Chapter XIX: A Summary of Comitial History (3)

[287] Fabius Pictor, in Livy 1. 44. 2. Altogether unnecessary therefore is Soltau’s supposition (_Altröm. Volksversamml._ 458, n. 2), in itself improbable, that Fabius, who wrote his annals in Greek, applied the word φυλαί incorrectly to the rural districts. However that may be, Cato, as good an authority, spoke of these same districts as tribes. If the number thirty was suggested to Fabius by the curiate organization (cf. Ullrich, _Centuriatcomitien_, 9), this circumstance would be no argument against the existence of country tribes. On the strength of the army in the early republic, see p. 83.

[288] P. 57.

[289] Ibid.; cf. Pais, _Leg. of Rom. Hist._ 140.

[290] Just as he supposed the Suburana to have been evolved, name and all, from the pagus Succusanus; _L. L._ v. 48; cf. Fest. 302. 15; ep. 115.

[291] Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 43: “Et extra urbem in regiones xxvi agros viritim liberis attribuit.” As this statement does not rest upon an independent source, but is merely an interpretation of Fabius and Cato, it has not the value which Huschke (_Verf. d. Serv._ 72 f., 85 f.), Mommsen (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 168 f.), and Meyer (in _Hermes_, xxx. 11) attach to it.

[292] Cf. Livy i. 43. 13; Fest. ep. 368.

[293] IV. 14.

[294] Dion. Hal. iv. 15.

[295] Dion. Hal. iv. 15. 4-6. His idea of a census of the country people he derived from Lucius Piso (§ 5 f.) and from the censors’ office through Fabius (22. 2)—a fact which militates against Mommsen’s theory that under Servius the country was not yet ager privatus.

[296] Livy vi. 5. 8.

[297] P. 56.

[298] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 162 ff.

[299] _Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 135, 142; _Hermes_, xxx. 11; accepted by Neumann, _Grundherrsch. d. röm. Rep._ 14 f.; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 90.

[300] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 168.

[301] P. 50

[302] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 164 f.

[303] Ibid. 163 and n. 3, in opposition to his former view and that of Grotefend; cf. p. 52.

[304] There might remain the conjecture that the regiones, or pagi, had the same constitution as the tribes, but in that case the difference between pagus and tribus would be one of name only, and would therefore be without historical significance. Meyer’s view (_Gesch. d. Alt._ v. 135, 142) that the sixteen earliest country tribes were not formed till after the institution of the plebeian tribunate depends partly on his notion that the tribunes were originally the heads of the four urban tribes and partly on the difference in the naming, the city tribes being named after localities and the country tribes after gentes; cf. _Hermes_, xxx. 11. The latter circumstance, he asserts, establishes a later origin for the rural tribes. This argument is by no means convincing; the difference may have arisen from different conditions in country and city; probably no urban ward had one patrician gens so predominant as to give its name. If one kind of name is earlier than another, we should naturally suppose the gentile name to be the earlier, and in that case we should prefer the view of Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. i. 320, n. 1; _Leg. of Rom. Hist._ 140; cf. above, p. 52, n. 2.

The patrician gentile name does not imply patrician domination any more than the eupatrid name of an Attic deme implies eupatrid domination of that deme.

[305] _Hermes_, xxx. 12; followed by Neumann, _Grundherrsch. d. röm. Rep._ 13 f.; Kornemann, in _Klio_, v. 90 f.

[306] P. 6.

[307] Among the scholars who insist that originally country as well as city was divided into tribes are Müller, J. J., in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 112 ff., and more recently Kubitschek, _De trib. or._ (1882); _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ (1889), 2. Beloch, _Ital. Bund_ (1880), 28, begins with twenty-one tribes in 495, considering it impossible to penetrate earlier conditions. Niese, _Röm. Gesch._ (1906). 38 and n. 3, more positively assigns the creation of twenty-one tribes to that date.

[308] Livy ii. 16. 5; cf. Dion. Hal. v. 40. 5.

[309] In Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2650.

[310] Some place the immigration in the time of Titus Tatius; Verg. _Aen._ vii. 706 ff.; Suet. _Tib._ 1; Appian, _Reg._ 12; Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 293; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 26, n. 1. That the earlier tradition assigned the event to the date mentioned in the text is asserted by Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, ibid. iii. 2663.

[311] Livy ii. 21. 7 (495): “Romae tribus una et xxx factae.” This statement is not that thirty-one tribes were instituted in that year, but that the number thirty-one was reached, “factae” being copulative. If “una et xxx” is not a copyist’s error, it probably depends on the Fabian view that there were originally thirty tribes. At all events it is inconsistent with the later statement (vi. 5. 8) that the number twenty-five was not reached till 387. The epitomator of Livy accordingly corrected the number to twenty-one, which most editors now write in the text itself. That there were twenty-one tribes in 491, when Coriolanus was tried, is assumed too by Dion. Hal. vii. 64. 6: Μιᾶς γὰρ καὶ εἴκοσι τότε φυλῶν οὐσῶν, οἶς ἡ ψῆφος ἀνεδόθη, τὰς ἀπολυούσας φυλὰς ἔσχεν ὁ Μάρκιος ἐννέα· ὤστ’ εἰ δύο προσῆλθον αὐτῷ φυλαί, διὰ τὴν ἰσοψηφίαν ἀπελέλυτ’ ἄν, ὥσπερ ὁ νόμος ἠξίου (“There being at the time twenty-one tribes, to whom the vote was given, Marcius received the votes of nine tribes for acquittal; so that, had two more tribes been favorable, he would have been acquitted by an equality of votes, as the law required”). This is not a mistake, as many assume, but an understatement; cf. Müller, J. J., in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 110 f. Meyer’s explanation (_Hermes_, xxx. 10, n. 2), which makes διὰ τὴν ἰσοψηφλίαν signify “owing to the equal value of the votes,” is improbable and unnecessary.

[312] For the form of the word, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 171; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 117. Crustumeria had been taken four years earlier (Livy ii. 19. 2, 499); so that a tribe of the same name could have been admitted in 495.

[313] Livy vi, 5. 8.

[314] Ibid. viii, 15. 12.

[315] Ibid. 17. 11.

[316] Ibid. ix, 20. 6.

[317] Ibid. x, 9. 14.

[318] Ibid. ep. xix.

