Chapter XIX: A Summary of Comitial History (6)

[1119] The consuls proposed the curiate law for the quaestors; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22. That these inferior officials required the law is further indicated by Cic. _Phil._ ii. 20. 50. For the lower functionaries in general, see Gell. xiii. 15. 4. The agrarian rogation of Servilius Rullus provided that the praetor should propose the law for the decemviri agris adsignandis required for the administration of his measure; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 28.

That the magisterial helpers who were in need of the curiate law included not only the quaestors but also the lictors seems to be indicated by Cic. _Rep._ ii. 17. 31: “Ne insignibus quidem regiis Tullus nisi iussu populi est ausus uti. Nam ut sibi duodecim lictores cum fascibus anteire” (the remainder of the sentence is missing). Dion. Hal. ii. 62. 1 ascribes the introduction of the lictors to Tarquin the Elder. This curiate law, however, may not be thought of by Cicero and Dionysius as a mere sanction, but rather as a legislative act which called the lictors into being; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 372, n. 1, 613, n. 1.

[1120] In the opinion of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 300 ff., the election conferred potestas only, the lex curiata imperium.

[1121] Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3.

[1122] Ibid.; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30: “Consuli si legem curiatam non habet, attingere rem militarem non licet;” Livy v. 52. 15: “Comitia curiata, quae rem militarem continent.” These statements, however, are not, as some have imagined, to the effect that the lex curiata _confers_ military power upon the magistrate.

[1123] Dio Cass. xli. 43. 3.

[1124] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25.

[1125] Cic. _Att._ iv. 18. 4: “Appius sine lege suo sumptu in Ciliciam cogitat.”

[1126] Ibid.

[1127] Such an article in favor of the decemviri agris adsignandis appeared in the Servilian agrarian rogation of 63; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 29; cf. p. 186.

[1128] According to Dion. Hal. ii. 5 f., those who are entering upon an office pass the night in tents and in the morning under the open sky take the auspices. Livy, xxi. 63. 10, states that the consul dons his official robe in his own house, but neither he nor any other authority intimates that the public auspices were taken in his private house, as Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 616, asserts.

[1129] Livy ix. 39. 1.

[1130] Ibid. xxi. 63. 9; Varro, in Gell. xiv. 7. 9.

[1131] Rubino, _Röm. Verf._ 365 ff.

[1132] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 612, n. 1.

[1133] Sall. _Cat._ 29: “Ea potestas per senatum more Romano magistratui maxuma permittitur, exercitum parare, bellum gerere, coercere omnibus modis socios atque cives, domi militiaeque imperium atque iudicium summum habere; aliter sine populi iussu nullius earum rerum consuli ius est;” _Hist._ i. 77. 22: (The senate decreed) “uti Appius Claudius cum Q. Catulo pro consule et ceteris quibus imperium est, urbi praesidio sint operamque dent, ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat.” The interpretation which includes the interrex, Appius Claudius, with those who possessed the imperium is confirmed by Livy i. 17. 5 f., who informs us that the imperium of an interrex lasted five days.

[1134] Livy ix. 38 f.

[1135] Cf. Nissen, _Beitr. z. röm. Staatsr._ 51 f.

[1136] XXI. 63. 5 ff.

[1137] Fest. 347. 14; p. 336 below.

[1138] Cf. Livy xxii. 1. 5 ff.

[1139] Nissen, ibid., supposes, too, that Appius Claudius, consul in 179, went to the army without a curiate law and for that reason the soldiers refused to obey him; Livy xli. 10. Livy mentions the neglect of other formalities, but makes no reference to the curiate act.

[1140] Livy xxv. 37. 5 f.; cf. xxvi. 2. 1.

[1141] Ibid. xxvi. 2. 2.

[1142] Dio Cass. xli. 43. In this instance the senate had conferred dictatorial power upon the magistrates by its supreme decree (Caesar, _B. C._ i. 5); that they were constitutionally in command, whereas the general direction of affairs by Pompey, however autocratic, was only informal, is expressly stated by Dio Cass. xl. 43. 5. What Nissen, _Beitr. z. röm. Staatsr._ 53 f., says of these magistrates’ lack of military imperium is therefore baseless.

[1143] Cic. _Att._ iv. 18. 4; _Q. Fr._ iii. 4. 6; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 47; xxxix. 65. The praetor was Ser. Sulpicius Galba.

[1144] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25; cf. _Q. Fr._ iii. 2. 3; p. 417 below.

[1145] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25: “Appius ... dixit ... legem curiatam consuli ferri opus esse, necesse non esse.”

[1146] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2.

[1147] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 4; _Q. Fr._ iii. 3. 2; cf. p. 111 above.

[1148] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 3 ff.; 18. 3; _Q. Fr._ iii. 2. 3; 3. 2 f.

[1149] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 3.

[1150] The compact (Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2) made between Appius and his colleague in the consulship, 54, parties of the first part, and Memmius and Domitius, candidates for the consulship for the ensuing year, parties of the second part, that the parties of the second part in the event of their election should produce three augurs to testify that the parties of the first part had proposed and carried a lex curiata, or in failure to produce the witnesses should forfeit to the parties of the first part a specified sum of money, assumes, inasmuch as the evidence was not to be forthcoming till after the election, (1) that the lex curiata was not essential to holding the elective comitia, but (2) that it was highly advantageous to the promagistrate. Cicero, who often refers to the postponement of the elective comitia of this year, never intimates that the want of a lex curiata stood in the way.

Varro, consul in 216, must have found it extremely difficult, though perhaps not impossible, after carrying his lex de imperio in the comitium, to complete the consular and pretorian elections in the Campus Martius—all between sunrise and sunset on the same day; Livy xxii. 35. 4.

[1151] P. 192.

[1152] Dio Cass. xli. 43. 3. Livy, v. 52. 15, proves that the comitia curiata could meet only within the pomerium.

[1153] Dio Cass. xli. 43. 2.

[1154] Cf. Livy v. 52. 15.

[1155] Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3. The date of the trial was Feb. 7, 56; Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 3. 2.

[1156] _Lex Cornelia de XX Quaest._ in _CIL._ i. 202; Cic. _Verr._ i. 10. 30; Schol. Gronov. 395. Mark Antony when quaestor performed the functions of his office through the year without the sanctioning law; Cic. _Phil._ ii. 20. 50.

[1157] It is always spoken of in the singular, the implication being that one act served for all; cf. especially Caesar, _B. C._ i. 6; Livy ix. 38. 15; Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3.

[1158] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 48: “Itaque auspicato ... tr. pl. comitiis curiatis creati sunt”; Dion. Hal. vi. 89. 1; ix. 41. 2; cf. Livy ii. 56. 2; p. 262 below.

[1159] V. 46. 10.

[1160] _Röm. Verf._ 381 and n. 2.

