Chapter XIX: A Summary of Comitial History (8)

[1699] Livy iv. 58. 1 f.; v. 28. 5 (394); 50. 3 (390); vi. 10. 9 (382); vii. 19. 4 (353); 22. 5 (351); 38. 1 (343); viii. 2. 1 (341); 19. 1-3 (330); x. 11. 13 with 12. 1, 13 (298); 45. 4 (293); p. 302.

[1700] Livy viii. 11 f., 14 (340, 338). It punished for revolt; ibid. viii. 20. 7 (329).

[1701] Livy vi. 26. 8; viii. 11. 16; p. 304.

[1702] P. 273.

[1703] Livy v. 19. 6 (396); cf. iv. 27. 1 (431).

[1704] Livy v. 50 (390).

[1705] Cf. Livy vii. 28. 5 f. (345).

[1706] Livy iv. 59. 11 (406); p. 367. The statement of Diodorus, xiv. 16. 5, that the Romans voted to pay for military service does not necessarily point to an act of the assembly; and the opposition of the tribunes to the measure indicates that at least in Livy’s opinion it was an act of the senate alone.

[1707] Cf. the tributum for the new wall; Livy vi. 32. 1.

[1708] Cf. Livy v. 30. 8 (393); p. 295, 310.

[1709] Livy iv. 11; 47. 6; v. 24. 4; 30. 8; ix. 28. 8 (313); Vell. i. 14. 1; p. 310.

[1710] Livy vi. 4. 5 (389).

[1711] Livy v. 13. 5 (399).

[1712] Livy iv. 30. 9 (428).

[1713] Livy x. 1. 3 (303).

[1714] Livy iv. 46. 10; 56. 8; vi. 11. 10; vii. 6. 12; 21. 9; vii. 3. 4; viii. 17. 3; 29. 9 (325).

[1715] Livy v. 9. 6 (402).

[1716] Livy v. 9; 17. 2 f. (397); 31 f. (392, 391); viii. 3. 4 (341).

[1717] Livy viii. 16. 11; 20. 7; 39. 15 (322).

[1718] P. 277, n. 4.

[1719] Livy vi. 19. 3 (384).

[1720] Livy iii. 54. 5, 9, 11 (449).

[1721] Livy iii. 65. 1 (448). That the coöptation of tribunes was once legal is proved by a formula quoted by Livy iii. 61. 10. That the coöpted tribunes were patrician is now generally disbelieved (cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 195) because it does not accord with the conventional view of a constitution kept in perfect working order from the beginning to the end of Roman history. The irregular is possible and is less likely to be invented.

[1722] Livy iii. 65. 1-4; Diod. xii. 25. 3. Diodorus, who mentions the penalty, connects the law closely in time, as does Livy, with the reëstablishment of the constitution.

[1723] V. 10. 11; 11. 1-3.

[1724] Livy iv. 16. 3 (439).

[1725] Continuous fasti tribunicii, however, did not exist.

[1726] Thereafter when a vacancy occurred during the year, it was filled by election; Appian, _B. C._ i. 13. 54; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 13.

[1727] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; Cic. _Fam._ vii. 30. 1; cf. Gell. xiii. 15. 4.

[1728] Livy ix. 46. 1 f.; xxv. 2. 7; Varro, _R. R._ iii. 17. 1; Cic. _Planc._ 20. 49; Piso, in Gell. vii. 9. 2.

[1729] Sall. _Iug._ 63.

[1730] Gell. xiii. 15. 4.

[1731] P. 280.

[1732] P. 241, 268.

[1733] Cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 19. 45; Livy xxvi. 3. This subject is admirably presented by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 578-80.

[1734] Cic. _Inv._ i. 38. 68.

[1735] Cf. Livy v. 11. 4; 12. 2; 29. 6 f.; viii. 33. 17; xxvi. 3. 6.

[1736] Livy xxvi. 3. 6-9; p. 307 f., 322 above.

[1737] P. 234, 269 above; Cic. _Rep._ ii. 35. 60; Livy iv. 30. 3. The equivalents are mentioned in connection with the lex Aternia Tarpeia; Gell. xi. 1. 2; Fest. 202. 11; 237. 13; ep. 144; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 622; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 172, 639. The law is no proof of the existence of coins at that time.

[1738] Cato, _Orig._ v. 5; Fest. 246 (lex Silia); Cic. _Rep._ 35. 60; Livy iv. 30. 3; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 409; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 580.

[1739] Livy viii. 37. 8 ff. A tribune of the plebs brought before the tribes certain Tusculans, accused of having incited neighboring states against Rome, 323. They were acquitted; p. 310.

[1740] Livy iv. 11. 3-7. This is one of the few prosecutions of inferior officials for maladministration; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 2. The event is too early to be certain.

[1741] Livy iv. 40. 4; 41. 10 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 581.

[1742] Livy v. 11. 4 ff.; 12. 1.

[1743] P. 244 f.

[1744] Livy vi. 1. 6.

[1745] Livy vii. 3-5.

[1746] _Off._ ii. 31. 112.

[1747] Livy x. 37. 7; cf. xxix. 19. 6 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 3.

[1748] Livy x. 46. 16.

[1749] Livy, ep. xi; cf. p. 306 below.

[1750] Livy, ep. xi; Dion. Hal. xvii. 4 f.; Dio Cass. Frag. 36. 32. Dionysius states the fine at 50,000 denarii.

[1751] Livy v. 29. 6 f. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 823; ii. 581, looks with suspicion on this case because it is the only one of the kind in the period. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 1, considers it an anticipation of the condemnation of the tribunes in 84 for having taken the side of Sulla.

[1752] Livy iv. 21. 3 f.

[1753] Livy vi. 38. 9; Plut. _Cam._ 39.

[1754] P. 247, 248, n. 1.

[1755] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 282, 475. In time the aediles themselves received viatores through a lex Papiria of unknown date; _CIL._ vi. 1933.

[1756] Dion. Hal. vii. 35. 4; Plut. _Cor._ 18. For this reason tribunician sentences continued to the end to be executed by a tribune or an aedile; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 146.

[1757] Dion. Hal. vi. 90. 2; cf. 95. 4; Zon. vii. 15. 10.

[1758] Livy iii. 31. 4-6; Dion. Hal. x. 48; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 29. 201.

[1759] P. 264, 272. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 475, n. 3, however, who looks upon it as a legally credible tradition, remarks that the competence of the aediles, at that time coextensive with that of the tribunes, must afterward have been limited by the Twelve Tables.

[1760] As in 204, when an aedile was sent to arrest Scipio, should circumstances favor his apprehension: Livy xxix. 20. 11; xxxviii. 52. 7. More frequently they executed the sentence; p. 290, n. 5.

