Chapter XXIX: Appendix: II (2)

[264] Cic. _pro Cluent._ 43, 120 “Neminem voluerunt majores nostri non modo de existimatione cujusquam, sed ne pecuniaria quidem de re minima esse judicem, nisi qui inter adversarios convenisset.”

[265] Ihering _Geist des röm. Rechts_ i. p. 169.

[266] Dionys. iv. 22 ὁ δὲ Τύλλιος καὶ τοῖς ἐλευθερουμένοις τῶν θεραπόντων ... μετέχειν τῆς ἰσοπολιτείας ἐπέτρεψε ... καὶ πάντων ἀπέδωκε τῶν κοινῶν αὐτοῖς μετέχειν, ὧν τοῖς ἄλλοις δημοτικοῖς.

[267] The change, however, was not supposed (except perhaps by Tacitus _Ann._ iii. 26, see p. 58) to rest on a _rogatio_. Mommsen (_Staatsr._ iii. p. 161) explains this tradition by noting that the alteration was a mere administrative act, which would fall within the competence of the king.

[268] It is possible that these three tribes would have been to some extent local; but locality was an accident. Membership of them was transmitted by birth.

[269] Dionysius (iv. 22) makes them at a later time members of the _curiae_.

[270] Dionys. iv. 14; Gell. xv. 27.

[271] Cic. _pro Flacco_ 32, 80 “sintne ista praedia censui censendo, habeant jus civile, sint necne sint mancipi?... in qua tribu denique ista praedia censuisti?” The _ager publicus_ was not included in the tribes, nor were the Capitol and Aventine, because they were not private, but public property (Liv. vi. 20; Dionys. x. 31 and 32).

[272] Liv. i. 43 “Quadrifariam urbe divisa, regionibusque et collibus, qui habitabantur, partes eas tribus appellavit”; Dionys. iv. 14 ὁ Τύλλιος, ἐπείδη τούς ἑπτὰλόφους ἐνὶ τείχει περιέλαβεν, εἰς τέτταρας μοίρας διελὼν τὴν πόλιν ... τετράφυλον ἐποίησε τὴν πόλιν εἶναι, τρίφυλον οὖσαν τέως.. So Festus p. 368 “urbanas tribus appellabant, in quas urbs erat dispertita a Ser. Tullio rege.” Cf. Varro _L.L._ v. 56. Mommsen (_Staatsr._ iii. p. 163) now holds that the tribes were “parts of the state-town limited by the _pomerium_.” Ostia, once thought to belong to Palatina, has been shown to belong to Voturia. But the reason for this may be the subsequent loss of the _territorium_ of the city. See p. 68.

[273] Momms. _Staatsr._ iii. p. 168. Rome was at this time a great commercial state (cf. treaty with Carthage, 509 B.C.). That such a primitive institution as gentile tenure could have existed at this time is inconceivable.

[274] Dionys. iv. 15 διεῖλε δὲ καὶ τὴν χώραν ἅπασαν, ὡς μὲν Φάβιός φησιν, εἰς μοίρας ἕξ τε καὶ εἴκοσιν, ἃς καὶ αὐτὰς καλεῖ φυλάς. Mommsen (_Staatsr._ iii. p. 169) seems to lean to the view that those country districts, comprising land not in quiritarian ownership, were _pagi_.

[275] _Sucusana_ (or _Suburana_), _Palatina_, _Esquilina_, and _Collina_. See p. 3.

[276] Cf. Momms. _Staatsr._ iii. p. 125 “The four tribes are probably nothing more than the three Romulian increased through the _territorium_ of the town on the Quirinal”; p. 164 “Servian Rome, probably a double town composed of the old city, Palatine and Esquiline, and the new town of the Colline.”

[277] Districts like Ostia, which must have belonged to the Servian tribes, now formed parts of the new creations (see p. 67).

[278] Servius is said for this reason to have prohibited transference of domicile or allotment. Dionys. iv. 14 (Servius) τοὺς ἀνθρῶπους ἔταξε τοὺς ἐν ἑκάστῃ μοίρᾳ τῶν τεττάρων οἰκοῦντας, ὥσπερ κωμήτας, μήτε μεταλαμβάνειν ἑτέραν οἴκησιν μήτ’ ἄλλοθι που συντελεῖν.

[279] Momms. _Staatsr._ iii. pp. 182, 184.

[280] Laelius Felix ap. Gell. xv. 27 “Cum ex generibus hominum suffragium feratur, ‘curiata’ comitia esse, cum ex censu et aetate ‘centuriata,’ cum ex regionibus et locis, ‘tributa.’”

[281] Servius himself is credited with the introduction of _aes signatum_—carefully adjusted copper weights stamped by authority. Plin. _H.N._ xviii. 3 “Servius rex ovum boumque effigie primus aes signavit.” Mommsen (_Römisches Münzwesen_) thinks that the stamp was a guarantee not of the weight but of the purity of the metal. In this case the metal must have been used as a medium of exchange; as a medium of barter the weight would be sufficient. Mommsen’s opinion is (op. cit. p. 175) that a regular copper coinage was not introduced at Rome until about the period of the _decemviri_ (450-430 _B.C._), and more recent numismatists pronounce even this date to be too early.

[282] Momms. _Staatsr._ iii. p. 247.

[283] The existence of the guilds in regal times (Plut. _Num._ 17) rather proves than disproves the competing manufacture by slaves.

[284] Cic. _pro Flacco_ 32, 80. See p. 66.

[285] For this difference of armour see Liv. i. 43; Dionys. iv. 16, 17. It survived into Polybius’ time (Polyb. vi. 23 ὁι δὲ ὑπὲρ τὰς μυρίας τιμώμενοι δραχμὰς ἀντὶ τοῦ καρδιοφύλακος σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἁλυσιδωτοὺς περιτίθενται θώρακας).

[286] Gellius vi. (vii.) 13 “‘Classici’ dicebantur non omnes, qui in quinque classibus erant, sed primae tantum classis homines, qui centum et viginti quinque milia aeris ampliusve censi erant. ‘Infra classem’ autem appellabantur secundae classis ceterarumque omnium classium, qui minore summa aeris, quod supra dixi, censebantur”; Festus p. 113 “infra classem significantur qui minore summa quam centum et viginti milium aeris censi sunt.”

Belot (_Hist. d. Chev. Rom._ i. 204, 205) thinks that the 125,000 asses mentioned here was the figure of the lowest census—the fifth class—at the time of the _lex Voconia_ (169 B.C.), mentioned in this connexion by Festus. The designation in asses was still kept, but the _as_ must now be multiplied by 10 (12,500 × 10 = 125,000 asses). Belot starts from his hypothesis that the _as_ of the census is the old libral _as_. See the tables on the next page. Mommsen (_Staatsr._ iii. p. 249 n. 4), on the other hand, supposes that the law referred to the census of the first class, and that it was through an interpretation meant to limit its operation, when the value of money had altered, expressed in terms of the _centum milia aeris_ of libral asses. That it was so interpreted is shown by the fact that the _centum milia aeris_ of the Voconian law (Gaius ii. 274) became _centum milia sestertium_ (Schol. to Cic. _Verr._ ii. 1, 41, 104, p. 188 Orell.), i.e. 25,000 denarii (Dio Cass. lvi. 10).

[287] Plut. (_Num._ 17) mentions τέκτονες and χαλκεῖς amongst the _collegia_ (Momms. _Staatsr._ iii. p. 287 n. 1).

[288] So too Polybius (vi. 23, cited p. 70).

[289] Plin. _H.N._ xxxiii. 3 “Maximus census CXX assium fuit illo (Servio) rege, et ideo haec prima classis.” Festus p. 113 (cited p. 70).

[290] _Staatsrecht_ iii pp. 249, 250. Böckh (_Metrologische Untersuchungen_ p. 444) also takes the view of the asses being _sextantarii_. He makes the qualifications in terms of the libral _as_ and the _as_ of two ounces respectively: 20,000 = 100,000, 15,000 = 75,000, 10,000 = 50,000, 5000 = 25,000, 2000 = 10,000.