[319] _B.C._ i. 49. 214: Ῥωμαῖοι μὲν δὴ τούσδε τοὺς νεοπολίτας οὐκ ἐς τὰς πέντε καὶ τριάκοντα φυλὰς, αἳ τότε ἦσαν αὐτοῖς, κατέλεξαν, ἵνα μὴ τῶν ἀρχαίων πλέονες ὄντες ἐν ταῖς χειροτονίαις ἐπικρατοῖεν, ἀλλὰ δεκατεύοντες ἀπέφηναν ἑτέρας, ἐν αἷς ἐχειροτόνουν ἔσχατοι. For δεκατεύοντες scholars have attempted to substitute δέκα, δέκα πέντε, δέκα ἐνεδρεύοντες (Mendelssohn, _App._ ii. p. 53, n.). The meaning given in the rendering offered above, though not found elsewhere, is possible. The passage has reference to the Latins and faithful Italians admitted by the Julian law of 90.

[320] III. 17 (Peter, _Reliquiae_, i. 280): “L. Calpurnius Piso ex senati consulto duas novas tribus.”

[321] II. 20. 2.

[322] Kubitschek, _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 2-6, tries to prove that the lex Iulia, 90, provided for the enrolment of the Latins and faithful allies in fifteen old rural tribes, and that the lex Plautia Papiria, 89, assigned the more obstinate rebels to eight other existing rural tribes.

[323] Cf. Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 26 f.

[324] _B. C._ i. 53. 231.

[325] That there was an increase is held by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 179, n. 1; Drumann-Gröbe, _Röm. Gesch._ ii. 370. This view is favored by Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 199 f. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 111 f., compromises.

[326] Livy, ep. lxxvii; App. _B. C._ i. 55. 242; p. 404.

[327] App. _B. C._ i. 59. 268; Cic. _Phil._ viii. 2. 7.

[328] Vell. ii. 20. 2; Livy, ep. lxxxiv; App. _B. C._ i. 64. 287; Cic. ibid.; Exup. 4; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 180, 439.

[329] Livy, ep. lxxxvi.

[330] Mommsen, ibid. 180.

[331] P. 71. Their military purpose is recognized by Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2, whereas Livy, i. 43. 13, connects with them nothing but the collection of taxes.

[332] Livy i. 43. 13; Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 13; Varro, _L. L._ v. 45; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 166, n. 1.

[333] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2; Laelius Felix, in Gell. xv. 27. 5; Flaccus, in Gell. xvii. 7. 5. In referring to the year 204 Livy, xxix. 37. 3 f., represents the tribes as districts. The Pupinian tribe is often spoken of as a district, as by Varro, _R. R._ i. 9. 5. On the local nature of the urban tribes, see Varro, _L. L._ v. 56; Livy i. 43. 13; Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 1.

[334] Kubitschek, _Rom. trib. or._ 24 f.; _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 2.

[335] Cf. Grotefend, _Imp. rom. trib. descr._ 7.

[336] Kubitschek, _Imp. rom. trib. discr._ 2 f.

[337] Cic. _Flac._ 32. 79 f. On the growth of the tribe, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 175 ff.; Kubitschek, ibid. See also the maps in the latter work.

[338] Flaccus, in Gell. xvii. 7. 5. A list was kept of the estates comprising a tribe; Cic. ibid.

[339] Cf. the admission of new tribes; Livy vi. 5. 8: “Tribus quattuor ex novis civibus additae;” viii. 17. 11.

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

[341] P. 64.

[342] Livy xxix. 37. 3 f.; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 379, n. 3.

[343] Somewhat different is the view of Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 2 f.; _Röm. Forsch._ i. 151; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 402; controverted by Soltau, ibid. 384 ff.

[344] The Romans had but two pursuits, agriculture and war, for the sedentary occupations were given to slaves and strangers; Dion. Hal. ii. 28; ix. 25. 2. It was assumed that those who were without property could take no interest in the state; ibid. iv. 9. 3 f.; Livy viii. 20. 4.

[345] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 630.

[346] It is well known too that freedmen were not regularly employed in military service; Livy x. 21. 4; p. 354 f. below.

[347] Widows and orphans were enrolled in a different list from that of the tribes, and hence were not included in the statistics of population which have come down to us; cf. Livy iii. 3. 9; ep. lix; Plut. _Popl._ 12; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 365 f., 401. Livy, ii. 56. 3, seems to exclude the clients. Only those lacked membership, however, who possessed no land. Clients of free birth were as liable to military service, according to their ratable property, as any other class of citizens; p. 22.

[348] Law of the Twelve Tables, in Gell. xvi. 10. 5; Schöll, _Leg. Duod. Tab. Rel._ 116; Bruns, _Font. iur._ 18 f.; Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 18. 51; _Att._ iv. 8 a. 3; Fest. ep. 9; Charis. p. 75 (Keil). The derivation from ab asse dando proposed by Aelius Stilo, though absurd, was accepted by Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40; _Top._ 2. 10; Fest. ep. 9 (as an alternative); Isid. _Etym._ x. 27; Quint. _Inst._ v. 10. 55. The derivation ab assidendo is nearer the truth; Vaniček, _Griech.-lat. Wörterb._ 1012; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 466; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 237 f.; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 426. See also Varro, _De vit. pop. rom._ i, in Non. Marc. 67; Gell. xix. 8. 15.

[349] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 9. 16; 22. 40; P. Nigidius, in Gell. x. 5. 2; Fest. ep. 9, 119; Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 11; Quint. v. 10. 55; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 281; Vaniček, ibid. 506, 1149.

[350] The army in the field must have consisted largely of men in patris aut avi potestate, whose names were reported to the censors, not for taxation but for military service, by those who had authority over them; cf. Livy xxiv. 11. 7; xliii. 14; Dion. Hal. ix. 36. 3; Fest. ep. 66. Scipio’s complaint (Gell. v. 19. 16: “In alia tribu patrem, in alia filium suffragium ferre”) indicates that the sons were regularly enrolled in the tribe of the father. That the list comprised plebeians only (Niebuhr, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 457 f.) has proved untenable; Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 153 f.

[351] Dion. Hal. iv. 14. 2; Livy i. 43. 14; Varro, _L. L._ v. 181.

[352] Livy, ibid.; Varro, ibid.; cf. p. 63, n. 4 below.

[353] Dion. Hal. iv. 19. 3; Fest. ep. 9; Ennius, in Gell. xvi. 10. 1; cf. 12 f. Before the introduction of pay for military service in 406 the soldiers bore their own expenses; Livy iv. 59. 11; v. 4. 5; viii. 8. 3; Flor. i. 6. 8; Diod. xiv. 16. 5; Lyd. _De mag._ i. 45 f.; p. 71 ff. below.

[354] Plutarch, _Cam._ 2, makes Camillus the author of the tax on orphans for the support of the knights’ horses, thus connecting this measure with the general introduction of pay—a statement of some importance notwithstanding Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 683.