[1761] Livy vii. 16. 9; Dion. Hal. xiv. 12 (22); Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 3. 17; Plut. _Cam._ 39; Val. Max. viii. 6. 3.

[1762] Livy x. 13. 14; cf. Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 341.

[1763] Livy x. 23. 13. We are not informed whether these cases came before the assembly.

[1764] Livy x. 47. 4.

[1765] Livy vii. 28. 9. The rank of the prosecutor cannot be more definitely stated.

[1766] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. (6.) 19. The accuser, Cn. Flavius, was curule aedile; Livy ix. 46. 1.

[1767] Livy x. 23. 11 f. The prosecutors were curule aediles.

[1768] Livy viii. 22. 3; Val. Max. viii. 1. 7. Fourteen of the twenty-nine tribes then existing had declared against him, when the prosecuting aedile by an unintentional expression turned the vote in his favor. This result is to be explained on the supposition that the proceedings were at that point interrupted, and the whole vote taken again; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 486.

[1769] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 584. From the nature of the process we infer that it was aedilician; and as the accuser was a patrician, his aedileship must have been curule.

[1770] P. 233, 269, 287.

[1771] P. 264.

[1772] P. 103.

[1773] P. 102, n. 1.

[1774] P. 273 ff.

[1775] Livy iii. 54. 14.

[1776] Ibid. § 15.

[1777] Livy iii. 55. 14.

[1778] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 279, n. 1, 302.

[1779] We have no means of testing the historical truth of these three alleged plebiscites. The first Icilian was of transient character, and the first Duillian was unnecessary, though not especially suspicious on that account. The second Duillian represents constitutional principles known to have been early established. They are doubted by Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 149 f.

[1780] XII. 25. 2. He does not state that this arrangement was embodied in a law, although otherwise it could not have been effective.

[1781] Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. i. 558 f. The fact that Fabius Pictor (in Gell. v. 4. 3) places the election of the first plebeian consul in the twenty-second year after the Gallic conflagration indicates (1) that Diodorus did not depend upon Fabius, (2) that Livy’s view of this constitutional change is essentially that of Fabius; cf. Pais, ibid. I. ii. 136, n. 2.

[1782] Livy iii. 63. 8-11; Dion. Hal. xi. 50. 1; _Act. Triumph. Capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 44; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 194.

[1783] Livy vii. 17. 9; _Act. Triumph. Capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 44. In this case it is possible that the senate for a time resisted, to yield finally under pressure.

[1784] Cf. Polyb. vi. 15. 8; Dio Cass. Frag. 74. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 623.

[1785] Postumius, consul in 294, when refused a triumph by the senate, refrained from bringing the case before the people because he foresaw tribunician resistance, but declared his intention to triumph by right of his consular imperium; Livy x. 37. 6-12; Dion. Hal. xvii, xviii. 5. 3 (18); _Act. Triumph. Capit._ in _CIL._ i². p. 45. Q. Minucius, consul in 197, when refused by the senate, asserted that he would triumph on the Alban Mount, also by right of his consular imperium and after the example of many illustrious men; Livy xxxiii. 23. 3; _CIL._ i². p. 48; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ i. 214 f.; _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 134.

[1786] P. 273, 284.

[1787] Cf. Livy iv. 20. 1; vi. 42. 8.

[1788] P. 285; cf. p. 301.

[1789] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 37. 63; Livy iv. 1-6; Flor. i. 17. 25. The commonly accepted theory that this decemviral enactment merely confirmed a custom which had existed from the beginning of Rome is supported neither by the sources nor by a comparison of early usage in other states.

[1790] P. 234.

[1791] P. 286.

[1792] Livy iii. 71 f.; Dion. Hal. xi. 52. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 198, n. 4, finds difficulties in the details; but we are not warranted in denying the truth of the event on the ground of irregularity in the proceedings, even while we admit that much is uncertain in the history of the period to which the act is assigned.

[1793] P. 230, 283.

[1794] The institution of new offices and the increase in number within existing magisterial colleges by act of the centuries (cf. p. 234) is merely the application of a long-recognized popular right.

[1795] Livy iv. 12. 8. This alleged act of the tribes is suspicious because of its isolation; for in this period offices were instituted by the centuries. It is either exceptional or an anticipation of later usage; cf. p. 306.

[1796] Livy iv. 25. 13 f. The same author, vii. 15. 12 f., states that the first lex de ambitu was enacted in 358; p. 296.

[1797] Livy iv. 51. 2 f.; Flor. i. 17. 2 (22); Zon. vii. 20. 5. The act, like that of 440, is either exceptional or an anticipation of later usage; cf. p. 309.

[1798] Livy vi. 20. 13. The context indicates that in Livy’s opinion it was a resolution of the plebs. Dio Cass. Frag. 25.

Whether the order of the people, 437, directing the dictator at public expense to present a golden crown of a pound weight to Jupiter was dictatorial or tribunician cannot be determined; Livy iv. 20. 4.

[1799] Cf. iv. 48. 1; 53. 6; v. 12. 3; vi. 5. 2; 6. 1.

[1800] Livy iv. 36. 2 (424).

[1801] Livy iv. 59. 11; Diod. xiv. 16. 5; Zon. vii. 20. 6; Flor. i. 6 (12). 8; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 540, 668 f.; ii. 627; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 212 f.; p. 284 above.

[1802] Livy vi. 42. 2; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 461.

[1803] The word utique, “at least,” inserted in this article by Livy, vi. 35. 5, belongs to the Genucian law of 342; p. 299.

[1804] Livy vi. 35. 4 f.; 42. 9; xxxiv. 4. 9.

[1805] In his account of the Licinian-Sextian legislation he makes no mention of this last regulation, but assumes its existence for the following period; cf. p. 291 f., on aedilician prosecutions for violations of this article.

Other sources for the second Licinian-Sextian plebiscite are Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 9; Plut. _Cam._ 39; _Ti. Gracch._ 8; Appian, _B. C._ i. 8. 33; Vell. ii. 6. 3; Val. Max. viii. 6. 3; (Aurel. Vict.), _Vir. Ill._ 20.

The statute, especially the agrarian portion, is discussed by Meyer, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxvii (1882). 610-27; Niese, in _Hermes_, xxiii (1888). 410-23; _Röm. Gesch._ 55, 148; Soltau, in _Hermes_, xxx (1895). 624-9; Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. ii. 72 ff., 134 ff. Niese refuses to believe that this agrarian legislation came so early, and prefers a date shortly after the close of the war with Hannibal. Soltau, controverting Niese’s view, insists that the chief regulation mentioned by Livy—the limitation of occupation to five hundred iugera—belongs to Licinius and Sextius, and that the article was afterward renewed, with the addition of the other provisions stated by Appian, probably about the time of the Hortensian legislation. Against the earlier date is especially urged the circumstance that the large number of iugera allowed to the individual is incongruous with the narrow limits of the Roman territory at that time. The provision for the relief of debtors, too, has the appearance of an anticipation of a plebiscite on the same subject passed in 447; p. 298 below; cf. Matzat, _Röm. Chron._ ii. 113, n. 9; 128, n. 6.