[1161] Based on his reading of Fest. 351. 34: “(Triginta lictoribus l)ex curiata fertur; quod Hanni(bal in propinquitate) Romae cum esset, nec ex praesidi(is discedere liceret), Q. Fabius Maximus Verru(cosus egit per tr. pl. et Ma)rcellus cos. facere in(stituit.”...).

[1162] The attendance on the comitia tributa was sometimes as low as five to the tribe; Cic. _Sest._ 51. 109.

[1163] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 16 f.; in connection with the preceding note and p. 127.

[1164] Mommsen’s restoration is, “(Transit imperium nec denuo l)ex curiata fertur, quod Hanni(bal in vicinitate) Romae cum esset nec ex praesidi(is tuto decedi posset), Q. Fabius Maximus Verru(cossus M. Claudius Ma)rcellus cos. facere in(stituerunt)”; _Röm. Forsch_, ii. 412; _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 613, n. 3. Bergk, _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xix (1864). 606, with less success proposes translatione imperii; cf. also Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 679. The passage is in fact past healing, though Mommsen’s reconstruction is an improvement on Rubino’s.

[1165] The second inference is from the present tense of the verb “fertur.”

[1166] Livy xxiv. 7-9.

[1167] Ibid. 9. 3.

[1168] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 679. It is not to be assumed, however, that the senatus consultum had to be repeated at every such case of transition. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 175, 704 f., who gives the measure a wider constitutional scope, assumes that it was a plebiscite. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 413, supposes that the two consuls on entering office in 214 simply omitted the curiate sanction on the ground that they already held the imperium, which was unlimited in duration, and that the jurists accepted this procedure as constitutional. The specific motive for this action, Mommsen asserts, was the fact that they were absent from Rome at the opening of their official year. But the truth is that they were both present (Livy xxiv. 10 f.), and had accordingly no occasion for establishing such precedent on their own responsibility. All they did in the matter, then, was to take advantage of a measure already enacted.

[1169] Cf. Livy xxi. 63; xxii. 1.

[1170] The existence of the measure of 215 proves that the curiate assembly and curiate law were at the time something more than a mere formality.

[1171] Cic. _Att._ iv. 17. 2; cf. p. 113, 194, n. 2. The Ciceronian passage, our only authority on this point, seems to imply a custom.

[1172] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30.

[1173] On the servility of the lictors, see Cic. _Verr._ ii. 29. 72; _Pis._ 22. 53.

[1174] That the comitia curiata were no longer attended by the people in the time of Cicero is attested by _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 27: “Curiatis ... comitiis, quae vos non initis”; cf. n. 6.

[1175] _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 27. On the Aelian and Fufian statutes, see p. 116, 358 f.

[1176] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31: “Illis (comitiis) ad speciam atque ad usurpationem vetustatis per ... lictores auspiciorum causa adumbratis.”

[1177] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 30: “Consulibus legem curiatam ferentibus a tribunis plebis saepe est intercessum”; cf. Dio Cass. xxxix. 19. 3.

[1178] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 11. 29; p. 227 above.

[1179] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25; p. 193 above.

[1180] Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ ii. 905.

[1181] This chapter historically follows ch. iv.

[1182] Livy i. 60. 4. This is the first act which Livy records, and it is his opinion that the last king never consulted the people; i. 49. 3. His view harmonizes with that of Dionysius, iv. 40. 3, that Servius intended to resign his office and establish a republic, had he lived.

[1183] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 53: “(Valerius Poplicola) legem ad populum tulit eam, quae centuriatis comitiis prima lata est.” Dionysius, iv. 20. 3, supposes that Servius actually used this assembly for elections, legislation, and declarations of war, that Tarquin the Proud set aside the Servian arrangement (iv. 43. 1), which was restored at the beginning of the republic. The first of these ideas is an inference from republican usage, not based on knowledge of any definite act of the assembly in the regal period. In this matter, Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 264, has given him too much credit.

[1184] An objection to the view represented by Soltau, ibid. 270-5, that the coöperation of the army in the overthrow of Tarquin the Proud caused its immediate transformation into the comitia centuriata, is that we have no ground for accepting as historical the details of the overthrow to which he calls attention. In p. 285-96 he attempts to reconstruct the earliest constitution of the republic on the theory that the army elected the consuls (283), that for a time those who were not actually on military duty were excluded from a vote in the centuriate assembly. The sources give no information regarding such an assembly, and we have no right to assume it, at least as a regular, recognized institution, for any period however early. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 465, supposes that with the founding of the republic the assembly began to diverge from the army, the two institutions having previously been identical; cf. Guiraud, in _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 1.

[1185] Livy ix. 13. 1.

[1186] Livy vii. 16. 4.

[1187] Livy v. 28. 7; vii. 36. 9.

[1188] Livy viii. 31.

[1189] Ibid. 32. 1.

[1190] Livy viii. 32 f.

[1191] Livy x. 19. 11.

[1192] Livy vii. 36. 9.

[1193] Ibid. ch. 37, especially § 9.

[1194] Cic. _Fam._ xi. 13. 3; Livy vii. 37. 9. viii. 32. 1; ix. 13. 1; x. 19. 11; xxviii. 26. 12; xl. 36. 4; xlii. 53. 1; Dion. Hal. iii. 13. 1.

[1195] Livy vii. 35. 1 f.

[1196] Livy v. 46. 5 ff.

[1197] Livy vii. 16. 7; p. 297.

[1198] Livy xxvi. 2. 2 (211 B.C.). On the military contio, see also p. 140.

[1199] Laelius Felix, _Lib. ad. Muc._ in Gell. xv. 27. 5: “Centuriata autem comitia intra pomerium fieri nefas esse, quia exercitum extra urbem imperari oporteat, intra urbem imperari ius non sit.”

[1200] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3: Συνῄει δὲ τὸ πλῆθος εἰς τὸ πρὸ τῆς πόλεως Ἄρειον πεδίον ὑπὸ λοχαγοῖς καὶ σημείοις τεταγμένον ὥσπερ ἐν πολέμῳ; p. 211. During the session Janiculum was occupied by a garrison, above which, in view of the Campus Martius, waved a flag; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 27; cf. Gell. xv. 27. 5.

[1201] P. 104, 140 f., 244.

[1202] _Comm. Consular._ in Varro, _L. L._ vi. 88; Livy xxxix. 15. 11; Laelius Felix, in Gell. xv. 27. 5; Fest. ep. 103; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 15; Serv. _in Aen._ viii. 1. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 216, 294, n. 2, is of the opinion that the centuriate assembly was termed exercitus because it met for military exercise on the Campus Martius. But we have no evidence that the assembly ever took such exercise; in fact the drill of the proletarian mob would be hardly less ridiculous than that of the nonagenarians, both of whom had a right to vote in the assembly.