[355] Zon. vii. 20: Οἰκόσιτοι ἐστρατεύοντο.

[356] Cic. _Rep._ v. 2. 3.

[357] Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 150 f., 159 f. with citations.

[358] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36; Livy i. 43. 9; Plut. _Cam._ 2.

[359] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 469, is of the opinion that before Servius all the plebeians had this standing, and that Servius left the newly conquered plebeians in that class, because if admitted to the army, they might revolt! Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 95.

[360] On the meaning of the word, see Pseud. Ascon. 103: “Ut pro capite suo tributi nomine aera praeberet.” On the removal from the tribe into this class; Livy iv. 24. 7; xxiv. 18. 6, 8; 43. 3; xliv. 16. 8. The removal from the tribe is understood when it is not mentioned; Varro, in Non. Marc. 190; Livy ix. 34. 9; xxvii. 11. 15; Gell. iv. 12.

[361] Livy vii. 20. 7; Dio Cass. Frag. 33; Strabo v. 2. 3; Gell. xvi. 13. 7; Schol. Hor. _Ep._ i. 6. 62. On the aerarii and Caerites, see further Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 392-4, 401 ff., 406; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 674-6; iii. 1284 f.; Hülsen, ibid. iii. 1281 f.; see also the works of Herzog, Lange, Madvig, and Willems.

[362] P. 466, n. 2.

[363] It would be absurd to suppose that while the absolutely poor citizens could vote in the proletarian century, those who possessed considerable wealth, though not in land, were excluded.

[364] Unutterable confusion was brought into this subject by Varro, _L. L._ v. 181: “Tributum dictum a tribubus, quod ea pecunia, quae populo imperata erat, tributim a singulis pro portione census exigebatur;” cf. Livy i. 43. 13; Isid. _Etym._ xvi. 18. 7. Neither is tributum derived from tribus nor _vice versa_. Tribuere signifies “to divide,” “to apportion;” tributum, “that which is apportioned,” tribus being only indirectly connected with these words; Schlossmann, in _Archiv f. lat. Lexicog._ xiv (1905). 25-40.

[365] Livy vi. 14. 12.

[366] Ibid. 32. 1.

[367] Dion. Hal. v. 20; cf. iv. 11. 2; xi. 63. 2; Plut. _Popl._ 12.

[368] Livy ii. 9. 6; xxiii. 48. 8; xxxiii. 42. 4; xxxix. 7. 5; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 6. 23; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 162, n. 4.

[369] Instances of public expenditure for the equipment or pay of troops before this date (Dion. Hal. v. 47. 1; viii. 68. 3; ix. 59. 4; Livy iv. 36. 2) are either exceptional or more probably historical anticipations of later usage. That before 406 the soldiers drew pay from their tribes (Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 32; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 540) is disproved by Soltau, _Altröm Volksversamml._ 407 f.

[370] Marquardt, ibid. 164-7.

[371] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 392.

[372] Varro, _L. L._ v. 181.

[373] The function of the tribuni aerarii was to pay the soldiers; Cato, _Epist. Quaest._ i, in Gell. vi (vii). 10. 2; Varro, v. 181; Fest. ep. 2; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 1. 1. Perhaps they also collected money into the treasury; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 3. From Cato’s statement they appear to have been financially responsible; and we are informed that as early as 100 they constituted a rank (ordo) evidently next below the equites; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 9. 27. Under the Aurelian law of 70 they made up a decury of jurors; Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 3; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 1. 31. From these facts it is clear that the aerarian tribunes were officers of the aerarium, but no connection with the tribes can be discovered; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 409-12.

[374] Diod. xx. 46; Livy ix. 46. 10 f.; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 403.

[375] Mommsen, ibid. This class came to an end in the Social War; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1285.

[376] In Mommsen’s opinion (_Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 403) these censors transferred to the country tribes as many landholding members of the urban tribes as possible.

[377] Livy ix. 46. 13 f.

[378] Livy xlv. 15.

[379] The expression tribu movere or in aerarios referre was still used, but meant no more than the transfer from a rural to an urban tribe and to the aerarian class within the latter; p. 62, n. 7.

[380] Cf. Livy xxiv. 18. 8 f.

[381] Livy xxiv. 43. 2 f.; Cic. _Cluent._ 42. 120.

[382] P. 86.

[383] I. 43. The account given by Dionysius Hal. iv. 16 f.; vii. 59, is the same in principle, though slightly different in detail.

[384] P. 52.

[385] Fest. 246. 30; or “discriptio classium,” ibid. 249. 1.

[386] Livy i. 60. 4.

[387] Quoted by Cic. _Orat._ 46. 156, for the forms “centuria fabrum” and “procum.” Varro, _L. L._ vi. 86-8, is an extract from the Tabulae of later time; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 245, n. 1.

[388] P. 52. Proof of the date is the fact that the ratings are in the sextantarian _as_, legally adopted in 269 or 268 (page 86). The _as_ of this standard was valued at one tenth of a denarius, so that 1000 asses = 100 denarii = 1 mina; Dion. Hal. iv. 16 f.; Polyb. vi. 23. 15: Οἱ ὑπὲρ τὰς μυρίας τιμώμενοι δραχμάς, descriptive of the highest rating—100,000 asses; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249, n. 4; Hill, _Greek and Roman Coins_, 47. It could not have been later than 241, in which year the reform of the centuriate assembly must have been far advanced, if not completed; page 215.

[389] P. 84.

[390] It is wrong to suppose with Soltau, in _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xli (1895). 412, n. 6, that all the details of the Servian system were known only in this way.

[391] Cf. Livy i. 44. 2; Dion. Hal. iv. 15. 1.

[392] Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 9 ff., supposes Calpurnius Piso to have been the intermediary. But a problem in which so many of the quantities are unknown is incapable of solution.

[393] P. 205, n. 5, 215.

[394] Livy i. 43. 8; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; p. 207.

[395] P. 80.

[396] P. 81.

[397] P. 81.

[398] P. 82 f.

[399] Livy viii. 8. 3; Dion. Hal. iv. 22. 1.

[400] It is unnecessary here to consider the question as to the historical personality of Servius Tullius. In this volume the name will be given to the king (or group of kings?) who instituted the so-called Servian tribes and the military centuries and made a beginning of the census.

[401] P. 201.

[402] Helbig, _Sur les attributes des saliens_, in _Mémoires de l’acad. d. inscr. et belles-let._ xxxvii (1906). 230 ff.; cf. _Comptes rendus de l’acad._ etc. 1904. ii. 206-12. Helbig finds that the Latino-Etruscan equipments of the time preceding Hellenic influence, as shown by archaeology, correspond closely with those of the Salii, whom he regards therefore as religious survivals from that early civilization. It is from archaeological data, combined with the well-known equipment of the Salii, that the close resemblance between the early Latino-Etruscan and the Mycenaean military system is established.