[1806] Livy vii. 15. 12 f.; Isler, _Ueber das poetelische Gesetz de ambitu_, in _Rhein. Mus._ xxviii (1873). 473-7; Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 195-213; _Röm. Alt._ i. 716; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 241 f.; Ihm, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1801; cf. p. 295 above.

[1807] P. 202.

[1808] P. 235, 314.

[1809] Livy vii. 16. 7 f.; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 246-8; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 191; ii. 26, 621.

[1810] Livy vii. 16. 8.

[1811] Livy vii. 16. 1. Two laws of 356 have a certain degree of financial interest: the dictatorial law which made provision for an impending war (Livy vii. 17. 7); and the alleged resolution of the people (p. 293) to grant the same dictator the privilege of a triumph.

[1812] Tac. _Ann._ vi. 16; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 183, n. 3.

[1813] Livy vii. 21, 5; cf. Herzog. _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 245. That the bank commission owed its existence to a law is an inference from the circumstances. The form of assembly is unknown. With this Valerian-Marcian law, 352, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 621 f., conjecturally identifies the lex Marcia against usurers; Gaius iv. 23. In his opinion also (ibid. ii. 622; cf. Rudorff, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 51) the lex Furia de sponsu mentioned by Gaius, iii. 121; iv. 22, “discharging the sponsor and fide-promissor of liability in two years and limiting the liability of each to a proportionate part” (Poste’s interpretation) belongs to L. Furius, dictator in 345 (Livy vii. 28. 2); whereas others assign it to the year 95 (cf. Poste, _Gai. Inst._ 359) and others to a time subsequent to Cicero (cf. Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, ii. 30). It was later than the lex Appuleia de sponsu, which is referred to by Gaius iii. 122, and which must have been enacted after the establishment of the provincial system. It is to be attributed, accordingly, to the famous tribune of 103, 100 (Poste, ibid. 359) rather than to the like-named tribune of 390 (Livy v. 32. 8; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 621). These considerations render the later dating of the lex Furia the more probable. The lex Publilia de sponsu, the date of which is also unknown, granted the surety (sponsor) an action against the principal debtor in case the latter failed to reimburse him within six months; Gaius iii. 127; iv. 22, cf. 171.

[1814] Livy vii. 27. 3; Tac. _Ann._ vi. 16. The author is not named.

[1815] P. 238.

[1816] Livy vii. 42. 1-3. Appian, _B. C._ i. 54, testifies to the existence of an ancient law forbidding interest; cf. Tac. _Ann._ vi. 16.

[1817] Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. ii. 270, with his usual acumen has argued against the existence of the Genucian as well as of the Publilian statute; but the reasons urged by this eminent scholar do not seem to me to be convincing. The period in which they fall is certainly within the reach of tradition. The abolition of debts through the Valerian law was in keeping with the populistic spirit of the masses in that age, as was the prohibition of interest.

[1818] Pais, _Stor. di Rom._ I. ii. 278, n. 4: “Thus C. Junius Bubulcus and Aemilius Barbula, consuls in 317, reappear in 311 B.C.; L. Papirius Cursor is consul in 320, 319, 315, 313; P. Decius is consul in 312 and in 308,” etc.; cf. further Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 519, n. 5. It is true that on one occasion Livy, x. 13. 8 f. (298), speaks of the law and of a proposal of the tribunes to obtain a dispensation for the candidate Fabius by a vote of the people, oblivious of the violation of the law by this same Fabius as well as by many others.

[1819] Livy xxiii. 31. 13 f.; Plut. _Marc._ 12 (215). On that occasion when the people were told that the election of two plebeians as colleagues in the consulship was displeasing to the gods, they proceeded to choose a patrician in place of the second plebeian; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 253, n. 2. The first definitive election of two plebeians was in 172; _Fast. Cos. Capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 25: “Ambo primi de plebe.”

[1820] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 253.

[1821] Livy viii. 12. 14-16.

[1822] P. 235.

[1823] P. 237.

[1824] P. 307.

[1825] P. 274, 313.

[1826] The most detailed study of this subject, including a critique of the principal modern views, is made by Soltau, _Gültigkeit der Plebiscite_, in _Berl. Stud._ ii (1885). 1-176. His criticism is more satisfactory than his construction.

[1827] This point is established by the circumstances (1) that no writer of the period refers to the principle mentioned; (2) that Cicero regards the thirty-five tribes under tribunician presidency as the universus populus Romanus—a definition which is incompatible with the legal exclusion of the patricians from that form of assembly (p. 129 f.); (3) that on one occasion, 209, after the Hortensian legislation Livy (xxvii. 21. 1-4) represents the voting assembly under tribunician presidency as composed not only of plebs but of all ranks (concursu plebisque et omnium ordinum), and that the patricians were evidently free to take part in the debates of the concilium; cf. Livy xliii. 16. 8; (4) Caesar, _B. C._ iii. 1, seems to represent the praetors and tribunes as presiding together over the same comitia (“praetoribus tribunisque plebis rogationes ad populum ferentibus”)—which would prove that no difference of composition existed between the pretorian and the tribunician assemblies of tribes.

[1828] P. 230.

[1829] Livy ix. 5. 2.

[1830] _Inv._ ii. 30. 92.

[1831] Livy ix. 8. 14: the tribunes protested against breaking it.

[1832] Livy ix. 10. 10: the circumstance that he assaulted the Roman fetialis is sufficient evidence of his view.

[1833] IX. 9. 4. Gellius, xvii. 21. 36, less credibly states that the treaty was repudiated by order of the people.

[1834] Livy ix. 5-11; Cic. _Off._ iii. 30. 109; _Inv._ ii. 30. 92; Zon. vii. 26. 15.

[1835] Livy ix. 9. 4.

[1836] Livy viii. 36. 11 f. (ambassadors of the Samnites, applying for peace to the dictator, are ordered by him to address the senate, which replies that it will accept the arrangements of the magistrate, 324); ix. 20. 8 (an unequal alliance with Apulia negotiated by the consul, 317); ix. 43. 6 f. (the Hernicans, beaten in war, apply to the senate, and are referred to the consuls, who accept their submission, 307); ix. 45. 1-3 (Samnite ambassadors ask peace of the senate, which replies that the consul will pass through their country and will report to the senate on the conditions which he finds there, 304); x. 3. 5 (the dictator, fining the Marsians of a part of their territory, grants them a renewal of the treaty, 302). In none of these instances is mention made of the people; and most of them preclude a popular vote.