[291] _Histoire des Chevaliers Romains_ (Table at commencement of vol. i).

[292] Festus p. 18 “accensi dicebantur qui in locum mortuorum militum subito subrogabantur, dicti ita, quia ad censum adiciebantur”; p. 369 “velati appellabantur vestiti et inermes qui exercitum sequebantur, quique in mortuorum militum loco substituebantur.” Cf. p. 14 “adscripticii veluti quidam scripti dicebantur, qui supplendis legionibus adscribebantur. Hos et accensos dicebant, quod ad legionum censum essent adscripti. Quidam velatos, quia vestiti inermes sequerentur exercitum.”

[293] Liv. i. 43 “hoc minor census reliquam multitudinem habuit; inde una centuria facta est immunis militia”; Dionys. iv. 18 (the remaining citizens with a qualification under 12½ minae Servius placed in one λόχος) στρατείας τε ἀπέλυσε καὶ πάσης εἰσφορᾶς ἐποίησεν ἀτελεῖς. Cf. vii. 59 οὖτοι στρατειῶν τε ἧσαν ἐλεύθεροι τῶν ἐκ καταλόγου καὶ εἰσφορῶν τῶν κατὰ τιμήματα γενομένων ἀτελεῖς καὶ δι’ ἄμφω ταῦτ’ ἐν ταῖς ψηφοφορίαις ἀτιμότατοι. Cf. Cic. _de Rep._ ii. 22, 40 “in quo etiam verbis ac nominibus ipsis fuit diligens; qui, cum locupletes assiduos appellasset ab asse dando, eos, qui aut non plus mille quingentos aeris aut omnino nihil in suum censum praeter caput attulissent, proletarios nominavit; ut ex iis quasi proles, id est quasi progenies civitatis, exspectari videretur. Illarum autem sex et nonaginta centuriarum in una centuria tum quidem plures censebantur, quam paene in prima classe tota.”

[294] Ulpian in _Fragm. Vat._ 138 “ii qui in centuria accensorum velatorum sunt, habent immunitatem a tutelis et curis.”

[295] The word is not technical enough to be used as an argument that the _classes_ included only landholders. The favourite ancient derivation was from _ab asse dando_ (Cic. _de Rep._ ii. 22, 40, see p. 72), whether for the payment of taxation or for the furnishing of military equipment.

[296] _Capite censi_, if we trust Cicero (_de Rep._ ii. 22, 40, see p. 72), came to mean those below 1500 asses (the subsequent limit to the incidence of taxation). The limit of census for military service was also reduced to 4000 asses (Polyb. vi. 19), and finally to 375 (Gell. xvi. 10, 10), and those below this census continued to be called _capite censi_ (Gell. l.c.; Sall. _Jug._ 86). _Aerarius_, on the other hand, seems to have preserved its old meaning of those excluded from the centuries—Ps. Asc. in _Divin._ p. 103 “(Censores) prorsus cives sic notabant ... ut, qui plebeius (esset) ... aerarius fieret, ac per hoc non esset in albo centuriae suae, sed ad hoc [non] esset civis, tantummodo ut pro capite suo tributi nomine aera praeberet.”

[297] p. 41.

[298] It is not known when they ceased to be patrician; Mommsen (_Staatsr._ iii. p. 254) thinks on the reform of the Servian constitution, _circa_ 220 B.C.

[299] Liv. i. 36.

[300] Cic. _de Rep._ ii. 22, 39.

[301] Festus p. 221 “paribus equis, id est duobus, Romani utebantur in proelio, ut sudante altero transirent in siccum. Pararium aes appellabatur id, quod equitibus duplex pro binis equis dabatur.”

[302] Liv. i. 43 “ita pedestri exercitu ornato distributoque equitum ex primoribus civitatis duodecim scripsit centurias. Sex item alias centurias ... sub isdem, quibus inauguratae erant, nominibus fecit: ad equos emendos dena millia aeris ex publico data [i.e., as Livy understands it, 10,000 _asses sextantarii_ = 1000 denarii], et, quibus equos alerent, viduae adtributae, quae bina milia aeris in annos singulos penderent” [2000 asses = 200 denarii]. Cf. Gaius iv. 27.

[303] The number of the century was here fixed, and not, as in the case of the _classici_, expansive.

[304] Cf. Liv. i. 43 “neque eae tribus ad centuriarum distributionem numerumque quicquam pertinuere.” There is no evidence, e.g., that each tribe furnished a certain number of centuries.

[305] _Tributum_, however, cannot be derived from _tribus_ (as by Varro quoted p. 40). The parallel words _attribuere_, _contribuere_, _ultro tributa_, etc., seem to show that it means something added to, conferred on, or collected for another.

[306] p. 48.

[307] As such it was in the Republic given for the censors. Cic. _de Leg. Agr._ ii. 11, 26 “majores de singulis magistratibus bis vos sententiam ferre voluerunt; nam cum centuriata lex censoribus ferebatur, cum curiata ceteris patriciis magistratibus, tum iterum de eisdem judicabatur.”

[308] p. 43.

[309] p. 63.

[310] p. 60.

[311] Liv. i. 48 “id ipsum tam mite ac tam moderatum imperium tamen, quia unius esset, deponere eum in animo habuisse quidam auctores sunt, ni scelus intestinum liberandae patriae consilia agitanti intervenisset.”

[312] ib. 49.

[313] Cic. _de Rep._ ii. 22, 44.

[314] Cic. _de Rep._ ii. 30, 52; Liv. ii. 1; App. _B.C._ ii. 119. It is sometimes represented as a law which made any one who aimed at royalty _sacer_ (Liv. ii. 8). For the dual sanction of the oath and the law compare the means by which the _sacrosanctitas_ of the tribunes was secured (p. 100).

[315] It is strange that the _interregnum_, which would have secured a continuity, is not mentioned in this case. The election of the first consuls was supposed to have been conducted by the _praefectus urbi_, who almost certainly had not the _jus rogandi_ (p. 61). Liv. i. 60 “duo consules inde comitiis centuriatis a praefecto urbis ex commentariis Servii Tullii creati sunt, L. Junius Brutus et L. Tarquinius Collatinus.”

[316] For the title _praetores_ see Cic. _de Leg._ iii. 3, 8 “regio imperio duo sunto iique a praeeundo judicando consulendo praetores judices consules appellamino”; for that of _judices_, Varro _L.L._ vi. 88, who quotes from the _commentarii consulares_ the formula used in summoning the _comitia centuriata_, “qui exercitum imperaturus erit, accenso dicito: ‘C. Calpurni, voca in licium omnes Quirites huc ad me.’ Accensus dicito sic ‘Omnes Quirites in licium visite huc ad judices.’ ‘C. Calpurni,’ consul dicito, ‘voca ad conventionem omnes Quirites huc ad me.’ Accensus dicito sic ‘Omnes Quirites ite ad conventionem huc ad judices.’”

[317] See the section on the magistracy (p. 187).

[318] This ratification indeed remained. Even though elections were conducted before the centuries, a _lex_ was still passed by the _curiae_ ratifying this election (p. 49); and the _patrum auctoritas_ was still required to sanction each fresh appointment.

[319] If it existed before it could have been only in the priestly colleges, but these seem rather advising bodies to the king.

[320] From _con-salio_, i.e. people who leap or dance together, “partners” (in a dance). Momms. _Staatsr._ ii. p. 77 n. 3; he compares _praesul_ and _exul_.

[321] Liv. ii. 8 (509 B.C.) “Latae deinde leges ... ante omnes de provocatione adversus magistratus ad populum”; Cic. _de Rep._ i. 40, 62 “Vides ... Tarquinio exacto, mira quadam exsultare populum insolentia libertatis; tum annui consules, tum demissi populo fasces, tum provocationes omnium rerum” (i.e. the _provocatio_ became _universal_ instead of being confined to certain _spheres_).

[322] By this time the direct capital jurisdiction of the pontiffs had probably become extinct.