[1203] IV. 84. 5.

[1204] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 216 and n. 3.

[1205] Fabius Pictor, _Ann._ i, in Gell. x. 15. 3 f.: “Dialem flaminem ... religio est classem procinctam extra pomerium, id est, exercitum armatum, videre; idcirco rarenter flamen Dialis creatus consul est, cum bella consulibus mandabantur.” There was no objection to this flamen’s seeing the comitia centuriata, but the armed centuries it was not lawful for him to see. Cf. Varro, _L. L._ vi. 93: “Alia de causa hic magistrates (quaestor) non potest exercitum urbanum convocare; censor, consul, dictator, interrex potest, quod censor exercitum centuriato constituit quinquennalem, cum lustrare et in urbem ad vexillum ducere debet.” But the term exercitus urbanus sometimes denotes the body of men enlisted for military service from those who were ordinarily exempt; Livy xxii. 11. 9.

[1206] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 265, supposes that in the original form of census-taking the citizens were so arranged in companies under their leaders as to constitute an army ready to be led against the enemy. But the only citation he offers (Dion. Hal. ii. 14, perhaps for iv. 22. 1; see n. below) has no bearing on the matter.

[1207] IV. 22, i: Κελεύσας τοὺς πολίτας ἅπαντας συνελθεῖν εἰς τὸ μέγιστον τῶν πρὸ τῆς πόλεως πεδίων ἔχοντας τὰ ὅπλα καὶ τάξας τοὺς θ’ἱππεῖς κατὰ τέλη καὶ τοὺς πεζοὺς ἐν φάλαγγι καὶ τοὺς ἐσταλμένους τὸν φιλικὸν ὁπλισμὸν ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ἑκάστους λόχοις καθαρμὸν αὐτῶν ἐποιήσατο.

[1208] _L. L._ vi. 86: “Censor ... praeconi sic imperato ut viros vocet.... Omnes quirites pedites armatos, privatosque curatores omnium tribuum, si quis pro se sive pro alio rationem dari volet, vocato in licium huc ad me” (Mommsen’s reading, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 361, n. 6). Spengel reads, “Omnes quirites, (equites) pedites, magistratos privatosque, curatores,” etc., in which armatos does not appear.

[1209] Such an inspection by the censors, if it ever existed, must have fallen early into disuse (cf. Mommsen, ibid. iii. 397); but we could more reasonably suppose that the inspection of the arms and of the physical condition of the men always belonged to the officers who attended to the levy; Polyb. vi. 20.

[1210] Cf. Livy xliii. 14. 8: “Censores edixerunt ... qui in patris aut avi potestate essent, eorum nomina ad se ederentur.” The father gave the census of his son; Fest. ep. 66: “Duicensus (census of two) dicebatur cum altero, id est cum filio census;” Dion. Hal. ix. 36. 3. The son was classed according to the census of the father; Livy xxiv. 11. 7.

[1211] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 15. 6; v. 75. 3; Gell. iv. 20. 3 ff.

[1212] Notwithstanding Genz, _Centuriatverf._ 11; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 477.

[1213] Polyb. vi. 20 ff. The Romans were of the opinion that the same principle held for the earliest times; Varro, _L. L._ v. 89; Dion. Hal. iv. 14; cf. Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 337.

[1214] Polyb. vi. 19. 2.

[1215] The five classes contained accordingly 80, 20, 20, 20, and 28 centuries respectively; cf. p. 66 f., 77; see also table on p. 210. A great difference exists between Livy and Dionysius, on the one hand, and Cicero, on the other, as to the number of centuries in the highest class. Cicero (_Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Nunc rationem videtis esse talem, ut equitum centuriae cum sex suffragiis et prima classis addita centuria, quae ad summum usum urbis fabris tignariis est data, LXXXVIIII centurias habebat”) states that the eighteen centuries of knights, the centuries of the first class, and one century of mechanics amounted to eighty-nine, which would give but seventy to the first class. The most satisfactory explanation of this difficulty seems to be that Cicero, while professing to describe the earlier centuriate system, had in mind a formative stage of the new organization, in which the first class comprised seventy centuries; p. 67, 215, n. 2. On the number in the fifth class, see p. 66, 77, 208.

[1216] P. 68.

[1217] The two are mentioned by Livy i. 43. 3 and Dion. Hal. iv. 17. 3; vii. 59. 4. Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 1. 1, speaks of a guild of coppersmiths, and Plut. _Num._ 17, refers to the same guild and to that of the carpenters, ascribing both to Numa as founder. Cicero, _Rep._ ii. 22. 39; _Orat._ 46. 156, mentions only the century of carpenters. Placing this century with the first class, he either overlooks that of the smiths or wishes to reckon it with the second class (cf. Huschke, _Verf. des Serv._ 153). As he reckons the total number of centuries at one hundred and ninety-three, he has allowed for both.

[1218] Plut. _Num._ 17; also n. above.

[1219] I. 43. 3.

[1220] _Rep._ ii. 22. 39; cf. n. 2 above.

[1221] IV. 17. 3.

[1222] Cf. Smith, _Röm. Timokr._ 91 f. with citations.

[1223] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40; Livy i. 43. 7; Dion. Hal. iv. 17. 3 f.; vii. 59. 5; cf. Varro, _L. L._ v. 91; Cato, in Gell. xx. 2.

[1224] Plut. _Num._ 17, speaks of only one guild of musicians, the pipers. But the cornicines formed a guild in imperial times; _CIL._ vi. 524. The two centuries were united in the collegium aeneatorum; Fest. ep. 20; _CIL._ vi. 10220 f.; Domazewski, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1954.

[1225] P. 68, 80.

[1226] _Röm. Trib._ 137, accepted by Genz, _Centurienverf._ 3, 8; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 254, 317, 520, n. 1. Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 172, assumes ten and includes them in the fifth class. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 471, supposes the accensi to have included the entire fifth class, which in his opinion was not instituted till the beginning of the republic.

[1227] I. 43. 7.

[1228] _Rep._ ii. 22. 40: “Quin etiam accensis velatis, liticinibus, cornicinibus, proletariis.”

[1229] _CIL._ vi. 9219: “Praef(ectus) c(enturiae) a(ccensorum) v(elatorum)”; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. p. xi, n. 1; Ulpian, _Vat. Frag._ 138, mentions the privileges of this century. A decuria of the accensi velati is referred to by _CIL._ vi. 1973; cf. Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 136.

[1230] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 282; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 135 ff.; Domazewski, ibid. iii. 1953 f.

[1231] P. 68.

[1232] _XII Tables_, in Gell. xvi. 10. 5: “Adsiduo vindex adsiduus esto. Proletario iam civi, cui, quis volet, vindex esto.”

[1233] Livy i. 43. 8; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; Ennius, in Gell. xvi. 10. 1.