[1837] Sall. _Iug._ 39.

[1838] Cf. Livy ix. 20. 2 f. (318), in which a proposal of peace was rejected by the people. In the treaty with the Lucanians, 298, Livy, x. 11. 13; 12. 1, mentions the senate only; Dionysius, xvii, xviii (xvi. 12). 1. 3, speaks of both senate and assembly.

[1839] Cf. Livy ix. 20. 2 f.

[1840] Polyb. vi. 14. 10 f.; 15. 9.

[1841] P. 181.

[1842] _Röm. Alt._ i. 514; ii. 638; p. 283 above.

[1843] Livy viii. 13. 10 ff.; ch. 14.

[1844] The gift of citizenship, adprobantibus cunctis, to L. Mamilius, dictator of Tusculum, 458, does not necessarily imply a public vote; Livy iii. 29. 6. Even if this were the opinion of Livy, it need be no more than an anticipation of later usage. In 381 the Tusculans received the citizenship, how we are not informed; Livy vi. 26. 8; Dio Cass. Frag. 28. 2. In the account of the settlement of Latium and Campania in 340, involving the grant of citizenship to the Capuan equites, no mention is made of either senate or people; Livy viii. 11. 13-16. The sources are likewise silent as to a popular vote in the grant of citizenship sine suffragio to the Caerites; Livy vii. 20. 8; Dio Cass. Frag. 33 (Boissevain i. p. 138); Strabo v. 2. 3, p. 220; Gell. xvi. 13. 7. From Livy and Dio Cassius it may be reasonably inferred that the event took place after 353, though Boissevain’s date, 273, seems to be too late. Probably they were admitted between 353 and 332—before the hundred years’ peace had far advanced.

[1845] Livy viii. 17. 12.

[1846] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 638.

[1847] I. 14. 4.

[1848] Livy viii. 21. 10. Nothing is said as to the chairmanship of the assembly. The event is referred to by Dio Cass. Frag. 35. 11.

[1849] Livy ix. 43. 24.

[1850] P. 352.

[1851] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 610 f., 638.

[1852] P. 234. The only exception is the creation of a prefecture of the market by a plebiscite in 440; p. 295.

[1853] Livy viii. 23. 11 f.

[1854] Livy x. 22. 9.

[1855] Livy ix. 42. 2.

[1856] Livy x. 16. 1.

[1857] Dion. Hal. xvii, xviii (xvi. 16). 4. 4.

[1858] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 640.

[1859] Livy x. 24. 18; cf. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 531. For other versions of the event, see Livy x. 26. 5 f.

[1860] Livy, ep. xi; p. 359 above. Probability favors the tribunician assembly.

[1861] Livy ix. 20. 5.

[1862] Fest. 233. 14.

[1863] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 609.

[1864] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 73, 632. Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 1144, assumes that it was proposed by L. Furius, praetor in that year.

[1865] Livy ix. 30. 3.

[1866] P. 234.

[1867] Livy ix. 30. 3 f. In ix. 38. 2 he refers to a naval commander whom the senate placed in charge of the coast, and whom Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 580, n. 1, supposes to have been a duovir. That a duovir commanded a fleet in 282 is proved by Livy, ep. xii; Dio Cass. Frag. 39. 4. Probably the triumviri capitales, 289, were created by a similar act of the tribes; Livy, ep. xi; p. 312.

[1868] P. 309.

[1869] P. 311.

[1870] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 534, 636.

[1871] Fest. 246. 19.

[1872] The brief statement of Festus, ibid., is here interpreted in the light of Livy xxiii. 23. 6. In general on the Ovinian plebiscite, see Lange, _Kleine Schriften_, ii. 393-446; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 153-173, 668-89; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 259 ff.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 418; iii. 873, 879.

[1873] Cf. Livy iv. 5. 2; p. 287 above.

[1874] Cf. Gell. x. 20. 4, 9 f.

[1875] Cf. Livy viii. 16. 4; ix. 7. 15; 28. 2; Diod. xix. 66. 1; p. 299, n. 3.

[1876] Livy x. 13. 8 f.

[1877] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 641.

[1878] Livy x. 22. 9.

[1879] It is the only instance mentioned for this early time.

[1880] Livy x. 13. 10: “Iam regi leges, non regere”; cf. Appian, _Lib._ 112; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 641.

[1881] P. 295 f.

[1882] P. 293, 295, n. 6.

[1883] _Div._ i. 26. 55; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11. 13 (on the reading, see Mommsen, in _Hermes_ iv (1870). 7; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 634.

[1884] Livy viii. 13. 1.

[1885] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11. 5; Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 11. 54. On these games, see Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ iii. 497; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 111 f., 385 f.

[1886] Livy ii. 36; Dion. Hal. vii. 68; Plut. _Cor._ 24; Val. Max. i. 7. 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 634.

[1887] Livy ix. 46. 7.

[1888] _Röm. Alt._ i. 828; ii. 634.

[1889] Cic. _Dom._ 49. 127 f.; _Att._ iv. 2. 3.

[1890] Livy x. 6 f. He has evidently made a mistake in supposing the number of pontiffs to have been increased to only eight (chs. 6. 6; 8. 3; 9. 2; cf. Bardt, _Priester der vier grossen Collegien_, 32 f.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 432, n. 4.)

[1891] P. 240, 241, 269, 280.

[1892] P. 241 f.

[1893] P. 295.

[1894] Livy viii. 18. 3 ff.; Val. Max. ii. 5. 3; Oros. iii. 10; August. _Civ. Dei_, iii. 17. p. 124 Domb. The lex de veneficio mentioned by Livy, ep. viii, may refer to the act which established this court; but it would not be legitimate to argue from this expression a popular vote. The epitomator undoubtedly drew all his information from the text.

[1895] Livy ix. 26. 6 ff.; cf. however, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 637.

[1896] Livy viii. 37. 8; Val. Max. ix. 10. 1; Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 42. 43. 136; p. 288, n. 1.

[1897] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 637.

[1898] Livy ix. 16. 10; xxvi. 33. 10.

[1899] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 34. 59; Livy viii. 28; Varro, _L. L._ vii. 105; Dion. Hal. xvi. 5 (9); Suidas, s. v. Γάιος Λαιτώριος; cf. Kleineidam, _in Festg. f. F. Dahn_, ii. 1-30.

[1900] Varro, ibid., assigns the law to a dictator, C. Popillius, which may be a mistake for C. Poetelius, dictator in 313; Livy ix. 28. 2.