[403] Not merely the chief, as Helbig, _Comptes rendus_, 1900. 517, supposes. The ἠνίοχοι καὶ παραβάται who fought at Delium, and whom he rightly regards as a survival from the age of war-chariots, acted as a company not as individuals; Diod. xii. 70. 1.

[404] Helbig, _Le Currus du roi Romain_, in _Mélanges Perrot_, 167 f. It was like that chiseled on a gravestone found by Dr. Schliemann on the acropolis of Mycenae, in the main identical with the Homeric chariot, represented in later time on the famous sarcophagus at Clazomenae; Pellegrini, in Milani, _Studi e materiali_, i. 91-3, 98.

[405] That the army of Romulus—the primitive Roman army—was a single legion, and that the Servian reform consisted accordingly in doubling it, is an ancient hypothesis accepted by some moderns, as Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 38 f. An organization in definite numbers, however, as 1000 from each tribe, cannot arise till the state has grown sufficiently populous to make up the army of a part only of its available strength, when folk and army have ceased to be identical (Schrader, _Reallex._ 350), and it is agreed that this condition was not reached till after the adoption of the Servian reform; Delbrück, _Gesch d. Kriegsk._ i. 225; Smith, ibid. 52 f., 56.

[406] _Il._ ii. 362.

[407] Schrader, ibid. For the Sueves, see Caesar, _B. G._ iv. 1; for the Lacedaemonian army, see p. 71. The assumption of Helbig, _Comptes rendus_, 1904. ii. 209, that the army was composed of patricians only is altogether unwarranted. Equally groundless is the notion of Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 250, that the Homeric army was composed chiefly of nobles with a few light-armed dependents.

[408] Cf. Liers, _Kriegswesen der Alten_, 78; Niese in _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 264, 266, 289.

[409] _Il._ iv. 293 ff.

[410] Represented by the dances of the Salii; Helbig, ibid. 211 f.

[411] Paus. iv. 8. 11; Polyaen. i. 10; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 30 f.; Niese, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 274 ff.

[412] Cf. Thuc. v. 70; Polyaen. i. 10.

[413] Cf. Thuc. v. 69. For this and other depths, see Delbrück, ibid. i. 25; Liers, _Kriegswesen der Alten_, 45; Lammert, in _N. Jahrb. f. kl. Philol._ xiii (1904). 276 f.

[414] Tyrtaeus, Frag. xi (Bergk). For the shield which covered “hips, legs, breast, and shoulders,” v. 23 f. It was abolished by Cleomenes III; Plut. _Cleom._ 11; cf. Liers, ibid. 34; Lammert, ibid. 276 f.

[415] XII. 26; Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 16. A public gift of a bronze cuirass is mentioned by Aristotle, _Lac. Pol._ 75, Müller, _Frag. Hist. Graec._ ii. p. 127. Gilbert, _Const. Antiq._ 73; Delbrück, ibid. 25, maintain that the cuirass was a regular part of the equipment. This is true of soldiers who carried smaller shields.

[416] Beloch, _Griech. Gesch._ i. 200 f.; cf. Liers, _Kriegswesen der Alten_, 34 f.; Droysen, _Griech. Kriegsalt._ 3 ff.

[417] Cf. the name of one of these regiments Μεσσοάτης (Schol. Thuc. iv. 8) derived from the village or local tribe Messoa. Schol. Aristoph. _Lysistr._ 453, mentions five by name; cf. Aristotle, Frag. 541. Perhaps a sixth for guarding the kings was drawn from all the tribes; Busolt, _Griech. Gesch._ i. 535 ff. with notes. Lenschau, in _Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ cxxxv. 83, holds that there were but four phylae.

[418] The name pentecosty indicates that it originally comprised fifty men, which suggests that the century may have been a higher group. Before the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. v. 68) the Lacedaemonian organization had departed far from its original form.

[419] Droysen, _Griech. Kriegsalt._ 70; Gilbert, _Const. Antiq._ 72. Compulsory service beyond the border ceased with the fortieth year; Xen. _Hell._ v. 4. 13.

[420] Cf. Liers, _Kriegsw. der Alten_, 14.

[421] Busolt, _Griech. Gesch._ ii. 180 ff.; Helbig, in _Mém. de l’acad. des inscr._ xxxvii¹ (1904). 164. But the Athenian army did not become efficient till long after Solon; cf. Niese, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 278-82.

[422] The Romans believed that they got the phalanx from the Etruscans; _Ined. Vat._, in _Hermes_, xxvii (1892). 121 from an early historian, Fabius Pictor or Posidonius or Polybius (Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 323); Diod. xxiii. 2 (Müller); Athen. vi. 106. p. 273 f.; Wendling, in _Hermes_, xxviii (1893). 335 ff.; Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 364 ff.; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 40. The circumstance does not prove that the Romans were then in subjection to the Etruscans.

[423] Some of the ancients derive classis from calare, “to call,” hence “summoning;” Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; Quint. _Inst._ i. 6. 33; accepted by Walde, _Lat. Etym. Wörterb._ 125; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 242; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 464. Others connected it with κᾶλος “firewood,” hence “gathering;” Serv. _in Aen._ i. 39; Isid. _Etym._ xix. 1. 15; Schol. Luc. i. 306. Corssen, _Ausspr._ i. 494, proposes to derive it from a root “clat,” which appears in the Greek κλητεύειν (Lat. *clat-ē-re), Germ. laden, which would still give the meaning “summoning;” cf. Curtius, _Griech. Etym._ 139; Vaniček, _Griech. Lat. etym. Wörterb._ 143 (*cla-t, cla-t-ti-s). Mommsen accepted the meaning “summoning” in the early editions of his _History_, but rejects it in the _Staatsrecht_, iii. 262 f. (cf. his _History_, English ed. i. 1900. 115 f., 118) on the ground that however adapted it may have been to the later political classes, it could not well apply to the fleet and army, and hence could not belong to the earlier use of the word, which denoted the line in contrast with those who fought outside the line. But against his reasoning it could be urged that classis with the idea of “summoning” first applied to the line of heavy infantry—the only effective part of the army; and when once the connotation of “line” had been established, it could easily extend to the fleet.