[323] Liv. iii. 20 “neque provocationem esse longius ab urbe mille passuum, et tribunos si eo (lake Regillus) veniant, in alia turba Quiritium subjectos fore consulari imperio.” But the question between the _pomerium_ and the first milestone was in later times still a disputed one (Liv. xxiv. 9).

[324] Cic. l.c.

[325] p. 63.

[326] The _quaestores parricidii_ and _aerarii_ are identified by Zonaras (vii. 13), following Dio. See p. 63. They were called _quaestores_, οἵ πρῶτον μὲν τὰς θανασίμους δίκας ἔδίκαζον (whence their title), ὕστερον δὲ καὶ τὴν κοινῶν χρημάτων διοίκησιν ἔλαχον. So Varro (_L.L._ v. 81), “quaestores a quaerendo, qui conquirerent publicas pecunias et maleficia.” The identity of the two offices is denied by Pomponius in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 22 and 23.

[327] _Quaestores parricidii_ were mentioned in the Twelve Tables (Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 23).

[328] Liv. i. 26.

[329] They are mentioned in the trial of M. Volscius (459 B.C.) for an ordinary criminal offence (Liv. iii. 24), but also in the public trials of Sp. Cassius in 485 B.C. (Liv. ii. 41; Cic. _de Rep._ ii. 35, 60), and of Camillus in 396 B.C. (Plin. _H.N._ xxxiv. 3, 13); but various accounts are given of the procedure in these two trials.

[330] Plut. _Public._ 12 ταμιεῖον μὲν ἀπέδειξε τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου ναόν ... ταμίας δὲ τῳ δήμῳ δύο τῶν νέων ἔδωκεν ἀποδεῖξαι. The first quaestors appointed were Publius Veturius and Marcus Minucius. Pomponius (p. 80) puts the creation of the financial quaestors after the first secession of the Plebs; Lydus (_de Mag._ i. 38) attributes them to the Licinian law of 367.

[331] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22 “Sed quaestores regibus etiam tum imperantibus instituti sunt, quod lex curiata ostendit ab L. Bruto repetita. Mansitque consulibus potestas deligendi, donec eum quoque honorem populus mandaret. Creatique primum Valerius Potitus et Aemilius Mamercus sexagesimo tertio anno post Tarquinios exactos, ut rem militarem comitarentur” (i.e. 447 B.C.; hence Mommsen, _Staatsr._ ii. p. 529, thinks the change was due to the Valerio-Horatian laws of 449 B.C.). Plutarch (see note 1) thinks they were elected from the first. The meaning of the passage of Tacitus seems to be that the king nominated his quaestors after his own election, and their appointment was then ratified by the _lex curiata_. Another explanation is that the _lex_ recited that the kings had appointed quaestors and empowered the consuls to do so. Cf. Ulpian in _Dig._ 1, 13.

[332] Festus p. 246, cited p. 59.

[333] Zonaras (vii. 9) makes Servius Tullius introduce Plebeians into the Senate.

[334] Liv. ii. 1 “Deinde, quo plus virium in senatu frequentia etiam ordinis faceret, caedibus regis diminutum patrum numerum primoribus equestris gradus lectis ad trecentorum summam explevit: traditumque inde fertur, ut in senatum vocarentur qui patres quique conscripti essent: conscriptos videlicet in novum senatum appellabant lectos”; Festus p. 254 “‘Qui patres, qui conscripti’: vocati sunt in curiam, quo tempore regibus urbe expulsis P. Valerius consul propter inopiam patriciorum ex plebe adlegit in numerum senatorum C. et LX. et IIII. ut expleret numerum senatorum trecentorum” (for these numbers cf. Plut. _Public._ 11 τοὺς δ’ ἐγγραφέντας ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ λέγουσιν ἑκατὸν καὶ ἑξήκοντα τέσσαρας γενέσθαι). So _adlecti_, Festus p. 7 “_adlecti_ dicebantur apud Romanos, qui propter inopiam ex equestri ordine in senatorum sunt numero adsumpti: nam patres dicuntur qui sunt patricii generis, conscripti qui in senatu sunt scriptis adnotati.” Plutarch (_Qu. Rom._ 58, _Rom._ 13) makes the added members Plebeians. Tacitus (_Ann._ xi. 25) wrongly identifies these added members with the _minores gentes_. (Claudius creates Patricians A.D. 48—“paucis jam reliquis familiis, quas Romulus majorum et L. Brutus minorum gentium appellaverant.”)

[335] Willems (_Le Sénat_ ii. 39 ff.) makes _patres conscripti_ simply equivalent to “assembled fathers.”

[336] The first clear instance of a plebeian senator dates from the year 401. Liv. v. 12. P. Licinius Calvus, created military tribune with consular power, was “vir nullis ante honoribus usus, vetus tantum senator et aetate jam gravis.” Cf. Liv. iv. 15. Of Sp. Maelius (439 B.C.) it is asked “quem senatorem concoquere civitas vix posset, regem ferret.”

[337] p. 60.

[338] Liv. ii. 18; Festus p. 198; Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 18.

[339] The title was, perhaps, originally _praetor_. This would naturally have been the case if Mommsen’s theory is right that they were regarded as superior colleagues of the consuls (_Staatsr._ ii. p. 153). The earliest official title known to us is _magister populi_, and it was the technical title in the augural books. Cic. _de Leg._ iii. 3, 9 “isque ave sinistra dictus populi magister esto.” Cf. _de Rep._ i. 40, 63 “Gravioribus vero bellis etiam sine collega omne imperium nostri penes singulos esse voluerunt, quorum ipsum nomen vim suae potestatis indicat. Nam dictator quidem ab eo appellatur quia dicitur; sed in nostris libris vides eum, Laeli, magistrum populi appellari.” The later title, _dictator_, was perhaps adopted in deference to Republican sentiment; Mommsen (_Staatsr._ ii. p. 145) conjectures, in imitation of the Latin dictator, a constitutional survival of the monarchy. The meaning of the word is wholly uncertain. Ancient guesses say (i.) from _dicitur_ (Cic. _de Rep._ l.c.); (ii) from _dicto audiens_ (Varro _L.L._ v. 81 “quoi dicto audientes omnes essent”); (iii.) from _dictare_ (Priscian viii. 14, 78), or (iv.) because they issued edicts (Dionys. v. 73).

[340] Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 19 “Et his dictatoribus magistri equitum injungebantur sic, quo modo regibus tribuni celerum: quod officium fere tale erat, quale hodie praefectorum praetorio, magistratus tamen habebantur legitimi.”

[341] Cic. _de Leg._ iii. 3, 9 “Ast quando duellum gravius, discordiae civium escunt, oenus, ne amplius sex menses, si senatus creverit, idem juris, quod duo consules, teneto”; Imp. Claudius _Oratio_ i. 28 “Quid nunc commemorem dictaturae hoc ipso consulari imperium valentius repertum apud majores nostros quo in asperioribus bellis aut in civili motu difficiliore uterentur?”

[342] Cicero (_de Rep._ ii. 31, 53) gives as the tenor of the first Valerian law “ne quis magistratus civem Romanum adversus provocationem necaret neve verberaret.” Dionysius (v. 19) adds ζημιοῦν εἰς χρήματα to ἀποκτείνειν ἢ μαστιγοῦν, and Plutarch (_Publ._ 11) seems to give it the same wide scope. He also thinks that Valerius fixed the _multa suprema_ (l.c.), i.e. the largest fine the magistrate could impose without appeal. These statements may, however, be deductions from the later _provocatio_.

[343] Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2 (§ 3) “exactis deinde regibus ... omnes leges hae exoleverunt iterumque coepit populus Romanus incerto magis jure et consuetudine aliqua uti quam per latam legem, idque prope quinquaginta (MSS. “viginti”) annis passus est.” After the Twelve Tables (§ 6) “ex his legibus ... actiones compositae sunt, quibus inter se homines disceptarent: quas actiones ne populus prout vellet institueret, certas sollemnesque esse voluerunt ... Omnium tamen harum et interpretandi scientia et actiones apud collegium pontificum erant, ex quibus constituebatur, quis quoquo anno praeesset privatis.”

