Chapter XIX: A Summary of Comitial History (10)

[2400] Tac. _Ann._ xii. 60, confirmed by a statement of Cicero, in Ascon. 79, that senators and knights first sat together as jurors under the Plautian law of 89 (p. 402 below).

[2401] Cassiod. _Chron._ 384 C: “Per Servilium Caepionem consulem iudicia equitatibus et senatoribus communicata”; Obseq. 41 (101).

[2402] Cf. further Cic. _Inv._ i. 49. 92; _Brut._ 43. 161; 44. 164; _Cluent._ 51. 140; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 668; iii. 67 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 2 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 477-82. But that the knights continued in uninterrupted possession of the courts is proved by Cicero, _Verr._ i. 13. 38; Pseud. Ascon. 103, 145.

[2403] P. 355.

[2404] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 72. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 53; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 478. His lex sumptuaria of the same year, perhaps combined in one law with the provision concerning the libertini, limited not only the expense of meals but also the kind of food and the mode of preparing it; Pliny, _N. H._ viii. 57. 223; cf. Gell. ii. 24. 12; (Aurel. Vict.) ibid.—Two other sumptuary laws, both of which were enacted before 97, may be mentioned here. The statute of P. Licinius Crassus, pretorian or tribunician, ex senatus consulto, perhaps 104, made some changes in the lex Fannia and the lex Didia; Gell. ii. 24. 7; xv. 8; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 7; Fest. ep. 54; p. 356 above.—It was repealed by the plebiscite of M. Duronius before 97; Val. Max ii. 9. 5; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 71, 88.

[2405] Ascon. 67 f.; cf. p. 382, 392.

[2406] The reading of the MS. of Velleius, ii. 11. 1 (“natus equestri loco”) should not be corrected to “agresti loco” to conform with Plut. _Mar._ 3. Velleius has mentioned his equestrian birth to explain his connections with the publicans referred to in the following sentence.

[2407] The opposition of Marius to the populace is proved by his intercession against a frumentarian rogation of the same year, the purport of which is not definitely stated; Plut. _Mar._ 4.

[2408] Cic. _Pis._ 15. 36; _Red. in Sen._ 11. 28. On the pontes, see p. 469.

[2409] Varro, _R. R._ iii. 5. 18. On the custodes, see also p. 467 below.

[2410] Cic. _Pis._ 5. 11; _Red. in Sen._ 7. 17; cf. p. 466.

[2411] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 17. 38.

[2412] Plut. _Mar._ 4; Cic. ibid.; Lange, _Rom. Alt._ ii. 490; iii. 51; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 322 f.; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 304-6. The opposition of the consuls to this measure, and the consequent threat of Marius to imprison them, Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 8, regards as a farce. This interpretation of the circumstances, however, is unnecessary for explaining the policy of Marius; as a champion of the peasants, rather than of the plebs as a whole, be consistently passed his election law and opposed the frumentarian bill.

[2413] Plut. _Cat. Min._ 42.

[2414] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 16. 36; Oros. v. 15. 24; cf. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 195 f.; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 527; iii. 66. On the leges tabellariae in general, see Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, iv. 94, 340; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 105-10; Lange, ibid. see indices, s. v.

[2415] P. 388.

[2416] Cic. _N. D._ iii. 30. 74; Ascon. 46; Livy, ep. lxiii; Dio Cass. Frag. 87; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 10. 5 f. A plebiscite of C. Memmius, 111, de incestu (p. 377, n. 5) refers to the same subject.

[2417] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 697 f.

[2418] Sall. _Iug_. 40. 65; Cic. _Brut._ 33. 127 f.; Schol. Bob. 311. In 111 a plebiscite of the C. Memmius mentioned in n. 4 had commissioned L. Cassius, praetor, to bring Jugurtha to Rome as a witness against those accused of having bribed him; Sall. _Iug._ 32.

[2419] Livy, ep. lxvii; Ascon. 78; cf. (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 14. 24, which refers to a defence against the tribunes. For the earliest case of the kind, see p. 360; cf. p. 342.

[2420] The court was established by a plebiscite of C. Norbanus, 104; Dio Cass. Frag. 90; Gell. iii. 9. 7; Strabo iv. 1. 13; Cic. _N. D._ iii. 30. 74; _Balb._ 11. 28; Val. Max. iv. 7. 3; vi. 9. 13.

[2421] Ascon. 78: “Ut, quem populus damnasset cuive imperium abrogasset, in senatu non esset.” The disgraceful defeat of Caepio in Gaul and his embezzlement of the treasury found at Tolosa excited the people to this line of action; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 484. On the author, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1738. 63.

[2422] The lex Acilia repetundarum (_CIL._ i. 198. 13, 16), adopted in 122, implies that they did not have the right; but they must have acquired it before 102; App. _B. C._ i. 28. 126.

[2423] Ateius Capito, in Gell. xiv. 8. 2; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 228.

[2424] P. 341.

[2425] Cic. _Amic._ 25. 96.

[2426] Cic. ibid.; _Brut._ 21. 83; _N. D._ iii. 2. 5; 17. 43.

[2427] P. 347.

[2428] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 18; _Fam._ viii. 4. 1; _Ad Brut._ i. 5. 3; _Phil._ ii. 2. 4; xiii. 5. 12; Suet, _Ner._ 2; Vell. ii. 12. 3; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 537, 675; iii. 71; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm_, 418; Long, _Rom. Rep._ i. 49 f.; ii. 40-2; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 484 f.

[2429] Priscian, _Inst. Gram._ p. 90: “Cato nepos de actionibus ad populum, ne lex sua abrogetur: facite vobis in mentem veniat, quirites, ex aere alieno in hac civitate et in aliis omnibus propter diem atque fenus saepissimam discordiam fuisse.” This is the only source for the measure.

[2430] P. 388 f.

[2431] Ascon. 67 f.

[2432] The only source is Cic. _Off._ ii. 21. 73.

[2433] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 46; Mommsen-Blacas, _Hist. d. mon. Rom_, ii. 101 (for date and character).

[2434] P. 389.

[2435] Ascon. 21; Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 9; _Balb._ 23. 53; 24. 54. Cicero here informs us that by a provision of this law citizenship was offered to Latins as a reward for evidence in cases arising under it. This article was borrowed from the lex Acilia; p. 378. See also Val. Max viii. 1. 8; Cic. _Brut._ 62. 224; Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 309-11. Proof of the repeal of the Acilian law no later than that year is the circumstance that on the reverse of the stone which contains it is inscribed the agrarian law of 111; Mommsen, _CIL._ i. p. 55 f.

[2436] Cic. _Verr._ i. 9. 26.

[2437] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 8 f. The quotation is from Greenidge, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 310.

[2438] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 9; cf. Mommsen. _Röm. Strafr._ 709; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 423.

[2439] Cic. _Brut._ 62. 224.

[2440] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 73. 1: “Ut gratiam Marianorum militum pararet, legem tulit, ut veteranis centena agri iugera in Africa dividerentur, intercedentem Baebium collegam facta per populum lapidatione submovit”; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 76; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 485; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 262. In the opinion of Mühl, _App. Sat._ 77 f., the colonia Mariana (p. 396 below) was founded under this law.