[424] Gell. vi (vii). 13: “‘Classici’ dicebantur non omnes, qui in quinque classibus erant, sed primae tantum classis homines, qui centum et viginti quinque milia aeris ampliusve censi erant. ‘Infra classem’ autem appellabantur secundae classis ceterarumque omnium classium, qui minore summa aeris, quod supra dixi, censebantur. Hoc eo strictim notavi, quoniam in M. Catonis oratione, qua Voconiam legem suasit, quaeri solet, quid sit ‘classicus,’ quid ‘infra classem;’” Fest. ep. 113; cf. Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 41. 104; Pseud. Ascon. 188; Gaius ii. 274.

[425] The statement of Diod. xxiii. 2 (Müller), and of the _Ined. Vat._ (in _Hermes_, xxvii. 121) that the Romans derived their round shield from the Etruscans accords with archaeological evidence for the use of the round shield by the early Etruscans; Pellegrini, in Milani, _Studi e materiali_, i. 91 ff.; Helbig, in _Comptes rendus de l’acad. des inscr._ 1904. ii. 196.

[426] The notion of Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 227, that the army was not organized in centuries till after the beginning of the republic has no foundation whatever.

[427] P. 76. The original number cannot be determined.

[428] Tubero, in Gell. x. 28. 1; Non. Marc. 523. 24. From this fact it appears that military conditions made a far greater demand upon the early Romans than upon the Lacedaemonians.

[429] Helbig, in _Comptes rendus de l’acad. des inscr._ 1900. 516 ff.; _Mém. de l’acad._ etc. xxxvii¹ (1904). 157 ff.; _Hermes_ xl (1905). 109. The objection of Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 37, n. 3, is not well founded.

[430] Incertus Auctor (Huschke), p. 1.

[431] _Ined. Vat._, in _Hermes_ xxvii (1892). 121; Helbig, ibid, xl (1905). 114. The transvectio equitum was instituted in 304; Livy ix. 46. 15. On the close connection of the Roman cavalry with that of the Greeks of southern Italy, see Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. ii. 607, n. 1.

[432] The priores had each two horses; Granius Licinianus xxvi, p. 29: “Verum de equitibus non omittam, quos Tarquinius ita constituit, ut priores equites binos equos in proelium ducerent;” cf. Fest. ep. 221. On the Tarentine cavalry, see Livy xxxiii. 29, 5. The inference is that the posteriores had one horse each.

[433] Helbig, in _Hermes_ xl (1905). 107. _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1899. 167, fig. 17 (cf. p. 157); 1900. 325, fig. 28; Pellegrini, in Milani, _Studi e materiali_, i. 106.

[434] Pellegrini, ibid. i. 97, fig. 5; 104, fig. 10.

[435] P. 75.

[436] P. 3, n. 8.

[437] VI. 13. 4.

[438] The principal sources are Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36; 22. 39; Livy i. 13. 8; 15. 8; 36. 7; 43. 8 f.; Dion. Hal. ii. 13; vi. 13. 4; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. (9.) 35; Fest. ep. 55; Plut. _Rom._ 13. On the basis of these sources we could reckon an increase to 1800, 3600, or 5400 according to our assumption as to the number of horsemen to the century; cf. Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercenturien_, 3-8.

[439] Helbig, in _Hermes_, xl (1905). 101, 105, 107.

[440] Livy i. 13. 8; Dion. Hal. ii. 13. 1 f.; Fest. ep. 55.

[441] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36: Livy i. 36. 2, 7; Fest. 344. 20; ep. 349. Writers differ slightly in the form of the names.

[442] P. 73, n. 7.

[443] This distinction of rank among the patrician centuries of the comitia centuriata is proved by the expression “proceres patricii” in the Censoriae Tabulae, quoted by Fest. 249. 1: “Procum patricium in descriptione classium, quam fecit Ser. Tullius, significat procerum. I enim sunt principes;” Cic. _Orat._ 46. 156: “Centuriam fabrum et procum, ut censoriae tabulae loquuntur, audeo dicere, non fabrorum aut procorum.” Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 109, n. 1, has rightly referred it to one of the sex suffragia, for no century outside this group could have been so designated; cf. Livy ii. 20. 11, who speaks of the cavalry as proceres iuventutis. The mention of a century of leading patricians implies the existence of one or more centuries of the less distinguished members of the same rank, which must have been the rest of the sex suffragia. The superior rank of the equites in early Rome is proved by Dion. Hal. ii. 13. 1; iv. 18. 1; Livy i. 43. 8 f.; ii. 20. 11. In ii. 24. 2 Livy implies that the patricians did not serve on foot (militare), and in iii. 27. 1 he speaks of a patrician who, as an exception among his rank, served on foot because of his poverty. In ii. 42 f. he distinguishes the cavalry from the infantry as patricians from plebeians. The fact that in the political conflict between the two social classes the patricians often threatened to carry on foreign wars with the aid merely of their clients (cf. Dion. Hal. x. 15, 27 f., 43) proves that the phalanx was essentially plebeian. On the honorable place of the equites in the camp, see Nitzsch, in _Hist. Zeitschr._ vii (1862). 145. That the sex suffragia remained patrician down to the reform of the comitia centuriata is probable; cf. Sallust, _Hist._ i. 11, who represents the struggle between the social classes as continuing to the opening of the war with Hannibal; see also Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 254.

[444] Dion. Hal. ii. 7. 4; cf. Polyb. vi. 25. 1; Varro, _L. L._ v. 91: “Turma terima (e in u abiit) quod ter deni equites ex tribus tribubus Titiensium Ramnium Lucerum fiebant: itaque primi singularum decuriones dicti, qui ab eo in singulis turmis sunt etiamnunc terni;” cf. Curiatius, in Fest. 355. 6.

[445] Cf. Polyb. vi. 25. 1.

[446] Three hundred is given as normal by Polyb. i. 16. 2; vi. 20. 9. In iii. 107. 10 f. he states it at 200, increased to 300 when to meet extraordinary cases the legion was strengthened to 5000; cf. ii. 24. 3. Livy, xxii. 36. 3, agrees with the latter statement. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 477, believes that the normal number was 300, decreased to 200 when a greater number of legions was levied.

[447] Niese, _Hist. Zeitschr._ xcviii (1907). 283, rightly assumes that the first and second classes at Athens were not cavalry; Helbig is right in understanding them to be mounted hoplites. Niese’s criticism (ibid. 287 and n. 1) of Helbig’s view is not convincing.

[448] Considerable time was required for the establishment of the earliest known meaning of classis before the second and third divisions were added.

[449] This is a conjecture of Bruncke, in _Philol._ xl (1881). 362, favored by Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 222.

[450] P. 79, 86.