[1901] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 74.

[1902] P. 238.

[1903] P. 284.

[1904] Livy, iv. 11. 3-7, represents the tribunes of 442 as attempting to call to account the colonial commissioners of that year (cf. p. 288). In 418 they planned to offer a bill for colonizing Labici (Livy iv. 47. 6). In 415 a bill for colonizing Bolae, introduced by a tribune of the plebs, was vetoed by a colleague; Livy iv. 49. 6; cf. Diod. xiii. 42. 6. Many similar instances are given for the time immediately following; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 626 f. with citations. Although we may question the truth of these individual cases, we have no ground for doubting that such agitation continued long before the tribunes succeeded in carrying a colonial law.

[1905] Livy x. 21. 9; p. 307.

[1906] Livy viii. 36. 9 f.; ix. 42. 5.

[1907] Cf. Livy x. 6. 3; 21. 9; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 282 f.

[1908] Cf. Livy x. 17. 10; 20. 16; 25. 3; 30. 10: “Praemia illa tempestate militiae haudquaquam spernenda”; 31. 4; 44. 1; 45. 14; 46. 15.

[1909] Livy x. 13. 14; 23. 13; 47. 4.

[1910] Livy x. 46. 5 f.

[1911] Livy x. 31. 8; 47. 6; ep. xi; Zon. viii. 1. 10; Val. Max. i. 8. 2.

[1912] Livy x. 23. 11 f.

[1913] P. 307, n. 1, 332.

[1914] P. 279.

[1915] Boissevain’s reading.

[1916] The chief source is a mutilated fragment of Dio Cassius viii. 37. 2-4, which is paraphrased in the text above. The account given by Zonaras viii. 2 is a brief epitome of the fragment, adding the circumstance of the foreign war. The restoration of the fragment is due chiefly to Niebuhr, _Rhein. Mus._ ii (1828). 588 ff. See also the edition of Dio Cassius by Boissevain, i. 110 f. and by Melber, i. 108 f. The secession to the Janiculum is mentioned by Livy, ep. xi, and by Pliny, _N. H._ xvi. 10. 37.

[1917] Pliny, _N. H._ xvi. 10. 37: “Q. Hortensius dictator, cum plebes secessisset in Ianiculum, legem in aesculeto tulit, ut quod ea iussisset omnes quirites teneret”; Gaius i. 3: “Unde olim patricii dicebant plebiscitis se non teneri, quia sine auctoritate eorum facta essent; sed postea lex Hortensia lata est, qua cautum est ut plebiscita universum populum tenerent; itaque eo modo legibus exaequata sunt”; Laelius, in Gell. xv. 27. 4: “Ita ne leges quidem proprie, sed plebisscita appellantur, quae tribunis plebis ferentibus accepta sunt, quibus rogationibus ante patricii non tenebantur, donec Q. Hortensius dictator legem tulit, ut eo iure, quod plebs statuisset, omnes quirites tenerentur”; Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 8: “Quia multae discordiae nascebantur de his plebis scitis, pro legibus placuit et ea observari lege Hortensia: et ita factum est, ut inter plebis scita et legem species constituendi interesset, potestas eadem esset.”

[1918] P. 235, 372.

[1919] This fact is clearly expressed by Gaius; see p. 313, n. 2 above.

[1920] Before acquiring this right they had been accustomed to sit on their bench at the door of the curia, in order to watch the proceedings within. Though as yet without an unrestricted legal right of intercession, they had attempted to force their veto upon the senate; Val. Max. ii. 2. 7; Zon. vii. 15. 8; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 316 f. The wording of the law of 304 regarding the dedication of a temple or altar indicates that the tribunes had not yet acquired the right to convoke the senate and bring measures formally before it; Mommsen, ibid. p. x, n. 2.

[1921] P. 270.

[1922] Granius Licinianus, in Macrob. _Sat._ i. 16. 30: “Lege Hortensia effectum, ut fastae essent (nundinae), uti rustici, qui nundiniandi causa in urbem veniebant, lites componerent. Nefasto enim die praetori fari non licebat”; § 29: “Iulius Caesar sexto decimo auspiciorum libro negat nundinis contionem advocari posse, id est cum populo agi: ideoque nundinis Romanorum haberi comitia non posse”; cf. p. 471 below.

[1923] P. 139.

[1924] P. 471 below; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 644; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 287 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 372 f.

[1925] P. 243, 287 f.

[1926] P. 247, 289.

[1927] P. 309.

[1928] P. 290.

[1929] p. 248 ff.

[1930] P. 330 ff.

[1931] P. 248.

[1932] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 50. 1.

[1933] Livy xxii. 35. 3; 40. 3; 49. 11; xxvii. 34. 3 f.; xxix. 37. 13 f.

[1934] P. 62.

[1935] Livy xxiv. 18. 3, 6.

[1936] Livy xxii. 53. 4 f.

[1937] Livy xxiv. 43. 1-3; cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2093.

[1938] A similar attempt in 204 by Cn. Baebius, tribune of the plebs, to prosecute the censors C. Claudius and M. Livius while in office was quashed by the senate; Livy xxix. 37; Val. Max. vii. 2. 6; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 4.

[1939] P. 249. The state agreed to insure from the enemy and from storms cargoes shipped for the use of the army; Livy xxiii. 49. 1-3; xxv. 3. 10. Postumius took advantage of this insurance to send out old, unseaworthy ships with cargoes of little value, and after wrecking them, to report many times the real amount of the loss; ibid. § 10 f. The senate, fearing to give offence to the powerful order of publicans, failed to act when informed by the praetor; § 12. Thereupon the tribunes brought the accusation. For the trial, see ibid. § 13-9 and ch. 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 177, 588. The weight of the _as_ in which the fine was estimated is not given by Livy xxv. 3. 13.

For a similar transfer of the case against Cn. Fulvius, retired praetor, from the tribes to the centuries, 211, see p. 249.

[1940] Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 5. Here, too, should be mentioned the condemnation of a member of the same board in a similar action for neglect to inspect the watchmen; Val. Max. ibid. § 6.

[1941] Cato, _Orat._ i: “Dierum dictarum de consulatu suo.”

[1942] Livy xxvii. 46. 1 f.

[1943] Cato, _Orat._ xiii; Livy xxxviii. 57. 10; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 459 ff.

[1944] For the cognomen, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1475.

[1945] Polyb. xxiii. 14; Gell. iv. 3-5, 7-12; Diod. xxix. 24 (from Polyb.); Livy xxxviii. 54; Val. Max. iii. 7. 1 d; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 49. 16-9.

[1946] Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 464 f.