[2441] P. 86, 89.

[2442] Cic. _Orat._ ii. 25. 107; 49. 201; _N. D._ iii. 30. 74.

[2443] As indicated by the fact that the trial of C. Norbanus in 95 took place under the law; Cic. _Orat._ 21. 89; 25. 107; 50. 203; _Off._ ii. 14. 49; Val. Max. viii. 5. 2.

[2444] The theory that the court established by the Appuleian law was special is held by Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, iii (1898). 440, n. 1; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 664, n. 1; _Röm. Strafr._ 198. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 76, 82, supposes that in his first tribunate he established a special court and in his second by his lex maiestatis a quaestio perpetua. Mühl, _App. Sat._ 74, also strongly favors the second. The statement of Gran. Licin. xxxiii (?). 4—“Cn. Manilius (for Manlius or Mallius; cf. _CIL._ i². p. 152 f.) ob eandem causam quam et Cepio L. Saturnini rogatione e civitate est cito (for plebiscito?) eiectus”—Lange applies to the rogation for a special court. The circumstance that the trial of Norbanus took place no less than five years after the enactment of the law and the general tenor of Cicero’s account of that trial (see n. 4 above) point clearly to the existence of a standing court; cf. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 485; Madvig, _Röm. Staat._ ii. 275; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 262 f.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 23-32.

To the same tribune, either in 103 or in 100, may belong the lex Appuleia de sponsu (Gaius iii. 122; p. 298, n. 1 above). In that case the lex Furia de sponsu (Gaius iii. 121; iv. 22; cf. same page above) must belong to the first century B.C.

[2445] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 73. 5: “Tribunus plebis refectus (Saturninus) Siciliam, Achaiam, Macedoniam novis colonis destinavit et aurum (Tolosanum), dolo an scelere Caepionis partum, ad emptionem agrorum convertit.” For Corsica, see p. 396.

[2446] Cic. _Balb._ 21. 48. The MS. reads “ternos,” which may be a mistake for a larger number (trecenos?).

[2447] App. _B. C._ i. 29. 130, 132; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 111 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 486.

[2448] (Cic.) _Herenn._ i. 12. 21; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 114 f.; Herzog, ibid. i. 486 f.

[2449] _B. C._ i. 29. 131; cf. Plut. _Mar._ 29.

[2450] Cf. Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 265.

[2451] App. _B. C._ i. 30 f.; Plut. _Mar._ 29; (Aurel. Vict.) Vir. _Ill._ 73; 8; Vell. ii. 15. 4; Val. Max iii. 8. 4; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 82; _Har. Resp._ 19. 41; _Sest._ 47. 101; _Leg._ iii. 11. 26. After the downfall of Appuleius, Metellus was recalled by a plebiscite of Q. Calidius, 98; Cic. _Planc._ 28. 69; _Dom._ 32. 87; _Red. ad Quir._ 4. 9; 5. 11; Val. Max. v. 2. 7; App. _B. C._ i. 33. 147-9; Dio Cass. Frag. 95. 1; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 62. 3. On this Calidius, see further Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1354. 5. A fruitless attempt to recall Metellus had been made in 99 through the tribunician rogatio Porcia Pompeia; Oros. v. 17. 11; App. _B. C._ i. 33.

[2452] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 6. 14. According to Oros. v. 12. 10, P. Furius, tribune in 99, secured the enactment of a law for confiscating the property of those who conspired against the state.

[2453] Pliny, _N. H._ iii. 12. 80: “Marianam a C. Mario deductam”; Seneca, _Ad. Helv._ vii. 9; Solin. iii. 3; Mela ii. 7. 122; Mommsen, in _CIL._ x. p. 838, 997; Kornemann, in Pauly Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 522.

[2454] Obseq. 46 (106); Val. Max viii. 1. damn. 3; cf. Cic. _Orat._ ii. 11. 48.

[2455] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 6. 14; 12. 31; Obseq. ibid. A criminal lex Titia, the contents of which also are unknown—Auson. _Epigr._ 92 (89). 4—may belong to this tribune; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 661, 668.

[2456] Cic. _Dom._ 20. 53; _Leg._ iii. 4. 11; 19. 43. The enactment was merely the confirmation of an old custom or law introduced between the Licinian-Sextian legislation and 122; cf. _Lex Acil._ 72, in _CIL._ i. 198.

[2457] Cic. _Dom._ 16. 41; _Sest._ 64. 135; Schol. Bob. 310. This, too, was a confirmation of an earlier usage; Dion. Hal. vii. 58. 3; x. 3. 5; Livy iii. 35. 1; p. 189, 260, n. 1 above; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 336, 376 f.

[2458] Cic. _Off._ iii. 11. 47; cf. p. 354, 370.

[2459] Cic. _Balb._ 21. 48.

[2460] Cic. _Brut._ 16. 63; Schol. Bob. 296.

[2461] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 20.

[2462] Ascon. 67. On the law in general, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 90; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 128; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 490. On Caecilius and Didius, see Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1216. 95; v. 407-10.

[2463] Vell. ii. 13. 1; Dio Cass. Frag. 96. 2; Diod. xxxvii. 10.

[2464] The citations of the preceding note, and Ascon. 68; Livy, ep. lxx; less clearly Flor. ii. 5. 1, 4 (iii. 17).

[2465] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 4 f.; _CIL._ vi. 1312 (i. p. 279 vii). Livy, ep. lxxi, merely mentions them.

[2466] _B. C._ i. 35. 156.

[2467] P. 383 above.

[2468] This may be inferred from the silence of Cicero, _Leg. Agr._ i. 7. 21; ii. 29. 81; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 102; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 181; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 490.

[2469] App. _B. C._ 36. 162 f.; Flor. ii. 5. 6 (iii. 17): “Exstat vox ipsius nihil se ad largitionem ulli reliquisse nisi siquis aut caenum dividere vellet aut caelum.”

[2470] _CIL._ vi. 1312; cf. i. p. 279. vii. A beginning was actually made of the colonization; and this is all that could be indicated by the verb ὑπήγετο (App. _B. C._ i. 35. 156), “he was for conducting.”

[2471] Ep. lxxi.

[2472] Cf. Vell. ii. 13. 2; Livy, ep. lxx f.

[2473] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 46. The idea was to issue one silver-plated copper denarius to every seven silver denarii; Mommsen, _Röm. Münzw._ 387 (Mommsen-Blacas, _Hist. d. mon. Rom_, ii. 41 f., 82); Babelon, _Mon. d. la rép. Rom_, 1. introd. p. lix.

[2474] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 674; iii. 103.

[2475] _B. C._ i. 35. 157 f. The same view seems to be held by (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 4. It is accepted by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 97; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 436. The objection is that a judiciary measure, as the Livian, could not have dealt primarily with the composition of the senate; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 489.

[2476] II. 13. 2. Florus, ii. 5. 4 (iii. 17), is non-committal.