[1234] IV. 18. 2.

[1235] That there was a proletarian century, besides the accensi velati, in the comitia centuriata is proved by Livy i. 43. 8; Dion. Hal. iv. 18. 2; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 40. Mommsen’s attempt (_Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 237 f., 285 f.) to rule this century out of existence has failed, notwithstanding the approval of some recent writers, as Domazewski, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1953. Cf. Kübler, ibid. iii. 1521 ff.

[1236] IV. 17. 2; vii. 59. 3.

[1237] Cf. Livy i. 43. 10.

[1238] Cf. p. 66, 77, n. 2.

[1239] P. 77 and n. 2.

[1240] 177. 21: “‘Niquis scivit’ centuria est, quae dicitur a Ser. Tullio rege constituta, in qua liceret ei suffragium ferre, qui non tulisset in sua, nequis civis suffragii iure privaretur.... Sed in ea centuria, neque censetur quisquam, neque centurio praeficitur, neque centurialis potest esse, quia nemo certus est eius centuriae. Est autem ni quis scivit nisi quis scivit.”

[1241] As does Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 285 f.

[1242] This view accords best with the words of Livy i. 43. 7: “In his accensi, cornicines tubicinesque, in tres centurias distributi” (they were reckoned among the thirty).

[1243] Accepted by Huschke, _Verf. d. Serv._ 152, but rejected by Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 283, n. 1.

[1244] P. 7, 62, 74 ff. 93, 96.

[1245] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Equitum centuriae cum sex suffragiis”; Fest. 334. 29. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82, is uncertain.

[1246] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39 (n. above); Livy i. 36. 7; 43. 9.

[1247] P. 62, 93.

[1248] P. 93.

[1249] L. Scipio Asiagenus retained his public horse till, six years after his consulship, he was deprived of it by Cato the censor; Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 18; Livy xxxix. 44. 1. Both censors of the year 204 had public horses; Livy xxix. 37. 8. The senators were equites and voted in the equestrian centuries as late as 129; Cic. _Rep._ iv. 2. 2; cf. Gerathewohl, _Reiter und Rittercent._ 77 and n. 2 f.

[1250] P. 94.

[1251] P. 96.

[1252] Livy viii. 8, while describing the manipular arrangement under the year 340, assigns the beginning of it to the time of Camillus, considering it due to the introduction of pay; Plut. _Cam._ 40 (for change of armor at time of Camillus); cf. Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 278; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 332 f.; Delbrück, _Gesch. d. Kriegsk._ i. 235.

[1253] Dion. Hal. vii. 59. 3 (p. 203, n. 2). There seems to be no reason for doubting this statement; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 1100.

[1254] P. 157 b.

[1255] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 563. His citations, however (Fest. 177. 27; Cic. _Orat._ ii. 64. 260), do not prove the point; Herzog, ibid.

[1256] Dion. Hal. iv. 21. 1; x. 17.

[1257] Livy i. 43. 11; Dion. Hal. iv. 20. 3-5; vii. 59. 3-8; x. 17. 3. On the prerogative equestrian centuries, see Livy i. 43. 8; v. 18. 1: “Praerogativa ... creant” (corrupt text); x. 22. 1: “Praerogativae et primo vocatae centuriae ... dicebant”; Fest. 249. 7.

[1258] Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49; _Q. Fr._ ii. 14. 4; _Div._ i. 45. 103; Fest. ibid.

[1259] Ch. iv.

[1260] P. 64, 86 f.

[1261] P. 86 f.

[1262] V. 18. 1 f.; “P. Licinium Calvum praerogativa tribunum militum non petentem creant ... omnesque deinceps ex collegio eiusdem anni refici apparebat.... Qui priusquam renuntiarentur iure vocatis tribubus.... Calvus ita verba fecit.” We might amend this evidently corrupt passage either by changing praerogativa to the plural, as do Müller (2d ed. 1888) and Weissenborn (8th ed. 1885), thus making it refer to the equestrian centuriae. At the same time we might read iis revocatis (scil. praerogativis). The passage would then apply to the Servian arrangement. Or we could bring it to the support of the reformed order by reading creat (cf. Madvig). The preferable interpretation of the qui priusquam ... tribubus clause seems to be “Before they could be declared elected on the official reports from the tribes,” the official reports being counted tribe by tribe, as will hereafter appear; p. 225. See also on this passage, Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 10 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 496. Here, as often elsewhere, Ullrich, _Centuriatcom._ 14, is wrong. But it is impossible to prove or to disprove anything by the emendation of such a passage.

[1263] VI. 21. 5: “Omnes tribus bellum iusserunt.” As the tribal assembly did not declare war, this passage must refer to the reformed comitia (Lange, ibid.; Plüss, ibid. 13), unless omnes tribus is carelessly used to designate the unanimous vote of the populus Romanus. The assembly tributim mentioned by Livy vii. 16. 7 for the year 357 was tribal, not centuriate as Ullrich, ibid. 15, supposes.

[1264] In fact some scholars have assigned the reform to the decemvirs, 451; cf. Peter, _Epoch. d. Verfassungsgesch._ 75; Soltau, _Altröm. Volksversamml._ 361 ff.

[1265] P. 77 f., 214.

[1266] X. 22. 1: “Eumque et praerogativae et primo vocatae omnes centuriae.” Praerogativae refers to the equestrian centuriae and hence to the Servian organization. It is hazardous, however, to make so much depend on a single letter; should final e be dropped from this adjective, the sentence would still read correctly.

[1267] P. 57 f., 66 f., 86 f.

[1268] I. 43. 12.

[1269] Cf. xxiv. 7. 12 (215 B.C.): “Eo die cum sors praerogativae Aniensi iuniorum exisset”; 9. 3: “Praerogativae suffragium iniit ... eosdem consules ceterae centuriae ... dixerunt”; xxvi. 22. 2 f.; xxvii. 6. 3.

[1270] Livy xl. 51 is evidence that the censors had power to make changes as extensive as these.

[1271] Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 108, preferred Fabius, and his view has been accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 499; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 326; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 75; Willems, _Droit public Röm._ 93; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 384; and others. But in his _Staatsr._ iii. 254, n. 4, 270, n. 3, following Göttling, _Gesch. d. röm. Staatsverf._ 383, he changes his preference to Flaminius on the ground that the conflict between the patricians and the plebeians continued to the war with Hannibal (Sall. _Hist._ i. 9. 11), ending, as he supposes, in the opening of the six patrician centuries of knights to the plebeians—a change which he connects with the reform under discussion. His reasoning as to the date is not cogent, and is outweighed by the consideration given in the text.

[1272] II. 21.

[1273] XXI. 63; cf. Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956.

[1274] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 499; Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 10; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 73 ff.

[1275] Guiraud, in _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 7.