[1947] In the story of the trial given by Antias the two Petilii were the prosecutors of Publius (Livy xxxviii. 50 f.). In ch. 54 f. Livy, again following Antias, represents these tribunes as authors of a plebiscite for the appointment of a special court to inquire concerning the money received from King Antiochus, and states that L. Scipio was condemned by this court. The story may not be without foundation; but if such a plebiscite was adopted, it could not have had the desired result.

[1948] This incident is considered doubtful by Bloch, in _Rev. d. étud. anc._ viii. (1906). 109.

[1949] According to Diod. xxix. 21, Scipio was threatened with the death penalty; but the trial actually took the form described above in the text.

[1950] Gell. vi. 19. 2. It was probably in connection with this trial that Cato delivered his speech “Concerning the money of King Antiochus”; Livy xxxviii. 54. 11; Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 15; Cato, _Orat._ xv.

[1951] The edicts of these conflicting tribunes are given by Gell. vi. 19. 5, 7; cf. Livy xxxviii. 56. 10; Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 8. 18. The dissenting edict states that the fine was imposed nullo exemplo, yet it was within the competence of the tribune; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 2.

[1952] The account here given closely follows Mommsen, _Röm. Forsch._ ii. 417-510. For other authorities on the trial, see p. 329.

[1953] Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 19; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 590; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 4.

In 142 P. Scipio Aemilianus when censor had deprived Ti. Claudius Asellus of his public horse. Afterward this man as tribune of the plebs brought against him an accusation for malversation in his censorship; Gell. iii. 4. 1; cf. ii. 20. 6. It was a finable case (ibid. vi. 11. 9), in which was charged against him a lustrum malum infelixque; Lucilius, in Gell. iv. 17. 1; cf. Cic. _Orat._ ii. 64. 258; 66. 268. The prosecution probably failed; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 591; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 4.

[1954] Cf. Plautus, _Capt._ 476.

[1955] Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 27. 100; Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 15. Cato’s _Oration_ liv was delivered on one of these occasions. For his general character and activity, see Livy xxxix. 40.

[1956] Livy xliii. 7 f. With this trial was concerned the senatus consultum of 170; cf. Bruns, _Font. iur._ p. 162. See further Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 287, 591; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 322, n. 3; cf. i. 699 f.

[1957] P. 358.

[1958] P. 231 f.

[1959] Fest. 193. 21; 314. 33; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 591.

[1960] Livy, ep. xlvii; cf. Lange, ibid. ii. 313, 591.

[1961] P. 359.

[1962] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 14; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 131 f.; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 2270.

[1963] Fest. 314. 30; cf. Livy, ep. lviii.

[1964] P. 256 f.

[1965] Vell. ii. 12. 3 assigns the tribunate of Domitius to 103, Ascon. 80 f. to 104. Probably the latter refers to his entrance upon the office, December 10, 104; but see Bardt, _Priester der vier grossen Collegien_, 7 f.

[1966] P. 391.

[1967] Ascon. 80; Cic. _Caecil._ 20. 67; _Verr._ ii. 47. 118 (in both Ciceronian passages the motive of the accusation is said to have been personal); cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 592; iii. 70; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 320, n. 3.

[1968] Ascon. 1; Cic. _Deiot._ 11. 31; Val. Max. vi. 5. 5; Dio Cass. Frag. 92. A personal motive is suggested for this trial also by the sources.

[1969] Cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ v. 1324-7.

[1970] Dio Cass. Frag. 95. 3; App. _B. C._ i. 33. 148; Schol. Bob. 230; Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 9. 24; _Flacc._ 32. 77; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 592; iii. 86; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 323, n. 1; Mühl, _App. Sat._ 94 ff., 105 f.; Rohden, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 259.

[1971] P. 257, n. 5 (4). Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 352, holds the unusual opinion that he was condemned by a quaestio.

To the time shortly preceding the dictatorship of Sulla belong certain threats of tribunician prosecution which may be mentioned here. In 87 a day was set for the trial of L. Cornelius Sulla himself by the tribune M. Vergilius. The accused, taking no notice of the prosecution, departed for the East; Cic. _Brut._ 48. 179; Plut. _Sull._ 10; cf. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1537. In the same year Appius Claudius Pulcher, summoned to trial by a tribune of the plebs, retired into exile, whereupon his propretorian imperium was abrogated; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 83; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2489; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 352. In 84 Cn. Papirius Carbo, consul, was threatened with a prosecution, or more strictly with an abrogation of his office, if he should fail to return to Rome to hold the election of a colleague; App. _B. C._ i. 78. 358 f.

[1972] P. 414.

[1973] Plut. _Lucull._ 37; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 221; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 353.

[1974] Suet. _Caes._ 23; cf. p. 377 below.

[1975] Dio Cass. xliv. 10.

[1976] Whether the case against Rabirius in 63, begun as perduellio, was transformed into a finable action is uncertain; p. 258. The attack of Clodius on Cicero in 58 took the form, not of a judicial case, but of an interdict through a plebiscite; p. 446.

[1977] P. 291.

[1978] Fest. 238. 28; Varro, _L. L._ v. 158; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 283 ff.; Tac. _Ann._ ii. 49.

[1979] Livy xxxiii. 42. 10.

[1980] Livy xxxv. 10. 11.

[1981] Livy xxxv. 41. 9.

[1982] Livy xxxviii. 35. 5 f.

[1983] Piso, in Pliny, _N. H._ xviii. 6. 41; Serv. _in Ecl._ viii. 99; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 2.

[1984] Val. Max. vi. 17; Plut. _Marcell._ 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 823; ii. 585.

[1985] Livy xxv. 2. 9; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 585. The statement of Gellius v. 19. 10, that women had nothing to do with comitia (“Feminis nulla comitiorum communio est”), does not refer to their lack of suffrage, as Lange assumes, for Gellius is explaining why women could not be arrogated. Originally they had no right to be present in contiones or comitia; but in time the principle was modified to a limited extent; p. 147. It was not necessary, however, that the accused should be present in person during the trial; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 496.

[1986] Plut. _Q. R._ 6; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 126; ii. 585.

[1987] Ateius Capito, in Gell. iv. 14.

[1988] P. 248, 317.

[1989] Ateius Capito, in Gell. x. 6; Livy, ep. xix; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 4; Suet. _Tib._ 2; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 492, n. 4. This, says Mommsen, is the only aedilician prosecution for a crime committed directly against the state in the period after the decemviral legislation. With this case compare Cicero’s threat mentioned in the text below.

[1990] Suet. _Tib._ 2.

[1991] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 586; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 496.

[1992] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 12. 33; Val. Max. ix. 11. 2; Lange, ibid. iii. 134; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 352.

Valerius Maximus, vi. 1. 8, refers to a prosecution (probably aedilician) of Cn. Sergius by Metellus Celer for stuprum, which seems to have occurred about this time; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 4.