[2477] LXXI; accepted by Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 177.

[2478] Cf. App. _B. C._ i. 35. 157.

[2479] Flor. ii. 5. 3 (iii. 17); App. _B. C._ i. 35. 158.

[2480] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 7. 16; _Cluent._ 56. 153; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 177 f.

[2481] Velleius, ii. 14. 1, regards it as an afterthought, whereas Appian, _B. C._ i. 35. 155, asserting that, petitioned by the Italians for the citizenship, he had already promised to grant it, intimates that this was his main object. At all events the Italians expected it of him and were prepared to support him in his effort by force of arms.

[2482] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 4; Oros. v. 18. 2.

[2483] Vell. ii. 14. 1; App. _B. C._ i. 35. 155 f.; 36. 162; Livy, ep. lxxi; Flor. ii. 5. 6. Most probably he combined this measure with his colonial rogation; App. _B. C._ i. 36.

[2484] App. _B. C._ i. 35 f.

[2485] Livy, ep. lxxi; Flor. ii. 5. 7 (iii. 17).

[2486] Ascon. 68.

[2487] Cic. _Leg._ ii. 6. 14; 12. 31; _Dom._ 16. 41; Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i. 24); Ascon. 68; Diod. xxxvii. 10. 3.

[2488] According to Diod. xxxvii. 10. 3, he declared that though he had full power to prevent the decree, he would not willingly exert it; for he knew well that the wrongdoers in this matter would speedily suffer merited punishment.

[2489] Cf. the elogium, n. below.

[2490] Elogium, in _CIL._ vi. 1312 = i. p. 279. vii: “M. Livius M. F. C. N. Drusus, Pontifex, tr. mil. X. vir. stlit. iudic. tr. pl. X. vir. a. d. a. lege sua et eodem anno V. vir. a. d. a. lege Saufe(i)a, in magistratu occisus est.”

[2491] On M. Livius Drusus, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 96-106; Long, _Rom. Rep._ II. ch. xiii; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 488-93; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, V. ch. xiii; Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, bk. IV. ch. vi; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 451-74; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 79 f.

[2492] (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 66. 2; Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 19. 55; Schol. Gronov. 431; Ascon. 30; _Dig._ xxii. 5. 13; xlviii. 16. 3. 2; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; iii. 101; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 491, 494. Hitzig, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1416, places it earlier.

[2493] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 20. 57; Pliny, _Paneg._ 35; Seneca, _De Ira_, iii. 3. 6; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 495. It is almost certain that the punishment mentioned was prescribed by this law; Hitzig, ibid.

[2494] This conclusion is deduced from the circumstance that Varius was tried under his own law. The charge could not possibly have been that of favoring the Italians, but must rather have been the instigation of the sedition by which his statute was originally carried; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 35.

[2495] Cic. _Brut._ 89. 304: “Exercebatur una lege iudicium Varia, ceteris propter bellum intermissis.”

[2496] This is an inference from the fact that the court which tried Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 88, and which sat under the Varian law, was composed in accordance with the subsequent Plautian judiciary law (Cic. Frag. A. vii. _Cornel._ i. 53). A special court was composed in no other way than by the law which established it. In general on the Varian law, see Ascon. 21 f., 73, 79; Val. Max. viii. 6. 4; App. _B. C._ i. 37; Cic. _Tusc._ ii. 24. 57. From Appian we learn that the law was passed before the outbreak of the Social War, and Cicero, _Brut._ 89. 305, informs us that the prosecutions under it continued through the war. The last trial mentioned is that of Cn. Pompeius Strabo in 88, referred to above. See also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 108; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 493; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 198; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 164 f.; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 384 f.; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 188 f.; and especially Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 32-6, where further sources are cited.

[2497] Cic. _Brut._ 62. 222. It belongs to about 90; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 693.

[2498] _Off._ ii. 21. 72. It is an interesting fact that, as this passage shows, Cicero did not object to frumentarian laws on principle, but condemned the Sempronian act because it was burdensome to the treasury.

[2499] Gell. iv. 4. 3.

[2500] Vell. ii. 16. 4; cf. App. _B. C._ i. 49. 212 (who speaks merely of a senatus consultum). This statute seems to have considered the Po the northern boundary of Italy; Sall. _Hist._ i. 20.

[2501] Cic. _Balb._ 8. 21: “Ipsa Iulia lege civitas ita est sociis et Latinis data, ut, qui fundi populi facti non essent, civitatem non haberent.” On fundus see Fest. ep. 89. Heraclea and Naples declined the citizenship; Cic. ibid.

[2502] P. 57 f.

[2503] Cic. _Arch._ 10. 26; _Balb._ 8. 19; 14. 32; 22. 50; _Fam._ xiii. 36; Sisenna, Frag. 17, in Peter, _Hist. Rom. Reliq._ i. 280; Frag. 120, ibid. 293: “Milites, ut lex Calpurnia concesserat, virtutis ergo civitate donari”; cf. Kiene, _Röm. Bundesgenossenkrieg_, 224 f., 229 f. The identity of the author is uncertain; he may be the Calpurnius who was praetor in 74; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 1395. 98.

[2504] Cic. _Arch._ 4. 7: Schol. Bob. 353.

[2505] Dio Cass. Frag. 102. 7.

[2506] Dio Cass. xxxvii. 9. 3; Ascon. p. 3; Pliny, _N. H._ iii. 20. 138; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 118; cf. however Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 497 f.

[2507] Cic. Frag. A. vii. 53; Ascon. 79; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 539, 668 f.; iii. 115; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 499; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 385; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 213 f. We may connect with this change the prosecution and condemnation of Q. Varius; p. 401, n. 1 above; Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 224 f.

[2508] _Röm. Strafr._ 198, n. 1, followed by Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 386. A difficulty with this interpretation is the great number of jurors provided for, apparently enough to supply all the courts.

[2509] Verr. i. 13. 38.

[2510] Cic. _Att._ i. 18. 6.

[2511] Pliny, _N. H._ xxxiii. 3. 46; Kubitschek, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 1512; Gardner, in Smith, _Dict._ i. 206; Babelon, _Monn. de la rép. Rom._ i. 74 f.

[2512] Strabo v. 4. 11.

[2513] P. 162.

[2514] Livy, ep. lxxvii; App. _B. C._ i. 55. 242 f.; Vell. ii. 18. 6; Ascon. 64; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1532. The libertini may have been those who fought in the recent war; App. _B. C._ i. 49. 212; Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11. 32.

[2515] (Cic.) _Herenn._ ii. 28. 45; Livy, ep. lxxvii; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 123; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 501.

[2516] P. 400 f.

[2517] Plut. _Sull._ 8.

[2518] P. 403 above; also Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 84.

[2519] In this way a justitium, cessation of civil business, was indirectly brought about; Plut. _Sull._ 8; _Mar._ 35; App. _B. C._ i. 55. 244; p. 141 above; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 221; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 513; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1533; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 263, n. 6.