[344] p. 64.

[345] The later praetorian interdicts (_de locis sacris_, _de mortuo inferendo_) are really within the domain of _fas_ and must at one time have been enforced by the pontiffs.

[346] p. 78.

[347] Mommsen _Staatsr._ iii. p. 93.

[348] p. 35.

[349] The privilege could not have been based on quiritarian ownership, since this tenure was precarious.

[350] The contract of _nexum_ was in fact a conditioned mancipation, like a testament, the _nuncupatio_ being made by the vendor, who perhaps purchased with a single coin (_nummo uno_), as in the later _mancipationes fiduciae causa_ (Bruns _Fontes_).

[351] Except as a penal measure ordained by the state. The _furem manifestum_ according to Gellius (xx. 1), “in servitutem tradit” (lex); he is more correctly described as _addictus_ by Gaius (iii. 189). The _incensus_ might be sold as a slave (Cic. _pro. Caecin._ 34, 99). Later a free man who collusively allowed himself to be sold as a slave, in order to share the purchase money with the vendor, was adjudged a slave as a punishment for his fraud (_Dig._ 40, 13, 3; _Inst._ 1, 3, 4; _Cod._ 7, 18, 1).

[352] p. 24.

[353] Gell. xx. 1 “Aeris confessi rebusque jure judicatis triginta dies justi sunto. Post deinde manus injectio esto, in jus ducito. Ni judicatum facit aut quis endo eo in jure vindicit, secum ducito, vincito aut nervo aut compedibus.... Si volet suo vivito. Ni suo vivit, qui eum vinctum habebit, libras farris endo dies dato. Si volet plus dato.” The _addictus_ like the _nexus_ did not become a slave, but still retained his position in his census and in his tribe (Quinctil. _Decl._ 311).

[354] In the case of a nexal contract there could not be more creditors than one. A man could not, by the nature of the case, mancipate himself to several people at once.

[355] Liv. ii. 23 “Fremebant se, foris pro libertate et imperio dimicantes, domi a civibus captos et oppressos esse; tutioremque in bello quam in pace, et inter hostes quam inter cives, libertatem plebis esse.”

[356] ib. 27.

[357] Dionys. vi. 45.

[358] Liv. ii. 28. The senators complain “nunc in mille curias contionesque (cum alia in Esquiliis, alia in Aventino fiant concilia) dispersam et dissipatam esse rem publicam.”

[359] Varro _L.L._ v. 81 “tribuni plebei, quod ex tribunis militum primum tribuni plebei facti, qui plebem defenderent, in secessione Crustumerina.”

[360] The principle of cooptation was said to have been recognised in the _carmen rogationis_ of the tribunate, and in this case it was held that Patricians were eligible. Liv. iii. 65 (449 B.C.) “Novi tribuni plebis in cooptandis collegis patrum voluntatem foverunt. Duos etiam patricios consularesque, Sp. Tarpeium et A. Aternium, cooptavere.” But, with the disuse of this principle, the plebeian qualification was observed.

[361] Cic. ap. Ascon. _in Cornel._ p. 76 “Tanta igitur in illis virtus fuit, ut anno xvi. post reges exactos propter nimiam dominationem potentium secederent, ... duos tribunos crearent.... Itaque auspicato postero anno tr. pl. comitiis curiatis creati sunt,” (For the number two Ascon. _in loc._ quotes Tuditanus and Atticus.) Cicero apparently understands by this the mixed assembly of the _curiae_; and so does Livy (ii. 56, on the _lex Publilia_ transferring the elections of the tribunes to the tribes), “quae patriciis omnem potestatem per clientium suffragia creandi, quos vellent, tribunos auferret.”

[362] It must have been so restricted at first. Later (as we shall see in dealing with the intercession) the _auxilium_ was extended to the whole people.

[363] Cic. _de Rep._ ii. 33, 58 “contra consulare imperium tribuni plebis ... constituti.”

[364] Gell. xiii. 12 “(tribunis) jus abnoctandi ademptum, quoniam, ut vim fieri vetarent, adsiduitate eorum et praesentium oculis opus erat.” Cf. iii. 2. Plut. _Qu. Rom._ 81 ὅθεν οὐδ’ οἰκίας αὐτοῦ κλείεσθαι νενόμισται θύραν, ἀλλὰ καὶ νύκτωρ ἀνέῳγε καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέραν, ὤσπερ λιμὴν καὶ καταφυγὴ τοῖς δεομένοις.

[365] For the increase to four see Diodor. xi. 68 (471 B.C. in connexion with the _lex Publilia_); other accounts represent the original number as five (Ascon. l.c. p. 93, and Livy ii. 33; two elected, three coopted; cf. note on p. 93). The increase to ten is assigned by Livy and Dionysius to 457 B.C. (Livy iii. 30; the tribunes allowed the levy “non sine pactione tamen ut ... decem deinde tribuni plebis crearentur. Expressit hoc necessitas patribus”; cf. Dionys. x. 30).

[366] Liv. ii. 35 “contemptim primo Marcius audiebat minas tribunicias; auxilii, non poenae, jus datum illi potestati; plebisque, non patrum, tribunos esse.” Coriolanus was probably impeached before the Plebs as a _hostis tribuniciae potestatis_ in consequence of his advice that the tribunate should be abrogated (Liv. ii. 34). See Rein _Criminalrecht_ p. 484. Cf. Liv. ii. 56 (471 B.C.; the tribune seizes some _nobiles_ who would not yield to his _viator_) “Consul Appius negare jus esse tribuno in quemquam, nisi in plebeium; non enim populi, sed plebis, eum magistratum esse.”

[367] Dionys. vii. 17 δημάρχου γνώμην ἀγορεύοντος ἐν δήμῳ μηδεὶς λεγέτω μηδὲν ἐναντίον μηδὲ μεσολαβείτω τὸν λόγον. ἐὰν δὲ τις παρὰ ταῦτα ποιὴσῃ, διδότω τοῖς δημάρχοις ἐγγυητὰς αἰτηθεὶς εἰς ἔκτισιν ἧς ἂν ἐποθῶσιν αὐτῷ ζημίας. Any one who does not give securities (ἐγγυηταί) is to be punished with death καὶ τὰ χρήματ’ αὐτοῦ ἱερὰ ἔστω. τῶν δ’ ἀμφισβητούντων πρὸς ταύτας τὰς ζημίας αἱ κρίσεις ἔστωσαν ἐπὶ τοῦ δήμου. Cf. vi. 16, and Cic. _pro Sest._ 37, 79 “Fretus sanctitate tribunatus, cum se non modo contra vim et ferrum, sed etiam contra verba atque interfationem legibus sacratis esse armatum putaret.”

[368] p. 66 note 5.

[369] Dionys. x. 31, 32; see Mr. Strachan-Davidson in Smith _Dict. of Antiq._ s.v. _plebiscitum_.

[370] p. 39.

[371] Dionys. vi. 90 ἄνδρας ἐκ τῶν δημοτικῶν δύο καθ’ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν ἀποδεικνύναι τοὺς ὑπηρετήσοντας τοῖς δημάρχοις ὅσων ἂν δέωνται καὶ δίκας, ἅς ἂν ἐπιτρέψωνται ἐκεῖνοι, κρινοῦντας ἱερῶν τε καὶ δημοσίων τόπων καὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἐυετηρίας ἐπιμελησομένους: Gell. xvii. 21 “tribunos et aediles tum primum per seditionem sibi plebes creavit”; Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 21 “Itemque ut essent qui aedibus praeessent, in quibus omnia scita sua plebs deferebat, duos ex plebe constituerunt, qui etiam aediles appellati sunt.”

[372] Dionysius (l.c.) suggests that they originally bore another title. Pomponius (l.c.) derives the name from their office in the temple of Ceres; Varro from their care of the repair of _aedes_ both sacred and private (Varro _L.L._ v. 81 “aedilis, qui aedes sacras et privatas procuraret”), a derivation which Mommsen (_Staatsr._ ii. p. 480) favours. Their relation to the aediles of the Latin towns is wholly uncertain. Mommsen (ib. p. 474) holds strongly to the view that the Latin aedileship was borrowed from the Roman. For a different view cf. Ohnesseit _Ztschr. der Savigny-stiftung_ 1883, pp. 200 sq.