[1993] _Verr._ i. 12. 36; v. 58. 151; 67. 173; 69. 178; 71. 183.

[1994] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 586.

[1995] Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 3; _Sest._ 44. 95; _Vat._ 17. 40; Ascon. 49; Dio Cass. xxxix. 18 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 586; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 493, n. 1; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 341, 353.

On the aedilician jurisdiction in general, see especially Girard, _Org. jud. d. Rom._ 243 ff.

[1996] P. 269, 287.

[1997] Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 439 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 195 f.; ii. 36.

[1998] Livy xxxvii. 51. 4 f.

[1999] Livy xl. 42. 9 f.

[2000] Cic. _Phil._ xi. 8. 18.

[2001] Fest. 343. 6; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Römer_, 439, n. 8. For the pontifical cases above mentioned, see also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 593-5.

[2002] Cf. ch. v and p. 322.

[2003] P. 313 f.

[2004] P. 307.

[2005] P. 107, 113.

[2006] On the lack of a popular opposition to the nobility during this period, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 26. On the antiquated character of the assemblies, ibid. 39 f.

[2007] For this era we have to depend upon the epitome of Livy and occasional notices of other authors. The complete Livian narrative which treats of the age, should it ever be discovered, would doubtless reveal a considerable number of other comitial measures; but we could hardly expect to find any of more importance than those which are actually known.

[2008] P. 235, 300.

[2009] Cic. _Brut._ 14. 55. Cicero informs us that the law under consideration was passed after the tribunate of M’. Curius, which must have preceded his consulship (290). The enactment should preferably be placed after that of Hortensius, when the patres were no longer in a position to oppose it; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 409; ii. 216, 654; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 281 f. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ ii. 69 ff., attempts to assign it to 338.

[2010] Livy x. 15. 7 ff.; Cic. ibid.

[2011] Dion Hal. xix, 16. 5 (xviii. 19); xx. 13 (3). 3.

[2012] In this year C. Marcius Rutilus, elected censor a second time (_Fast. cos. capit._, in _CIL._ i². p. 22), persuaded the people to adopt this law; Val. Max iv. i. 3; Plut. _Cor._ 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ I. 797; ii. 122, 654; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 317-20; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 520.

[2013] Livy, ep. xv; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22. Lydus, _Mag._ i. 27, supposes the newly created quaestors to have been naval officers, and wrongly states their number at twelve. Whether the lex Titia de provinciis quaestoriis (Cic. _Mur._ 8. 18; Schol. Bob. 316) belongs to this date or to some later time cannot be determined; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 532, n. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 654. See further on the act of 267, Mommsen, ibid. ii. 527, 570 ff.; Lange, ibid. i. 891; ii. 124.

[2014] Livy, ep. xix; Lyd. _Mag._ i. 38, 45.

[2015] Val. Max ii. 8. 2; Zon. viii. 17. 1; 18. 10; Polyb. ii. 23. 5.

[2016] P. 307, n. 1, 312.

[2017] Fest. 347. 3; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 884, 910; ii. 654; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 594 f.; Girard, _Organ. jud. d. Röm._ i. 263 ff.

[2018] Pliny, _N. H._ vii. 43. 141; cf. Polyb. vi. 16. 3.

[2019] We are informed by Theophilus, iv. 3. 15, that this statute was a plebiscite adopted at a secession of the plebs, meaning most probably that of 287. But his view may be merely an inference from Ulpian, in _Dig._ ix. 2. 1 and Pomponius, ibid. i. 2. 2. 8; cf. Roby, _Röm. Priv. Law_, ii. 186. The law is the subject of _Dig._ ix. 2 f.; Justinian, _Inst._ iv. 3; Theoph. _Inst._ iv. 3. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 69, assigns it to 287. On p. 71 f. he adds other chapters which he has gathered from various sources. See also Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 793 ff. Injury committed by dogs was made actionable by the lex Pesolania of unknown though early date; Paul. _Sent._ i. 15. 1; cf. _Dig._ ix. 1. 1. 15. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 39, n. 18, assigns it to the time closely following the decemviral legislation; cf. Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 1158.

The lex Mamilia concerning arbitri, but not more definitely known (Cic. _Leg._ i. 21. 55), may belong to the consul C. Mamilius, 239.

[2020] Gaius iii. 210, Poste’s rendering; cf. also the following §§; Justin. _Inst._ iv. 3. 15.

[2021] Gaius iii. 215, 217; cf. Ulpian, in _Dig._ vii. 1. 13. 2; Cic. _Brut._ 34. 131.

[2022] As here used, “Flaminian” is not confined to the lifetime of Flaminius, but designates the period during which lasted the impetus given by him to the activity of the assemblies—approximately to the end of the war with Hannibal.

[2023] P. 213, 215.

[2024] Cato, _Orig._ ii. 10 (in Varro, _R. R._ i. 2. 7): “Ager Gallicus Romanus vocatur, qui viritim cis Ariminum datus est ultra agrum Picentium”; Cic. _Brut._ 14. 57; _Acad. Pr._ ii. 5. 13. There is reason for believing that about this time the Licinian-Sextian agrarian enactments were revived and extended by a comitial statute; p. 296, 363.

[2025] Cf. Cic. _Inv._ ii. 17. 52; Val. Max. v. 4. 5.

[2026] Cic. _Acad. Pr._ ii. 5. 13; Val. Max. ibid.

[2027] _Senec._ 4. 11.

[2028] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 149.

[2029] Kubitschek, _Röm. trib. or._ 26 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 176.

[2030] II. 21. 8. On this law in general, see further Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. 125-7; iv. 26 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 344 ff.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 157 f.; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 15.

[2031] Zon. viii. 20. 7; Plut. _Marcell._ 4; cf. Livy xxi. 63. 2.

[2032] Livy xlv. 35. 4.

[2033] Livy xxvi. 21.5. Next is mentioned the plebiscite of Ti. Sempronius, 167, for granting the imperium to three promagistrates; Livy xlv. 35-40; cf. xxxii. 7. 4; xxxviii. 47. 1; Plut. _Aemil._ 30 ff. The triumphs of Pompey, 80 and 71, must have been made possible by leges de eius imperio, though none are mentioned; Plut. _Pomp._ 14, 21; Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 21. 61 f. The lex Cornelia, 80, which permitted Pompey to bring his army home from Africa, was essential to the triumph but was not the law which granted the imperium; Sall. _Hist._ ii. 21; Gell. x. 20. 10; Plut. _Pomp._ 13; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 678. The law for the triumph over Juba was passed for Caesar in 48 in advance of his victory; Dio Cass. xliii. 14. 3. There must have been many other such plebiscites not mentioned by the sources. Magistrates had no more right than promagistrates without especial authorization to command troops within the city limits, though the triumph on the Alban Mount continued to be permissible without an act either of the senate or of the comitia; p. 293.