[1276] I. 43. 12: “Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem, qui nunc est post expletas quinque et triginta tribus duplicato earum numero centuriis iuniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Serv. Tullio summam non convenire” (Nor need we be surprised that the arrangement as it now exists after the tribes have been increased to thirty-five, their number being doubled in the centuries of juniors and seniors, does not agree with the total number instituted by Servius Tullius).

[1277] IV. 21. 3: Οὑτος ὁ κόσμος τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἐπὶ πολλὰς διέμεινε γενεὰς φυλαττόμενος ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίον· ἐν δὲ τοῖς καθ’ ἡμᾶς κεκίνηται χρόνοις καὶ μεταβέβληκεν εἰς τὸ δημοτικώτερον, ἀνάγκαις τισὶ βιασθεὶς ἰσχυραῖς, οὐ τῶν λόχον καταλυθέντων, ἀλλὰ τῆς κρίσεως (or κλήσεως) αὐτῶν οὐκέτι τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀκρίβειαν φυλαττούσης, ὡς ἐγνων ταῖς ἀρχαιρεσίαις αὐτῶν πολλάκις παρών. (After this arrangement had continued many generations, carefully preserved by the Romans, it has assumed in our time a more democratic character, driven into this new course by certain powerful forces. The centuries were not abolished, but the decision of their votes has lost its former carefulness—or we may read, the calling of the centuries no longer retains its precise order. This fact, he tells us, he himself often noticed when present at elections.)

If κρίσεως, supported by most MSS., is retained, it should refer to the equalization of power among the classes; κλῆσεως would probably mean that the prerogative century was now drawn by lot.

[1278] P. 77 f.

[1279] _Röm. Gesch._ iii. 374 ff.

It is not improbable that the first step was the reduction of the first class to seventy centuries, the ten centuries deducted being at the same time added to the lower classes. This view will explain Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39, which otherwise must be considered a mistake; p. 67, 205, n. 5.

[1280] P. 213, n. 5.

[1281] Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 12, concludes that the change was gradual. The line of development suggested by Plüss, _Centurienverf._, however, is ill supported by the evidence. Guiraud, _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 1 ff., also accepts the view of a gradual reform but minimizes its importance.

[1282] The citations below refer to a plurality of classes for the period following the reform, without mentioning a definite number; Sall. _Iug._ 86; Cic. _Rep._ iv. 2. 2; _Flacc._ 7. 15; _Red. ad Quir._ 7. 17; Symmachus, _Pro Patre_, 7 (Seeck); Auson. _Grat. Act._ iii. 13; ix. 44 (Peiper); p. 287, 293 (Bip.). In his speech for the Voconian law, 169, the elder Cato, in Gell. vi. 13. 3, referred to the distinction between the classici and those who were infra classem, from which we may conclude that the distinction existed in his time. The agrarian law of 111 (_CIL._ i. 200. 37) mentions the first class; also Livy xliii. 16. 14. The first and second are spoken of by Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82. Ullrich’s view (_Centuriatcom._), resting on these passages, is that there were but two classes, one of seniors another of juniors. Besides involving many impossibilities, it is refuted by the frequent references to the continuance of the census as an element in the system (see note below) and by the occasional mention of the five classes. The latter number for the time of C. Gracchus is given by Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._ 2. 8. This work, though late, is generally considered good authority; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 237 f. Five are mentioned also by Gell. vi (vii). 13. 1; Serv. _in Aen._ vii. 716; Arnob. _Adv. Nat._ ii. 67, with no definite reference to a particular period. Cicero’s allusion (_Acad. Pr._ ii. 23. 73) to the fifth class implies at least that the five classes were then fresh in the memory. The mention of an amplissimus census for the time of Cicero by Ascon. _in Pis._ 16, proves the existence of more than two classes at the time. These citations, together with the fact that no other definite number but five is ever spoken of by the ancient writers, must lead to the conclusion that there was no change.

[1283] To the time of Marius the soldiers were still drawn from the census classes; Polyb. vi. 19. 2; Sall. _Iug._ 86. The first class was distinguished from the rest by its armor, Polyb. vi. 23. 15. That the political classes likewise rested on the census is proved by Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 7; 19. 44; Gell. vi (vii). 13; xv. 27. 5; Ascon. _in Pis._ 16. The agrarian law of 111 (_CIL._ i. 200. 37) implies a property qualification of the class mentioned (note above). These citations dispose of the hypothesis of Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 36 ff., 80, which represents the classes of this period as consisting of groups of tribes resting partly on the census but mainly on differences of rank.

[1284] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82; Livy xliii. 16. 14; Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._ 2. 8; Val. Max. vi. 5. 3; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 57. 3.

[1285] Livy i. 43. 12; xxiv. 7. 12; xxvi. 22. 2 f.; xxvii. 6. 3 (p. 213, n. 5 above); Cic. _Rep._ iv. 2. 2; _Verr._ II. v. 15. 38: “Qui (praeco) te totiens seniorum iuniorumque centuriis illo honore (praetorship) adfici pronuntiavit”; _Har. Resp._ 6. 11; _Leg._ iii. 3. 7; Horace, _Ars Poet._ 341: “Centuriae seniorum agitant expertia frugis.”

[1286] Varro, _L. L._ vii. 42; Cic. _Flacc._ 7. 15; _Sull._ 32. 91; _Tog. Cand._ in Ascon. 85; _Red. in Sen._ 11. 27; _Imp. Pomp._ 1. 2; _Brut._ 67. 237; _Orat._ ii. 64. 260; Ascon. 16, 95; Pseud. Sall. _Rep. Ord._ 2. 8; Livy i. 43. 12 f.; xxvi. 18. 9; 22. 4, 8, 10, 13; xxvii. 21. 4; xxviii. 38. 6; xxix. 22. 9; xxxi. 6. 3; 7. 1; xxxvii. 47. 7; xliii. 16. 14, 16; Dion. Hal. iv. 21. 3; et passim.

[1287] I. 43. 12 f. “Nec mirari oportet hunc ordinem, qui nunc est post expletas quinque et triginta tribus duplicate earum numero centuriis iuniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Servio Tullio summam non convenire. Quadrifariam enim urbe divisa ... partes eas tribus appellavit ... neque eae tribus ad centuriarum distributionem numerumque quicquam pertinuere.”

[1288] Livy xxiv. 7. 12.

[1289] Livy xxvi. 22. 2 f.

[1290] Livy xxvii. 6. 3.

