Chapter XIX: A Summary of Comitial History (9)

[2076] The author may have been the Plaetorius who carried a law concerning the urban praetor; p. 342, n. 1; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 306, thinks it the result of continual war, which while giving young men experience in military affairs, deprived them of the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the management of property.

[2077] Livy xxiii. 31. 10.

[2078] P. 310.

[2079] Livy xxvi. 33. 10-4. For the decree of the plebs, § 14: “Quod senatus iuratus, maxima pars, censeat, qui adsient, id volumus iubemusque.”

[2080] Ibid. ch. 34.

[2081] Livy xxii. 10. 1.

[2082] It is given in full by Livy xxii. 10; cf. xxxiii. 44. 1 f.; xxxiv. 44. 1-3.

[2083] The consular law of Ti. Sempronius Longus, 215, appointing duumviri, one of them the builder, Q. Fabius, for dedicating the temple of Venus Erucina; Livy xxiii. 30. 13. f.—The lex granting Q. Lutatius Catulus permission to dedicate the Capitoline temple, 78; Cic. _Verr._ II. iv. 31. 69; 38. 82; _CIL._ i. 592.—The rogation of the praetor Caesar, 62, which threatened to deprive Catulus of the function; Suet, _Caes._ 15; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 44. 2.

[2084] In consequence of a pestilence a pretorian law of P. Licinius Varus, 208, placed the games in honor of Apollo in the class called stativi—those which were celebrated annually on stated days; Livy xxvii. 23. 7; xxx. 38. 10 f.; cf. Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 241; Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, 179 f.

[2085] Livy xxv. 5. 2, for the first instance and for the pontifical presidency. Such a departure in favor of the people was hardly possible in the period of comitial stagnation preceding the tribunate of Flaminius, 232; and the law must have been passed, or at least amended, after the institution of the last two tribes; for it specified definitely seventeen tribes; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 16. On this measure, see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 27 f.; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 437; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 131. Pais, _L’elezione del pontefice massimo_, etc. (1908), maintains on the contrary that the plebiscite in question was passed about 254, and that it resorted to seventeen tribes as the legal half of the total number (33) then existing. On the use of the word comitia, see p. 130 above.

[2086] The first recorded instance occurs at the date mentioned; Livy xxvii. 8. 1-3.

[2087] Cf. Cic. _Sest._ 46. 98.

[2088] P. 391.

[2089] P. 234, 305, 306.

[2090] Livy, ep. xx; _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 32. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 784; ii. 152, 654, conjecturally identifies it with the Plaetorian plebiscite, which assigned two lictors to the urban praetor when acting as judge, and defined his jurisdiction; Censorin. 24. 3.

[2091] Livy xxvii. 36. 14; p. 306 above. In 171 because of the impending Macedonian war the consular lex Licinia Cassia permitted the consuls to name their tribuni militum (Livy xliii. 31)—a precedent followed thereafter in emergencies.

[2092] P. 305; Polyb. vi. 15. 6.

[2093] Livy xxvii. 22. 6. On the comparatively frequent use of the promagistracy during the war with Hannibal, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 310.

[2094] Livy xxii. 25; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 355.

[2095] Polyb. iii. 87. 6; Livy xxii. 8. 5 f.

[2096] Cf. Herzog, ibid. i. 358 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 169.

[2097] Livy xxvii. 20. 11-3; 21. 1-4; Plut. _Marcell._ 27. It is surprising that in 204 the question of abrogating the proconsular imperium of Scipio through a plebiscite was discussed in the senate; Livy xxix. 19. 6.

The grant of a burial place “virtutis caussa senatus consulto populique iussu” (_CIL._ i. 635) to a C. Poplicius Bibulus was not to this Bibulus but to some unknown person of the same name near the close of the republic.

[2098] P. 360.

[2099] Livy xxvii. 21. 10; xxx. 19. 9.

[2100] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 850, 861; ii. 151, 654.

[2101] Livy xxvii. 6. 7; cf. p. 298 above. Two other dispensations from laws by act of the people are recorded for the latter part of this century: (1) the plebiscite of 203, which exempted C. Servilius from the law prohibiting the election of a man to the plebeian tribunate or aedileship in the lifetime of a father who had filled a curule office (Livy xxx. 19. 9); (2) a plebiscite of 200 for permitting L. Valerius Flaccus to take the oath of office for the aedileship as a proxy for his brother, who being flamen Dialis was forbidden to swear; Livy xxxi. 50. 7-9.

[2102] Cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 369.

[2103] VI. 11. 1.

[2104] VI. 51. 3.

[2105] Ibid. § 5.

[2106] Ibid. § 7.

[2107] Polyb. vi. 56.

[2108] Ibid. 11. 11.

[2109] VI. 18.

[2110] VI. 12.

[2111] VI. 13.

[2112] P. 217, n. 5.

[2113] A plebiscite of M’. Acilius and Q. Minucius, 201, ordered the senate to negotiate peace with Carthage; Livy xxx. 43. 2. Tribal ratification may be assumed for every treaty, and for that reason is generally not mentioned in this volume.

[2114] Polyb. vi. 14.

[2115] Polyb. vi. 12. 4.

[2116] VI. 15. 9 f.

[2117] Ibid. § 11.

[2118] VI. 16. 1 f. Polybius speaks of the decisions of the senate; but since that body as a whole was not a court, and since there was no appeal from either the special or the standing quaestiones, he must be thinking here of the consilia of the magistrates, which also were composed of senators.

[2119] VI. 16. 3. Doubtless he has in mind the Claudian statute of 219; p. 335.

[2120] VI. 16. 4 f.

[2121] VI. 17. 9.

[2122] P. 33, 173.

[2123] Polyb. vi. 18. 5-8; Sall. _Iug._ 41.

[2124] Livy xxxii. 27. 6. A law may be assumed for this act.

[2125] Livy xl. 44. 2; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 198, n. 4; more accurately, Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 259, 655; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2728.

[2126] Cf. Arnold, _Rom. Prov. Administr._ 47.

[2127] Cato, _Orat._ xxv; Fest. 282. 28; Non. Marc. 470; Livy xl. 59. 5.

[2128] Livy xxxiii. 42. 1; cf. Cic. _Orat._ iii. 19. 73; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 211 f., 675; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 357, 446. The people continued occasionally to create temporary magistracies and commissions. A lex Plaetoria for the appointment of duoviri aedi dedicandae (_CIL._ vi. 3732) probably belongs to 151; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 621, n. 1.