[2520] For the abrogation of Sulla’s imperium Vell. ii. 18. 6 is authority. Plutarch, _Sull._ 8, states that Pompeius, not Sulla, was deprived of the consulship and that from Sulla was taken merely the provincial command. Appian, _B. C._ i. 56. 249 (cf. Plut. _Mar._ 35; Schol. Gronov. 410) speaks only of the transfer of the command. That the fourth article was added after the departure of Sulla from Rome, and that the latter knew nothing of it till summoned to deliver up his command is clearly stated by Appian, ibid. ch. 56 f.; cf. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1533 f.

[2521] Plutarch, _Sull._ 8 and Livy, ep. lxxvii, speak of a decree of the senate only, whereas the account of Appian, _B. C._ i. 60. 271 (Πολεμίους Ῥωμαίων ἐψήφιστο εἶναι) implies a vote of the assembly. Velleius, ii. 19. 1 (“Lege lata exules fecit”) distinctly mentions a comitial act, though he is wrong in supposing it to be a sentence of exile, as may be gathered from his context; cf. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 237.

[2522] App. _B. C._ i. 59. 268; Cic. _Phil._ viii. 2. 7. Scholars are at variance as regards the character and motives of Sulpicius. Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 501 (cf. Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 85 f.), can see in his measures no earnest purpose of reform. Ihne, _Hist. of Rome_, v. 225 f., 233 f., hesitatingly inclines to regard him as a demagogue. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1532, looks upon him as a statesman with a mind and heart for the best interests of his country. In the opinion of Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, iii. (1898). 531 f., he was essentially the successor of Drusus, a reformer in the interest of the senate, yet led by the force of circumstances to adopt revolutionary methods. Cf. also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 121-5; Long, _Rom. Rep._ II. ch. xvii; Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 507-17.

[2523] P. 277, 313 f.

[2524] App. _B. C._ i. 59. 266: Εἰσηγοῦντό τε μηδὲν ἔτι ἀπροβούλευτον ἐς τὸν δῆμον ἐσφέρεσθαι, νενομισμένον μὲν οὕτω καὶ πάλαι, παραλελυμένον δ’ ἐκ πολλοῦ.

[2525] Ibid.: Εἰσηγοῦντο ... καὶ τὰς χειροτονίας μὴ κατὰ φυλάς, ἀλλὰ κατὰ λόχους, ὡς Τύλλιος βασιλεὺς ἔταξε γίνεσθαι.

[2526] P. 86.

[2527] In _Hermes_, xxxiii (1898). 652.

[2528] This view is held by Sunden, _De trib. pot. imm._ (1897) 21 ff.; Meyer, ibid. 652-4; Vassis, in _Athena_, xii (1900). 54-7. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1537, supposes that elections simply were thereby transferred to the comitia centuriata; but the word χειροτονίαι used by Appian, though often denoting elections (as in _B. C._ i. 14. 58-60; 15. 66; 28. 127, where the meaning is easily derived from the context), includes also voting on laws, as in _B. C._ i. 23. 100; 55. 244. Had he meant elections, he would here have written ἀρχαιρεσία (cf. i. 1. 1; 44. 196), as otherwise the meaning would have been doubtful. The view represented by Fröhlich, moreover, would in no way explain the passage, nor was it likely that Sulla would leave to the tribes the ratification of laws but deprive them of the politically unimportant right to elect minor officials.

[2529] Appian’s words πολλά τε ἄλλα τῆς τῶν δημάρχων ἀρχῆς ... περιελόντες (i. 59. 267) imply an extensive curtailment of the tribunician power not definitely specified. The statement of Livy, ep. lxxxix, that Sulla afterward (82) deprived the tribunes of all legislative power (p. 413 below) is not true of his dictatorial law-giving, but belongs properly to the year under consideration.

[2530] Lengle (_Sull. Verf._ 10) argues, on the contrary, that the measure could be intended for the tribunes only, because, as he supposes, a patrician magistrate always consulted the senate concerning his legislative proposals. But Lengle has reckoned without the facts. An examination of the sources will show that from the time of the dictator Publilius Philo (Livy viii. 12. 14) to the time of the dictator Julius Caesar (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 3 f.; Plut. _Caes._ 14; App. _B. C._ ii. 10) patrician magistrates occasionally brought rogations before the comitia without the senatorial sanction. But it is possible that in speaking of “an ancient law long disused” (p. 406, n. 2) Appian may wrongly have had in mind the pre-Hortensian restriction on the plebiscite; p. 277, n. 4.

[2531] _B. C._ i. 1. 1, 2, 3; 19. 81; 20. 83; 22. 91; 29. 132 (city people); 30. 136; 32. 143; 33. 147; 35. 155; 36. 162; 38. 169; 100. 469. Δημόται always means plebeians; i. 24. 106; 25. 109; 33. 146; 100. 469. Sometimes δῆμος is exactly equivalent to πλῆθος, multitude, as in i. 26. 119.

[2532] _B. C._ i. 12. 51; 13. 55; 20. 83; 21. 90; 22. 92; 23. 101; 25. 107; 28. 128; 29. 131.

[2533] _B. C._ i. 27. 122. In 33. 148 it applies to the judicial contio preliminary to the comitia centuriata.

[2534] _B. C._ i. 13. 56; 25. 112; 32. 143; 54. 236; 104. 485.

[2535] _B. C._ i. 12. 49; 32. 141.

[2536] _B. C._ i. 101. 472.

[2537] _B. C._ i. 59. 267.

[2538] Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 402 f.

[2539] Livy, ep. lxxvii.

[2540] Fest. 375. 7.

[2541] Cf. the law of 357; p. 297. See also Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 126 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 502; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1537.

[2542] Billeter, _Gesch. d. Zinsfusses_, 155-7.

[2543] App. _B. C._ i. 73. 339. No mention is here made of the manner of repeal, but we may infer a comitial act from the public policy of Cinna. It seems probable that at this time, or after his return from exile, the Plautian judiciary law of 89 was also repealed; p. 402.

[2544] Cic. _Phil._ viii. (3.) 7; Vell. ii. 20. 2 f.; Schol. Gronov. 410; Jul. Exuper. 4; App. _B. C._ i. 64. 287; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 180, 439; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1283.

[2545] App. ibid.; Flor. ii. 9. 9 (iii. 21); (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 69. 2.

[2546] Livy, ep. lxxix; Vell. ii. 20. 3; App. _B. C._ i. 65. 296; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 69. 2; Plut. _Mar._ 41.

[2547] Cinna is represented as the author by Vell. ii. 21. 6; Plut. _Mar._ 43; Dio Cass. Frag. 102. 8; whereas Appian, _B. C._ i. 70. 324, mentions tribunes. Cf. Diod. xxxviii, xxxix. 1-4; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1285; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 244.

[2548] P. 405.

[2549] Livy, ep. lxxxiv: “Novis civibus senatus consulto suffragium datum est.”

[2550] P. 58 above. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 141, unnecessarily assumes a consular lex Papiria for the purpose.