[1291] Voting or the announcement of the votes according to tribes is indicated by Polyb. vi. 14. 7: Τοῖς γὰρ θανάτου κρινομένοις, ἐπὰν καταδικάζωνται δίδωσι τὴν ἐξουσίαν τὸ παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἔθος ἀπαλλάττεσθαι φανερῶς, κἂν ἔτι μία λείπηται φυλὴ τῶν ἐπικυρουσῶν τὴν κρίσιν ἀψηφόρητος, ἑκούσιον ἑαυτοῦ κατγνόντα φυγαδείαν. (To those who are on trial for life, while the vote of condemnation is being taken, even if a single tribe of those whose suffrages are needed to ratify the sentence has not voted, the Roman custom grants permission to depart openly, condemning themselves to voluntary exile.) This procedure must have been in the comitia centuriata, and hence the votes of the centuries must have been taken or announced by tribes; cf. Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 220; Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 14. See also Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 2. 4: “Meis comitiis non tabellam vindicem tacitae libertatis, sed vocem [unam] prae vobis indicem vestrarum erga me voluntatum ac studiorum tulistis. Itaque me non extrema tribus (not diribitio) suffragiorum, sed primi illi vestri concursus, neque singulae voces praeconum, sed una vox universi populi Romani consulem declaravit.” The MSS. have tribus and there is nothing against it, though Müller, following Richter, has adopted diribitio for the Teubner text, 1896. The meaning is “In my election you offered not merely the ballot, the vindication of your silent liberty, but also your unanimous voice as evidence of your good will to me and of your eagerness in my behalf. Hence it was not the last tribal group of votes but your first coming together, not the single announcements of the criers but the unanimous voice of the entire Roman people which declared me consul.” From this passage we may infer (1) that the votes were cast or announced by tribes, (2) that the tribe cast more than one vote, (3) that the result was sometimes known before the last tribe was reached. Cf. further Cic. _Phil._ vi. 5. 12; 6. 16; xi. 8. 18; Livy v. 18. 2; vi. 21. 5; viii. 37. 12; xxix. 37. 13; ep. xlix; Oros. v. 7. 1; Lucan, _Phars._ v. 391 ff.; Plut. _Cat. Min._ 42.

[1292] Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49: “Unius tribus pars” (i.e. the prerogative century); Pseudacr. Schol. Cruq. ad Hor. _Poet._ 341: “Singulae tribus certas habebant centurias seniorum et iuniorum”; Livy i. 43. 12 f. implies that the number of centuries was a multiple of the number of tribes, in other words that the century was an integral part of the tribe; cf. Q. Cic. _Petit._ 5. 17 f.; 8. 32; Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._ 74. The most convincing evidence is that of inscriptions of the imperial period (p. 220) which prove the urban tribes to have comprised each an integral number of centuries. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 274, has therefore failed in his attempt to limit to the first class the division of the tribes into centuries.

[1293] _Röm. Gesch._ iii. 382 f., followed by Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 23 ff. Niebuhr places the change in 304, when there were but thirty-one tribes, which would give for that date but sixty-two half-tribe centuries.

[1294] P. 216.

[1295] Niebuhr, ibid. His authorities for the two classes are Livy xliii. 16. 14: “Cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis”; Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82: “Prima classis vocatur, renuntiatur; deinde, ita ut adsolet, suffragia; tum secunda classis vocatur; quae omnia sunt citius facta, quam dixi. Confecto negotio bonus augur ... alio die inquit”; cf. p. 113. In the Livian citation, however, the mention of only the first class affords no hint as to the number of classes to follow; and the keen analysis of the Ciceronian passage made by Huschke, _Verf. des Serv._ 615 and n. 8, proves confecto negotio to signify not necessarily that the voting had been finished, but rather that the comitia had advanced so far as to preclude the obnuntiatio. It should be served before the assembly convened, not after the meeting began (“Non comitiis habitis, sed priusquam habeantur”; § 81). Confecto negotio, equivalent to comitiis habitis, is the negative of priusquam habeantur. This interpretation deprives the theory of two classes, held by Niebuhr, Ullrich, and others, of its only support.

[1296] P. 216, n. 1.

[1297] P. 216, n. 2.

[1298] _Verf. des Serv._ 623.

[1299] Ibid. 617 ff.

[1300] Ibid. 634. Similar is the view of Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 36 ff., 80, that for the period 179-86 the classes were groups of tribes based partly on the census and partly on social rank.

[1301] P. 216, n. 3. The long-known hypothesis here mentioned was sufficiently refuted by Huschke, ibid. 619 ff., but has been more recently revived by Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 117 ff., who, however, so develops it as to make the five classes voting divisions of the century. This notion is controverted by Genz, _Centuriatcom. nach der Ref._, and defended without success by Gerathewohl, _Reit. und Rittercent._ 90 f.

[1302] This result is in fact suggested by the passage in Livy 1. 43. 12 f. (p. 217, n. 1); it is not to be wondered at that an increase in the tribes should bring about an increase in the centuries—a diminution in the centuries could not be spoken of in the same way.

[1303] P. 217.

[1304] P. 218, n. 1.

[1305] P. 216, n. 3.

[1306] ¶ above.

[1307] P. 216, n. 4.

[1308] A monk who lived 1494-1567. For his view see Drackenborch’s commentary on Livy i. 43. To the 350 centuries of juniors and seniors he added 35 or 70 centuries of knights and a century of proletarians, making a total of 386 or 421 respectively. No scholar now holds to more than 18 equestrian centuries. With this and a few other variations as to supernumerary centuries his view has been adopted by Savigny, _Vermischte Schriften_, i. 1 ff.; Mommsen, _Röm. Trib._; Genz, _Centuriatcom. nach der Ref._; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 15; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 324; Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 181-244; Schiller, _Röm. Alt._ 633; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1956 ff.; Greenidge, _Rom. Publ. Life_, 253; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 89 ff.; Göttling, _Gesch. der röm. Staatsverf._ 383; Peter, _Epoch. d. Verfassungsgesch._ 75; Morlot, _Comices élect._ 85 ff.

[1309] _CIL._ vi. 196-8, 1104, 10097, 10214-8; _Inscr. bull. della comm. di Roma_, 1885. 161; _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1887. 191.

[1310] There must have been in the reformed comitia two curators from each class for every tribe. This connection with the classes was wrongly transferred to the tribunes of the plebs by Livy iii. 30. 7; Ascon. 76.

[1311] III. 274 ff.; cf. his _History of Rome_ (Eng. ed. 1900), iii. 52 f.

[1312] II. 22.

[1313] _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 274 with notes; cf. Guiraud, in _Rev. hist._ xvii (1881). 16.

[1314] _Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Quae discriptio, si esset ignota vobis, explicaretur a me; nunc rationem videtis esse talem.”

[1315] Seventy in Cicero’s description, eighty according to the annalists; p. 67 f., 205, n. 5.

[1316] It is unnecessary here to enter into the controversy regarding the text. Evidently the second hand has drawn from a reliable source (Klebs, ibid. 200-210); yet in view of its uncertainty the passage should not be made the foundation of a theory so thoroughly objectionable as Mommsen’s.

[1317] To Soltau, _Jahrb. f. cl. Philol._ xli (1895). 411, n. 3, this explanation seems “too cheap.”