[2129] Livy xl. 44. 1. Cf. in general on the leges annales, Fest. ep. 27; Cic. _Phil._ v. 17. 47; _Leg._ iii. 3. 9; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 65 f.; Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; Arnob. ii. 67. A rogation of similar import was offered by a certain M. Pinarius Rusca (Cic. _Orat._ ii. 65. 261), who is perhaps to be identified with a praetor of that name in 182; Livy xl. 18. 2; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 529, n. 1.

[2130] This interval is assigned to the lex Villia by none of the ancient authorities, but is found to be the practice after its enactment; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 526 f.

[2131] Cic. _Phil._ v. 17. 47.

[2132] Cf. Plut. _Cat. Mai._ 8.

[2133] Wex, in _Rhein. Mus._ iii (1845). 276-88; Nipperdey, in _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig_, v. (1870). 1-88; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 707; ii. 259-61, 655; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 529 f., 537; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 386 f., 664 ff.; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ i. 335 ff.; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1114.

[2134] They were not in force in 196 (Livy xxxiii. 42. 1) or in 194 (Livy xxxiv. 53. 1 f.; xxxv. 9. 7). On the other hand Cicero’s description (_Dom._ 20. 51; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 8. 21) of these laws as veteres should place them a hundred years or more before his time. The two passages of Cicero are the only sources; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 919; ii. 315 f., 655; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 835. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 501, thinks they may have resulted from the Gracchan agitation.

[2135] _CIL._ i². p. 146; Obseq. 18.

[2136] _Orat._ xxxvi.

[2137] Livy, ep. lvi (mentioned in connection with the year 134); Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 85-7. Long does not consider the date settled; but see Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 521; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 485; Kübler, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1117.

[2138] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 712; ii. 316, 655.

[2139] Livy xl. 19. 11; Schol. Bob. 361; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 717; ii. 257, 663; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 92; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 391; Hartmann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 1801, Mommsen, _Strafr._ 867, n. 2.

[2140] Polyb. vi. 56. 4; Livy, ep. xlvii; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 717; ii. 312, 663; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 92; Hartmann, ibid.

[2141] P. 250.—Of minor importance is the lex Rutilia, 169, which besides confirming the earlier statute for the election of twenty-four military tribunes (p. 342) defined the rights of the tribuni “rufuli” and “a populo” respectively; Fest. 261. 29; ep. 260; cf. Livy vii. 5. 9; xxvii. 36. 14; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 365.—The rogation of Ti. Sempronius, tr. pl. in 167, for granting the imperium to certain promagistrates for the day of their triumph has been considered above; p. 335, n. 2.

[2142] _Lex Ant. de Termess._ in _CIL._ I. 204. ii. 13-7; cf. Livy xxxii. 27. 3 f. (cutting down such expenses in Sardinia); xxxiv. 4; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 207, 673; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 307.

[2143] Cato, _Orat._ lxix, in Gell. xx. 2. 1; cf. Livy xxxii. 8. 3; xli. 14. 11; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 280, 673.

[2144] App. _Lib._ 135; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 19. 51. Appian and Cicero speak of a senatus consultum only; but a lex Livia is vouched for by the _Lex Agr._ of 111; _CIL._ i. 200. 81; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 643; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ i. 465.

[2145] Livy xxxiii. 25. 6. A lex Maevia, seemingly on Asiatic affairs, supported by Cato but otherwise unknown, belongs perhaps to 189; Cato, _Orat._ lxxv.

[2146] Livy, ep. xlix; new ep. l. 98-100; Cic. _Brut._ 23. 89; _Att._ xii. 5. 3; Val. Max. viii. 1. absol. 2.

[2147] Cic. _Off._ iii. 30. 109.

[2148] Livy xl. 38. 9; cf. 59. 1 (179 B.C.).

[2149] Val. Max. ii. 8. 1; Oros. v. 4. 7; cf. Cic. _Pis._ 26. 62; Livy xxxvii. 46. 1 f.; xl. 38. 9; Gell. v. 6. 21; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 262, 676; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 133.

[2150] P. 293.

[2151] Livy xxxii. 29. 3 f. These colonies were actually founded in 194; Livy xxxiv. 45. 1; Vell. i. 15. 3.

[2152] Livy xxxiv. 53. 1 f. The former was founded in 192; Livy xxxv. 40. 5.

[2153] _Lex Agr._ of 111, in _CIL._ i. 200. 43; Livy xxxiv. 45.

[2154] Livy xxxvii. 57. 7.

[2155] Livy xxxix. 55. 5. On the colonies of 181, see Livy xl. 29. 1; 34. 2; Vell. i. 15; _CIL._ i. 538, in which nothing is said either of the senate or of the people.

[2156] I. 41. 1.

[2157] P. 307, 311.

[2158] It was in the capacity of administrator of public property that the senate controlled this field. The only other instance of popular legislation in this period touching state economy was the plebiscite of M. Lucretius, 172 (Livy xlii. 19. 1 f.; cf. xxvii. 11. 8; Gran. Licin. xxviii), for renewing the tribunician law of 210, which directed the censors to farm the vectigalia of Campania; p. 337 above.—In 169 a tribunician rogation of P. Rutilius threatened to annul the censorial contracts (Livy xliii. 16. 6) as a rebuke to the censors for their arbitrary management of the business. When this object was secured, the bill was allowed to drop. It is true, as Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 24, n. 1, remarks, that no one questioned the right of the people to cancel an administrative act of the censors; but it was quite another thing to find a college of tribunes unanimously disposed to interfere. The significant fact is that in all the time between the peace with Hannibal and the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus no important financial act was passed by the comitia.

[2159] Livy xxxv. 7; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 221, 660.

[2160] A rogatio Iunia concerning usury, known only through Cato’s opposition to it (_Orat._ vi), belongs to this period—perhaps to 195 (Livy xxxiv. 1. 4; xxxv. 41. 9 f.) or to 191 (Livy xxxvi. 2. 6).

[2161] Livy, ep. xli.

[2162] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 41. 104 ff.; _Rep._ iii. 10. 17; Gaius ii. 274; Dio Cass. lvi. 10. 2; Pseud. Ascon. 188; Gell, vi (vii). 13; xx. i. 23; p. 90 above.

[2163] Gaius ii. 226 and Poste’s comment; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 298, 660; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 95, 128; Roby, _Rom. Priv. Law_, i. 345. It took the place of a lex Furia of earlier date for limiting to one thousand asses the amount which a legatee or, in view of death, a donee could accept; Gaius, ibid.; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 940 ff. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 502, places the lex Furia between 203 and 170.