In the year 87 the propretorian imperium of Appius Claudius Pulcher, father of the famous tribune of 58, was abrogated by a lex of an unknown tribune. The ground was a refusal to obey the summons of the tribune in question; Cic. _Dom._ 31. 83; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iii. 2848 f.

[2551] Vell. ii. 23. 2; Cic. _Font._ 1. 1; _Quinct._ 4. 17; Sall. _Cat._ 33; Mommsen, _Röm. Münzwesen_, 385; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 251; Ferrero, _Rome_, i. 92.

[2552] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 33. 89; 34. 92; 36. 98.

[2553] _CIL._ i². p. 154.

[2554] App. _B. C._ i. 3, 98 f.; Plut. _Sull._ 33; Vell. ii. 28. 2; Oros. v. 21. 12; Diod. xxxviii, xxxix. 15; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 703 f. The office had been disused for a hundred and twenty years; Plut. ibid.; Vell. ibid.; _CIL._ i². p. 23. On the form of comitia, see p. 236.

[2555] App. _B. C._ i. 97. 451; Cic. _Leg. Agr._ iii. 2. 5.

[2556] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 43. 126; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1556; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 404. From this Ciceronian passage it is necessary to infer that the Valerian law contained an article similar to the later Cornelian lex de proscriptione; p. 421 below.

[2557] _CIL._ i². p. 27.

[2558] Livy, ep. lxxxix; App. _B. C._ i. 100. 465; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 2.

[2559] P. 406 f.

[2560] Livy, ep. lxxxix: “Tribunorum plebis potestatem minuit, et omne ius legum ferendarum ademit.” We should infer from this statement, which is the sole authority for the view it presents, that he absolutely deprived the tribunes of legislative initiative, were it not that under his constitutional arrangements they actually proposed laws de senatus sententia; _CIL._ i. 204 (year 71); Bruns, _Font. iur._ p. 94; Dessau, _Inscr. Lat._ i. p. 11; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 154; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 158; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 11; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, i. 390 f., 411. The conference between Sulla and Scipio, mentioned by Cic. _Phil._ xii. 11. 27, referred to this arrangement. Sunden, _De rib. pot. imm._ 10 ff. (cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 399 ff.), holding that Sulla abolished the right of the tribunes to propose laws, refuses to accept 71 as the date of the epigraphic lex above mentioned.

It seems probable (Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 175; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 654, n. 2), though it is not certain (Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 424, 430 f.), that the lex Plautia de vi was proposed by a tribune of 78 or 77 as the agent of Q. Lutatius Catulus, proconsul; Sall. _Cat._ 31; Schol. Bob. 368; Cic. _Cael._ 29. 70; p. 424 below. Probably the lex Plautia which recalled from exile L. Cornelius Cinna, brother-in-law of Caesar, and others who, having shared in the insurrection of Lepidus, had gone over to Sertorius, was a plebiscite de senatus sententia of 73; Suet. _Caes._ 5; Gell. xiii. 3. 5; Val. Max. vii. 7. 6; Dio Cass. xliv. 47. 4; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 185; Maurembrecher, Sall. _Hist. Proleg._ 78; Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1287. Others assign the measure to 70; cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 53. For other laws, see p. 424.

The statement of Livy’s epitomator concerning the lex Cornelia de tribunicia potestate would apply more accurately to the Cornelian-Pompeian law of 88; p. 406.

[2561] From Cic. _Cluent._ 40. 110 (cf. Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 400) we should infer that under the Cornelian government no tribunician contio was held; but we know that this is not true. In 76 a contio was summoned by L. Sicinius, tribune of the plebs; _Orat._ of Licinius Macer, in Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48. 8: “L. Sicinius primus de potestate tribunicia loqui ausus mussantibus vobis”; cf. Pseud. Ascon. 103; Plut. _Caes._ 7; Cic. _Brut._ 60. 216 f. In 74 the tribune Quinctius held contiones; Cic. _Cluent._ 34. 93; Sall. _Hist._ ibid. § 11. The oration of Licinius Macer, quoted by Sallust, _Hist._ iii. 48, is a tribunician harangue. Finally in 71 the tribune Palicanus held a contio outside the city that Pompey might attend; p. 426.

[2562] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 60. 155: Q. Opimius was prosecuted in a finable action on the ground that as tribune in 75 (Pseud. Ascon. 200) he had interceded in violation of a Cornelian law, which must have fixed the fine. The statement of Caesar, _B. C._ i. 5. 1; 7. 3, that Sulla left the tribunes the right of intercession proves no more than that he did not wholly abolish it. Cf. further Sunden, _De trib. pot. imm._ 4; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 411, n. 10.

[2563] Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 38: “Sublata populi Romani in unum quemque vestrum potestate.”

[2564] P. 245, 266, 315.

[2565] Cic. _Leg._ iii. 9. 22.

[2566] App. _B. C._ i. 100. 467; Ascon. 78 (repealed by Cotta); Pseud. Ascon. 200.

[2567] Vell. ii. 30. 4; Dion. Hal. v. 77. 5; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 23; iii. 48. 3; Pseud. Ascon. 102.

The following sources assume more or less definitely an abolition of the tribunicia potestas; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 23; 77. 14; iii. 48. 1; _Cat._ 38. 1; Plut. _Pomp._ 21; Pseud. Ascon. 102. The following speak of a limitation; Caes. _B. C._ i. 5. 1; 7. 3; Livy, ep. lxxxix; Dion. Hal. v. 77. 5; Vell. ii. 30. 4; Suet. _Caes._ 5; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 75. 11; App. _B. C._ ii. 29. 113. Tacitus, _Ann._ iii. 27, is non-committal. In general on the lex de tribunicia potestate, see Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 153 f.; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 410 ff.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 10-16; Sunden, _De trib. pot. imm._

[2568] In Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559.

[2569] The law concerning the quaestors was preceded by the judiciary statute (Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22), which must have been enacted near the end of 81, for the senators remained ten years (80-70) in control of the courts; Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 37.

[2570] P. 347. The relation of this Cornelian provision to the lex Villia is not more definitely known.

[2571] App. _B. C._ i. 100. 466; cf. 121. 560.

[2572] Cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 529.

[2573] In the thirty-sixth year of his age Pompey was not yet qualified for the quaestorship; Cic. _Imp. Pomp._ 21. 62. Cicero, who was consul in his forty-third year, states that he obtained the office at the earliest legal age; _Leg. Agr._ ii. 2. 3. An interval of two years between successive offices would place the quaestorship in the thirty-seventh year; cf. Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 527, 569; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1560; but soon after Sulla it came about, probably through further legislation, that the office was often filled in the thirty-first year; Mommsen, ibid. 570 ff.

[2574] Cic. _Dom._ 43. 112; _Fam._ x. 25. 2; 26. 2 f.

[2575] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22; cf. Fröhlich, ibid. iv. 1560.

[2576] P. 348.

[2577] P. 298.

[2578] App. _B. C._ i. 100. 466; cf. Cic. _Leg._ iii. 3. 9; Caes. _B. C._ i. 32; Dio Cass. xl. 51. 2.