[451] Usually scholars (cf. Domazewski, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1953 f.; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 227; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 39) assume fifteen centuries for the fifth rating, on the authority of Livy i. 43. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 17. 2; vii. 59. 5. But our knowledge of the phalanx is only inference, which to be acceptable must have at least the merit of possibility. The number fifteen is wrong because it could not have been divided evenly between the two legions; and on the other hand it will be shown later (p. 208) that in all probability the fifteenth century was not military but was added in the make up of the comitia centuriata.

[452] Müller, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 129, is right in supposing that the legion was strengthened between the time of Servius and 387, but it was not in the way he assumes. The tradition of a legion (half phalanx) of 4000 men is preserved in Livy vi. 22. 8.

[453] Polyb. vi. 20.

[454] Cf. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 121 ff.

[455] Livy iv. 46. 1: “Dilectum haberi non ex toto passim populo placuit: decem tribus sorte ductae sunt. Ex his scriptos iuniores duo tribuni ad bellum duxere.” If this passage does not state a historical fact, at least it gives the idea of the writer as to the custom of earlier time.

[456] P. 72, 76.

[457] Cf. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 51 ff.

[458] In time of especial danger, however, the legion was increased to five thousand; Polyb. vi. 20. 8.

[459] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 268, n. 2.

[460] That the phalanx was a comparatively late institution at Rome, or that it was slow in becoming the only military system, is indicated by the survival in tradition of a more primitive mode of warfare. Sometimes in the early republic a single gens with its clients took the field; for the Fabian gens, see Livy ii. 48 ff. Often the patricians threatened to arm their clients, to carry on a war without the aid of the troublesome plebeians; cf. Dion. Hal. x. 15, 27 f., 43. As there was no motive in later time for the invention of such stories, they must contain a kernel of real tradition; hence they could not go back to the sixth century, and it is difficult to believe that they are so old as the fifth.

Collateral evidence that the second and third divisions were instituted relatively late may be found in the circumstance that the scutum, the distinctive piece of armor of these divisions, was introduced no earlier than the age of Camillus—the period of the war with Veii and the Gallic conflagration; Livy viii. 8. 3; Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, i. 366. It was Samnite (Athen. vi. 106, p. 273 f.; cf. Sall. _Cat._ 51), and was therefore probably adopted in the fourth century when Rome first came into contact with that people.

[461] It is evident to the reader that these proportions are those of the discriptio centuriarum of Livy and Dionysius (p. 66 above), and it will be made clear below (p. 86) that the ratings were originally in terms of iugera, the minima of the five ratings being in all probability 20, 15, 10, 5, and 2½ or 2 iugera respectively.

[462] For the date, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 334 f.; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1902 f.; Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. ii. 13, 33 f.

[463] There may be some truth in the etymology suggested by Varro, _L. L._ v. 89; cf. Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 256.

[464] Cf. Liers, _Kriegsw. d. Alten_, 46.

[465] Dionysius Hal. iv. 17. 1, includes the fourth rating in the phalanx of heavy infantry. For other possibilities of arrangement, see Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 46 f.

[466] Thuc. v. 68; p. 86 above.

[467] Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 229; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 45 ff. That the second and third divisions of the phalanx were sometimes withdrawn to operate on the flanks (Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 249) is possible, though we have no proof of it.

[468] P. 76. From early times the Greek and Italian states kept arsenals with which to arm the poor in crises; Liers, _Kriegsw. d. Alten_, 36 f.

[469] P. 84.

[470] Fest. ep. 14, 18, 369; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 56-58. From them the centurions and decurions engaged their servants; Cato, in Varro, _L. L._ vii. 58; Varro, _Vit. pop. rom._ iii, in Non. Marc. 520; Veget. ii. 19. Hence they served the civil magistrates as attendants; cf. Censoriae Tabulae, in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88; Livy iii. 33. 8; Suet. _Caes._ 20; Non. Marc. 59. They must have corresponded with the squires of the Greek and Roman cavalry; p. 73. They were sometimes called adscriptivi, or as carriers ferentarii. If, as has been suggested, the secretaries and other attendants of the higher officers were also drawn from them, this circumstance would help explain the honor attaching to the collegium accensorum velatorum of imperial time; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 289; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 233.

[471] Notwithstanding Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 135 f.

[472] Livy viii. 8. 8. Leinveber, in _Philol._ N. F. xv (1902). 36, estimates 558 accensi to the legion.

[473] The cornicines tubicinesque; Livy i. 43. 7.

[474] The cornicines marched in front of the banners; Joseph. _Bell. Iud._ v. 48; Fiebiger, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1602.

[475] The number is unknown. In the legio III Augusta there were thirty-six cornicines; _CIL._ vii. 2557; Fiebiger, ibid. 1603.

[476] Livy i. 43. 3.

[477] Varro, _L. L._ v. 88: “Centuria qui sub uno centurione sunt, quorum centenarius iustus numerus;” Fest. ep. 53: “Centuria ... significat ... in re militari centum homines;” Isid. _Etym._ ix. 3. 48; cf. Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 107.

[478] Estimates have been made by Müller, in _Philol._ xxxiv (1876). 127; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 224; Beloch, _Bevölk. d. griech.-röm. Welt_, 42 f.; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 67. In the United States the ratio is more than four to one; _Special Reports: Suppl. Analysis and Derivative Tables, Twelfth Census of the United States_, 1900, Washington, 1906. p. 170 f. The estimate given in the text is based upon the “Deutsche Sterbetafel” for men, in E. Czuber, _Warscheinlichkeitsrechnung_ (Leipzig, 1903), p. 572, 574. The ratio is almost exactly three.

[479] Livy i. 43. 2. For the year 401, see Livy v. 10. 4: “Nec iuniores modo conscripti, sed seniores etiam coacti nomina dare, ut urbis custodiam agerent;” for 389, vi. 2. 6; for 386, vi. 6. 14; for 296, x. 21. 4: “Nec ingenui modo aut iuniores sacramento adacti, sed seniorum etiam cohortes factae libertinique centuriati. Et defendendae urbis consilia agitabantur;” cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 409, n. 5. The last of the definite instances here mentioned could alone be historical, and in this case not centuriae or legiones but cohortes seniorum are spoken of.

[480] Cf. Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 227 f.

[481] If the senior centuries were formed in the way assumed by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 261 (“Nicht selbständig gebildet worden, sondern daraus hervorgegangen, dass wer aus einer Centurie des ersten Aufgebots Alters halber ausschied, damit in die entsprechende Centurie des zweiten Aufgebots eintrat”), about a half generation must have been required to evolve them. An objection to his idea is that the military centuries as well as the legions were formed anew at each year’s levy (Polyb. vi. 20, 24), whereas the political centuries were made up by the censors (cf. Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40: “In una centuria censebantur”), doubtless modified annually by the consuls. A military century and a political century accordingly could not have been composed of the same men.