[2164] Cato, _Orat._ lxviii, lxxv; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 660; Voigt, _Die lex Maenia de dote vom Jahre 568 der Stadt_; _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 789-801, attempts to determine the contents as well as the date; cf. Arndts, in _Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch._ vii (1868). 1-44.

[2165] Livy xxxvii. 36. 7 f.; cf. Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 5. 13.

[2166] Ibid. § 9; p. 57 f., 334 above.

[2167] P. 340.

[2168] Livy xxxviii. 36. 5 f.

[2169] Cic. _Brut._ 20. 79; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 135, n. 1.

[2170] A pretorian law of Valerius Flaccus, 98, for the purpose is mentioned by Cic. _Balb._ 24. 55; cf. _CIL._ vi. 2181 f.; Pais, _Anc. Italy_, 309. Naturally before the establishment of the right of the people in this matter (p. 283, 304) the grant was made by the consuls and the censors.

[2171] Cic. _Balb._ 9. 24.

[2172] Cf. the bestowal of citizenship upon the Carthaginian Muttines by a plebiscite ex auctoritate patrum in 210; Livy xxvii. 5. 7; Varro, in Ascon. 13.

[2173] See the literature on the ius postliminii in Schiller, _Röm. Staatsalt._ 618. There were certain cases of restoration of citizenship, however, which were thought to require a comitial vote; Cic. _Balb._ 11. 28. But on this question opinions differed; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 656, n. 1.

[2174] Cf. the lex Plautia Papiria, in Cic. _Arch._ 4. 7: “Data est civitas Silvani lege et Carbonis: Si qui foederatis civitatibus adscripti fuissent, si tum, cum lex ferebatur, in Italia domicilium habuissent et si sexaginta diebus apud praetorem essent professi”; also _Balb._ 8. 19 (singillatim); _CIL._ ii. 159; iii. 5232 (viritim); Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 132.

[2175] Gell. xvi. 13. 6; Cic. _Balb._ 8. 21. Heraclea and Naples preferred their freedom; Cic. ibid.; _Fam._ xiii. 30. 1.

[2176] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 133.

[2177] This spirit expressed itself in the lex Minicia of unknown date, though probably anterior to the social war. It ordered that children born of a union between a Roman and a person of a nationality with which there was no conubium should follow the condition of the alien parent; Gaius i. 78 f.; Ulp. v. 8; Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ ii. 182.

[2178] Livy xxxix. 3. 5 f.

[2179] Livy xli. 9. 9-11; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 21, 115; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 964, n. 1; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 92, n. 1.

[2180] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 435 f.; cf. however Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 27; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 993.

[2181] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 705; ii. 27.

[2182] Livy ix. 46; Plut. _Mar._ 5.

[2183] Livy xxxix. 19. 5 f.; Cic. _Sest._ 52. 110; _Phil._ ii. 2. 3. A law of Augustus, 18 B.C., permitted all excepting senators to marry freedwomen; Dio Cass. liv. 16. 2; lvi. 7. 2. Conubium had not been impossible, but had been considered disgraceful both by society and by the law.

[2184] Cf. Livy x. 21. 4; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 515; ii. 27; p. 60 above.

[2185] P. 334.

[2186] Livy, ep. xx; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 436, n. 3. The statement of the epitomator is that by the censors “Libertini in quattuor tribus redacti sunt, cum antea dispersi per omnes fuissent, Esquilinam,” etc. It refers either to the censorship of Flaminius (Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 995) or far less probably to the one immediately preceding. On the city tribes, see p. 64.

[2187] P. 205 f.

[2188] Suet. _Claud._ 24; Livy vi. 46. 6; Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 2. 32; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 422; Herzog, ibid. i. 977.

[2189] Plut. _Flamin._ 18.

[2190] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 234; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 436 f. This interpretation seems necessary notwithstanding Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 884.

[2191] As in 217; Livy xxii. 11. 8.

[2192] In general, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 26-38; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 420 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 976 ff., 992 ff.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._, see index, s. Libertini. On the censorial distribution of the libertini in 179, see p. 85, n. 3.

[2193] P. 338.

[2194] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 174, 211, 670; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 23.

[2195] Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 2; Diod. xxxvii. 3. 5; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 23; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 425.

[2196] Macrob. ibid. § 3; Schol. Bob. 310; Fest. 242. 12.

[2197] Fest. 201. 31; Cato, _Orat._ xxvii.

[2198] Gell. ii. 24. 3; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 3-5; Athen. vi. 274 C.

[2199] Pliny, _N. H._ x. 50. 139.

[2200] Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 6.

[2201] The author may, as Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 311, 672, assumes, be identical with the Cn. Aufidius who was tribune in that year; Livy xliii. 8. 2. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2288 f., regards the identity as no more than possible.

[2202] Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 17. 64.

[2203] Cic. _Cornel._ i. 25 (Frag. A. vii); Ascon. 69.

[2204] Livy xxxiv. 44. 4.

[2205] Mention of this law is made in connection only with the Roscian statute of 67, which is spoken of as a restoration of an earlier act; p. 428 f. below.

[2206] P. 253 ff.

[2207] Cic. _Off._ ii. 21. 75.

[2208] Cic. _Rab. Perd._ 3. 8.

[2209] _Dig._ xlviii. 15.

[2210] _Curc._ 621 f.; _Merc._ 664 f.

[2211] In _Verhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xxxvii (1885). 320.

[2212] Ibid. 327.

[2213] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 663; cf. _CIL._ i². p. 144.

[2214] _Röm. Strafr._ 780, n. 4.

[2215] _Declam. in Cat._ 19. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664 f., prefers to assign it to the tribune of 139; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 563, n. 4, doubts its existence.

[2216] Cic. _Fam._ viii. 12. 3; 14. 4; Suet. _Dom._ 8. 3 (Scantinius; Ihm); Juv. ii. 44; Quint. _Inst._ iv. 2. 69. Voigt, in _Verhdl. d. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xlii (1890), 273, assigns it to 226 or 225. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 667 f., places it between 227 and 50. The date 149 rests upon W. W. Fowler’s restoration of the new epitome, 115 f.: “M. Sca(n)ti(ni)us ... am tulit (de) in stupro deprehensi(s).” Quite another matter, however, is referred to in this passage, if Kornemann’s reading is correct: “Sca(n)tius (qui repuls)am tulit in stupro deprehens(us se occidit).” The date of the law, therefore, still remains in doubt.

[2217] Schol. Bob. 233; Cic. _Brut._ 27. 106; _Off._ ii. 21. 75; _Verr._ iii. 84. 195; iv. 25. 56; Val. Max. vi. 9. 10; Tac. _Ann._ xv. 20; Lex Acil. in _CIL._ i. 198. 23, 74, 81; Mommsen, ibid. p. 54 f.; _Strafr._ 708; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 321 f., 664; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 419.