[373] Plut. _Coriol._ 18 (the tribune Sicinnius) προσέταξε τοῖς ἀγορανόμοις ἀναγαγόντας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄκραν εὐθὺς ὦσαι κατὰ τῆς ὑποκειμένης φάραγγος. So later in the trial of P. Scipio. Liv. xxix. 20; xxxviii. 52.

[374] Liv. iii. 31 (456 B.C.; the consuls sell booty taken from the Aequi) “itaque ergo, ut magistratu abiere ... dies dicta est, Romilio ab C. Calvio Cicerone, tribuno plebis, Veturio ab L. Alieno, aedile plebis.”

[375] Yet Livy attributes both to the fifth century; they perform police-duties in the year 463 (Liv. iii. 6), and are entrusted with the care of the state religion in 428 (Liv. iv. 30).

[376] Livy, however (iii. 55, cited note 2), represents the _sacrosanctitas_ of the aediles as being based only on law.

[377] Dionys. vi. 89. The _sacrosanctitas_ of the tribune is guaranteed νόμῳ τε καὶ ὅρκῳ. Cf. App. _B.C._ ii. 108 ἡ τῶν δημάρχων ἀρχὴ ἱερὰ καὶ ἄσυλος ἦν ἐκ νόμου καὶ ὅρκου παλαιοῦ. For these two grounds of inviolability see Liv. iii. 55 (restoration of tribunate in 449) “et cum religione inviolatos eos, tum lege etiam fecerunt, sanciendo ‘ut qui tribunis plebis, aedilibus, judicibus, decemviris nocuisset, ejus caput Jovi sacrum esset, familia ad aedem Cereris, Liberi Liberaeque venum iret.’ Hac lege juris interpretes negant quemquam sacrosanctum esse; sed eum, qui eorum cuiquam nocuerit, sacrum sanciri. Itaque aedilem prendi ducique a majoribus magistratibus: quod etsi non jure fiat (noceri enim ei, cui hac lege non liceat) tamen argumentum esse, non haberi pro sacro sanctoque aedilem: tribunos vetere jurejurando plebis, cum primum eam potestatem creavit, sacrosanctos esse” (cf. Liv. ii. 33 “sacratam legem latam” on the Mons Sacer).

[378] Resistance to the will of a _magistratus populi_ is not _perduellio_ in later Roman law, but rather _vis_. But resistance to the tribune is always _majestas_.

[379] Dionys. vii. 17. See p. 96.

[380] Liv. ii 56 (Publilius Volero) “rogationem tulit ad populum, ut plebei magistratus tributis comitiis fierent” (followed by the words cited on p. 94).

[381] This is Livy’s view (l.c.), “nec, quae una vis ad resistendum erat, ut intercederet aliquis ex collegio ... adduci posset.”

[382] The ground of objection given by Livy (ii. 56, cited p. 94) rests on the belief that the tribunes had been formerly elected by the _comitia curiata_.

[383] Aemilia, [Camilia], Claudia, Cornelia, Fabia, [Galeria], Horatia, [Lemonia], Menenia, Papiria, [Pollia], [Pupinia], Romulia or Romilia, Sergia, [Voltinia], Voturia or Veturia (from Momms. _Staatsr._ iii. p. 168; the names he encloses in brackets are those to which there are no extant patrician _gentes_ to correspond).

[384] Dionys. vii. 64.

[385] Momms. _Staatsr._ iii. p. 153.

[386] See Appendix.

[387] Livy (iii. 9) says, “ut vviri creentur legibus de imperio consulari scribendis.” Even if this expression is due to a misunderstanding of the title of the decemvirs, “consulari imperio legibus scribendis” (Momms. _Staatsr._ ii. p. 702), it no doubt expresses a fact. For the nature and object of the decemvirate see Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 4 (of the appointment of the decemvirs) “datumque est eis jus eo anno in civitate summum, uti leges et corrigerent, si opus esset, et interpretarentur neque provocatio ab eis sicut a reliquis magistratibus fieret”; ib. (of the publication of the laws) “quas in tabulas eboreas perscriptas pro rostris composuerunt, ut possint leges apertius percipi.” Cf. Dionys. x. 1, 60.

[388] Livy (iii. 11, 26, and 29) seems to speak of the law not being allowed to pass the Plebs; but then he does not recognise the two stages of legislation. See p. 97.

[389] Liv. iii. 31.

[390] ib. 33; cf. Momms. _Staatsr._ ii. p. 714.

[391] Liv. iii. 32 “postremo concessum patribus, modo ne lex Icilia de Aventino, aliaeque sacratae leges abrogarentur.” As to the _sacratae leges_, the aedileship would have gone with the tribunate; and there was nothing more to be protected by the _leges sacratae_.

[392] Their title was _Decemviri consulari imperio legibus scribendis_ (Capitoline Fasti). Cf. Liv. iii. 32 (“placet creari xviros sine provocatione, et ne quis eo anno alius magistratus esset”) and Pompon. in _Dig._ (cited p. 102).

[393] Liv. iii. 34 “se ... omnibus, summis infimisque jura aequasse.”

[394] Dionys. x. 58; Liv. iii. 35.

[395] Liv. iii. 57. The accounts of the material of the “Tables” vary. Livy (l.c.) says “in aes incisas in publico proposuerunt”; Pomponius (in _Dig._, cited p. 102) says “in tabulas eboreas perscriptas” (perhaps _roboreas_ or _aereas_, Kipp, _Quellenkunde des R.R._ p. 8). It is possible that they were of wood.

[396] Liv. iii. 34 “fons omnis publici privatique est juris”; Tac. _Ann._ iii. 27 “creatique decemviri et accitis quae usquam egregia compositae duodecim tabulae, finis aequi juris.”

[397] Cic. _de Leg._ ii. 23, 59 “Discebamus enim pueri XII, ut carmen necessarium; quas jam nemo discit.”

[398] Liv. iii. 34.

[399] p. 19.

[400] Ulpian _Reg._ ii. 4.

[401] p. 10.

[402] p. 91.

[403] Cato _R.R._ praef.

[404] Plin. _H.N._ xviii. 3, 12.

[405] Cic. _de Rep._ iv. 12.

[406] Gell. xx. 1.

[407] Marcian in _Dig._ 48, 4, 3 “Lex duodecim tabularum jubet eum, qui hostem concitaverit quive civem hosti tradiderit, capite puniri.”

[408] Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 23. See p. 80.

[409] Cic. _de Rep._ ii. 31, 54 “ab omni judicio poenaque provocari licere indicant XII Tabulae compluribus legibus.”

[410] Cic. _de Leg._ iii. 4, 11.

[411] _Decl. in Catil._ 19.

[412] This rule is said to have been taken from a law of Solon’s (Gaius in _Dig._ 47, 22, 4). Other traces of Greek influence are perhaps to be found in the sumptuary regulations, especially those about funerals, and perhaps in the prohibition of interment within the city. Gaius finds also a Solonian parallel to the _actio finium regundorum_ ordained by the law (_Dig._ 10, 1, 13).

[413] Liv. vii. 17 “in duodecim tabulis legem esse, ut quodcumque postremum populus jussisset, id jus ratumque esset.”

[414] Liv. iii. 53.

[415] ib. 54 “ibi extemplo, pontifice maximo comitia habente, tribunos plebis creaverunt.”

[416] ib. “Confestim de consulibus creandis cum provocatione M. Duilius rogationem pertulit.” Such a resolution would not need confirmation by the people, as, after the fall of the decemvirs, an _interregnum_ would naturally ensue; and this was a matter for the Senate. But Livy also represents the tribune as (in accordance with a _senatus consultum_) passing the act of amnesty, iii. 54 “Tribunatu inito, L. Icilius extemplo plebem rogavit, et plebs scivit, ne cui fraudi esset secessio ab decemviris facta.” In later Roman law amnesty resides with the Senate.