[2579] P. 332. There were probably twelve; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 163; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 543.

[2580] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22: “Lege Sullae viginti creati supplendo senatui.” The eighth chapter of this law concerning the twenty quaestors is preserved in an inscription; _CIL._ i. 202; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 90; Girard, _Textes_, p. 64. It regulates the qualifications, appointment, and pay of the apparitores of the quaestors. An important fact derived from the praescriptio is that the law was adopted in the tribal assembly. Since in the case of one law the centuriate assembly is mentioned as if exceptional (p. 422), we may infer that most of Sulla’s enactments were tribal. On the apparitores, see Mommsen, in _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. vi (1846). 1-57; _Röm. Staatsr._ i. 332-46; Habel, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 191-4; Keil, J., in _Wiener Studien_, xxiv (1902). 548-51.

[2581] Pomponius, in _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 32, wrongly says to ten—a number reached by the legislation of Caesar; Dio Cass. xlii. 51. 3; p. 454 below. On the relation of the praetors to the courts, see p. 420.

[2582] Livy, ep. lxxxix, who connects it closely with the increase in the number of senators, placing it thus among his earlier measures; (Aurel. Vict.) _Vir. Ill._ 75. 11; Servius, _in Aen._ vi. 73; cf. Tac. _Ann._ vi. 12; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 157; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559 f.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 1-9. That the increase in the last-named college was due to Sulla seems certain, though it is nowhere stated. It is possible, too, that the increase of the epulones from three to seven was his work; Lengle, ibid. 2.

[2583] P. 391.

[2584] Livy, ep. lxxxix; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 37. 1; Pseud. Ascon. 102; wrongly Plut. _Caes._ 1; Serv. _in Aen._ vi. 73; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 157.

[2585] Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 7. 18; Lange, ibid. The Servilian agrarian rogation, 63 (p. 435 below), drawn up before the enactment of the Atian plebiscite of that year which restored the election of sacerdotes, assumes that the comitia pontificis maximi were at the time in use. Most authorities, as Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 418; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, iii. 156; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 30, have failed to notice this important fact.

[2586] P. 106, n. 10.

[2587] P. 416.

[2588] Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 200; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1560.

[2589] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 164.

[2590] P. 381.

[2591] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 705.

[2592] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25.

[2593] Cf. Cic. _Fam._ viii. 8. 8.

[2594] Cic. _Fam._ i. 9. 25. On the relation of the Cornelian legislation to the curiate law, see p. 193, 199.

[2595] Cic. _Fam._ iii. 6. 3, 6.

[2596] Cic. _Fam._ iii. 10. 6; _Q. Fr._ i. 1. 9, 26.

[2597] App. _B. C._ i. 103. 482; Oros. v. 22. 4; Eutrop. v. 9. Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 404, calculates that the number was reduced to about a hundred and fifty.

[2598] Livy, ep. lxxxix; cf. Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 3. 8; Dion. Hal. v. 77. 5; Sall. _Cat._ 37.

[2599] _B. C._ i. 100. 468.

[2600] Cf. Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1559.

[2601] P. 402. The second view, which seems more reasonable, is held by Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 156.

[2602] No authority gives this number, which however may be deduced from well-known facts; Willems, _Sén. Rom._ i. 405 f.

[2603] Willems, ibid. 406 f.

[2604] Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1560.

[2605] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 156.

[2606] Vell. ii. 32. 3; Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 37 f.; Pseud. Ascon. 99, 102, 103, 145, 149, 161; Schol. Gronov. 384, 426; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 436 ff.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 419 ff.; Wilmanns, in _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. xix (1864). 528.

[2607] Tac. _Ann._ xi. 22: “Lege Sullae viginti creati (quaestores) supplendo senatui, cui iudicia tradiderat.”

[2608] P. 402.

[2609] _Dig._ i. 2. 2. 32.

[2610] Cic. _Rab. Post._ 4. 9. It took the place of the lex Servilia of 111; p. 393.

[2611] Schol. Bob. 361. From Plut. _Mar._ 5 it seems evident that a quaestio de ambitu existed as early as 116; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 422, n. 3; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 21 f., who has collected the cases de ambitu anterior to Sulla; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 521; Lohse, _De quaestionum perpetuarum origine, praesidibus, consiliis_.

[2612] Cic. _Verr._ i. 13. 39; II. i. 4. 11 f.; iii. 36. 83; _Cluent._ 53. 147; cf. _Mur._ 20. 42; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; iii. 166. The trial of Pompeius Magnus in 86 for misappropriation of booty by his father in 89 seems to have come before a quaestio de peculatu; Cic. _Brut._ 64. 230; Plut. _Pomp._ 4; Lengle, ibid. 40 f. If this supposition is right, the court must have existed before Sulla. A Cornelian law on the subject is not expressly mentioned but may be reasonably assumed.

[2613] Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 203.

[2614] Cic. _Pis._ 21. 50; Ascon. 59; cf. Cic. _Fam._ iii. 11. 2; _Cluent._ 35. 97; _Verr._ II. i. 5. 12. This law took the place of the lex Appuleia, probably of 100; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 165; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 423, 507.

[2615] Cic. _Cluent._ 20. 55; 54. 148; 55. 151; 56. 154; Frag. A. ii. (_Var._) 6; _Mil._ 4. 11; Tac. _Ann._ xiii. 44; Justin. _Inst._ iv. 18. 5 f.; _Dig._ xlviii. 8; Paul. _Sent._ v. 23. (Girard, _Textes_, p. 423).

[2616] Cic. _Verr._ i. 42. 108; Paul. _Sent._ iv. 7; v. 25; _Dig._ xlviii. 10; Justin. _Inst._ iv. 18. 7; cf. Voigt, _Röm. Rechtsgesch._ i. 271 f.

[2617] _Dig._ iii. 3. 42. 1; xlvii. 10. 5; 10. 37. 1; xlviii. 2. 12. 4; Paul. _Sent._ v. 4. 8; Justin. _Inst._ iv. 4. 8; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 203; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 208, 423 f.; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1561; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ 93. In the opinion of Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; iii. 166, this lex did not establish a quaestio.

[2618] Cic. _Cluent._ 20. 55; 27. 75; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 442.

[2619] Cic. _Cluent._ 28. 75.

[2620] Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 442. On the Cornelian courts in general, see Long, _Rom. Rep._ ii. 420 ff.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 520 f.; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 413-6; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ see index, s. Quaestio and the various crimes belonging thereto; _Röm. Staatsr._ ii. 200 f.; Lengle, _Sull. Verf._ 17-54; Lohse, _De quaestionum perpetuarum origine, praesidibus, consiliis_; Fröhlich, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1561 f.

In Lange’s opinion (_Röm. Alt._ ii. 665; iii. 166) there must have been a lex Cornelia de adulteriis et pudicitia, for it is doubtful whether Sulla’s ordinance περὶ γάμων καὶ σωφροσύνης could have formed part of his lex de iniuriis; Plut. _Comp. Lys. et Sull._ 3; cf. _Dig._ xlviii. 5. 23. It seems to be demonstrated, however, by Voigt, in _Ber. sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss._ xlii (1890). 244-79, that all republican regulations of this offence, including the Cornelian, were sumptuary; cf. Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 1141. No quaestio accordingly was needed for the trial of the offence.