[2218] In general the leges repetundarum were for the protection of Italy as well as of the provinces; cf. p. 376, 377, 442.

[2219] Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 17; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 415 f.

[2220] P. 255, n. 1 (3).

[2221] Macrob. _Sat._ i. 13. 21; Censor, xx. 6. f.; Livy xliii. 11. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 353; ii. 223, 676; Mommsen, _Röm. Chron._ 40 ff.; Matzat, _Röm. Chron._ i. 46.

[2222] P. 116; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 308 f.

[2223] Schol. Bob. 319; cf. Cic. _Sest._ 26. 56: “De tempore legum rogandorum.”

[2224] Livy, new ep. liv. 193 f.: “A. Gabinius verna(e ... rogationem tulit) suffragium per ta(bellam ferri),” indicates servile descent.

[2225] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 35; cf. 15. 34; _Amic._ 12. 41; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 2. 4.

[2226] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 35 f.; _Brut._ 25. 97; 27. 106; _Sest._ 48. 103; _Amic._ 12. 41; Ascon. 78; Pseud. Ascon. 141 f.; Schol. Bob. 303; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 105-10; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 658; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 422; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 340 f.

[2227] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 30. 84; Ascon. 46; Val. Max. iii. 7. 9; cf. Cic. _Brut._ 25. 97; Vell. ii. 10. 1; Val. Max. viii. 1. damn. 7.

[2228] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 344; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 94.

[2229] See especially Cic. _Leg._ iii. 15. 34: “Quis autem non sentit omnem auctoritatem optimatium tabellariam legem abstulisse?”

[2230] P. 347.

[2231] P. 184.

[2232] App. _Lib._ 112 (White’s rendering); cf. Livy, ep. l.

[2233] Livy, ep. lvi; App. _Iber._ 84.

[2234] App. _Iber._ 83; cf. p. 188, n. 2, 342, 367.

[2235] Cic. _Amic._ 25. 96; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 335, 688.

[2236] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 8.

[2237] Polyb. vi. 18. 5-8 (Shuckburgh’s rendering).

[2238] The main part of his history was composed before the third war with Carthage; Christ, W., _Gesch. d. griech. Litteratur_ (4th ed. 1905), 585; Cuntz, O., _Polybius und sein Werk_ (1902), 82. It is understood, however, that certain parts were inserted after the beginning of the revolutionary period.

[2239] It is true that the Gracchan trouble opened his eyes to some of the defects in the constitution; but the aristocratic recovery after the tribunate of Tiberius (and perhaps after that of Gaius) confirmed his belief in the fundamental soundness and in the recuperative power of the state.

[2240] P. 360 f.

[2241] Livy xxxv. 10. 12: “Multos pecuarios damnarunt.” In Livy xxxiv. 4. 9 Cato while speaking in defence of the Oppian law, in 195, is represented as mentioning the article which established the limit of five hundred iugera.

[2242] _Orig._ v. 5.

[2243] These are provisions of an agrarian law passed before the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus (App. _B. C._ i. 8. 33 f.) but not expressly referred to Licinius and Sextius in any ancient source. The first article seems to assume a greater development of slavery than could be true of the year 367, and the second would belong more naturally to a repetition than to the original enactment; p. 296, n. 4, 334, n. 1.

[2244] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9.

[2245] App. _B. C._ i. 9. 37 and 11. 46 states that an additional two hundred and fifty iugera were allowed for each son, and Livy, ep. lviii, sets the maximum at a thousand iugera. Combining the two sources, we reach the probable result given in the text; cf. also (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 64. 3; Siculus Flacc. p. 136. 10 (CC is a corruption of ↀ). See Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 450, n. 3; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 114; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87.

[2246] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; cf. Greenidge, ibid.

[2247] App. _B. C._ i. 11. 46. It is not stated that these lots should become private property. Appian mentions this article as the only compensation for improvements on the lands surrendered. The fact that article 2 was withdrawn from the bill before it became a law may account for its omission from this source.

[2248] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; App. _B. C._ i. 11.

[2249] _CIL._ i. 200. 14: “_Sei quis_ ... agri iugra non amplius xxx possidebit habebitve.” In all probability this specification came originally from the Sempronian law.

[2250] Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 88; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9; App. _B. C._ i. 27. 121; Weber, _Röm. Agrargesch._ 151.

[2251] This is a necessary deduction from a speech of Tiberius quoted by App. _B. C._ i. 9. 35; cf. 11. 43; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 9. The _Lex Agr._ of 111 (_CIL._ i. 200. 21) refers to assignments made by C. Gracchus to Latins and allies as compensation for public lands surrendered by them to the government for colonial purposes; cf. § 31. Doubtless a similar provision was included in the statute of Tiberius. Although viritim assignments had hitherto benefited citizens only, Latins and Italians had been admitted to Latin colonies founded by Rome; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 91.

[2252] Cf. _Lex Agr._ in _CIL._ i. 200. 6: “_Extra eum agrum, qui ager ex_ lege plebive scito, quod C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebei) rog(avit), exceptum cavitumque est nei divideretur.” The exceptions numbered from a to g in the text above are taken from the agrarian law of 111. As these exceptions were made in the agrarian law of C. Gracchus, it is here assumed that they were made previously by Tiberius.

[2253] _Lex Agr._ in _CIL._ i. 200. 31 f.; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ i. 4. 10; ii. 22. 58 (land held similarly in Africa).

[2254] Cf. Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90.

[2255] In the earliest arrangement of the kind the part was one third, as the name indicates; Livy xxxi. 13. 9; _CIL._ i. 200. 31 f.; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 113; Weber, _Röm. Agrargesch._ 149-51. The word is derived from trientare, as stabulum from stare; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90.

[2256] _CIL._ i. 200. 14; cf. 25 f. See Mommsen’s comment, p. 91; Frontin. _Contr._ p. 15; Hygin. _Cond. Agr._ p. 116. 23; _Lim. Const._ p. 201. 12; Siculus Flacc. p. 157; Weber, _Röm. Agrargesch._ 120 f.

[2257] Voigt, in _Abhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ x (1888). 229; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 113.

[2258] _CIL._ ibid. 28.

[2259] _CIL._ 200. 1, 4, 6, 13, 22; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ i. 7. 21; ii. 29. 81; _Att._ i. 19. 4; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 91; Greenidge, ibid. 112 f.