[2034] P. 307.

[2035] Polyb. vi. 16. 3.

[2036] Livy xxi. 63. 3; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 353, 898; Nitzsch, _Röm. Rep._ i. 156 f.

[2037] Ascon. 94; Dio Cass. lv. 10. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 162, 657; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 898.

[2038] App. _B. C._ 1. 7. 29; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 8.

[2039] Fest. 347. 14; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 45; cf. Hill, _Greek and Rom. Coins_, 48. According to Festus, Flaminius was author, whereas Pliny states that the change was made under the dictatorship of Q. Fabius Maximus. One seems to refer to the enactment of the law, the other to its administration.

[2040] P. 90.

[2041] Zon. viii. 26. 14.

[2042] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 47.

[2043] Böckh, _Metrologische Utersuchungen_, p. 472; Mommsen-Blacas, _Hist. d. monn. Rom._ ii. 67, n. 1; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 496; ii. 167, 674; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 365; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 1511; Samwer-Bahrfeldt, _Röm. Münzw._ 190 f.

[2044] Livy xxiii. 21. 6; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. 289.

[2045] Livy xxiv. 18. 12; xxvi. 36. 8.

[2046] Livy xxxvii. 51. 10; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 173 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 365.

[2047] Cf. Livy xli. 27; Polyb. vi. 17.

[2048] Livy xxv. 7. 5 f.

[2049] Livy xxvii. 11. 8.

[2050] Tab. x, in Schöll, _Duod. Tab. Rel._ 153 ff.; Marquardt, _Privatl. d. Röm._ 345.

[2051] _Mil._ 164; Hor. _Od._ iii. 24. 58; Ovid, _Trist._ ii. 471 ff.; cf. Cic. _Phil._ ii. 23. 56; Pseud. Ascon, 110; Hartmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1359. It remained in force to the end of the republic. Other laws on gambling, which cannot be assigned to dates, were the lex Cornelia (_Dig._ xi. 5. 3), the lex Publicia (ibid.), and the lex Titia (ibid.).

[2052] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 663, 670.

[2053] Fest. 246. 32; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 662.

[2054] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxv. 17. 197. A M. Metilius was tribune in 217.

[2055] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 161 f., 670; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 354.

[2056] Livy xxxiv. 1 ff.; Tac. _Ann._ iii. 33 f.; Oros. iv. 20. 14; Zon. ix. 17; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. 290.

[2057] P. 356. The lex lenonia mentioned by Plautus (Fest. ep. 143), if indeed it is not a mere joke, should also be classed as sumptuary; cf. p. 528, n. 2.

[2058] Polyb. vi. 56; Plut. _Rom._ 13.

[2059] Livy xxxiv. 4. 9: “Vectigalis iam et stipendiaria plebs esse senatui coeperat.”

[2060] Livy xxii. 1. 19; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 170.

[2061] _Sat._ i. 7. 33.

[2062] Livy xxvii. 20. 11.

[2063] Livy xxix. 20. 11.

[2064] Livy xxxiv. 4. 9; Cic. _Senec._ 4. 10; _Orat._ ii. 71. 286; _Att._ i. 20. 7; Fest. ep. 143, including a quotation from Plautus; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 5; xiii. 42; xv. 20; Frag. Vat. 260 ff. (Ad legem Cinciam de donationibus); Bruns, _Quid conferant Vaticana fragmenta ad melius cognoscendum ius Romanum_, 112 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 366; Garofalo, in _Bull. dell’ ist. di diritt. Rom._ xv (1903). 310-2. In the opinion of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 191, the law may have resulted in part from the selfishness of the rich, with a view to checking the presentation of gifts among themselves.

[2065] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 4. 11; _Lex Iul. Col. Gen._ 93; Mommsen, _Ephem. Ep._ ii. 139; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 123.

[2066] Vat. Frag. 294, 298-309; Paulus, _Sent._ v. 11. 6; Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, i. 526 f.

[2067] Such was the lex Pinaria, which ordered the appointment of a judge on the thirtieth day after an action was instituted (Gaius iv. 15); also the lex Silia creating the legis actio per condictionem, for the recovery of a certain sum of money, extended by the lex Calpurnia so as to apply to any certain object; Gaius iv. 18 f., and comment by Poste; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ see index, s. Lex Calpurnia and Silia; Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, ii. 71; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 594; _Röm. Civilprocess_, 230 ff.; Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 44 ff. On the probable date, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ see indices, s. v.—The lex Crepereia, having to do with a legis actio before the centumviral court, set the sponsia at a hundred and twenty-five sesterces; Gaius iv. 95.—The lex Aebutia tended to substitute for the legis actio the formulary process of later time; Gaius iv. 30 f.; Gell. xvi. 10. 8; Greenidge, ibid. 93, 170 ff.; Roby, ibid. ii. 347; Karlowa, _Röm. Civilproc._ 216, 324; Voigt, ibid. 124 ff. Lange assigns these laws to the period of the war with Hannibal, Voigt to earlier time.

To the year 214 Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 660, assigns the lex Atinia on the usucapio of stolen property; Gell. xvii. 7; Just. _Inst._ ii. 6. 2; _Dig._ xli. 3. 4. 6; cf. Roby, ibid. i. 475.—No date can be found for the lex Licinnia de actione communi dividundo; Marcianus, in _Dig._ iv. 7. 12.

[2068] Livy xx, Frag.; Krüger and Mommsen, in _Hermes_, iv (1870). 371-6; Tac. _Ann._ xii. 6. Livy states that a marriage of a patrician with a relative of the sixth degree caused a riot of the plebs, which drove the patres for refuge to the Capitol.

[2069] Ulpian, Frag. v. 6; cf. _De gradibus cognationum_.

[2070] Plut. _Q. R._ 6; Livy xlii. 34. 2 (case of a man’s marrying his cousin shortly after the war with Hannibal); Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 126; ii. 659 f.; Marquardt, _Privatl. d. Röm._ 30 f.

[2071] Livy xxxix. 9. 7.

[2072] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 659 f.

[2073] Cf. Lange, ibid. i. 231; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 27. It supplemented the Twelve Tables, v. 1 f. (Gaius i. 144; ii. 47; Schöll, _Duod. Tab. Rel._ 126).

[2074] Cic. _Off._ iii. 15. 61; _N. D._ iii. 30. 74; Varro, _L. L._ vi. 5; _Lex Iul. Munic._ 112.

[2075] Plaut. _Pseud._ 303; _Rud._ 1382.