[1318] In the clause “Ut equitum centuriae cum sex suffrages et prima classis addita centuria, quae ... data, LXXXVIIII centuriae habeat,” centuriae applies to the centuries proper, but in the clause immediately following, “Quibus ex centum quattuor centuriis (tot enim reliquae sunt) octo solae accesserunt,” the word on Mommsen’s supposition must denote not the centuries themselves but the voting groups of centuries. Though Mommsen usually avoids the application of the term century to the assumed voting units, he allows himself to do so on p. 274 and in n. 2. Granting that in this instance he has used the word correctly, we should have the first class composed of simple centuries and the others of centuries which were themselves composed of centuries—an evidently absurd result of his assumption.

[1319] Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 197. Not less complicated is Le Tellier’s supposition (_Organ. cent._ 88, n. 1) that the four classes may have differed in number of votes (for example, 30, 28, 28, 14), and that the several voting groups of a class comprised the same number of centuries, in some cases with a fraction of a century, e.g., 2, 2½, 2½, 5 centuries for the four classes respectively. This combination would be as undemocratic and as impracticable as any of those proposed by Klebs.

[1320] Klebs, ibid. 187.

[1321] P. 214, n. 6.

[1322] I. 43. 12.

[1323] P. 220.

[1324] P. 217.

[1325] P. 216, n. 3. Soltau’s modifications, _Jahrb. f. Philol._ xli (1895). 410-4, of Mommsen’s hypothesis are no improvement on the original.

[1326] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 510 ff.

[1327] In this way the prerogative century, after serving as an omen (Cic. _Mur._ 18. 39), would be joined with four others of the same half-tribe.

[1328] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 526.

[1329] Livy xliii. 16. 14 (171 B.C.): “Cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis, extemplo principes civitatis ... vestem mutarunt.” This proves that the votes were made public early in the course of the voting, though not necessarily before the second class began; cf. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82. Lange too hastily rejects the evidence of these two passages. The vote of each century was announced separately; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 42: “Quod ... comitiis cum recitatur a praecone dicitur olla centuria,” which would not be true, if, as Lange supposes, the announcement was by tribal groups of five.

[1330] Cf. Gerathewohl, _Reit. und Rittercent._ 90, n. 2.

[1331] As authority for the six votes of the eighteen equestrian centuries Lange cites Cic. _Rep._ ii. 22. 39: “Equitum centuriae cum sex suffrages”; _Phil._ ii. 33. 82; “Prima classis vocatur, renuntiatur; deinde, ita ut adsolet, suffragia.” So far as these two passages are concerned, Lange could be right; but his view is contradicted by Festus 334. 29 (“Sex suffragia appellantur in equitum centuriis, quae sunt adiecta—MS. adfectae—ei numero centuriarum, quas Priscus Tarquinius rex constituit”), which distinguishes the sex suffragia from the remaining centuries of cavalry, and by Livy xliii. 16. 14, which gives each century a vote.

[1332] All the tribes voted; Livy vi. 21. 5 (a historical anticipation but useful for showing later custom); viii. 37. 12; xxix. 37. 13 f.; ep. xlix; Val. Max. ix. 10. 1. All the centuries voted; Livy xxiv. 9. 3; xxvi. 18. 9; 22. 13; xxvii. 21. 4; xxviii. 38. 6; xxix. 22. 5; xxxi. 6. 3; Cic. _Sull._ 32. 91; Pis. 1. 2; _Imp. Pomp._ 1. 2.

[1333] In _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 230 ff.

[1334] Lucan v. 392 ff.:

“Fingit solemnia campi
Et non admissae diribet suffragia plebis
Decantatque tribus et vana versat in urna.”

These verses picture a sham election held by Caesar in 49; he pretends to hold comitia, counts the votes of the plebs, who are not really permitted to be present, calls off the tribes, and draws lots for them from the empty urn.

[1335] _Orat._ 46. 156: “Centuriam, ut Censoriae Tabulae loquuntur, fabrum audeo dicere, non fabrorum.” Cicero seems to refer to recent Tabulae Censoriae; though he might quote ancient poets, he was not the man to ransack old documents even to learn the ancient usage of words.

[1336] Plut. _Num._ 17; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiv. 1. 1.

[1337] Ascon. 75: “Postea collegia S. C. et pluribus legibus sunt sublata praeter pauca atque certa, quae utilitas civitatis desiderasset, qualia sunt (MS. quasi, ut) fabrorum fictorumque.”

[1338] P. 207, n. 1.

[1339] See citations in Olcott, _Thes. ling. lat. ep._ i. 51.

[1340] P. 208 f.

[1341] That these supernumerary centuries were abolished at the time of the reform is argued by Huschke, _Verf. des. Serv._ 622 f.; Plüss, _Centurienverf._ 28, 34; Genz, _Centuriatcom. nach der Ref._ 12; Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii. 218. That they continued in the new system is the belief of Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 281 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 512; Le Tellier, _Organ. cent._ 90.

[1342] P. 220 f.

[1343] The supposed Sullan reaction to the earlier form of the centuriate comitia is not well founded; p. 406.

[1344] P. 212.

[1345] P. 217. This is a necessary inference from the term used to describe a prerogative centuria, e.g., Aniensis iuniorum. Had the drawing been from a group of classes, the number of the class would have been added, e.g., Aniensis iuniorum secundae classis.

[1346] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82.

[1347] Livy xliii. 16. 14: “Cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis” (171 B.C.). This passage proves that the announcement distinguished the votes of the twelve equestrian centuries both from the sex suffragia and from those of the class. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 33. 82: “Sortitio praerogativae; quiescit. Renuntiatur; tacet. Prima classis vocatur, renuntiatur; deinde, ita ut adsolet, suffragia; tum secunda classis vocatur.” Here Cicero informs us that the (sex) suffragia were announced after the report of the first class had been given. The circumstance that he does not mention the separate calling of the suffragia indicates that their separation from the first class was limited to the announcement. There is no reason why the Romans should have added to the length of the centuriate sessions by assigning a part of the day to the exclusive use of these six centuries. Livy, i. 43. 8 f., has their inferiority in mind. It is unnecessary to amend the Ciceronian passage. The attempt of Holzapfel, in _Beiträge zur alten Gesch._ i (1902). 254 f., is unsuccessful. Klebs, in _Zeitschr. d. Savignyst._ xii (1892). 237 ff., fruitlessly opposes the division of the equites into these two groups.

[1348] P. 74 f., 95 f., 209 f.

[1349] P. 211, 467, 469.

[1350] P. 201, n. 2.

[1351] The idea that Servius Tullius gave this assembly the right to elect kings (Dion. Hal. v. 12. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 458; ii. 531) is proved wrong by the circumstance that the organization attributed to him was purely military, from which the comitia centuriata slowly developed; p. 203 ff.