[2260] _CIL._ ibid. 24-6; Voigt, ibid. 227. The classification of public land reserved from distribution by the agrarian law of 111 is that of Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90 f.

[2261] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 12. 31; App. _B. C._ i. 9. 37; Livy, ep. lviii.

[2262] They are so called in _Lex Lat. Bant._ 15, in _CIL._ i. 197; _Lex Rep._ 13, 16, 22, ibid. 198; _Lex Agr._ 16, ibid. 200.

[2263] _Lex Agr._ in _CIL._ i. 200. 13 f., 17, 21-3; Cic. _Att._ i. 19. 4; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87. Illegal occupations alone are thereafter mentioned; Cic. _Orat._ ii. 70. 284; App. _B. C._ i. 36. 162.

[2264] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 10; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 121; Strachan-Davidson’s explanation (_Appian_, p. 13) seems to be incorrect.

[2265] Livy, ep. lviii; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 10-3; App. _B. C._ i. 12 f.; Cic. _N. D._ i. 38. 106.

[2266] Livy, ep. lviii; App. _B. C._ i. 13. 55; Vell. ii. 2. 3; Flor. ii. 2. 6.

[2267] P. 347 f.

[2268] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 13.

[2269] Livy, ep. lviii: “Promulgavit et aliam legem agrariam, qua sibi latius agrum patefaceret, ut iidem triumviri iudicarent, qua publicus ager, qua privatus esset.”

[2270] _CIL._ i. 552-5, 583; ix. 1024 f.

[2271] _B. C._ i. 19. 78 f. The context indicates that in Appian’s opinion the people had nothing to do with the measure.

[2272] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 688 (cf. iii. 22) and Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 158, suppose without evidence that Scipio effected his object by means of a law.

[2273] P. 373 below. On the agrarian law of Ti. Gracchus, see further Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 159-91; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 445-52; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 382-400; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 110-28; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 156-84.

[2274] Livy, ep. lviii; Vell. ii. 2. 3: “Octavio collegae pro bono publico stanti imperium abrogavit”; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 12; App. _B. C._ i. 12; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 10. 24; Dio Cass. Frag. 83. 4.

[2275] P. 360.

[2276] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 12; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 80, 395; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 185 ff. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 125-7, and Pöhlmann, in _Sitzb. d. bayer. Akad._ 1907. 465 ff., contend for its legality.

[2277] P. 233 f.

[2278] P. 255.

[2279] Plut. _Ti. Gracch._ 16; Dio Cass. Frag. 83. 7. These sources are obscure and somewhat inconsistent. The proposals of Tiberius can, better than in any other way though not with absolute certainty, be inferred from the laws of his brother.

[2280] P. 360.

[2281] P. 307 f.

[2282] Livy, ep. lix; Cic. _Amic._ 25. 96.

[2283] _B. C._ i. 21. 90: Καὶ γάρ τις ἤδη νόμος κεκύρωτο εἰ δήμαρχος ἐνδέοι ταῖς παραγγλείαις, τὸν δῆμον ἐκ πάντων ἐπιλέγεσθαι. White translates, “For in cases where there was not a sufficient number of candidates, the law authorizes the people to choose from the whole number then in office”; and scholars usually suppose that in the first clause reference is to candidates. But if tribunus, the equivalent of δήμαρχος, stood in the law, it must have signified tribune, not candidate; and in that case παραγγελίαις, however Appian may have understood it, must be the equivalent of renuntiationibus, “announcements of votes.”

[2284] Cf. Strachan-Davidson, _Appian_, p. 23. It was under the second contingency that C. Gracchus was reëlected tribune without being a candidate; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 8. The third time, though as some averred he had a majority of votes, the presiding tribune dared reject them; ibid. 12; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 94, n. 3. Fowler’s suggestion (_Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 217) that the law permitted but one reëlection of an individual is on the whole unlikely.

[2285] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 35; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 461; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 163 f.

[2286] The measure was being agitated at the time to which Cicero referred the dialogue _On the Republic_, iv. 2; cf. Q. Cic. _Petit. Cons._ 8. 33; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 657; iii. 25. On the Claudian law, see p. 335 above.

[2287] P. 358.

[2288] _Lex Acil. Rep._ 23, 74, in _CIL._ i. 198; Zumpt, in _Abhdl. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1845. 1-70, 475-515; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664; iii. 26; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 420; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 135, 211. The Latin Lex Bantina (_CIL._ i. 197), identified by some with the Lex Iunia, seems rather to belong to the tribunate of C. Gracchus; p. 379.

[2289] Cic. _Off._ iii. 11. 47; _Brut._ 28. 109; Fest. 286. 10; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 237 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 166 f.

[2290] App. _B. C._, i. 21, 34. 152; Val. Max. ix. 5. 1; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 418-21; Long, ibid. 241; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 462; Greenidge, ibid. 167 ff.; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 93; Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 422.

[2291] In March, April, and May, according to Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 44.

[2292] On the order of his enactments, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 38; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 210; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 466; Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 95, n. 4; Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 42 ff.; Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. (1905). 216 ff. Meyer calls attention to the fact that while Appian, _B. C._ i. 21 f., states the enactments in substantially correct order, he wrongly identifies the date of reëlection—midsummer 123—with the date of entrance upon his second term—December 10, 123—in this way pushing forward into the second year a large group of enactments which belong to the latter part of his first term.

[2293] P. 367.

[2294] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 4; Diod. xxxv. 25, 2; Fest. ep. 23 (abacti); Lange, _Röm. Alt._ i. 655; iii. 30 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 202.

[2295] P. 368.

[2296] P. 255 f. For the comitial interdict against Popillius, see p. 256.

[2297] Cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 204 f.; Fowler, _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 224.

[2298] Humbert, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ ii. 1346. For examples, see Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 114, and especially, Oliver, _Roman Economic Conditions_, 61 ff.

[2299] Livy, ep. lx; App. _B. C._ i. 21. 89; Schol. Bob. 303; Vell. ii. 6. 3; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5.

[2300] App. ibid. § 90; Diod. xxxv. 25; Cic. _Sest._ 48. 103.

[2301] Cic. _Off._ ii. 21. 72; _Tusc._ iii. 20. 48; Diod. ibid; Oros. v. 12. 4; cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 261-3; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 203-7.

[2302] The view here offered was suggested in Botsford, _History of Rome_ (1901), 156. It is presented in greater detail by Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx (1905). 221 ff.

[2303] Begun by his lex de provocatione; p. 371.

[2304] Placed before the frumentarian law by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 31. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 95, n. 4, and Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 43, hold the view represented above in the text.

[2305] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 9.