[417] Liv. iii. 55 “ne quis ullum magistratum sine provocatione crearet, qui creasset, eum jus fasque esset occidi: neve ea caedes capitalis noxae haberetur.”

[418] p. 79.

[419] p. 79.

[420] p. 99.

[421] Liv. iii. 55 “omnium primum, cum velut in controverso jure esset, tenerenturne patres plebiscitis, legem centuriatis comitiis tulere ‘ut quod,’” etc. Cf. Dionys. xi. 45.

[422] Mr. Strachan-Davidson in Smith _Dict. of Antiq._ s.v. _plebiscitum_, and _English Historical Review_ Nos. 2 and 19.

[423] p. 97.

[424] p. 107.

[425] Types of such laws between 449 and 287 B.C. are the _lex Terentilia_ (462), _Canuleia_ (445), _Licinia_ (367), _Ogulnia_ (300).

[426] Liv. iii. 55 “M. Duilius deinde tribunus plebis plebem rogavit, plebesque scivit: ‘qui plebem sine tribunis reliquisset, quique magistratum sine provocatione creasset, tergo ac capita puniretur.’”

[427] Liv. iv. 1 “de conubio patrum et plebis C. Canuleius tribunus plebis rogationem promulgavit.”

[428] See p. 39 and cf. Liv. iv. 6; the consuls (in a _contio_) gave as the official reason “quod nemo plebeius auspicia haberet; ideoque decemviros conubium diremisse, ne incerta prole auspicia turbarentur.”

[429] Liv. iv. 1 “et mentio, primo sensim inlata a tribunis, ut alterum ex plebe consulem liceret fieri, eo processit deinde, ut rogationem novem tribuni promulgarent, ‘ut populo potestas esset, seu de plebe, seu de patribus vellet, consules faciendi.’”

[430] The situation at the beginning of the year thus is described by Livy (iv. 2), “eodem tempore et consules senatum in tribunum, et tribunus populum in consules incitabat.” At last (Liv. iv. 6) “victi tandem patres, ut de conubio ferretur, consensere.”

[431] Liv. iv. 6.

[432] ib. 35.

[433] Claudius in _Tab. Lugd._ “quid (commemorem) in pluris distributum consulare imperium tribunosque militum consulari imperio appellatos, qui seni et saepe octoni crearentur.”

[434] Livy sometimes speaks of eight (v. 1, vi. 27); cf. _Tab. Lugd._ cited note 3. It is probable that this number includes the six tribunes and the two censors (Momms. _Staatsr._ ii. p. 184); e.g. Livy gives eight for the year 403, the Fasti Capitol. for the same year (351 A.U.C. _C.I.L._ i. p. 428) six and two censors.

[435] Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 25 “cum ... plebs contenderet cum patribus et vellet ex suo quoque corpora consules creare, et patres recusarent, factum est ut tribuni militum crearentur partim ex plebe, partim ex patribus consulari potestate.”

[436] Liv. v. 12. This is maintained to be an error by Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 66; _Staatsr._ ii. p. 188. He holds that in 445 B.C. one L. Atilius Longus was a Plebeian, and that in 400, 399, 396 the Plebeians had a majority. Livy’s view is upheld by Willems _Le Sénat_ i. 58-60.

[437] If it be taken to prove that the preponderance of voting power in the _comitia centuriata_ was still on the side of the Patricians, it would throw a valuable side-light on the relative economic position of the two orders.

[438] _Imperium_ (_Tab. Lugd._ quoted p. 112); _potestas_ (Liv. iv. 6); _jus_ (Tac. _Ann._ i. 1).

[439] Liv. iv. 7 “et imperio et insignibus consularibus usos.”

[440] ib. v. 13, 52.

[441] “Proconsularis imago” (Liv. v. 2).

[442] Zonar. vii. 19.

[443] Liv. iv. 55 “pervincunt, ut senatus consultum fiat de tribunis militum creandis”; iv. 12 “cum ... obtinuisset, ut consulerentur patres, consulum an tribunorum placeret comitia haberi.” Dionysius (xi. 60) represents the people as being consulted too.

[444] i.e. in accordance with the law, if there was one, establishing the office.

[445] Momms. _Staatsr._ ii. p. 191.

[446] Liv. iv. 8 “ortum autem initium est rei, quod in populo, per multos annos incenso, neque differri census poterat, neque consulibus, cum tot populorum bella imminerent, operae erat id negotium agere.” Cf. Dionys. xi. 63.

[447] Liv. l.c. “Idem hic annus censurae initium fuit, rei a parva origine ortae.”

[448] Liv. iv. 24. Mommsen indeed thinks (_Staatsr._ ii. p. 349) that this _lex Aemilia_ first made the censorship an independent magistracy with a fixed tenure. It was probably an independent magistracy before, but with no fixed tenure. Hence the belief that the censors originally held office for five years, the period of the _lustrum_ (Liv. l.c., cf. ix. 34).

[449] pp. 81, 102.

[450] Liv. iv. 43 (discord between the Patres and the Plebs) “exorta est, coepta ab duplicando quaestorum numero ... praeter duos urbanos quaestores duo ut consulibus ad ministeria belli praesto essent.” The tribunes demanded “ut pars quaestorum ... ex plebe fieret.” The compromise arrived at was that “quattuor quaestores promiscue de plebe ac patribus libero suffragio populi fierent.”

[451] ib. 54. The Plebs, indignant at the election of consuls in place of military tribunes, “eum dolorem quaestoriis comitiis simul ostendit, et ulta est, tunc primum plebeiis quaestoribus creatis: ita ut, in quattuor creandis, uni patricio K. Fabio Ambusto relinqueretur locus.” For the election at the _comitia tributa_ see p. 102.

[452] p. 83 note 2.

[453] Liv. iv. 25. The _principes plebis_, in despair at the choice of the military tribunate always falling on Patricians, came to the conclusion that it was “ambitione artibusque” of the Patricians. Hence a tribunician measure “ne cui album in vestimentum addere petitionis liceret causa.” After great resistance “vicere tribuni ut legem perferrent.”

[454] “Principes plebis” (Liv. l.c.).

[455] ib. vi. 31 “conditiones impositae patribus, ne quis, quoad bellatum esset, tributum daret, aut jus de pecunia credita diceret.”

[456] ib. 35 “omnium igitur simul rerum, quarum immodica cupido inter mortales est, agri, pecuniae, honorum, discrimine proposito, conterriti patres, etc.”

[457] Liv. vi. 37 “Novam rogationem promulgant, ut pro duumviris sacris faciundis decemviri creentur; ita ut pars ex plebe, pars ex patribus fiat.”

[458] ib. 38. His statements are inconsistent. He speaks of the college as being unanimous, and yet of _intercessio_ being used at the meeting.

[459] Liv. vi. 42 “concessum ... a plebe nobilitati de praetore uno, qui jus in urbe diceret, ex patribus creando,” probably by a clause introduced into the Licinian rogations when they were submitted by the consul to the Populus (see p. 97). The true motive is given by Pomponius in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 27, “Cum consules avocarentur bellis finitimis neque esset, qui in urbe jus reddere posset, factum est ut praetor quoque crearetur, qui urbanus appellatus est, quod in urbe jus redderet.”

[460] Mommsen (_Staatsr._ ii. p. 204) doubts it, chiefly on the ground that no law is mentioned as opening the office to Plebeians thirty years later. Probably the same doubt hung over the praetorship as over the second place in the consulship, i.e. whether the Licinian law, by reserving one consulship to the Plebs, had left the other posts open to both orders or not.

[461] Liv. vii. 1 “collegam consulibus atque iisdem auspiciis creatum.” Cf. Gell. xiii. 15.

[462] An instance of the exercise of a consular veto over a judicial decision of a praetor in 77 B.C. is preserved by Valerius Maximus (vii. 7, 6).

[463] Liv. viii. 15 “eodem anno Q. Publilius Philo praetor primus de plebe, adversante Sulpicio consule, qui negabat rationem ejus se habiturum, est factus; senatu, cum in summis imperiis id non obtinuisset, minus in praetura intendente.”

