dessau,
_Inscr. Lat._ i. p. 11; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 154; Fröhlich, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii.
158; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 11; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 390 f.,
411. The conference between Sulla and Scipio, mentioned by Cic. _Phil._
xii. 11. 27, referred to this arrangement. Sunden, _De rib. pot. imm._ 10
ff. (cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 399 ff.), holding that Sulla abolished the
right of the tribunes to propose laws, refuses to accept 71 as the date
of the epigraphic lex above mentioned.
It seems probable (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 175; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._
654, n. 2), though it is not certain (Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 424, 430
f.), that the lex Plautia de vi was proposed by a tribune of 78 or 77 as
the agent of Q. Lutatius Catulus, proconsul; Sall. _Cat._ 31; Schol. Bob.
368; Cic. _Cael._ 29. 70; p. 424 below. Probably the lex Plautia which
recalled from exile L. Cornelius Cinna, brother-in-law of Caesar, and
others who, having shared in the insurrection of Lepidus, had gone over
to Sertorius, was a plebiscite de senatus sententia of 73; Suet. _Caes._
5; Gell. xiii. 3. 5; Val. Max. vii. 7. 6; Dio Cass. xliv. 47. 4; Lange,
_Röm. Alt._ iii. 185; Maurembrecher, Sall. _Hist. Proleg._ 78; Münzer, in
Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1287. Others assign the measure to 70;
cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 53. For other laws, see p. 424.
The statement of Livy’s epitomator concerning the lex Cornelia
de tribunicia potestate would apply more accurately to the
Cornelian-Pompeian law of 88; p. 406.
[2561] From Cic. _Cluent._ 40. 110 (cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 400) we
should infer that under the Cornelian government no tribunician contio
was held; but we know that this is not true. In 76 a contio was summoned
by L. Sicinius, tribune of the plebs; _Orat._ of Licinius Macer, in
Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48. 8: “L. Sicinius primus de potestate tribunicia
loqui ausus mussantibus vobis”; cf. Pseud. Ascon. 103; Plut. _Caes._
7; Cic. _Brut._ 60. 216 f. In 74 the tribune Quinctius held contiones;
Cic. _Cluent._ 34. 93; Sall. _Hist._ ibid. § 11. The oration of Licinius
Macer, quoted by Sallust, _Hist._ iii. 48, is a tribunician harangue.
Finally in 71 the tribune Palicanus held a contio outside the city that
Pompey might attend; p. 426.
[2562] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 60. 155: Q. Opimius was prosecuted in a
finable action on the ground that as tribune in 75 (Pseud. Ascon. 200)
he had interceded in violation of a Cornelian law, which must have fixed
the fine. The statement of Caesar, _B. C._ i. 5. 1; 7. 3, that Sulla
left the tribunes the right of intercession proves no more than that he
did not wholly abolish it. Cf. further Sunden, _De trib. pot. imm._ 4;
Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 411, n. 10.
[2563] Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 38: “Sublata populi Romani in unum quemque
vestrum potestate.”
[2564] P. 245, 266, 315.
[2565] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 9. 22.
[2566] App. _B. C._ i. 100. 467; Ascon. 78 (repealed by Cotta); Pseud.
Ascon. 200.
[2567] Vell. ii. 30. 4; Dion. Hal. v. 77. 5; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 23;
iii. 48. 3; Pseud. Ascon. 102.
The following sources assume more or less definitely an abolition of the
tribunicia potestas; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 23; 77. 14; iii. 48. 1; _Cat._
38. 1; Plut. _Pomp._ 21; Pseud. Ascon. 102. The following speak of a
limitation; Caes. _B. C._ i. 5. 1; 7. 3; Livy, ep. lxxxix; Dion. Hal. v.
77. 5; Vell. ii. 30. 4; Suet. _Caes._ 5; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 75.
11; App. _B. C._ ii. 29. 113. Tacitus, _Ann._ iii. 27, is non-committal.
In general on the lex de tribunicia potestate, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._
iii. 153 f.; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559;
Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 410 ff.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 10-16;
Sunden, _De trib. pot. imm._
[2568] In Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559.
[2569] The law concerning the quaestors was preceded by the judiciary
statute (Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22), which must have been enacted near the end
of 81, for the senators remained ten years (80-70) in control of the
courts; Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 37.
[2570] P. 347. The relation of this Cornelian provision to the lex Villia
is not more definitely known.
[2571] App. _B. C._ i. 100. 466; cf. 121. 560.
[2572] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 529.
[2573] In the thirty-sixth year of his age Pompey was not yet qualified
for the quaestorship; Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 21. 62. Cicero, who was
consul in his forty-third year, states that he obtained the office
at the earliest legal age; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 2. 3. An interval of two
years between successive offices would place the quaestorship in the
thirty-seventh year; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 527, 569; Fröhlich,
in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1560; but soon after Sulla it came
about, probably through further legislation, that the office was often
filled in the thirty-first year; Mommsen, ibid. 570 ff.
[2574] Cic. _Dom._ 43. 112; _Fam._ x. 25. 2; 26. 2 f.
[2575] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; cf. Fröhlich, ibid. iv. 1560.
[2576] P. 348.
[2577] P. 298.