[2306] _CIL._ i. 200. 6, 22; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 32.

[2307] P. 364 f., 386.

[2308] App. _B. C._ i. 23. 98; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 6 f.; cf. Voigt, in _Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xxiv (1872). 68 ff.

[2309] Livy, ep. lx; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 88.

[2310] Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 209; cf. _CIL._ i. 200, 1, 3, 4, 6, 22. Dio Cassius, Frag. 84. 2, intimates that after the death of Scipio the distribution of the public land was renewed with energy. Reference must accordingly be to the operation of the law of Gaius.

[2311] Cf. App. _B. C._ i. 21 f.

[2312] App. _B. C._ i. 14. 58.

[2313] P. 358.

[2314] P. 345.

[2315] P. 368. The measure is referred to as a lex iudiciaria by Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 14. 6.

[2316] The epitomator of Livy, lx, supposes that Gaius offered and actually carried a measure for adding six hundred knights to the senate with the understanding that the jurors were to be drawn from that body thus enlarged; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 530, n. 1. Such an act, however, could not have been termed a lex iudiciaria, as it would have been concerned simply with the composition of the senate. Everything is opposed to the assumption that the bill in this form passed or at least that it was put into effect. Plutarch, _C. Gracch._ 5 f., seems to signify that his law provided for an album of six hundred jurors, one half to be drawn from the senate, the rest from the knights. It is by no means necessary, with Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx (1905). 426, n. 16, to interpret the expression ὁ δὲ τριακοσίους τῶν ἱππέων προσκατέλεξεν αὐτοῖς οὖσι τριακοσίοις, καὶ τὰς κρίσεις κοινὰς τῶν ἑξακοσίωον ἐποίησε (cf. _Ag. et Cleom. et Gracch._ _Comp._ 2) as “adding three hundred equites to the senate to form the body of iudices.” These sources have confused the projects with the law as actually passed; cf. Strachan-Davidson, _Appian_, p. 23.

[2317] App. _B. C._ i. 22. 92; Vell. ii. 6. 3; 32. 3; Varro, in Non. Marc. 454; Tac. _Ann._ xii. 60; Pseud. Ascon. 103, 145; Flor. ii. 1. 6; 5. 3 (iii. 13. 17); Diod. xxxv. 25; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5; Livy, ep. lx; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 668; iii. 38-40; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 466 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 263-9; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 434; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 212-7; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 457-64; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ ii. 219-21.

[2318] This is true at least of the extraordinary quaestio established by the Mamilian law of 110; Cic. _Brut._ 34. 128; cf. 33. 127; Schol. Bob. 311; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 381 f., 435.

[2319] _CIL._ i. 198.

[2320] _CIL._ i. 198. 16. There was under the republic a census qualification for the knights who acted as iudices (Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 20), though we have no authority that the limit of four hundred thousand sesterces existed before the principate. Originally Mommsen supplied the lacuna with a statement of the money qualification as here given; but afterward, changing his mind, he filled the gap with “equum publicum habebit habuerit.”

[2321] An article of the lex Acilia provides that within ten days after the enactment of this statute the said praetor shall choose the four hundred and fifty persons from whom the jurors of that court are to be drawn; thereafter the revision is to be annual; _CIL._ i. 198. 12, 14.

[2322] Strachan-Davidson, _Appian_, p. 23, followed by Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 429, identifies the two—on untenable ground, for the reliable sources speak distinctly of a Sempronian law and an Acilian law.

[2323] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 531, n. 1, preferably regards the Sempronian as the later; but in that case the transfer would have been achieved in substance by the Acilian statute—a view which is contradicted by the sources.

[2324] This idea would explain the fact that the extant fragments of the lex Acilia contain no reference to a Sempronian lex iudiciaria.

[2325] Cic. _Verr._ i. 17. 51 f.; II. i. 9. 26; _Brut_. 68. 239; Pseud. Ascon. 149, 165.

[2326] P. 370.

[2327] _CIL._ i. 198. Reference to the IIIviri of the Sempronian agrarian law (§ 13, 16, 22) proves it to belong to 133-119, while the fact that it does not admit senators among the jurors requires it to follow the judiciary law of C. Gracchus; and more particularly, the implication that at the time of its enactment the lex Rubria (p. 383 below) was in force places it between 123 and 121; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 55; Ruggiero, _Diz. Ep._ i. 41. In general on the law, see Rudorff, _Ad legem Aciliam_; Zumpt, in _Abhdl. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1845. 1-70, 475-515; _Röm. Criminalr._ i. 99 ff.; Huschke, in _Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch._ v (1866). 46-84; Hesky, in _Wiener_ _Studien_, xxv (1903). 272-87; Brassloff, ibid. xxvi. 106-17; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664; iii. 40; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 642; _Röm. Strafr._ 708 f.; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 420; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 214, n. 2; Ruggiero, ibid. 41-4; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 256.

[2328] _Lex Rep._ 2 f.; cf. 8 f.

[2329] _Lex Rep._ 1.

[2330] Vell. ii. 8. 1; cf. Cic. _Verr._ iii. 80. 184; Ruggiero, _Diz. Ep._ i. 42.

[2331] _Lex Rep._ 8 f.

[2332] The principle was expressed in an article of the lex Memmia de incestu of 111 (Val. Max. iii. 7. 9), and probably in every law for the establishment of a court. It was used throughout the history of the republic; cf. Livy x. 37. 7; 46. 16 (year 293); p. 289 above; Suet. _Caes._ 23 (59); Dio Cass. xxxix. 7. 3 (57).

In this connection mention may be made of the lex Hostilia, which allowed actions for theft to be brought in behalf of persons absent in the service of the state or in captivity or in wardship; Just. _Inst._ iv. 10. The date is unknown, though Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 282, n. 14, inclines to assign it to 209 or 207.

[2333] _Lex Rep._ 19-26; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 216 f. Ruggiero, ibid. 43, is obviously wrong.

[2334] _Lex Rep._ 76-8; cf. 83-5.

[2335] § 28 states that money within a specified limit might legally be received—perhaps by the patron of the accuser—from which we may infer that the law defined precisely what was permitted and what forbidden all persons participating in the trial; cf. Brassloff, in _Wiener Studien_, xxvi. 109 f.

[2336] Cic. _Cluent._ 56. 154: “Illi (senatus) non hoc recusabant, ne ea lege accusarentur, qua nunc Habitus accusatur, quae tum erat Sempronia, nunc est Cornelia” (“They did not object to being accused under that law under which Habitus is now being tried, which was then the Sempronian but is now the Cornelian statute”). The trial was before the quaestio veneficis under the Cornelian law which constituted this court and which is described as essentially identical with a Sempronian law. _CIL._ i. p. 200. xxxiii: (“C. Claud. Ap. F. C. N. Pulcher) ... IUDEX. Q. VENEFICIS,” aedile 99, praetor 95, consul 92, corroborates the existence of such a court before Sulla. For other proofs, see Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 36 ff.; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 664.