[464] p. 98.

[465] Liv. vi. 42 “Factum senatus consultum, ut duo viros aediles ex patribus dictator populum rogaret.”

[466] ib. vii. 1 (366 B.C.) “verecundia inde imposita est senatui ex patribus jubendi aediles curules creari. primo, ut alternis annis ex plebe fierent, convenerat; [this was the rule in 213 (Polyb. x. 4)]. postea promiscuum fuit” [Mommsen (_Staatsr._ ii. p. 482) thinks as late as the last century of the Republic].

[467] ib. 17 “dictator C. Marcius Rutilus primus de plebe dictus”; he appointed a plebeian master of the horse.

[468] ib. 22. The same C. Marcius Rutilus “professus censuram se petere” was elected.

[469] ib. viii. 12 “ut alter utique ex plebe ... censor crearetur.”

[470] ib. _Ep._ 59 “Q. Pompeius et Q. Metellus, tunc primum utrique ex plebe facti, censores lustrum condiderunt.”

[471] Liv. vii. 42. The law was proposed by the tribune L. Genucius. It was not, however, until the year 172 B.C. that both consuls were plebeian (Liv. xlii. 9; Fast. Cap. _C.I.L._ i. 1 p. 25).

[472] p. 52.

[473] Livy (x. 6) marvels at the fact; he thinks that it must have been accidental (“morte duorum”), since the augural college should have consisted of three or of a multiple of three. Cicero (_de Rep._ ii. 9, 16) says that Romulus coopted (_cooptavit_) one from each of the three tribes; they were therefore four; that Numa added two (ib. ii. 14, 26). This makes six, which Livy (l.c.) thinks the normal number at the time of the passing of the Ogulnian law.

[474] Liv. x. 6. These numbers remained unaltered until the time of Sulla (81 B.C.), who raised the colleges of pontiffs and augurs to fifteen (Liv. _Ep._ 89). A sixteenth was added to both colleges by Julius Caesar (Dio Cass. xlii. 51).

[475] Liv. xxxiii. 42. The number was afterwards increased to seven, from which time the college was known as that of the _VIIviri epulones_.

[476] Marquardt _Staatsverw._ iii. p. 333.

[477] Liv. iii. 32 “augur (mortuus est) C. Horatius Pulvillus; in cujus locum C. Veturium eo cupidius, quia damnatus a plebe erat, augures legere.” The _pontifex maximus_ was early an exception to this rule; see the _comitia sacerdotum_ in the section dealing with the people.

[478] Cic. _de Leg. Agr._ ii. 7, 18; Vell. ii. 12.

[479] Liv. viii. 12.

[480] p. 109.

[481] Mr. Strachan-Davidson conjectures that the law of Publilius Philo “may have struck out the intervening consultation of the Senate, and may have required the consul to bring the petition of the Plebs at once before the Populus” (Smith _Dict. of Antiq._ s.v. _plebiscitum_, ii. p. 439).

[482] p. 83.

[483] The only evidence that they were is furnished by Livy’s account of a _lex Manlia_ of 357 B.C. (Willems _Droit Public_ p. 183). See Liv. vii. 16 (Manlius the consul) “legem, novo exemplo ad Sutrium in castris tributim de vicesima eorum, qui manumitterentur, tulit. Patres, quia ea lege haud parvum vectigal inopi aerario additum esset, auctores fuerunt.”

[484] ib. viii. 12 “ut legum, quae comitiis centuriatis ferrentur, ante initum suffragium patres auctores fierent.”

[485] Cic. _Brut._ 14, 55. Cf. Liv. i. 17 “hodie ... in legibus magistratibusque rogandis usurpatur idem jus (the _patrum auctoritas_), vi adempta.”

[486] Laelius Felix ap. Gell. 15, 27 “(plebi scitis) ante patricii non tenebantur, donec Q. Hortensius dictator legem tulit, ut eo jure quod plebs statuisset, omnes quirites tenerentur”; Plin. _H.N._ xvi. 10, 37 “ut quod ea (plebs) jussisset, omnes quirites teneret.”

[487] Gaius i. 3 “olim patricii dicebant plebi scitis se non teneri, quia sine auctoritate eorum facta essent; sed postea lex Hortensia lata est, qua cautum est, ut plebi scita universum populum tenerent, itaque eo modo legibus exaequata sunt”; Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 8 “pro legibus placuit et ea (plebiscita) observari lege Hortensia: et ita factum est, ut inter plebis scita et legem species constituendi interesset, potestas autem eadem esset.”

[488] Pompon. l.c.

[489] The _lex Agraria_ of 111 B.C. (Bruns _Fontes_) thus refers to a _lex Sempronia_ of 123 B.C., “[ex] lege plebeive scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr. pl. rogavit.” Cf. _lex Rubria_ (ib.) “ex lege Rubria seive id pl. sc. est.”

[490] Thus Cicero, exiled by a _plebiscitum_, was restored by a _lex centuriata_. See the section on the people.

[491] Of the many instances one of the most remarkable is to be found in Sall. _Jug._ 84, “Marius ... cupientissima plebe consul factus, postquam ei provinciam Numidiam populus jussit.” Here _plebs_ should be _populus_ and _populus_, _plebs_.

[492] “Legislative” is here used in the modern sense. At Rome a judicial and elective act of the people was equally a _lex_.

[493] At least in 304 B.C. they had no right of _relatio_ with the Senate (Liv. ix. 46).

[494] Gaius iv. 23.

[495] Varro _L.L._ viii. 105 “Hoc (the condition of _nexum_) C. Poetilio Libone Visolo dictatore (313 B.C.) sublatum ne fieret; et omnes, qui bonam copiam jurarunt, ne essent nexi dissoluti.” Livy (viii. 28), who attributes the measure to 326 B.C., makes it a universal release of _nexi_: “jussique consoles ferre ad populum, ne quis, nisi qui noxam meruisset, donec poenam lueret, in compedibus aut in nervo teneretur: pecuniae creditae bona debitoris, non corpus obnoxium esset.”

[496] Liv. ix. 46 “Cn. Flavius ... patre libertino ... civile jus, repositum in penetralibus pontificum, evulgavit, fastosque circa forum in albo proposuit, ut quando lege agi posset, sciretur”; Pompon. in _Dig._ 1, 2, 2, 7 “postea cum Appius Claudius composuisset (for “proposuisset”) et ad formam redegisset has actiones, Cn. Flavius scriba ejus libertini filius subreptum librum populo tradidit ... hic liber, qui actiones continet, appellator jus civile Flavianum.”

[497] Pompon. l.c. §§ 37, 38. Gaius Scipio Nasica was given a house for consultations. The first professor, Ti. Coruncanius (“qui primus profiteri coepit,” circ. 280 B.C.), was also the first plebeian _pontifex maximus_.

[498] Polyb. vi. 53.

[499] Cic. _in Verr._ v. 14, 36 “togam praetextam, sellam curulem, jus imaginis ad memoriam posteritatemque prodendae.”

[500] In other words, images of other than curule ancestors might be set up in the _atrium_.

[501] p. 22.

[502] Sallust. _Jug._ 95 (of Sulla) “gentis patriciae nobilis fuit, familia prope jam exstincta majorum ignavia.”

[503] Cic. _pro Mur._ 7. 16; Ascon. _in Scaurian_. p. 22.

[504] Dionys. vii. 71.

[505] Cf. Cic. _de Off._ ii. 17, 58 “Vitanda tamen suspicio est avaritiae. Mamerco, homini divitissimo, praetermissio aedilitatis consulatus repulsam attulit.”

[506] Liv. xxii. 34 (of the election of Varro, 217 B.C.) “Patres summa ope obstabant, ne se insectando sibi aequari adsuescerent homines.”

[507] Sallust. _Jug._ 63 “consulatum nobilitas inter se per manus tradebat; novus nemo tam clarus neque tam egregiis factis erat, quin indignus illo honore, et is quasi pollutus, haberetur.”