[1352] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 531. On the number of praetors, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 202. The election of a centurion to the function of dedicating a temple (Livy ii. 27. 6) in the period before the first secession Lange (ibid. i. 917; ii. 532) with good reason considers a myth. It is doubtful, however, whether he is right in viewing as historical the so-called lex Valeria de candidatis, assigned to the first year of the republic (Plut. _Popl._ 11; Lange, ibid. ii. 532), which ordered the presiding magistrate to accept as candidates all qualified patricians who offered themselves for the consulship—a principle said to have been afterward applied to other patrician offices.

[1353] P. 331.

[1354] Cic. _Brut._ 14. 55; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 409; ii. 115, 532.

[1355] On the centuriate elective function in general, see Lange, ibid. ii. 531-3. Willems, _Sén. Röm._ ii. 69 ff., contends unconvincingly that the Maenian statute should be assigned to 338.

[1356] P. 177.

[1357] P. 181 f.

[1358] P. 177.

[1359] P. 177.

[1360] P. 202 f.; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 599 f.

[1361] Dion. Hal. viii. 15. 3.

[1362] VIII. 91. 4.

[1363] IX. 69. 2.

[1364] Livy iv. 30. 15.

[1365] Livy iv. 58. 8, 14; 60. 9 (406); vi. 21. 3 (383) 22. 4 (382); vii. 6. 7 (362); 12. 6 (358); 19. 10 (353); 32. 1 (343).

[1366] Livy vii. 20. 3.

[1367] Livy viii. 22. 8 (327); 25. 2 with Dion. Hal. xv. 14 (326); Livy viii. 29. 6 (325); 43. 2 (306); 45. 8 (304); x. 12. 3 (298); 45. 6 f. (293).

[1368] Polyb. i. 11.

[1369] Dio Cass. Frag. 49. 5; Zon. viii. 19. 4.

[1370] Livy xxi. 17. 4.

[1371] Livy xxxi. 5-8; especially 6. 1, 3; 7. 1.

[1372] Livy xxxvi. 1. 4 f.; 2. 2 f.

[1373] Livy xlii. 30. 10 f.; 36. 2.

[1374] Oros. v. 15. 1: “Consensu populi.”

[1375] Livy xxxi. 6. 3; 7. 1; xlii. 30. 10; cf. 36. 1.

[1376] Livy xlv. 21; Polyb. xxx. 4. 4 ff.

[1377] Livy xxxviii. 42. 11; 45. 4 ff.

[1378] Livy xxxviii. 50. 3.

[1379] Livy xli. 6; 7. 8; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 3.

[1380] Appian, _Iber._ 51, 55. The condemnation of M. Aemilius Lepidus, proconsul in 136, to a fine by a judgment of the people seems to have been more for the failure of his war upon the same state than for beginning it without authorization; Appian, _Iber._ 80-82; Livy, ep. lvi; Oros. v. 5. 14.

[1381] Livy iv. 58. 14.

[1382] This is the Macedonian war beginning in 200; p. 231; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 602.

[1383] P. 176; Gell. xvi. 4. 1; Livy xxxvi. 2. 2.

[1384] Dio Cass. xxxviii. 41. 1 ff.; Cic. _Pis._ 21. 48 f.

[1385] E.g., the act which recalled Camillus from exile; Livy v. 46. 10; xxii. 14. 11; Cic. _Dom._ 32. 86.

[1386] P. 181 f.

[1387] P. 201, 240.

[1388] Livy iii. 55. 4; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 31. 54.

[1389] Livy x. 9. 5; cf. p. 242 below.

[1390] P. 250 f. 349.

[1391] P. 270 f.

[1392] P. 272.

[1393] P. 269.

[1394] Fest. 237. 17; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 622; ii. 603. The contents are unknown.

[1395] Livy iii. 34. 6. Doubt has been thrown on the early date of the Twelve Tables by Pais, _Storia di Roma_, I. i. 558-606, and on their official character as well by Lambert, _La question de l’authenticité des XII Tables et les annales maximi_; _L’histoire traditionelle des XII Tables et les critères d’inauthenticité des traditions en usage dans l’école de Mommsen_ in _Mélanges Ch. Appleton_, 503-626; _La fonction du droit civil comparé_, 390-718; _Le problème de l’origine des XII Tables_, in _Revue générale de droit_, 1902. 385 ff., 481 ff. Their views are controverted by Greenidge, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx (1905). 1-21. For other literature on the subject, see _Jahresb. ü. Altwiss._ cxxxiv (1907). 17 ff.

According to Diod. xii. 26. 1, the last two tables were drawn up by Valerius and Horatius, consuls in 449.

[1396] Livy ii. 18. 5; Dion. Hal. v. 70. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 585; ii. 603. Dion. Hal. vi. 90. 2, assumes the enactment of a statute for the creation of the plebeian tribunate, 494.

[1397] Livy iii. 33. 4; Dion. Hal. x. 55. 3 (cf. p. 273).

[1398] Livy vii. 17. 12: “In Duodecim Tabulis legem esse, ut, quodcumque postremum populus iussisset, id ius ratumque esset; iussum populi et suffragia esse.” After the decemviral legislation an attempt was made to extend the principle to elections, as in the case here mentioned by Livy.

[1399] P. 274 ff.

[1400] P. 287.

[1401] Livy vii. 5. 9; Sall. _Iug._ 63; Cic. _Cluent._ 54. 148; _Leg._ iii. 3. 6; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 25, 604. It is only an inference that this important constitutional change was brought about by the centuries rather than by the tribes.

[1402] P. 299 f.

[1403] P. 233, 241 f.

[1404] P. 313.

[1405] Livy iv. 6. 8. A law is not mentioned but must be inferred; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 650; ii. 603.

[1406] Livy ix. 34. 7: “Illi antiquae (legi), qua primum censores creati sunt”; cf. Lange, ibid. i. 664. In 433 a law, doubtless centuriate, of the dictator Mam. Aemilius cut down the term of the censors to eighteen months; Livy iv. 24. 5 f.; ix. 33. 6; ch. 34.

[1407] Livy iv. 43; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; cf. Lange, ibid. i. 666.

[1408] Livy vi. 42. 11.

[1409] Ibid. § 13. The laws last named, relating to the quaestorship, praetorship, and aedileship, are not mentioned by the ancient authorities but are necessarily assumed; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 476, 479.

[1410] Livy vii. 41. 4.

[1411] Appian, _Samn._ i. 3; cf. p. 298.

[1412] P. 238.

[1413] Livy viii. 12. 15; cf. i. 17. 9. The auctoritas applied to comitia curiata as well as centuriata; Cic. _Dom._ 14. 38; Livy vi. 41. 10. On the comitia tributa, see p. 314.