The Tabulae Iuniorum contained the names of all juniors in honorable service in the field; Livy xxiv. 18. 7. Tabulae Seniorum are not mentioned. Classis Iuniorum (Fest. 246. 30) may apply to all eighty-five (or eighty-four) centuries of juniors, as Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 474, supposes, or to the first class; Tubero, _Historiae_, i, in Gell. x. 28. 1: “Scripsit Servium Tullium regem, populi Romani cum illas quinque classes iuniorum census faciendi gratia institueret.” It is doubtful whether there was a separate list of seniors.

[482] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40: “Illarum autem sex et nonaginta centuriarum in una centuria tum quidem plures censebantur quam paene in prima classe tota.”

[483] Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 240.

[484] The confusion of the comitia with the army, which the ancient writers began, the moderns have intensified till the subject has become utterly incomprehensible. Chiefly to Genz, _Servianische Centurienverfassung_ (1874) and Soltau, _Alröm. Volksversammlungen_ (1880) belongs the credit of putting in a clear light the fact that the original Servian organization was an army. Both authors, however, have made the fundamental mistake of supposing that for a time during the early republic the army officiated as an assembly.

[485] Livy xxiv. 8. 19.

[486] After the inclusion of the Tribus Clustumina; Beloch, _Ital. Bund_, 74; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 58, n. 1.

[487] Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 223 f.; Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 58.

[488] Beloch, _Bevölk. d. griech.-röm. Welt_, 53; Meyer, _Forsch. z. alt. Gesch._ ii. 162, n. 3; Delbrück, ibid. i. 14. Ferrero’s estimate (_Greatness and Decline of Rome_, i. 1) of a total population of 150,000 seems to be too large.

[489] P. 81.

[490] Cf. Liers, _Kriegsw. d. Alten_, 10.

[491] Ascribed to Camillus; Plut. _Cam._ 40; cf. Fröhlich, _Gesch. d. Kriegsführung und Kriegskunst der Römer zur Zeit der Rep._; Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 708.

[492] P. 80; cf. 63.

[493] Fröhlich, ibid. 21 f.; Schiller, ibid.

[494] P. 76.

[495] Fest. 189. 13; ep. 56, 225; Fabius Pictor, _Annales_, i, in Gell. x. 15. 3 f.

[496] Gell. i. 11. 3; Vergil, _Aen._ vii. 716: “Hortinae classes.”

[497] Gell. vi (vii). 13. 3: “In M. Catonis oratione, qua Voconiam legem suasit, quaeri solet, quid sit classicus, quid infra classem;” p. 90 below.

[498] _CIL._ i. 200 (Lex Agr.). 37: (“Recuperatores ex ci)vibus L quei classis primae sient, XI dato.”

[499] P. 66 f.; cf. Fest. 249. 1: “In descriptione classium quam fecit Ser. Tullius.” The attempt of Smith, _Röm. Timokr._, especially 140 ff., to prove that the five classes were introduced by the censors of 179 has nothing in its favor. It rests upon Livy xl. 51. 9: “Mutarunt suffragia, regionatimque generibus hominum causisque et quaestibus tribus descripserunt.” This passage makes no reference to the classes. In “generibus hominum” are included chiefly the “genus ingenuum” and the “genus libertinum.” “Causis” applies to those conditions of the libertini, such as the possession of children of a definite age, which might serve as a ground for enrolment in a rural tribe; and “quaestibus” refers to the distinction between landowners and the “opifices et sellularii” of the city. “They changed the arrangement for voting, and drew up the tribal lists on a local basis according to the social orders, the conditions, and the callings of men;” cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 265 f.; p. 354 f. below. Among the many objections to Smith’s theory these two may be mentioned: if the classes were introduced at this late historical time, (1) they would not have been ascribed to Servius Tullius; (2) they would have been adapted to the economic conditions of the second century B.C., whereas in 179 they were largely outgrown by the depreciation of the standard of value, the increase in the cost of living, and the growth of enormous estates. The _Römische Timokratie_ is ably written, but its main thesis—the institution of the classes in the second century B.C.—remains unproved.

[500] P. 64.

[501] _Verf. d. Serv._ 643 f. et passim. He made a mistake however in supposing that from the beginning land was valued in terms of money.

[502] Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 111; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 247 ff.; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2631. When the change was made from a land to a money rating, the land of the fifth class was appraised relatively higher than that of the others. Neumann, _Grundherrsch. d. röm. Rep._ 9 f., prefers to assume 16 (= 2 + 14) iugera for the highest class in order to explain the often mentioned estates of seven and fourteen iugera. But it is difficult to work out a consistent scheme on this basis. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 78 ff. et passim, strongly objects to the view in any form, as he doubts the existence of the Servian classes. In general he has greatly exaggerated the difficulties of their administration.

[503] Sall. _Iug._ 86; Gell. xvi. 10. 14, 16; cf. Cass. Hem. 21 (Peter, _Reliquiae_, i. 102 f.).

[504] Haeberlin, in _Riv. ital. numis._ xix (1906). 614 f.

[505] Samwer-Bahrfeldt, _Gesch. d. alt. röm. Münzw._ 176 f.; Hill, _Greek and Roman Coins_, 47, 49, n. 1; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 1509 ff.; Hultsch, ibid. v. 206; Regling, in _Klio_, vi (1906). 503. Babelon, _Trait. d. mon. Grecq. et Rom._ i. 595, still holds the view that the triental _as_ was introduced in 269; cf. his _Orig. d. la mon._ 376; _Mon. d. la rép. Rom._ i. 37.

[506] P. 66 f.

[507] As silver is at present worth 51¼ cents an ounce (so quoted in New York, Sept. 5, 1908), a denarius (= ⅟₇₂ lb. Troy) of the coinage preceding 217 is worth by weight today 8½ cents. A more just comparison would be based on the present coined values. As a dollar contains 371¼ grains of silver, a denarius would be worth 21½ cents; or with a liberal allowance for the alloy, we might say about 20 cents. The sesterce, ¼ denarius, would therefore be equivalent to five cents. An estate of 100,000 asses of heavy weight (sesterces) would be worth about $5000, of the sextantarian standard $2000. It is hardly possible that so large a proportion of the population as was contained in the first class should average the former amount of wealth to the family. In fact the purchasing power of money was enormously higher than these equivalents indicate. In 430 the value of an ox or cow was legally set at 100 libral asses and of a sheep at ten. Reckoning a beef at the low modern value of $45, and a sheep at $4.50, we obtain a value of 45 cents for the libral _as_, or 22½ cents for one of 5 oz. weight (sesterce), which would give the denarius a purchasing power of 90 cents.