[508] Cic. _pro Domo_ 14, 38 “Ita populus Romanus brevi tempore, neque regem sacrorum, neque flamines, neque salios habebit, nec ex parte dimidia reliquos sacerdotes, neque auctores centuriatorum et curiatorum comitiorum: auspiciaque populi Romani, si magistratus patricii creati non sint, intereant necesse est, cum interrex nullus sit, quod et ipsum patricium esse et a patriciis prodi necesse est.” The passage is closely followed by Livy vi. 41, in the speech against the Licinio-Sextian laws, with which he credits Appius Claudius. We meet with other archaic survivals in connexion with the Senate—the distinction, e.g., between the “greater and lesser _gentes_” (p. 12) was never lost, and the chief of the Senate, the first member on the list, was always chosen from the _gentes majores_ (see p. 12).

[509] Ulpian _Reg._ v. 8 “conubio interveniente liberi semper patrem sequuntur; non interveniente conubio matris conditioni accedunt, excepto eo qui ex peregrino et cive Romana peregrinus nascitur, quoniam lex Mensia [“Minicia” has been read in the Veronese palimpsest of the parallel passage of Gaius i. 78, ed. Krueger and Studemund] ex alterutro peregrino natum deterioris parentis conditionem sequi jubet.”

[510] Or, in the Principate, an administrative act. See the section on the powers of the Princeps.

[511] p. 6.

[512] Beloch _Der Italische Bund_ pp. 101, 102.

[513] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 25; Beloch op. cit. p. 78. According to Beloch (l.c.) a comparison between the ante-imperial and post-imperial census is vitiated by the fact that the _aerarii_ were excluded from the former, included in the latter. See the section on the censor.

[514] _Lex Acilia Repetundarum_ 1. 76.

[515] Cic. _pro Balbo_ 10, 25 “quod iis ... liceat, si populus Romanus permiserit, ut ab senatu, ab imperatoribus nostris, civitate donentur.”

[516] Cic. _Brut._ 20, 79; _pro Balbo_ 21, 48.

[517] See the section dealing with the _comitia_.

[518] Suet. _Aug._ 40; Senec. _de Vit. Beat._ 24.

[519] It implied the _imperium_. At Rome these magistrates would be consul, praetor, dictator, or interrex; in the provinces the governors.

[520] Gaius iv. 16.

[521] “Praetor addicit libertatem.” See Cic. _ad Att._ vii. 2, 8.

[522] For the censor as such had no power to confer freedom (Mommsen _Staatsr._ ii. p. 374). Cicero (_de Orat._ i. 40, 183) mentions the juristic controversy whether the slave was free from the moment of the announcement or from the _lustrum_, which gave validity to the censorian ordinances. _Servi publici_ were manumitted by the magistrates, but whether by the consul only or by any magistrate is unknown (Momms. _Staatsr._ i. p. 321). The greatest instance of state emancipation is that of the _Volones_ in 214 B.C. (Liv. xxiv. 16).

[523] In the first case it is called _directa libertas_ (_Dig._ 40, 4, 35), in the second _libertas fidei commissa_ (Dig. 40, 4, 11).

[524] Theophilus (i. 5, 4) calls them φυσικοὶ τρόποι ἐλευθερίας.

[525] Suet. _Claud._ 24 (Claudius said that App. Caecus, censor in 312 B.C., had chosen the sons of _libertini_ for the Senate) “ignarus, temporibus Appii et deinceps aliquamdiu, ‘libertinos’ dictos, non ipsos, qui manu mitterentur, sed ingenuos ex his procreatos.”

[526] Justin. _Inst._ i. 4 “qui statim ut natus est liber est”; Cic. _de Nat. Deor._ iii. 18, 45 “in jure civili, qui est matre libera, liber est.” This is the sense in which Cincius (_ap. Fest._ p. 241) and Livy (x. 8) declare _patricius_ to have been originally equivalent to _ingenuus_. See p. 5.

[527] The _s(ine) p(atre) filii_ of Gaius (i. 64) and Plutarch (_Qu. Rom._ 103) was a conjecture of the jurists based on the abbreviated form of _sp(urii) filii_ (Momms. _Staatsr._ iii p. 72 n. 4). _Spurii filii_ was the official designation, while _liberi naturales_ denoted the natural relationship to the father (Meyer _Der römische Concubinat_).

[528] p. 35.

[529] p. 131.

[530] p. 45.

[531] p. 98.

[532] _Lex Coloniae Genetivae_ (a foundation of Caesar’s in 44 B.C. at Osuna in Spain) c. 98 “Quamcumque munitionem decuriones hujusce coloniae decreverint ... eam munitionem fieri liceto, dum ne amplius in annos singulos ... operas quinas ... decernant.”

[533] The other chief personal burdens are guardianship (_tutela_) and serving on juries; but the consideration of both belongs rather to civil and criminal than to public law.

[534] p. 69.

[535] p. 74.

[536] p. 73.

[537] Liv. xxxiii. 42 (196 B.C.) “Pecunia opus erat, quod ultimam pensionem pecuniae in bellum conlatae persolvi placuerat privatis.” Cf. v. 20 and Plin. _H.N._ xxxiv. 6.

[538] Cic. _de Off._ ii. 22, 76 “Paulus tantum in aerarium pecuniae invexit, ut unius imperatoris praeda finem attulerit tributorum”; Plutarch, _Paul._ 38.

[539] _Lex Acilia Repetundarum_ c. 79; amongst the rewards granted to a Latin who prosecuted successfully under this law are “militiae munerisque poplici in sua quojusque ceivitate vocatio immunitasque.”

[540] Cic. _pro Caec._ 34.

[541] Cic. l.c.; _de Orat._ i. 40.

[542] Cic. _pro Caec._ 34; Dionys. iv. 15

[543] p. 32.

[544] Eisele _Beiträge zur römischen Rechtsgeschichte_ p. 205.

[545] Gaius i. 159-162; Ulp. xi. 10-13.

[546] p. 31.

[547] For the form of _deditio_ see Liv. ix. 10; App. _de Reb. Hisp._ 83. The references are to the two great historic instances at the Caudine Forks (321) and Numantia (137).

[548] Liv. xxxviii. 42 (188 B.C.) “eo anno L. Minucius Myrtilus et L. Manlius, quod legatos Carthaginienses pulsasse dicebantur, jussu M. Claudii praetoris urbani per fetiales traditi sunt legatis, et Carthaginem avecti.”

[549] ib. v. 36; Suet. _Caes._ 24.

[550] p. 138.

[551] p. 91.

[552] Gaius i. 159.

[553] Cic. _pro Balbo_ 11, 28; _pro Caec._ 34, 100.

[554] p. 55.

[555] Ulp. _Reg._ xi. 13 “per quam, et civitate et libertate salva, status dumtaxat hominis mutatur.” Cf. Gaius i. 162.

[556] p. 32.

[557] i.e. by _adrogatio_, see p. 32.

[558] Justin. _Inst._ i. 12, 5 “postliminium fingit eum qui captus est semper in civitate fuisse”; Gaius i. 129 “hi qui ab hostibus capti sunt, si reversi fuerint, omnia pristina jura recipiunt.”

[559] p. 18.

[560] Cic. _pro Mur._ 12, 27 “mulieres omnes propter infirmitatem consilii majores in tutorum potestate esse voluerunt; hi invenerunt genera tutorum, quae potestate mulierum continerentur.”

[561] By the _jus postliminii_; see p. 140.

[562] Plaut. _Capt. Prol._ 34.

[563] Liv. x. 42, 46.

[564] Caesar _B.G._ iii. 16.

[565] Polyb. xxx. 15 (Paulus) πέντε δὲ καὶ δέκα μυριάδας ἀνθρώπων ἐξανδραποδίσασθαι.

[566] Strabo xiv. p. 668.

[567] Marquardt _Privatleben_ pp. 135 sq.

[568] Appian _B.C._ i. 8.

[569] Gaius in _Dig._ 50, 17, 133 “melior condicio nostra per servos fieri potest, deterior fieri non potest.”

[570] Gaius iv. 69-74; Justin. _Inst._ iv. 7.