[2337] P. 255, n. 1 (4), 358.

[2338] Cic. _Cluent._ 55. 151.

[2339] Ibid. 52. 144.

[2340] In 66 Cluentius Habitus was brought to trial before the quaestio inter sicarios et veneficos on the charge (1) of having corrupted the jurors in an earlier trial of the kind, (2) of poisoning; Cic. _Cluent._; cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 12.

[2341] The whole tenor of Cicero’s _Pro Cluentio_ is to the effect that the knights were not bound by the provision against bribery. He had a strong motive, however, for bringing into prominence the article which provided for the punishment of magistrates and senators, and for suppressing the one, if there was one, concerning the punishment of equites; and this suppression was rendered easy by the fact that the Cornelian law then in force mentioned senatorial jurors only. Appian, _B. C._ i. 22. 97 (cf. 35. 158, 161), assumes that under the Sempronian law there were trials for the bribery of jurors, rendered useless, however, and finally done away with by the conspiracy and violence of the knights; cf. Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 18 f. This interpretation of the known facts seems preferable to the view of Cicero, which, however, is accepted by most scholars; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 635; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 421; _Hist. of Rome_, i. 216 f.

[2342] _CIL._ i. 197; Ritschl. _Prisc. lat. mon. epigr. tab._ xix.

[2343] Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 48-53; Girard, _Textes_, p. 26-9.

[2344] As indicated by the “Ioudex, quei ex hace lege plebeive scito factus erit”; § 2.

[2345] Karlowa, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 431. Kirchhoff, _Stadtrecht von Bantia_, 90-7, regards it as a part of a judiciary law. Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 46 f., connects it with a treaty between Rome and Bantia. See also Krüger-Brissaud, _Hist. d. source d. droit Rom._ 94.

[2346] Cic. _Verr._ iii. 6. 12; _Att._ i. 17. 9; Schol. Bob. 259; Vell. ii. 6. 3; Gell. xi. 10; App. _B. C._ v. 4. 17 f.; Fronto, _Ad Verum_, p. 125; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 674 f.; iii. 34; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 468 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 217-21. Hitherto the senate had exercised unrestricted power in granting such remissions; Polyb. vi. 17. 5.

[2347] App. _B. C._ v. 4. 19; Diod. xxxv. 25.

[2348] App. _B. C._ i. 22. 94-7.

[2349] Varro, in Non. Marc. 454; Flor. ii. 5. 3 (iii. 17).

[2350] Diod. xxxvii. 9; cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 9. 20. As a substitute for his law concerning the taxation of Asia his opponents vainly offered the rogatio Aufeia, probably pretorian, on the same subject; Gell. xi. 10; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 675; iii. 35.

[2351] Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 2. 3; _Balb._ 27. 61; _Dom._ 9. 24; _Fam._ i. 7. 10; Sall. _Iug._ 27; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 41; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 470. Before the enactment of this law it was possible for the people to grant a province to whomsoever it pleased, whether magistrate or private person. A lex of 131, probably tribunician, had given the province of Asia to P. Licinius Crassus, consul; Livy, ep. lix; Cic. _Phil._ xi. 8. 18. The Sempronian law did not affect their right. In 107 a plebiscite of C. Manlius granted Numidia, with the conduct of the Jugurthine war, to C. Marius, consul; Sall. _Iug._ 73; Gell. vii. 11. 2; _CIL._ i. p. 290 f. On the Sulpician law for granting the conduct of the Mithridatic war to Marius, then a private citizen, see p. 404.

[2352] Cic. _Prov. Cons._ 7. 17.

[2353] Cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 222 f.

[2354] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 672.

[2355] P. 368.

[2356] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5; cf. Livy xxv. 5. 5-8. In speaking on the rogation of Cn. Marcius Censorinus, a proposal not otherwise known, Gaius is said to have remarked: “Si vobis probati essent homines adulescentes, tamen necessario vobis tribuni militares veteres faciundi essent”; Charis. 208. The new epitome of Livy proves that the military question was more prominently before the public at this time than has hitherto been supposed.

[2357] XXXV. 25. For the Gracchi in general Diodorus draws from Posidonius, an exceedingly hostile source.

[2358] Livy lx; App. _B. C._ i. 23 f.; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 6, 8 f.; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 3. The date is established by Vell. i. 15. 4; Oros. v. 12. 1; cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 95, n. 4; Mommsen, in _CIL._ p. 87, 96.

[2359] Plut. _C. Gracch._ 9; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 224 f.

[2360] Vell. i. 15. 4; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 3; cf. Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 522; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 55. His plan to colonize Capua (Plut. _C. Gracch._ 8) was not carried out.

[2361] The lex Sempronia or Graccana, mentioned in the _Liber Coloniarum_, in _Gromatici_ (Lachmann), p. 229, 233, 237, 238; cf. p. 216, 219, 228, 255; cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 224, n. 2.

[2362] This fact is deduced from the literary references to the subject and from the terms of the agrarian law of 111; _CIL._ i. 200. 5, 13; cf. Mommsen’s comment, p. 90. The same principle holds for any other colonies founded in Italy between 133 and 111.

[2363] _Lex Acil._, in _CIL._ i. 198. 22; _Lex Agr._, _CIL._ i. 200. 59; Vell. i. 15. 4; ii. 7. 8; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 10 f.; App. _B. C._ i. 24; _Pun._ 136; Livy, ep. lx; Fronto, _Ad Verum_, ii. p. 125; Sol. 28. For the date, see Vell. i. 15. 4; Oros. v. 12. 1; Eutrop. iv. 21.

[2364] Vell. ii. 6. 2; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 5, 8 f.; App. _B. C._ i. 23. 99; 34. 153; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 474 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, 233-7. About the end of 123 or the beginning of 122 Gaius had proposed to give the Latins equal suffrage with the Romans; Plut. ibid. 8 f.: Kornemann, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 45. The promulgation of this earlier rogation must have preceded that of the Livian bills.

The bill (or possibly bills) which included the Italians among the recipients of the citizenship could have been offered only between his return from Carthage and the elections of midsummer, 122; Kornemann, ibid. 51; Fowler, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ xx. 425.

[2365] Cf. Fannius, in Jul. Victor vi. 6. p. 224 Or.; Charisius, p. 143 Keil.