[508] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249. In his _History_ (Eng. ed. 1900), iii. 50, he expresses some doubt as to the numbers.

[509] I. 43; cf. p. 66.

[510] IV. 17. 2.

[511] Plut. _Popl._ 21.

[512] The view of Goguet, _Centuries_, 29 (following Niebuhr), that Livy has made a mistake, is not so likely.

[513] VI. 19. 2: (All must serve in war) πλὴν τῶν ὑπὸ τὰς τετρακοσίας δραχμὰς τετιμημένων· τούτους δὲ παριᾶσι πάντας εἰς τὴν ναυτικήν. That it was the minimal rating of the fifth class, and not a still lower rating for military use only, is proved by a statement of Sall. _Iug._ 86, that till the time of Marius the soldiers were drawn from the classes.

[514] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 251.

[515] Commercially the denarius was then, after 217, worth sixteen asses; Hultsch, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ v. 209.

[516] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40; Gell. xvi. 10. 10.

[517] XVI. 10. 10.

[518] Cf. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1522.

[519] This interpretation differs slightly from that of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 237.

[520] In like manner those possessing above 100,000 asses were at times divided into groups for the distribution of military burdens according to wealth; cf. Livy xxiv. II. 7-9. This too has no reference to the organization of the comitia.

[521] _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 43: “Maximus census C̅X̅ assium fuit illo (Servio) rege, et ideo haec prima classis.”

[522] Fest. ep. 113.

[523] VI (VII). 13.

[524] Plut. _Popl._ 21; Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 164.

[525] VI. 23. 15.

[526] I. 43. 2.

[527] IV. 16. 2.

[528] After the adoption of the _as_ of an ounce weight in 217, sixteen asses of this standard were considered equivalent to a denarius or a drachma, which would give a rating of 160,000 asses for those who wore the cuirass. But the military pay was still reckoned at ten asses to the denarius (Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 45); the censors seem to have used the same ratio (Livy xxxix. 44. 2 f. compared with Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 18); and it is therefore highly probable that in this statement Polybius intended to express in drachmas the value of 100,000 asses. Taken in its entirety, the passage sufficiently proves that reference is to the highest class; the majority (οἱ πολλοί) of soldiers, he says, have breastplates, but those rated above 10,000 drachmas wear cuirasses. If, as Belot, _Rév. écon. et mon._ 77 ff., imagines, the sum of 100,000 asses fell below the rating of the lowest class, there would hardly have been a soldier without the cuirass.

[529] Gaius ii. 274. That registration was necessary is proved by Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 41. 104 ff. By the word “censi” Cicero does not mean to designate any group or division of citizens; he simply refers to the fact of registration. P. Annius Asellus, of whom he speaks, had not been registered, or in any case at that sum, and hence was not technically liable to the law; but the value of his estate could be ascertained by authority of a court of justice, according to Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 95 f. Mommsen held the opinion, on the contrary (_Abhdl. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1863. 468 f.), that the incensi were absolutely free from the law.

[530] P. 85 above.

[531] VI (VII). 13. For his rating of 125,000 asses for the first class, see p. 89.

[532] N. 5 above.

[533] Dio Cass. lvi. 10. 2; Pseud. Ascon. 188.

[534] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249, n. 4; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 95.

[535] The part containing this reference was not essentially later than the enactment of the Voconian law (p. 361).

[536] P. 403.

[537] XLV. 15. 2.

[538] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 249, n. 2.

[539] P. 90, n. 4.

[540] First offered in his _Histoire des chevaliers_, i (Paris, 1866), and afterward defended in his _Révolution économique et monétaire ... à Rome_ (1885).

[541] Cf. _Rév. écon. et mon._ 82.

[542] Livy xxiv. 11. 7 f.

[543] Ibid. § 5.

[544] Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 498 f.

[545] _Rév. écon. et mon._ 50. The Roman and Campanian (cives sine suffragio) knights together amounted to 23,000; Polyb. ii. 24. 14.

[546] About 270,000 in 220; Livy ep. xx.

[547] Even with this understanding we shall have to assume for the requisition of 214 a division between 100,000 and 300,000—those rated at 100,000-200,000 asses furnishing two and those at 200,000-300,000 asses three sailors. Otherwise the number of sailors will be greatly in excess of the need.

[548] Similar conditions exist at present in America. The monstrous luxury of the few and the heavy fines recently imposed on the Standard Oil Company do not prove all Americans to be wealthy.

[549] P. 61 f.

[550] Livy i. 43. 9; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 20. 36; Fest. ep. 81, 221; Gaius iv. 27.

[551] Gaius iv. 27.

[552] _Rep._ ii. 20. 36.

[553] I. 43. 9.

[554] _Cam._ 2. This statement is valuable notwithstanding Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 683.

[555] Payment is mentioned by Livy v. 7. 12 (403) but triple pay is first spoken of in ch. 12. 12 (400); cf. Polyb. vi. 39. 12; Fest. 234. 26.

[556] Polyb. vi. 39. 15. The statement of Varro, _L. L._ viii. 71 (“Debet igitur dici ... non equum publicum mille assarium esse, sed mille assariorum”), seems to signify that in practice the cost of a public horse meant a payment to the eques of a thousand asses a year; cf. Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 49 ff., whose interpretation is preferable to that of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 257, n. 5. The fact that the support of one knight was considered equal to that of three legionaries (Livy xxix. 15. 7) is further evidence that the triple pay covered the purchase and keep of the horse. Reference in Livy vii. 41. 8, may be to the sums (aera) for the purchase and keep of the horse; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 257, n. 3.

[557] Dionysius Hal. vi. 44. 2, assigns the first recruiting of the equites from the plebeians to the year 494, dating the event about a century too early; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 478, n. 1.

[558] Livy v. 7. 5.

[559] All this may be gathered from Livy v. 7. 4-13; cf. Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 16 ff.

[560] Polyb. vi. 19. 2; Livy xxvii. 11. 14.

[561] Livy xxvii. 11. 14, 16. This passage does not refer to those who avoided duty equo privato, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 478, n. 2, supposes. Those were punished who were qualified to serve equo publico but had avoided military duty altogether. Gerathewohl, ibid. 20 f., believes that Livy has made a mistake in assigning this judgment to the censors of 209, as it would much better suit the conditions of 214.

[562] The credit of establishing this fact beyond a doubt is due to Gerathewohl, _Die Reiter und die Rittercent._ 14-34.

[563] _N. H._ xxxiii. 1. 30: “Equitum nomen subsistebat in turmis equorum publicorum;” cf. Fest. ep. 81: “Equitare antiqui dicebant equum publicum merere.”

[564] P. 75.