[2621] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 158.

[2622] P. 412.

[2623] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 47. 123; Pseud. Ascon. 193.

[2624] Suet. _Caes._ 11.

[2625] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 43. 125 f. Though Cicero says he does not know whether the law in question was the Valerian or Cornelian, he probably knew it was the latter, the terms of which he states: “Ut eorum bona veneant, qui proscripti sunt, ... aut eorum, qui in adversariorum praesidiis occisi sunt.”

[2626] Livy lxxxix; Vell. ii. 28. 4; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 6; Plut. _Sull._ 31; _Cic._ 12; Dion. Hal. viii. 80. 2.

[2627] Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 44. 128.

[2628] App. _B. C._ i. 96. 100; Flor. ii. 9 (iii. 21); cf. Suet. _Ill. Gramm._ 11.

[2629] Livy, ep. lxxxix; App. _B. C._ i. 100. 470; 104. 489; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 12; Cic. _Mur._ 24. 49: _Leg. Agr._ ii. 28. 78; iii. 2. 6 ff.; 3. 12; Gromat. p. 230 ff.

[2630] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 159; cf. ii. 689; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 407 f.

[2631] Lange, ibid. iii. 159.

[2632] _CIL._ i². p. 49.

[2633] Lange, ibid. iii. 161.

[2634] Cic. _Dom._ 30. 79; Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 12; cf. Pseud. Ascon. 102.

[2635] Cic. _Caecin._ 35. 102.

[2636] App. _B. C._ i. 102. 474; cf. Cic. _Leg. Agr._ ii. 14. 35.

[2637] Sall. _Hist._ i. 55. 11. They were then being made according to the law of M. Octavius (p. 401), or if that was repealed by Cinna, according to the lex Sempronia of 123 (p. 372).

[2638] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 693. The statement in iii. 161 is less exact.

[2639] App. _B. C._ i. 102. 474.

[2640] Cic. _Off._ iii. 22. 87.

[2641] P. 409 f.

[2642] Hence it was that T. Crispinus, quaestor in the following year, treated the Valerian law as no longer in force; Cic. _Font._ 15; Lange, ibid. iii. 162. To this date seems to belong the lex Cornelia de sponsu (Gaius iii. 124), which Poste, 359, reasonably assigns to the dictator.

[2643] _CIL._ i². p. 333; Vell. ii. 27. 6; Cic. _Verr._ i. 10. 31; Pseud. Ascon. 150; Wissowa, _Relig. u. Kult. d. Röm._ 128.

[2644] Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 675; iii. 162.

[2645] Its existence is assumed for the year 80; Plut. _Sull._ 35.

[2646] P. 388, n. 9.

[2647] Ibid.

[2648] Gell. ii. 24. 11; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 11.

[2649] Plut. _Sull._ 35. Here belongs also his regulation de adulteriis et pudicitia; p. 420, n. 6 above.

[2650] _CIL._ i². p. 154. A proof that he completed his legislation in this year is the fact that he looked upon the following as a time of probation for his system (App. _B. C._ i. 103; Cic. _Rosc. Am._ 48. 139), and that the newly organized criminal courts were in operation for the first time in 80; Cic. ibid. 5. 11; 10. 28; _Brut._ 90. 312; _Off._ ii. 14. 51; Gell. xv. 28. 3; Plut. _Cic._ 3.

On the form of comitia used for the ratification of his measures, see p. 236.

[2651] The general character of these proposals, among which the frumentarian alone was adopted, can be gathered from the _Oration_ of Lepidus, in Sall. _Hist._ i. 55; cf. Gran. Licin. x. p. 44: “Legem frumentariam nullo resistente adeptus est, ut annonae quinque modi populo darentur, et alia multa pollicebantur: exules reducere, res gestas a Sulla rescindere”; Tac. _Ann._ iii. 27; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 554 f.

[2652] P. 414.

[2653] Sall. _Hist._ ii. 49; Ascon. 66, 78; Pseud. Ascon. 200; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 178 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 3; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 531 f.; Klebs, ibid. ii. 2483.

Cicero, _Cornel._ i. 18 (Frag. A. vii), states that Cotta proposed to the senate the repeal of his own laws, whereupon Asconius comments that he can find the mention of no law of his except the one concerning retired tribunes above described. Cicero, however, attributes to him a lex de iudiciis privatis, which his brother caused to be repealed in the following year; _Cornel._ i. 19. It is not otherwise known.

[2654] Sall. _Cat._ 31; Gaius ii. 45; Cuq, in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._ iii. 1159. For the cases coming before this court, see Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 424, n. 6.

[2655] Cic. _Verr._ iii. 8. 9. C. Scribonius, consul in the preceding year, may have been author of the lex Scribonia de usucapione servitutum (_Dig._ xli. 3. 4. 28; cf. Cic. _Caecin._ 26. 74), or it may belong to the tribune of the same name of the year 50; p. 450, n. 2.

[2656] P. 413, n. 4. The consuls of 73 passed a frumentarian measure—the lex Cassia Terentia, considered below; p. 444, n. 6.

[2657] Sall. _Hist._ iv. 1, in Gell. xviii. 4. 4. Sallust speaks of nothing more than the promulgation of the law; but we know that afterward an attempt was made to collect the moneys; Ascon. 72; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 190, 221; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 467. Münzer, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ iv. 1380, speaks of the measure as a proposal.

The same consul with his colleague, L. Gellius Poplicola, proposed and carried a law for confirming the grants of citizenship already made by Pompey in Spain; Cic. _Balb._ 8. 19; 14. 32 f.; Pliny, _N. H._ v. 5. 36. Their joint proposal that provincials should not in their absence be tried on a capital charge took the form merely of a senatus consultum; Cic. _Verr._ II. ii. 38. 95; Münzer, ibid.; Drumann-Gröbe, ibid.

In 71 (_CIL._ i. 593 = vi. 1299) and in 62 (_CIL._ i. 600 = vi. 1305) there was a curator viarum e lege Visellia. The law mentioned could not have been later than 71, but may have been many years earlier. There were curatores viarum in 115; _CIL._ vi. 3824; Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsv._ ii. 89, n. 6.

[2658] Cic. _Flacc._ 3. 6; Ascon. 15; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 191.

[2659] Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 13. 3; _Fam._ i. 4. 1; cf. _Q. Fr._ ii. 2. 3; _Fam._ viii. 8. 5; _Sest._ 34. 74; Caes. _B. C._ i. 5.

[2660] Cic. _Att._ i. 14. 5; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 43. 3. As consul in 63 Cicero adjourned the assembly in order to hold a meeting of the senate on a certain comitial day; Cic. _Mur._ 25. 51; Plut. _Cic._ 14.

[2661] The first chapter of this law is preserved in an inscription; _CIL._ i. 204; Bruns, _Font. Iur._ p. 94; Girard, _Textes_, p. 66.