[2366] Appian, _B. C._ i. 23. 101; Plut. C. _Gracch._ 9. Plutarch, who alone speaks of the exemption from rent, seems to consider the measure to have applied retroactively to the Sempronian settlements as well as to those proposed by Livius. Although this could hardly have been the intention of the Livian act, the exemption of the colonists under it would naturally lead to the extension of equal privileges to the beneficiaries of the Sempronian agrarian laws.

[2367] Appian, _B. C._ i. 35. 156 (cf. p. 397 below) assumes that the colonial bill of Livius became a law. If that is true, there is no reason for supposing that the other was dropped before being brought to vote. Gaius might have prevented both by his veto (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 45); but even if he felt the intention to be mischievous, he could not have afforded to oppose so popular measures. Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87, is of the opinion that Minervia may have been a Livian colony; but he cannot understand why the others provided for were not founded. The reason doubtless is that the senate, which had used Livius as a tool, never seriously intended to execute the law.

[2368] A rogation of Gaius, proposed about the same time as the lex de civitate danda, concerning the order of voting in the comitia centuriata is mentioned by (Sall.) _Rep. Ord._ ii. 8: “Mihi ... placet lex quam C. Gracchus in tribunatu promulgaverit, ut ex confusis quinque classibus sorte centuriae vocarentur: ita coaequatur dignitate pecunia.” His object, to eliminate the influence of wealth, could be achieved by determining by lot the order of voting of the five classes; or a new grouping of the centuries could be substituted for the classes; but he could not have proposed that the centuries should vote one by one.

[2369] We know that in 91 they vehemently opposed the admission of the allies; p. 399, 400 below; cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Gracch._ 106, n. 1.

[2370] Opimius, consul in 121, ordered the equites to come each with two armed slaves to the support of the government; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 14. Sallust, _Iug._ 42, states that the senate, by holding out to the equites the hope of an alliance with the aristocracy, detached them from the plebs; cf. Meyer, ibid. 106.

The lex Acilia Rubria, passed most probably in 122, seems to have had to do with the participation of aliens in the worship of Jupiter Capitolinus; _S. C. de Astypalaeensibus_, in _CIG._ ii. 2485. 11 (cf. Böckh’s comment); Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 42. It is to be connected with the rogation for granting the citizenship to the allies, and probably aimed to liberalize the worship in the Sempronian spirit.

[2371] Cf. Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 231.

[2372] Dio Cassius, Frag. 85. 3, in a mutilated passage seems to refer to the great possibilities of a longer career. It would be unreasonable to suppose that so creative a mind could rest content at any given point.

[2373] Fest. 201. 19; Flor. ii. 3. 4 (iii. 15); Diod. xxxiv. 28 a (from Posidonius); (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 65. 5; Oros. v. 12. 5; Plut. _C. Gracch._ 13; App. _B. C._ i. 24. 105; _Pun._ 136; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 47; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 248; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 96.

[2374] App. _B. C._ i. 27. 121; cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 352; Greenidge, ibid. i. 285; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 4 f.

[2375] Ibid. § 122.

[2376] It seems to be a mistake for Spurius Thorius (Cic. _Brut._ 36. 136: “Sp. Thorius .... qui agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege vectigali levavit”). By interpreting this sentence “Sp. Thorius ... who relieved the public land of a defective and useless law by the imposition of a vectigal,” Mommsen (in _Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ 92 f.) attempts to bring Cicero into agreement with Appian. But the interpretation is violent and is not generally accepted. The statement of Cicero applies to the law of 111 far better than to that which Appian mentions under the name of Borius.

[2377] App. ibid.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 688; iii. 51; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 353 f.; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 9; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 285-8. If, as Greenidge supposes, the Livian colonial rogation became a law, it did not affect the vectigal imposed by the Sempronian statutes (p. 383 above).

It may have been as a compensation for the repeal of this Sempronian statute and of that of Rubrius that a lex of an unknown author provided in this year for the establishment of the colony of Narbo Martius in Narbonensis; Vell. i. 15. 5; ii. 7. 8; Eutrop. iv. 23; Cic. _Brut._ 43. 160; _Cluent._ 51. 140; _Font._ 5. 13; Kornemann, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 522.

[2378] _Brut._ 36. 136 (quoted p. 385, n. 5 above); cf. _Orat._ ii. 70. 284; App. _B. C._ i. 27. 123; _CIL._ i. 200; Rudorff, in _Zeitschr. f. gesch. Rechtswiss._ x (1842). 1-194; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 75 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 478; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 351-86; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 288.

[2379] The classification here given is a close reproduction of Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87-106; cf. _Verhdl. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ i. 89-101.

[2380] _Lex Agr._ 27 (cf. 4), in _CIL._ i. 200.

[2381] Ibid. 20-23.

[2382] Ibid. 2; cf. 13 f.

[2383] Ibid. 3, 15 f. The word sortito in these passages, e.g. “IIIvir sortito ceivi Romano dedit adsignavit,” proves a reference to the founding of colonies, as viritim assignations were not by lot; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 87.

[2384] Ibid. 5.

[2385] Ibid. 13 f. Although occupation was forbidden by the agrarian law of Ti. Gracchus (p. 366 above), they did take place, and are legalized by this article of the law of 111, in so far as they do not exceed the specified limit.

[2386] _Lex Agr._ 12: “Eum agrum quem ex h(ace) l(ege) venire dari reddive oportebit”; cf. 32. We do not know what land is meant. Perhaps Sipontia is included in this category; cf. 43; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 89.

[2387] _Lex Agr._ 19 f.; App. _B. C._ i. 27. 123; Cic. _Brut._ 36. 136: “Sp. Thorius ... qui agrum publicum vitiosa et inutili lege vectigali levavit” (“Sp. Thorius ... who by a mischievous and useless law freed the public land of vectigal”).

[2388] P. 365.

[2389] _Lex Agr._ 11-3; Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 90.

[2390] _Lex Agr._ 45, 55, 59-61, 66-9, 79, 89.

[2391] Ibid. 75 f., 79 f., 85.

[2392] Mommsen, in _CIL._ i. p. 98 ff.

[2393] _Lex Agr._ 96. This part of the inscription is hopelessly mutilated.

[2394] Ibid. 29.

[2395] P. 385.

[2396] P. 255.

[2397] P. 256 f.

[2398] Cic. _Brut._ 34. 128; cf. _Red. in Sen._ 15. 38; _Red. ad Quir._ 4. 9; 5. 11; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 279 f.; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 6 f.

[2399] P. 255.