[2662] P. 423.

[2663] Gran. Licin. x. p. 44. It was charged against him by Philippus in the senate that for the sake of concord he wished to restore the tribunician power; Sall. _Hist._ i. 77. 14.

[2664] Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48. 8; Pseud. Ascon. 103.

[2665] P. 423 f.

[2666] Cic. _Verr._ II. i. 60.

[2667] Cic. _Cluent._ 34. 93 f.; Ascon. 103; Plut. _Lucull._ 5.

[2668] Licinius Macer, _Oratio ad plebem_, in Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48. 11 (cf. iv. 71); Cic. _Cluent._ 22. 61; 27. 74; 28. 77; 29. 79; Pseud. Ascon. 141; Schol. Gronov. 386, 395, 441.

[2669] Sall. _Hist._ iii. 48; Cic. _Brut._ 67. 238.

[2670] Suet. _Caes._ 5.

[2671] Plut. _Pomp._ 21; App. _B. C._ i. 121. 560; Sall. _Hist._ iv. 44 (“Magnam exorsus orationem”) probably refers to his speech in this contio. Frag. 45 (“Si nihil ante adventum suum inter plebem et patres convenisset, coram se daturum operam”) seems also to be from this speech.

[2672] Sall. _Hist._ iv. 46.

[2673] Cic. _Verr._ i. 16. 46 f.

[2674] Ibid. 15. 44; Pseud. Ascon. 147.

[2675] _CIL._ i². p. 154.

[2676] Livy, ep. xcvii; Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 47; Ascon. 75; Pseud. Ascon. 103.

[2677] Sall. _Cat._ 38; Vell. ii. 30. 4; Cic. _Leg._ iii. 9. 22; ii. 26; Plut. _Pomp._ 22; App. _B. C._ ii. 29. 113; cf. Cic. _Verr._ v. 63. 163; 68. 175; Schol. Gronov. 397; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 192 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 49-51; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 553.

[2678] Cic. _Verr._ i. 15. 45.

[2679] P. 424. Pompey found it popular to give his assent; Plut. _Pomp._ 22; cf. Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 75.

[2680] Cicero, in his _In Verrem Actio_ I, is unacquainted with the rogation and expresses the hope that the condemnation of Verres will restore confidence in the senatorial courts. In _Actio_ II, composed after the exile of Verres and not delivered, he assumes the existence of such a rogation (cf. v. 69. 177).

[2681] Cic. _Verr._ ii. 71. 174 f.; iii. 96. 223 f.; v. 69. 177 f.; Livy, ep. xcvii; Plut. _Pomp._ 22; Pseud. Ascon. 127.

[2682] On the tribuni aerarii, see p. 64, n. 3. See also Cic. _Phil._ i. 8. 20; _Rab. Perd._ 9. 27; _Cat._ iv. 7. 15; Ascon. 16; Schol. Bob. 339.

[2683] P. 402.

[2684] Cic. _Cluent._ 43. 121.

[2685] Cic. _Att._ i. 16. 3; _Phil._ i. 8. 20; Ascon. 16, 30, 53, 67, 78, 90; Pseud. Ascon. 103; Schol. Bob. 229, 235, 339; Schol. Gronov. 384, 386; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 197 f.; Herzog, _Röm. Staatsverf._ i. 533; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 442 ff.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 51-3; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ ii. 2485 f.

The reference to a lex Aurelia in Cic. _Q. Fr._ i. 3. 8, seems to be, not to a lex de ambitu, as Lange, ibid. iii. 198, supposes, but to the lex iudiciaria under discussion.

[2686] _Röm. Alt._ ii. 199 (cf. ii. 671). It must have been passed between the death of Sulla and 57; Gell. ii. 24. 13; Macrob. _Sat._ iii. 17. 13; Cic. _Fam._ vii. 26. 2.

[2687] Q. Cic. _Petit. Cons._ 11. 44.

[2688] Cic. _Cluent._ 55. 152 (year 66).

[2689] Cic. _Att._ i. 17. 9; _Off._ iii. 22. 88; cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 202.

[2690] Cf. Neumann, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 141.

[2691] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 30.

[2692] Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 52; Ascon. 78.

[2693] Cic. _Phil._ ii. 18. 44; Hor. _Epist._ i. 1. 61; Juv. iii. 159; xiv. 324.

[2694] Livy, ep. xcix; Tac. _Ann._ xv. 32; Ascon. 79; Cic. _Mur._ 19. 40; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 42. 1; cf. Hor. _Epod._ iv. 15. The censors of 194 had given front seats to the senators; p. 356 f.

[2695] Vell. ii. 32. 3; Cic. _Mur._ 19. 40; p. 356 f. above.

[2696] Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 11. 3.

[2697] Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 526.

[2698] P. 425.

[2699] Cic. _Q. Fr._ ii. 13. 3; cf. _Fam._ i. 4. 1.

[2700] Cic. _Alt._ v. 21. 12; vi. 2. 7. Loans were sometimes made in violation of the law (_Flacc._ 20. 46 f.), and sometimes the senate granted a dispensation from it; _Att._ v. 21. 11 f.; vi. 2. 7; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 203.

[2701] Ascon. 56.

[2702] Ibid. 57.

[2703] P. 307 f.

[2704] Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 5; _Valin._ 2. 5; Ascon. 57 f.; Quintil. _Inst._ x. 5. 3 (iv. 4. 8).

[2705] Ascon. 58; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 39. 4.

[2706] Cf. Lange, _Röm. Alt._ iii. 214; Mommsen, _Röm. Staatsr._ iii. 337 f.; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 107. Dio Cassius, xxxvi. 39, has wholly misunderstood the matter. Ferrero’s account (_Rome_, i. 194) of the Cornelian legislation is inaccurate in all points.

[2707] Dio Cass. xxxvi. 38. 4; Cic. Frag. A. vii (_Cornel._ i). 40.

[2708] _CIL._ 1², p. 156; Klebs, in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ i. 256 f.; Münzer, ibid. iii. 1376 f.

[2709] Ascon. 75.

[2710] Schol. Bob. 361; Ascon. 68, 89; Cic. _Mur._ 23. 46; 32. 67. It was opposed by the people, who preferred the stricter measure of Cornelius; but Piso with a crowd of followers forced it through the assembly; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 38. 1.

[2711] Schol. Bob. 361; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 38; xxxvii. 25. 3; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 425, 508, 521 f.; Mommsen, _Röm. Strafr._ 867; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 105 f. It was supplemented by the lex Fabia de numero sectatorum, apparently a plebiscite of 66; Cic. _Mur._ 34. 71; Mommsen, ibid. 871; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 527.

[2712] XXXVI. 40. 1 f. (Foster’s rendering); cf. Ascon. 58; Cic. _Fin._ ii. 22. 74; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ ii. 656; iii. 215; Long, _Rom. Rep._ iii. 107 f.; Drumann-Gröbe, _Gesch. Roms_, ii. 527; Greenidge, _Leg. Proced._ 95, 97 f., 122.